Anglican bishop lays mitre, crozier at our lady?s feet as he leaves for ordinariate [ewtn]

[Harpazo]

Hi Andrew,

Yes, your view of “fathers” makes plenty of sense. I’ve heard that outlook and it’s a logical one indeed. I simply am focusing on the apostolic fathers or early church fathers when I say “fathers.” I’m a major league Augustine fan, unlike the Orthodox generally speaking, and yet I don’t consider him a father, as I said earlier. Of course he’s a father of Western views of original sin, soteriology, Atonement, sacraments, and anti-heresy warrior, but I just choose personally to use the term for the early, early, heroes who laid the concrete that the Church was built on. The term is a loose one and can be used in many ways. I respect your approach 100%. It’s a pretty fluid term.

I understand your usage of the term in reference to the Apostolic Fathers. Thanks for clarifying.

The Orthodox don’t (or shouldn’t) have problems with Blessed Augustine. If you get a chance to read this book sometime by Blessed Seraphim of Platina (an American convert to Orthodoxy from your state who founded a monastery in Northern CA ) you’ll see how St. Augustine is revered in Orthodoxy. He has had his detractors in the Orthodox Church, but Blessed Seraphim’s book dispels any myths about him being “incompatible with Orthodoxy” as some have claimed.

In Christ,
Andrew

 

[JohnnyReb]

I understand your usage of the term in reference to the Apostolic Fathers. Thanks for clarifying.

The Orthodox don’t (or shouldn’t) have problems with Blessed Augustine. If you get a chance to read this book sometime by Blessed Seraphim of Platina (an American convert to Orthodoxy from your state who founded a monastery in Northern CA ) you’ll see how St. Augustine is revered in Orthodoxy. He has had his detractors in the Orthodox Church, but Blessed Seraphim’s book dispels any myths about him being “incompatible with Orthodoxy” as some have claimed.

In Christ,
Andrew

What is up with your examiner page? I clicked on it a couple of times and internet explored kicked me off. Ever have problems with it? I always value Orthodox opinions and perspective. They have been a blessing to me. I consider myself closer to that than Catholicism right now, but I know the OC doesn’t see it that way.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

In what way, Johnny, are you more Orthodox than Catholic in your thinking?

What is up with your examiner page? I clicked on it a couple of times and internet explored kicked me off. Ever have problems with it? I always value Orthodox opinions and perspective. They have been a blessing to me. I consider myself closer to that than Catholicism right now, but I know the OC doesn’t see it that way.

 

[JohnnyReb]

In what way, Johnny, are you more Orthodox than Catholic in your thinking?

This is going to sound like a politician: But I am not sure really, but I think so. I would need to talk to more Orthodox to find out.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

That does sound like a politician! It made no sense! You said you’re more Orthodox in your thinking. I asked you how? You say you’re not sure? LOL

Do you agree more with their polity or is it their views on Original Sin and soteriology? There are many reasons. If you’re not sure, then maybe you aren’t as Orthodox as you think! I think a lot of Anglicans feel a kinship with Orthodox Christians because both are opposed to the papal monarchical hierarchy of Catholicism but when Anglicans really examine Orthodoxy up close, there are huge differences IMO.

This is going to sound like a politician: But I am not sure really, but I think so. I would need to talk to more Orthodox to find out.

 

[JesusforMadrid]

That does sound like a politician! It made no sense! You said you’re more Orthodox in your thinking. I asked you how? You say you’re not sure? LOL

Do you agree more with their polity or is it their views on Original Sin and soteriology? There are many reasons. If you’re not sure, then maybe you aren’t as Orthodox as you think! I think a lot of Anglicans feel a kinship with Orthodox Christians because both are opposed to the papal monarchical hierarchy of Catholicism but when Anglicans really examine Orthodoxy up close, there are huge differences IMO.

I have been exploring both Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy for the past few years, since I began to study the Early Church Fathers.

In some ways, Roman Catholicism would be easier for me as an Evangelical Anglican, especially culturally. Orthodox churches often have food festivals to celebrate Greek, Middle Eastern, or Russian culture. If you don’t hail from one of those areas, you can feel a bit of an outsider culturally.

Still, I would say Orthodoxy holds more appeal for me. In terms of theology, they have fewer dogma. All those post Schism dogma that Evangelicals find so troublesome–purgatory, Papal infallible, the immaculate conception, the assumption–are not dogma in Orthodoxy. Never mind that the Orthodox may have similar notions just described differently (eg the Dormition of the Theotokos)… At least in Orthodoxy, one doesn’t put his salvation in grave danger by seriously questioning whether the Theotokos was sinless or the Pope infallible.

In terms of ecclesiology, I think the concilliar model of bishops is easier to understand for Evangelicals and seems more biblical, like a continuation of the Council of Jerusalem described in Acts.

In terms of liturgy, clearly the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom is unlike anything ever experienced in an Evangelical church. However, since I have little liturgical experience, I would have little difficulty adapting to the Eastern rite. Anglo Catholics and Roman Catholics would probably find the Western Rite easier.

Perhaps most appealing about Orthodoxy: the difficulty factor. Evangelicals can be pretty passionate about their faith. We are open to new ways that God can mold us. Orthodoxy is like the marines of Christianity. I know a bit, since I adopted Orthodox fasting and prayer about two years ago. Living the Orthodox Way requires fasting for about a third of the year (we are already three weeks into the Nativity Fast). Twice daily prayer. A Divine Liturgy that lasts almost two hours, mostly standing. 20 hours of services the final week of Pascua. For a lot of Evangelicals like me, we don’t need another Bible Study. Rather, we need a way to become more Christ like. Orthodoxy seems to provide a good way.

 

[JesusforMadrid]

That does sound like a politician! It made no sense! You said you’re more Orthodox in your thinking. I asked you how? You say you’re not sure? LOL

Do you agree more with their polity or is it their views on Original Sin and soteriology? There are many reasons. If you’re not sure, then maybe you aren’t as Orthodox as you think! I think a lot of Anglicans feel a kinship with Orthodox Christians because both are opposed to the papal monarchical hierarchy of Catholicism but when Anglicans really examine Orthodoxy up close, there are huge differences IMO.

I have been exploring both Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy for the past few years, since I began to study the Early Church Fathers.

In some ways, Roman Catholicism would be easier for me as an Evangelical Anglican, especially culturally. Orthodox churches often have food festivals to celebrate Greek, Middle Eastern, or Russian culture. If you don’t hail from one of those areas, you can feel a bit of an outsider culturally.

Still, I would say Orthodoxy holds more appeal for me. In terms of theology, they have fewer dogma. All those post Schism dogma that Evangelicals find so troublesome–purgatory, Papal infallibility, the immaculate conception, the assumption–are not dogma in Orthodoxy. Never mind that the Orthodox may have similar notions just described differently (eg the Dormition of the Theotokos). At least in Orthodoxy, one doesn’t put his salvation in grave danger by seriously questioning whether the Theotokos was sinless or the Pope infallible.

In terms of ecclesiology, I think the concilliar model of bishops is easier to understand for Evangelicals and seems more biblical, like a continuation of the Council of Jerusalem described in Acts.

In terms of liturgy, clearly the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom is unlike anything ever experienced in an Evangelical church. However, since I have little liturgical experience, I would have little difficulty adapting to the Eastern rite. Anglo Catholics would probably find the Western Rite Orthodoxy easier, and of course, the Latin Rite.

Perhaps most appealing about Orthodoxy: the difficulty factor. Evangelicals can be pretty passionate about their faith. We are open to new ways that God can mold us. Orthodoxy is like the marines of Christianity. I know a bit, since I adopted Orthodox fasting and prayer about two years ago. Living the Orthodox Way requires fasting for about a third of the year (we are already three weeks into the Nativity Fast). Twice daily prayer. A Divine Liturgy that lasts almost two hours, mostly standing. 20 hours of services the final week of Pascua. For a lot of Evangelicals like me, we don’t need another Bible Study. Rather, we need a way to become more Christ like. Orthodoxy seems to provide a good way.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I’m not sure how much difficulty plays into being a good Christian. We are called to take up our Cross and grow in grace, live the Christian life, and trust in our faith in Christ Jesus. I personally don’t think fasting for months on end is what Paul had in mind in his Epistles and just challenging the heck out of someone to give up things and fast and spend hours and hours doing devotions isn’t necessarily what I’m looking for. If you want challenging, Catholicism is PLENTY challenging. It requires one to regularly confess one’s sins, attend Mass on all obligation days, to fast during Lent, to use natural family planning (that’s a lifelong penance and purgatory in itself! IMO!), to follow the catechism (again, not easy), to love one’s neighbor as one’s self, and it encourages you to pray the Rosary, go to daily Mass if possible, on and on…There is plenty of demand in Catholicism to step up. I wouldn’t make it about which church is the ‘hardest’ or tortures ya the most

I find Eastern Orthodoxy too foreign for my tastes. I cannot identify with Russians and Ukrainians and Egyptians and Latvians, Greeks, etc. The Catholic Church Christianized Europe nicely and has had a far more significant impact on the Western world I’ve grown up in and love so much than the Orthodox world. I think Catholicism, without sounding redundant here, is more Catholic—universal. I also think that there is no higher-profile, more powerful, more relevent, and more credible leader than the Pope on the world stage. If Europe gets re-Christianized, it’ll be the Catholics leading the charge. In the fight against abortion, euthanasia, stem cell unethical research, in vitro, trial marriage, homosexual ‘marriage,’ women’s ordination, and so many other issues, it’s the Catholic Church that leads, nobody has such a mitre to wear IMHO. And despite my disagreement at times about how they do things, look at how Catholic media is fighting so hard to win souls to Christ in the Catholic way of worship and faith! Catholic answers and EWTN are just two big examples of the influence of Catholicism fighting to bring the faithful to the Church.

As far as councils go, I think history has affected things a great deal! The Bishop of Rome was isolated and walled-off by the barbarian invasions and was left to himself to guide the West so much. Islam, Communism, and other evil forces have put up more of a wall than even the stubborn nature of the Orthodox and Catholics when it comes to reunion and communion.

I think it also boils down to what one believes about Original Sin, Atonement, soteriology, liturgy, etc. when looking at choosing between the two. I laud Catholicism far more in their desire for reunion. They’re the ones, from what I see, making more overtures and effort. They are far more complimentary and kind to Orthodoxy than Orthodoxy is to Catholicism. I also hold to a more Augustinian understanding of the transmission of orders than the Cyprianic model that the Orthodox hold to. I’m an Augustinian kind of guy across the board really, not a good Orthodoxy candidate. I pondered Orthodoxy for a while. There are two of them about one hour north of here. But my Western views, Augustinian theology, and not wanting to be the Anglo amidst Russians, Ukranians, Serbians, Greeks, and Egyptians also shooed my away. I realized I was only looking at Orthodoxy because I was angry and disappointed and out of sorts (still am ) with Catholicism so they seemed the logical alternative. At this moment in time I’m caucusing with the Anglicans. While I’m full of bewilderment, frustration, and occasional head-scratching with Anglicanism (especially globally, ouch!), I know that I can think for myself a bit, not agree with everything down to the smallest hair of dogma, and there is dignified, lex orandi lex credendi worship. I’m an eclectic Christian anyway. I guess I fit an Anglican mold. I’m more of an imputation sorta guy on one hand, more of a Pauline/Augustinian with Romans and Galatians guiding my soteriology, and yet I believe in the Priesthood, sacraments, transubstantiation, love Mary, love confession, hate indulgences, believe in episcopal governance, and yet I lean toward substitutionary atonement almost like a calvinist at times! I’m crazy like a fox in my Christianity

I have been exploring both Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy for the past few years, since I began to study the Early Church Fathers.

In some ways, Roman Catholicism would be easier for me as an Evangelical Anglican, especially culturally. Orthodox churches often have food festivals to celebrate Greek, Middle Eastern, or Russian culture. If you don’t hail from one of those areas, you can feel a bit of an outsider culturally.

Still, I would say Orthodoxy holds more appeal for me. In terms of theology, they have fewer dogma. All those post Schism dogma that Evangelicals find so troublesome–purgatory, Papal infallibility, the immaculate conception, the assumption–are not dogma in Orthodoxy. Never mind that the Orthodox may have similar notions just described differently (eg the Dormition of the Theotokos). At least in Orthodoxy, one doesn’t put his salvation in grave danger by seriously questioning whether the Theotokos was sinless or the Pope infallible.

.

 

[Harpazo]

I have been exploring both Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy for the past few years, since I began to study the Early Church Fathers.

In some ways, Roman Catholicism would be easier for me as an Evangelical Anglican, especially culturally. Orthodox churches often have food festivals to celebrate Greek, Middle Eastern, or Russian culture. If you don’t hail from one of those areas, you can feel a bit of an outsider culturally.

Still, I would say Orthodoxy holds more appeal for me. In terms of theology, they have fewer dogma. All those post Schism dogma that Evangelicals find so troublesome–purgatory, Papal infallibility, the immaculate conception, the assumption–are not dogma in Orthodoxy. Never mind that the Orthodox may have similar notions just described differently (eg the Dormition of the Theotokos). At least in Orthodoxy, one doesn’t put his salvation in grave danger by seriously questioning whether the Theotokos was sinless or the Pope infallible.

In terms of ecclesiology, I think the concilliar model of bishops is easier to understand for Evangelicals and seems more biblical, like a continuation of the Council of Jerusalem described in Acts.

In terms of liturgy, clearly the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom is unlike anything ever experienced in an Evangelical church. However, since I have little liturgical experience, I would have little difficulty adapting to the Eastern rite. Anglo Catholics would probably find the Western Rite Orthodoxy easier, and of course, the Latin Rite.

Perhaps most appealing about Orthodoxy: the difficulty factor. Evangelicals can be pretty passionate about their faith. We are open to new ways that God can mold us. Orthodoxy is like the marines of Christianity. I know a bit, since I adopted Orthodox fasting and prayer about two years ago. Living the Orthodox Way requires fasting for about a third of the year (we are already three weeks into the Nativity Fast). Twice daily prayer. A Divine Liturgy that lasts almost two hours, mostly standing. 20 hours of services the final week of Pascua. For a lot of Evangelicals like me, we don’t need another Bible Study. Rather, we need a way to become more Christ like. Orthodoxy seems to provide a good way.

Orthodoxy is definitely tough, but the Lord gives us His grace. We have to remember too that we do not do these things for their own sake. It’s so easy for us to get caught up with the beautiful services, the icons, the vestments, etc. They serve the purpose of directing us towards Christ.

What you illustrated is exactly why I converted to Orthodoxy. I saw that these people were very serious about preserving the Way Christ gave His apostles and becoming more like Him. St. Athanasios said in the 4th century (if I remember correctly) that “God became man so that man could become God.” Wow! What a concept. If that’s what it’s all about, no other sophistry, belief system or philosophy matters. Where can I go to get the tools to attain that? I firmly believe that Holy Orthodoxy offers that. I found modern Western Christianity (modern RCC and Protestantism) gravely lacking.

You mentioned Western Orthodoxy earlier. Have you seen this website by Christminster monastery? They have a great abundance of information on tradition Western Christian practice that is slowly being restored. I’m not sure where you’re located, but the ROCOR seems to be booming with Western Rite activity. There is also Hieromonk Aidan’s website which has a great amount of information on restoring Orthodoxy in its venerable Western forms before the schism. He recently translated and compiled Orthodox prayers from England before the schism which includes much of the Divine Services. I will definitely be purchasing it soon.

I’m not sure where you are located, but a few years back an Anglican bishop near me did much of the same thing as the one in the OP and entered into Orthodoxy. Fr. Alban Waggener of Lynchburg began a Western Rite mission with some of his former parishioners. I plan on visiting there over Christmas break at least once. Perhaps, some people where you are located might be interested in something similar?

I suppose I’m done rambling for now. Heavens knows I almost compose essays when I write about Orthodoxy.

In Christ,
Andrew

 

[JohnnyReb]

That does sound like a politician! It made no sense! You said you’re more Orthodox in your thinking. I asked you how? You say you’re not sure? LOLm

Ok, let’s try again

Do you agree more with their polity or is it their views on Original Sin and soteriology? There are many reasons.

Original sin, not really, polity and soteriology, yes, especially infused grace, and the concept of theosis.

If you’re not sure, then maybe you aren’t as Orthodox as you think! I think a lot of Anglicans feel a kinship with Orthodox Christians because both are opposed to the papal monarchical hierarchy of Catholicism but when Anglicans really examine Orthodoxy up close, there are huge differences IMO.

Agreed. This is probably the case with me.

 

[Bluegoat]

Orthodoxy is definitely tough, but the Lord gives us His grace. We have to remember too that we do not do these things for their own sake. It’s so easy for us to get caught up with the beautiful services, the icons, the vestments, etc. They serve the purpose of directing us towards Christ.

What you illustrated is exactly why I converted to Orthodoxy. I saw that these people were very serious about preserving the Way Christ gave His apostles and becoming more like Him. St. Athanasios said in the 4th century (if I remember correctly) that “God became man so that man could become God.” Wow! What a concept. If that’s what it’s all about, no other sophistry, belief system or philosophy matters. Where can I go to get the tools to attain that? I firmly believe that Holy Orthodoxy offers that. I found modern Western Christianity (modern RCC and Protestantism) gravely lacking.

You mentioned Western Orthodoxy earlier. Have you seen this website by Christminster monastery? They have a great abundance of information on tradition Western Christian practice that is slowly being restored. I’m not sure where you’re located, but the ROCOR seems to be booming with Western Rite activity. There is also Hieromonk Aidan’s website which has a great amount of information on restoring Orthodoxy in its venerable Western forms before the schism. He recently translated and compiled Orthodox prayers from England before the schism which includes much of the Divine Services. I will definitely be purchasing it soon.

I’m not sure where you are located, but a few years back an Anglican bishop near me did much of the same thing as the one in the OP and entered into Orthodoxy. Fr. Alban Waggener of Lynchburg began a Western Rite mission with some of his former parishioners. I plan on visiting there over Christmas break at least once. Perhaps, some people where you are located might be interested in something similar?

I suppose I’m done rambling for now. Heavens knows I almost compose essays when I write about Orthodoxy.

In Christ,
Andrew

I am quietly storing up all this information for the day my parish finds itself in an impossible position in the Anglican Church of Canada… I feel like a bit of a double agent

 

[JohnnyReb]

I have been exploring both Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy for the past few years, since I began to study the Early Church Fathers.

In some ways, Roman Catholicism would be easier for me as an Evangelical Anglican, especially culturally. Orthodox churches often have food festivals to celebrate Greek, Middle Eastern, or Russian culture. If you don’t hail from one of those areas, you can feel a bit of an outsider culturally.

Still, I would say Orthodoxy holds more appeal for me. In terms of theology, they have fewer dogma. All those post Schism dogma that Evangelicals find so troublesome–purgatory, Papal infallibility, the immaculate conception, the assumption–are not dogma in Orthodoxy. Never mind that the Orthodox may have similar notions just described differently (eg the Dormition of the Theotokos). At least in Orthodoxy, one doesn’t put his salvation in grave danger by seriously questioning whether the Theotokos was sinless or the Pope infallible.

I know exactly how you feel. You just took the words out of my mouth here. Gurney has some excellent points about Catholicism as well. They at least have made overtures of reunification with Orthodoxy, and are creating the ordinariates for Anglicans to return to Rome, should they wish to. I am not trying to knock the Orthodox, but it seems they have become very rigid as of late, not warming up to Rome’s overtures and pulling away from dialogues with Anglicans that were going pretty well (of course the Episcopal church shares much-if not all of the blame there)

In terms of ecclesiology, I think the concilliar model of bishops is easier to understand for Evangelicals and seems more biblical, like a continuation of the Council of Jerusalem described in Acts.

Right. While the Pope presents a strong sense of unity in Catholicism as leader of the church, the development of papal infalliblity and universal jurisdiction have almost turned him into a one man counsel. Of course, many of the dogmas you and I struggle with from Rome were declared after the great schism, which is important to note.

In terms of liturgy, clearly the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom is unlike anything ever experienced in an Evangelical church. However, since I have little liturgical experience, I would have little difficulty adapting to the Eastern rite. Anglo Catholics would probably find the Western Rite Orthodoxy easier, and of course, the Latin Rite.

All I can speak to is that I found Anglican liturgy very similar to the Roman Liturgy. It was very familiar and easy for me to handle coming from Catholicism.

Perhaps most appealing about Orthodoxy: the difficulty factor. Evangelicals can be pretty passionate about their faith. We are open to new ways that God can mold us. Orthodoxy is like the marines of Christianity. I know a bit, since I adopted Orthodox fasting and prayer about two years ago. Living the Orthodox Way requires fasting for about a third of the year (we are already three weeks into the Nativity Fast). Twice daily prayer. A Divine Liturgy that lasts almost two hours, mostly standing. 20 hours of services the final week of Pascua. For a lot of Evangelicals like me, we don’t need another Bible Study. Rather, we need a way to become more Christ like. Orthodoxy seems to provide a good way.

Interesting take. I like it.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Good points all. I agree that the liturgy of the Anglican Church was easy to adapt to coming from the Catholic Church. You’re right. The Lutheran service is more of a departure. Actually the Lutherans share more in common with Catholics than Anglicans as far as their views on the Eucharist are concerned but the reality is Lutherans don’t value apostolic succession and the Anglicans do! LOL…

I do think the Orthodox are a touch rigid and have little love for Rome…most of them at least…but I can also understand their reluctance to trust Rome after all the junk that has happened to the Orthodox over the centuries in relationship with Rome.

I’ll give the Orthodox credit, too—at least they tried to make a union between the OCA and the ACNA Anglican Church. Metropolitan Jonah tried to make overtures to the ACNA but demanded a few things of them: drop women’s ordination completely, eliminate all vestiges of Calvinism, and dump the filioque. There was a lot of eye-rolling on the Anglican side, sadly, and I think there was a tremendous missed opportunity there. I think Jonah misread the Anglicans. He didn’t realize that the majority of ACNA is evangelical and that the archbishop of the movement, Duncan, is pro-women’s ordination! So Jonah’s wise and warm speech that resonated with me fell on deaf ears largely at the convention in Texas. Sad. What a neat prospect—Orthodoxy and Anglicans communing together…like an Orthodox ordinariates kind of situation!

I know exactly how you feel. You just took the words out of my mouth here. Gurney has some excellent points about Catholicism as well. They at least have made overtures of reunification with Orthodoxy, and are creating the ordinariates for Anglicans to return to Rome, should they wish to. I am not trying to knock the Orthodox, but it seems they have become very rigid as of late, not warming up to Rome’s overtures and pulling away from dialogues with Anglicans that were going pretty well (of course the Episcopal church shares much-if not all of the blame there)

Right. While the Pope presents a strong sense of unity in Catholicism as leader of the church, the development of papal infalliblity and universal jurisdiction have almost turned him into a one man counsel. Of course, many of the dogmas you and I struggle with from Rome were declared after the great schism, which is important to note.

All I can speak to is that I found Anglican liturgy very similar to the Roman Liturgy. It was very familiar and easy for me to handle coming from Catholicism.

Interesting take. I like it.

 

[Bluegoat]

Good points all. I agree that the liturgy of the Anglican Church was easy to adapt to coming from the Catholic Church. You’re right. The Lutheran service is more of a departure. Actually the Lutherans share more in common with Catholics than Anglicans as far as their views on the Eucharist are concerned but the reality is Lutherans don’t value apostolic succession and the Anglicans do! LOL…

I do think the Orthodox are a touch rigid and have little love for Rome…most of them at least…but I can also understand their reluctance to trust Rome after all the junk that has happened to the Orthodox over the centuries in relationship with Rome.

I’ll give the Orthodox credit, too—at least they tried to make a union between the OCA and the ACNA Anglican Church. Metropolitan Jonah tried to make overtures to the ACNA but demanded a few things of them: drop women’s ordination completely, eliminate all vestiges of Calvinism, and dump the filioque. There was a lot of eye-rolling on the Anglican side, sadly, and I think there was a tremendous missed opportunity there. I think Jonah misread the Anglicans. He didn’t realize that the majority of ACNA is evangelical and that the archbishop of the movement, Duncan, is pro-women’s ordination! So Jonah’s wise and warm speech that resonated with me fell on deaf ears largely at the convention in Texas. Sad. What a neat prospect—Orthodoxy and Anglicans communing together…like an Orthodox ordinariates kind of situation!

I don’t know if he so much mis-judged, or if he just was being hopeful. I can’t see how he couldn’t have demanded the things he did - perhaps it felt it was important that the invitation was made, but it was clear what that would mean.

I personally don’t see that the Orthodox have been the ones to walk away from the discussion with Anglicans - I think the Anglicans, through their actions, have walked away. For some reason they always seem to think that whatever they do people should remain “in relationship” and have a “conversation” with them. The same way really that TEC has been to the Anglican Communion.

Anyway - the “Orthodox Ordinariates” you are talking about sound a lot like Western Rite Orthodoxy to me, and that seems to be growing in a number of ways to me - both in the sense of actual parishes, but also, especially within the OCA, just in terms of people who are Westerners with background in the Western church becoming Orthodox. Over time you might find that produces something that is organically Western and Orthodox, but different perhaps from historical Western orthodoxy.

I have to say I am really flummoxed by those who say the Roman liturgy is closer to the Anglican liturgy. I don’t find that at all, except in the most superficial sense perhaps - like, they both have hymns. Maybe it is because I don’t really consider the modern liturgy to be really Anglican, but I find the Catholic NO to be far more alien to me that the Orthodox DL.

 

[Bluegoat]

Some of you guys might appreciate this.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I don’t think you appreciate the flavor of my post, Meghan. I wasn’t criticizing the Orthodox, but rather the Anglicans? I was saying that he misjudged their stubbornness and their years and years and years of being contaminated by liberal theology and values while in the TEC. The Continuing Anglicans had the good sense to bail like bats out of hell in the late 70’s the minute that women’s ordination became a topic. They were wise. The “conservatives” were bedfellows with the liberal loons in the TEC for years so by the time they departed and created the new ACNA province, they had already been contaminated by too many years of corrupt, liberal thinking…

There is a lot of Calvinism in Anglicanism, sadly. Most Anglicans of an evangelical flare wouldn’t drop the Calvinist trappings, period. The filioque I think most could live without, but the women’s ordination issue would trouble guys like ++Duncan. So I’m really commenting negatively on the Anglicans, not the Orthodox. Jonah had open arms, a heavy dose of wisdom and speaking the truth with love, and a sincerity. The Anglicans didn’t give him a chance…that was the whole crux of my post. Not the other way around. Anglicans have such a wishy-washy approach to dialogue and they have a rubbery texture that is difficult to grab onto so I feel Jonah’s pain!

And regarding the Mass, I grew up a Catholic. When I go to the Anglican Church I see much of the Catholic Mass, not Orthodoxy. I have spent significant time in both worlds and I can safely tell you that the two are very, very similar. I have never had the pleasure to attend an Orthodox liturgy in person. But I have watched several and I find them lovely but very foreign and not much like an Anglican service at all.

I don’t know if he so much mis-judged, or if he just was being hopeful. I can’t see how he couldn’t have demanded the things he did - perhaps it felt it was important that the invitation was made, but it was clear what that would mean.

I personally don’t see that the Orthodox have been the ones to walk away from the discussion with Anglicans - I think the Anglicans, through their actions, have walked away. For some reason they always seem to think that whatever they do people should remain “in relationship” and have a “conversation” with them. The same way really that TEC has been to the Anglican Communion.

Anyway - the “Orthodox Ordinariates” you are talking about sound a lot like Western Rite Orthodoxy to me, and that seems to be growing in a number of ways to me - both in the sense of actual parishes, but also, especially within the OCA, just in terms of people who are Westerners with background in the Western church becoming Orthodox. Over time you might find that produces something that is organically Western and Orthodox, but different perhaps from historical Western orthodoxy.

I have to say I am really flummoxed by those who say the Roman liturgy is closer to the Anglican liturgy. I don’t find that at all, except in the most superficial sense perhaps - like, they both have hymns. Maybe it is because I don’t really consider the modern liturgy to be really Anglican, but I find the Catholic NO to be far more alien to me that the Orthodox DL.

 

[Bluegoat]

And regarding the Mass, I grew up a Catholic. When I go to the Anglican Church I see much of the Catholic Mass, not Orthodoxy. I have spent significant time in both worlds and I can safely tell you that the two are very, very similar. I have never had the pleasure to attend an Orthodox liturgy in person. But I have watched several and I find them lovely but very foreign and not much like an Anglican service at all.

I’m curious - what Anglican liturgy do you use?

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Rite II

I’m curious - what Anglican liturgy do you use?

 

[JohnnyReb]

Good points all. I agree that the liturgy of the Anglican Church was easy to adapt to coming from the Catholic Church. You’re right. The Lutheran service is more of a departure. Actually the Lutherans share more in common with Catholics than Anglicans as far as their views on the Eucharist are concerned but the reality is Lutherans don’t value apostolic succession and the Anglicans do! LOL…

I do think the Orthodox are a touch rigid and have little love for Rome…most of them at least…but I can also understand their reluctance to trust Rome after all the junk that has happened to the Orthodox over the centuries in relationship with Rome.

Very interesting as far the Anglicans and Lutherans are concerned.

I’ll give the Orthodox credit, too—at least they tried to make a union between the OCA and the ACNA Anglican Church.

That would have been very positive.

Metropolitan Jonah tried to make overtures to the ACNA but demanded a few things of them: drop women’s ordination completely, eliminate all vestiges of Calvinism, and dump the filioque. There was a lot of eye-rolling on the Anglican side, sadly, and I think there was a tremendous missed opportunity there. I think Jonah misread the Anglicans. He didn’t realize that the majority of ACNA is evangelical and that the archbishop of the movement, Duncan, is pro-women’s ordination! So Jonah’s wise and warm speech that resonated with me fell on deaf ears largely at the convention in Texas. Sad. What a neat prospect—Orthodoxy and Anglicans communing together…like an Orthodox ordinariates kind of situation!

1. Women’s ordination, sigh. Is that really the ACNA’s hill to die on? I guess it is if you have ordained women already. Sounds more political junk getting in the way, you know, not wanting to upset people, have people leave the movement etc…
2. Dropping Filoque-Fine with me, it was uncritically adopted from Rome anyway.
3. ACNA is heavily evangelical influenced. So is AMIA, which is the group my parish is affliated with. They love the 39 articles, and there is a definate evangelical-charismatic influence in theology and praxis, at least with my parish… That could be problematic in working with the Orthodox.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

It is the hill to die on for ++ Duncan. He went into the founding of ACNA with the attitude that W.O. is a non-negotiable. +Iker went into the founding of ACNA firmly opposed to W.O. The two (and others) agreed to disagree on this idiotic philosophy because they wanted to caucus together to put up a united front against TEC and Schiori’s minions. They thought that WO was a minor point of disagreement but I think +Iker is starting to reconsider. Guys like Roseberry at Christ Church Plano is a pro-WO thinker and he’s not budging. There are signs of wear and fissures within ACNA and I don’t think it’ll last. I think Anglicanism is too prone to liberal thought because of all the years of patience without outrage, all the years of contamination, and all the years of putting up with nonsense. They’re too acquiescent. After a while the rigidness of Catholicism sounds appealing!

As you might know, I’m going through quite a spiritual crisis in my life; it’s like nothing I’ve ever felt before. It’s an overall crisis not of faith in Christ (no question there! ) but rather of Church polity, soteriology, theology, and the basic “where do I belong?” journey in the wildnerness. Quite frankly, it really stinks. It’s eating me up some days. So I went and spoke with my rector, Father James, about my situation. We had a great conversation but he’s pretty honest about the pitfalls and negatives about Anglicanism and ACNA. For one thing, he’s really honest that ACNA is pretty much an evangelical body. He’s also honest that it’s far far from perfect. He also knows how Catholic I am and that he knows I’ll always be unhappy to a certain degree as an Anglican because of a host of issues we discussed. Another issue that came up is the fact that +Bishop Schofield is retiring from our diocese. Father James said, “will our next bishop be in favor of WO?” and I told him, “that shouldn’t even be a fear AT ALL and it shouldn’t be on the radar in the slightest!” He said he thinks the Catholic Church will someday allow WO to which I replied without thinking much, “it’ll NEVER happen in the Catholic Church because the pope is protected by the Holy Spirit, etc.” and I realized how inside me there still is that belief in Matthew 16:18. At my core I believe in infallibility to a certain degree and hold the teaching dear. I am at heart pretty Catholic. My disagreements with the Catholic Church on certain issues might just be something I have to squash and silence and just accept the Church’s rulings and suck it up or else I’ll stay Anglican and squash my disagreements with them. Bottom line: there is no Church where you’ll be 100% happy.

The sad thing is, I LOVE my Anglican parish and my family is so very happy there. My wife loves it and can’t stand the local Catholic parish. The Catholic diocese here…I’m not a bit impressed!

Very interesting as far the Anglicans and Lutherans are concerned.

That would have been very positive.

1. Women’s ordination, sigh. Is that really the ACNA’s hill to die on? I guess it is if you have ordained women already. Sounds more political junk getting in the way, you know, not wanting to upset people, have people leave the movement etc…
2. Dropping Filoque-Fine with me, it was uncritically adopted from Rome anyway.
3. ACNA is heavily evangelical influenced. So is AMIA, which is the group my parish is affliated with. They love the 39 articles, and there is a definate evangelical-charismatic influence in theology and praxis, at least with my parish… That could be problematic in working with the Orthodox.