Anglican Churches

[JesusforMadrid]

There was a point where I was 100% on board with Catholicism and a gung-ho hardcore Catholic. These days I see Orthodoxy as more true to historic Christianity. The Eucharistic Ecclesiology that Ware and Meyendorff speak of makes more sense to me than the universal ecclesiology Rome proposes as the real model of Christendom. But I acknowledge that Rome has the loudest, most coherent, powerful voice on moral issues in the world, despite the Church being mired down by scandals and issues.

Reading your posts, I find it interesting that a Roman Catholic like yourself and an Evangelical Anglican like myself can both find refuge in Orthodoxy. I think it helps that She has ostensibly changed so little. I cannot argue with the consensus of the Fathers and have had to change my views.

In terms of Eucharistic Ecclesiology, which for me seems completely consonant with the Fathers, I can recommend Laurent Cleenewerck’ book “His Broken Body”. He is an Orthodox scholar looking for common ground with Roman Catholics. He explains and supports the EO view on Eucharistic Ecclesiology very well.

I am glad to hear that you seem on a happy journey of discovery with the EO. Blessings. J4M

 

[Harpazo]

Reading your posts, I find it interesting that a Roman Catholic like yourself and an Evangelical Anglican like myself can both find refuge in Orthodoxy. I think it helps that She has ostensibly changed so little. I cannot argue with the consensus of the Fathers and have had to change my views.

In terms of Eucharistic Ecclesiology, which for me seems completely consonant with the Fathers, I can recommend Laurent Cleenewerck’ book “His Broken Body”. He is an Orthodox scholar looking for common ground with Roman Catholics. He explains and supports the EO view on Eucharistic Ecclesiology very well.

I am glad to hear that you seem on a happy journey of discovery with the EO. Blessings. J4M

St. Ignatius of Antioch said it best, and IMHO no one should have messed with what has been given to us.

In Christ,
Andrew

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Ignatius of Antioch and the Fathers are usually quoted by Catholic apologists and I’ve felt that the Fathers, for years, were Catholic. Orthodox never entered my mind. But as I’ve read, studied, and looked into the Fathers, they reflect a Eucharistic ecclesiology, a collegial conciliar polity, and I don’t see the modern Catholic Church in the least in the early Church. But I appreciate the universal morality and cohesiveness of Catholicism. And I can understand why the Catholic Church feels that morals are important to nail down. The catechism is a healthy thing in many ways I think.

St. Ignatius of Antioch said it best, and IMHO no one should have messed with what has been given to us.

In Christ,
Andrew

 

[Mickey]

I don’t see the modern Catholic Church in the least in the early Church.

That was one of the “clinchers” for me in my journey to Holy Orthodoxy.

 

[Contarini]

I can’t imagine you being Catholic in that you don’t seem to buy many of the papal claims and you are too liberal for it. You’d be having to swallow a lot, eat a lot of crow.

First of all, many of the Catholics I know are a lot more liberal than I am. I’m reluctant to be a “dissenting Catholic,” but my issues are fairly minor compared to those of many Catholics. And secondly, eating crow is kind of a necessary consequences of their being a Church at all. Frankly, I don’t think you’ll find peace as long as you’re trying to find a church that lines up 100% with what you independently believe. That’s putting your private opinions way too much in the driver’s seat.

I share a lot of your attraction to Orthodoxy–but I can’t get away from the need to be in communion with Rome. My issues with the ways papal authority has been exercised are trivial by comparison.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Yes, I’ve already thought so that “the Methodists” seem to be quite active in the north and middle eastern part of Africa.
Can you, being also from the Holiness Movement originally, understand him going to a Baptist Church?

Well, in much of the world free-church Protestants of all sorts get along with each other fairly well. If you come from a country dominated by Muslims and Orthodox, differences between Baptists and Wesleyans are going to seem minor. Also, Baptists in much of the world (outside the English-speaking countries) are generic free-church Protestants (as you have said, your folks claim descent from the Anabaptists) rather than the weird crypto-Calvinists that many of them are in the U.S. The issues that Wesleyans have with Baptists are largely over Calvinism or semi-Calvinism.

Your were invited by the Catholics in Germany to partake at the Eucharist? What about the so well praised communion? I am, actually, asthonished.

It happens in the U.S. too. Perhaps not in Austria. Generally Catholics in areas that are historically Protestant are more liberal than those in traditional Catholic countries (though the latter may often be very secular). Catholics in North Carolina were a lot more liberal than Catholics in New Jersey or Northern Indiana (these are the three areas where I’ve lived since becoming interested in Catholicism–the former is historically a very Protestant area, while the other two have large historic Catholic populations). The invitation in Germany occurred in Niedersachsen, a historically Lutheran area where Catholics live because of the “Diaspora” after WWII. This did not happen to me in Bavaria, so I’m not surprised to hear that it wouldn’t happen in Austria either.

Edwin

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I hate to sound like a 20 questions robot here but, why is that?

I share a lot of your attraction to Orthodoxy–but I can’t get away from the need to be in communion with Rome. My issues with the ways papal authority has been exercised are trivial by comparison.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

I hate to sound like a 20 questions robot here but, why is that?

Because it’s well-documented in the early Church, as fine Orthodox scholars/theologians like Olivier Clement admit. And because Christianity seems to me to be centrally about communion and relationality rather than about ticking off a doctrinal checklist. Not that doctrine is unimportant, but it exists to bring us into fellowship with the Blessed Trinity and to keep us from so messing up our understanding of the truth that our intellects are no longer being conformed with the life of the Trinity.

Edwin

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

It’s well-documented that he held a primacy of honor, not an all-encompassing universal primacy with infallibility and supremacy attached? The more I’ve delved into this the less I can rationalize the Vatican I papacy with the Church for the first 1,000 years. Going to Rome to settle a dispute is a far cry from what Lumen Gentium and Vatican I tell us the pope is and can do. I think most Orthodox wish the Patriarchate of Rome were in the equation, just not the current incarnation of it.

Because it’s well-documented in the early Church, as fine Orthodox scholars/theologians like Olivier Clement admit. And because Christianity seems to me to be centrally about communion and relationality rather than about ticking off a doctrinal checklist. Not that doctrine is unimportant, but it exists to bring us into fellowship with the Blessed Trinity and to keep us from so messing up our understanding of the truth that our intellects are no longer being conformed with the life of the Trinity.

Edwin

 

[Harpazo]

It’s well-documented that he held a primacy of honor, not an all-encompassing universal primacy with infallibility and supremacy attached? The more I’ve delved into this the less I can rationalize the Vatican I papacy with the Church for the first 1,000 years. Going to Rome to settle a dispute is a far cry from what Lumen Gentium and Vatican I tell us the pope is and can do. I think most Orthodox wish the Patriarchate of Rome were in the equation, just not the current incarnation of it.

For me, it boiled down to something similar to the Socratic dilemma, which I’ve shared on here before:

1. Is the pope Orthodox because of the faith?
2. Is the faith Orthodox because of the pope?

Obviously the Orthodox would hold to number one. Anglicans obviously don’t hold to number 2 otherwise they would be in communion with Rome.

In Christ,
Andrew

 

[Contarini]

It’s well-documented that he held a primacy of honor, not an all-encompassing universal primacy with infallibility and supremacy attached? The more I’ve delved into this the less I can rationalize the Vatican I papacy with the Church for the first 1,000 years. Going to Rome to settle a dispute is a far cry from what Lumen Gentium and Vatican I tell us the pope is and can do. I think most Orthodox wish the Patriarchate of Rome were in the equation, just not the current incarnation of it.

I’ve gone back and forth on this. I am not criticizing you for your recent moves toward Orthodoxy–your reasons for not doing so earlier were ones I didn’t agree with anyway. I wish you every blessing wherever you wind up, and I’m sorry that I’ve antagonized you in the past.

But. . . . I’m not sure that the early Church’s practice is “a far cry” from the modern papacy in principle. It’s hard to ascertain this one way or the other, so when I say I’mn not sure I really mean that I’m not sure.

But I am sure that the papacy was important in the early Church, and I’m not sure “primacy of honor” is the right way to talk about it. I keep coming back to the importance of communion. How that works juridically may change. I think the Orthodox are dead right in their criticisms of the Western fixation with juridical approaches. But if they are, then maybe the Western doctrine of the papacy itself is not the problem.

Consider the following way of understanding the infamous statement of Vatican I saying that the Pope was infallible “ex sese et non ex consensu ecclesiae”:

There is no juridical authority whose consent is necessary to make papal teaching infallible.

In other words, if we take the Orthodox approach and understand objectionable Western dogmas apophatically, perhaps they are rejecting errors that arose within the Western context, such as in this case the highly political, juridical conciliarism that arose in the late medieval West in the wake of the Rome-Avignon Schism.

Edwin

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

No worries, Edwin. I equally wish you well, always have. You have a brilliant mind for religion, truly brilliant. The amount of history and scholarship you’re able to devour and synthesize, it’s remarkable. I’ve always felt that way.

I don’t pretend to be an expert on this by a longshot. I’m a modest amateur student of Christianity. I think sometimes the Orthodox try to downplay the role of the papacy, especially during tense times like the Iconoclast controversies. It was the Imperium and Constantinople that was the problem and the pope played a tremendous role. In squashing heresies, the popes were key. I hate it when the Bishop of Rome is downplayed. But I cannot see the unilateral powers that were granted him in recent centuries being present pre-schism.

It seems like the Schism was caused more from a growing apart than anything. Language barriers, liturgical differences, having “two Romes,” barbarian invasions, Islam, mutual distrust, etc. But I do think the papacy is a problem for reunion and that’s why I think reunion will never happen. I think there is some self-fullfilling prophecy and circular reasoning in the papacy.

When I look at the liturgy, like on my thread that I started, I’m at a “proof is in the pudding stage.” Maybe it’s a phase I’ll grow out of? I went to confession today actually but plan on attending Divine Liturgy this Sunday again. I’m ecclectic! The Divine Liturgy is so untainted by modernity, so unspoiled, and the lex orandi lex credendi approach is something I do “get.” The Novus Ordo liturgy honestly makes me nervous!

I’ve gone back and forth on this. I am not criticizing you for your recent moves toward Orthodoxy–your reasons for not doing so earlier were ones I didn’t agree with anyway. I wish you every blessing wherever you wind up, and I’m sorry that I’ve antagonized you in the past.

But. . . . I’m not sure that the early Church’s practice is “a far cry” from the modern papacy in principle. It’s hard to ascertain this one way or the other, so when I say I’mn not sure I really mean that I’m not sure.

But I am sure that the papacy was important in the early Church, and I’m not sure “primacy of honor” is the right way to talk about it. I keep coming back to the importance of communion. How that works juridically may change. I think the Orthodox are dead right in their criticisms of the Western fixation with juridical approaches. But if they are, then maybe the Western doctrine of the papacy itself is not the problem.

Consider the following way of understanding the infamous statement of Vatican I saying that the Pope was infallible “ex sese et non ex consensu ecclesiae”:

There is no juridical authority whose consent is necessary to make papal teaching infallible.

In other words, if we take the Orthodox approach and understand objectionable Western dogmas apophatically, perhaps they are rejecting errors that arose within the Western context, such as in this case the highly political, juridical conciliarism that arose in the late medieval West in the wake of the Rome-Avignon Schism.

Edwin

 

[Esdra]

Well, in much of the world free-church Protestants of all sorts get along with each other fairly well. If you come from a country dominated by Muslims and Orthodox, differences between Baptists and Wesleyans are going to seem minor. Also, Baptists in much of the world (outside the English-speaking countries) are generic free-church Protestants (as you have said, your folks claim descent from the Anabaptists) rather than the weird crypto-Calvinists that many of them are in the U.S. The issues that Wesleyans have with Baptists are largely over Calvinism or semi-Calvinism.

Yes, this is quite possible.

You seem to read a lot. Do you by chance know a good book as this (, if I remember correctly) was your doctoral dissertation about the difference between European and American Baptists? (We have already discussed a bit that topic in the first thread we were conversing with each other, the thread about the Hutterites.)

It happens in the U.S. too. Perhaps not in Austria. Generally Catholics in areas that are historically Protestant are more liberal than those in traditional Catholic countries (though the latter may often be very secular). Catholics in North Carolina were a lot more liberal than Catholics in New Jersey or Northern Indiana (these are the three areas where I’ve lived since becoming interested in Catholicism–the former is historically a very Protestant area, while the other two have large historic Catholic populations). The invitation in Germany occurred in Niedersachsen, a historically Lutheran area where Catholics live because of the “Diaspora” after WWII. This did not happen to me in Bavaria, so I’m not surprised to hear that it wouldn’t happen in Austria either.

Edwin

I mean, I’ve heard about Lutherans (here in Austria) letting partake Catholics at the Lord’s Supper [including my dad and me] (Although ALL Lutherans here in the Tyrol are united with the Reformed Church). - But NEVER vice versa. - And I know that because I had talked to the Lutheran pastor there. From the Lutheran perspective it’s not important what denomination you belong to, as long as you are a Christian, you are allowed to partake at the Lord’s Supper. And he said, that’d be impossible in the Catholic Church.
On the other hand I am not sure if these united Churches believe in the Real Presence and the Consubstitution like the SELK (which is roughly the same as the LCMS in the US) does.

Edwin, when you were in Niedersachsen, Germany, did you visit SELK services or from the EKD (which is more or less the same than the ELCA in the US).

 

[Contarini]

No worries, Edwin. I equally wish you well, always have. You have a brilliant mind for religion, truly brilliant. The amount of history and scholarship you’re able to devour and synthesize, it’s remarkable. I’ve always felt that way.

I don’t pretend to be an expert on this by a longshot. I’m a modest amateur student of Christianity. I think sometimes the Orthodox try to downplay the role of the papacy, especially during tense times like the Iconoclast controversies. It was the Imperium and Constantinople that was the problem and the pope played a tremendous role. In squashing heresies, the popes were key. I hate it when the Bishop of Rome is downplayed. But I cannot see the unilateral powers that were granted him in recent centuries being present pre-schism.

It seems like the Schism was caused more from a growing apart than anything. Language barriers, liturgical differences, having “two Romes,” barbarian invasions, Islam, mutual distrust, etc. But I do think the papacy is a problem for reunion and that’s why I think reunion will never happen. I think there is some self-fullfilling prophecy and circular reasoning in the papacy.

When I look at the liturgy, like on my thread that I started, I’m at a “proof is in the pudding stage.” Maybe it’s a phase I’ll grow out of? I went to confession today actually but plan on attending Divine Liturgy this Sunday again. I’m ecclectic! The Divine Liturgy is so untainted by modernity, so unspoiled, and the lex orandi lex credendi approach is something I do “get.” The Novus Ordo liturgy honestly makes me nervous!

Well, there is always Eastern Catholicism, though of course that has its own problems, and for many Western Christians it’s turned out to be a half-way point to Orthodoxy.

As you know, I have plenty of problems with later developments in the papacy as well. But I think it’s not easy to figure out

1. To which objectionable aspects of the modern papacy the RCC is dogmatically committed; and
2. Which aspects of the papacy really are objectionable based on early Christian ecclesiology, and which are just developments or legitimate applications of principles found early on

Yes, I can argue both sides of this!

I do strongly recommend Olivier Clement’s You Are Peter if you haven’t already read it.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

You seem to read a lot. Do you by chance know a good book as this (, if I remember correctly) was your doctoral dissertation about the difference between European and American Baptists?

No, it was about Martin Bucer!

The best general history of Baptists (at least so it’s reputed in the U.S.) is The Baptist Heritage by Leon McBeth. It does have an American bias, but it talks about the history of Baptists world-wide. ((I particularly remember him giving a lengthy discussion of Russian Baptists.)

Some of what I’m saying is based in personal experience–I’ve spent quite a bit of time with Baptists in Romania, and have some experience in Britain as well.

On the other hand I am not sure if these united Churches believe in the Real Presence and the Consubstitution like the SELK (which is roughly the same as the LCMS in the US) does.

I think it’s not so much that they don’t believe in it as that they don’t see it as a church-dividing issue the way the confessional Lutherans do. The LCMS largely derives from immigrants who left Germany because they were being forced into a united church, I believe.

Edwin, when you were in Niedersachsen, Germany, did you visit SELK services or from the EKD (which is more or less the same than the ELCA in the US).

EKD, but the church I attended most regularly considered itself a confessional congregation within the EKD. I overheard the pastor telling a German visitor that the church practiced “geschlossenes Altar,” and when I repeated the phrase to him in some alarm he explained that it meant “kein’ Kalvinisten am Altar.” (I may be getting my endings wrong–I usually do!) He seemed to assume that as an Anglican I wouldn’t be a Calvinist. They did know that I was studying Bucer, whom they didn’t like because he was the pioneer of getting Lutherans and Reformed together. The retired pastor, who was a scholar of Lutheran history, told me, “Bucer hat gelogen” (when he told Luther that he essentially believed in the Real Presence).

Edwin

 

[Mickey]

The more I’ve delved into this the less I can rationalize the Vatican I papacy with the Church for the first 1,000 years.

Indeed.

I just do not see the papacy of the first millennium as the same papacy of today. The language which is used, such as “supreme power” and “no higher authority” is unsettling. Even today’s Pope (when he was a cardinal) admitted that there is a dilemma:

Rome must not require more from the East with respect to the doctrine of primacy than had been formulated and was lived in the first millennium.
[Joseph Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology (San Francisco, CA: Ignatius Press]***

 

[Mickey]

Well, there is always Eastern Catholicism, though of course that has its own problems, and for many Western Christians it’s turned out to be a half-way point to Orthodoxy.

Yes. Eastern Catholicism was a stepping-stone to Holy Orthodoxy for me. I felt that there was a sort of identity crisis there.

I do strongly recommend Olivier Clement’s You Are Peter if you haven’t already read it.

This is a very good book.

 

[Esdra]

No, it was about Martin Bucer!

Oh, I thought it had something to do with Anabaptists and Baptist Churches in Europe…

The best general history of Baptists (at least so it’s reputed in the U.S.) is The Baptist Heritage by Leon McBeth. It does have an American bias, but it talks about the history of Baptists world-wide. ((I particularly remember him giving a lengthy discussion of Russian Baptists.)

Okay, I’ll have a look at it and probably buy it! Thanks.

Some of what I’m saying is based in personal experience–I’ve spent quite a bit of time with Baptists in Romania, and have some experience in Britain as well.

Yes, I remember talking with you about Baptists in Romania and that you said that their Baptist Churches are very different from the US ones.

I think it’s not so much that they don’t believe in it as that they don’t see it as a church-dividing issue the way the confessional Lutherans do. The LCMS largely derives from immigrants who left Germany because they were being forced into a united church, I believe.

You mean do believe in it, right? confessional Lutherans (either in the SELK or the EKD), do believe in the RP and consubstitution.
The Old Catholic Church in communion with Utrecht writes on their Austrian Homepage, “Everyone who share with us the believe in the Real Presence, is invited to partake in the Eucharist. Also divorced and remarried etc.” - Although they usually don’t ask. I came as a visitor once and I was not asked, but given the chalice and the host without any comment. And as you may know, I am not sure if I believe in the RP in the sense Catholics do, probably not…

EKD, but the church I attended most regularly considered itself a confessional congregation within the EKD. I overheard the pastor telling a German visitor that the church practiced “geschlossener Altar,” and when I repeated the phrase to him in some alarm he explained that it meant “keine Calvinisten am Altar.” (I may be getting my endings wrong–I usually do!) He seemed to assume that as an Anglican I wouldn’t be a Calvinist. They did know that I was studying Bucer, whom they didn’t like because he was the pioneer of getting Lutherans and Reformed together. The retired pastor, who was a scholar of Lutheran history, told me, “Bucer hat gelogen” (when he told Luther that he essentially believed in the Real Presence).

Edwin

mistake see above: -s is Genetive (like the 's in English which is the last casus in English - the Saxon Genetive! ) - Well with the endings it’s difficult in this case, as you are mixing English and German, and so geschlossener Altar is in this case also the wrong casus.
“, dass die Kirche geschlossenes Abendmahl praktiziert” or so it needs to be in German. Although I am not sure how to translate closed communion into German… I think it’s not geschlossener Altar.
Did he really use the word Altar in this context? (see your text marked blue.) (Despite that I’ve always thought that Lutherans don’t have an altar like Anglicans or Catholics have…)

Where he could be wrong: Some Anglicans are indeed calvinistic! - I learned from CAF here.
Yes, I remember the last sentence. You told me in the thread “Hutterites”.

 

[tomarin]

It seems like the Schism was caused more from a growing apart than anything. Language barriers, liturgical differences, having “two Romes,” barbarian invasions, Islam, mutual distrust, etc. But I do think the papacy is a problem for reunion and that’s why I think reunion will never happen. I think there is some self-fullfilling prophecy and circular reasoning in the papacy.

What continues to baffle me is that a lot of the differences between East and West actually predate the conversion of Europe to Christianity, that is, their origins are found in the differing intellectual milieus that prevailed in the Latin and Greek halves of the pagan Roman Empire, at least if James Payton is correct in his book “Light From the Christian East”.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Yes! Same feeling here…I honestly wonder how they stayed together when they were diverging well before the Schism…it seems morel like they were tolerating each other than being a unified Church…

What continues to baffle me is that a lot of the differences between East and West actually predate the conversion of Europe to Christianity, that is, their origins are found in the differing intellectual milieus that prevailed in the Latin and Greek halves of the pagan Roman Empire, at least if James Payton is correct in his book “Light From the Christian East”.