You’d think so. But I don’t know why the Eastern bishops don’t also go along with this. I am happy that they don’t, however, because I don’t like the translation that is read at the Roman Mass. Again, my personal favorite is the RSV, but more and more I’m starting to see the strengths behind the Raya/deVink translations as well. I’d love to have my own copies of those.
Constantine,
(I may have also had a large hand in producing that series 
)Very true. I STRONGLY recommend the Raya books. The catechetical material is great, but Raya’s writings are probably the best thing to get one completely into the Eastern/Byzantine mindset. Also, for your own benefit, why don’t you try compiling the Troparia and Kontakia for the 12 (14, 16, however you number them) Great Feasts and then spending a good deal of time meditating on those and looking up the Scriptural references. This would be a great catechetical exercise and give you plenty of fodder to shoot at your students!
The Douay Rheims New Tesatment was translated before the KJV.
Hardly, unless one is viewing from the superficial standpoint. While the Anglicans may have “Bishops” and cathedrals and some visual similarities to our respectiv Churches, we should never see the Anglican church or its traditions as the fruits of Apostolic Descent. Lets take their “mass” for example, while the Roman Catholic Mass and Eastern Catholic/ Orthodox Divine Liturgy are the organic developments of the Holy Mass since the Last Supper, the Anglican mass was the artificial creation of Cranmer. As Anglicanism has embraced the teachings of Luther and other reformers, it is much different from Catholicism and Orthodoxy which are similar in innumerable ways.
You just enumerated the very arguments some Orthodox would have against Catholicism, particularly the Roman Catholic Church. Some don’t think we have valid priests or bishops because of heresy.
Yes, though the Challoner revision of the Douay Rheims came some 150 years after the KJV was first published.
Your problem here is that you interpret what I said to mean that the three organizations are incredibly similar. I said no such things.
Funny, I hear so many Catholics complaining that the Novus Ordo mass is an artificial creation with priests facing the crowd and the addition of non-traditional music.
Which particular teachings of Luther did the Anglican Church of King James hold to? Additionally what makes you so sure the Catholic and Orthodox Church hold the teaching? Afterall a great number of Orthodox in good standing with their churches openly reject teachings that are dogma in the Catholic Church, some which have anathema’s attached, why aren’t we condemned in the same way?
First of all, I never thought you questioned the validity of the Catholic Mass. In regards to why Orthodox are not treated the same as heretics such as Luther and his followers; well, our Churches are in schism let us not argue who broke off from who and I will show you this from the Catholic perspective. The Eastern Orthodox Church broke from the Catholic Church finally after the Second Council of Lyon. This seems to have been mainly for political and cultural reasons as well as stuborness on the part of Greek clergy. It was only after this schism that the Orthodox never adheared to Catholic dogma, as they were not in communion with Rome when these Dogmatic councils occured. For this reason, the Orthodox are regarded mainly as in schism and not condemed in the same way as Luther. In the event of reunion between the Catholic and Orthodox Churches, such dogmas would be ironed out apposed to where protestants have to be converted to the Faith. Orthodox liturgical practices are regarded as being an organic development of the Mass since the Last Supper apposed to protestant servces which are the heretical creations of men. Also, Orthodox clergy have valid apostolic Descent and valid orders and sacraments apposed to protestants who do not. In regards to the KJV bible, along with having heretical protestant notes, it was my understanding that the KJV does not have all the Books and Epistles of the Bible only those deemed important by the reformers.
But at the time of the Council of Trent, when the Lutherans were formerly condemned as being a heretical sect, they were already in schism. The schism may have been fresh, but it was certainly already there, as evidenced by the fact that there were no Lutherans there. There are also several anathema’s against the Lutherans from Trent that also reach the Orthodox (such as the anathema against those who don’t believe that works help in salvation).
Actually, the point of the Anglican mass as devised by Cranmer and his reformers was to destroy belief in aspects of Faith such as the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Remember the parable of Christ regarding how a bad tree cannot bear good fruit? I dear say that Cranmer was not a good tree by any means! Even then, Anglican orders (unlike Catholic and Orthodox) are invalid and have been since at least the reign of Edward VI, making Transubstantiation impossible rendering the mass invalid. The Tridentine Mass and Divine Liturgy are completely different as they are the organic transformation of the Mass since the Last Supper and this tradition can be traced back to prove this, as any alterations made have been minor and thus the traditions of both rites preserved. Also we have valid Holy Orders which means the Masses or Divine Liturgys said by our priests and clergy are valid. Novus Ordo is a breach in Tradition of the Liturgy as Pope Benedict XVI has admitted however it has been approved by an Apostolic Authority which is the Magesterium of the Catholic Church, and thus when said by a priest with a valid ordination is thus a valid Mass.
Actuall I have the KJV it was given to me a few years ago in elementary by Giddeons, perhaps as you said this could be a modern one excluding some of the books of the Old Testament. I’m pretty sure I asked this earlier but are there any English translations unique to the Orthodox Church?
As I said, the Schism between Lutherans and Catholics occured before Trent, but it was at Trent that they were declared to be heretics. A lot of Catholics claim that Orthodox have the same faith, but how do you account for those differences that I mention? Why don’t the anathema’s apply to us like they do the Lutherans? After all in both cases they were applied after the schism.
Except that the Anglican service has been modified innumerable times since Cranmer, and Anglicans have traditionally believed in the Real Presence. Cranmer’s own theology doesn’t really play into the creation of the KJV, especially since the BCP had been revised several times by then. And while it is a Catholic belief that Anglican orders are invalid, the reasoning is not something that the Orthodox agree with, aside from which the Orthodox don’t all believe Catholics have valid orders. You’re not really arguing why Catholics are closer to Orthodox than Anglicans, you’re arguing why Catholics believe they are close to Orthodox. Keep in mind that since your argument is that you’re closer to Orthodox than Anglicans you need to approach things from the view of how Orthodox see things.
Yes, while I’m sure Oxford still publishes an edition with the deuterocanon, most versions don’t, however it was originally included.
As I posted earlier the problem with Lutherans is the same as what it has been from day one… heresy. Luther was given a chance to recant his heresies by the Church and refused. Frankly it would be fair to say that by heresy he excommunicated himself. Also Lutherans are not really a Church as they have invalid “orders”. When our Churches split it was an issue of authority not Faith thus it is a matter of schism not heresy.
Your right, I don’t have a good understanding of how the Orthodox view these matters, so how would one approach it from the Orthodox point of view?
In fairness it was an issue of authority with Luther as well, he didn’t believe in apostolic succession, and Catholics do.
That seems to have been the first major heresy of the Lutherans. On most of Luthers early points I would probably agree with him, as many Catholics of his day, and even today, would.Well first off you’d ignore any proclimations by the Catholic Church on the status of Anglicans, because those don’t figure into our views. Next, listen to what Orthodox say without superimposing the Catholic view on it, that’ll help you in understanding the Orthodox Church.
Hi, so how do the Orthodox view Anglicans and their orders? I know a Russian Orthodox guy at school (he’s pretty much one of the only people at school I actually agree with on religious matters) and frankly he refuses to enter a protestant church and is disgusted by recent changes in the Anglican church (women priests, same sex "marriages etc…), is this similar to the general or official stance of the Orthodox towards Anglicans and other protestants?In fairness it was an issue of authority with Luther as well, he didn’t believe in apostolic succession, and Catholics do.
At any rate, excommunication just means you can’t partake of the sacraments and is a common ecclesiastical punishment (moreso in the East than the West). Anathema is the official break with the Church, and that happened after the schism.
Well first off you’d ignore any proclimations by the Catholic Church on the status of Anglicans, because those don’t figure into our views. Next, listen to what Orthodox say without superimposing the Catholic view on it, that’ll help you in understanding the Orthodox Church.