Orthodox and Anglicans-Compare & Contrast Primacy of Peter/Keys/Rock/Authority

[gurneyhalleck1]

LOL! Well thanks be to God, Cran, that you found your niche, your place. I envy you (I guess envy is a deadly sin, oops! ) in that and wish you so many blessings where you are. I hope it cultivates the holy life for you, your wife, and son. We have one thing in common, both our sons are at a Lutheran school…

Honestly one thing about me that I guess you could label as Protestant is my views on the Atonement. Unless someone can seriously convince me otherwise, I believe in Penal Substitution, a more Calvinist notion. I think it is more precise than the Anselmian view of the Atonement, which is close.

I had a thread about the Atonement that didn’t get much press on here. I was disappointed. It was mostly Anna and I talking on there. The Atonement is KEY IMO. Perhaps I’ll give it a whirl again and start a new, better version of that thread.

I think Penal Subsitution is most Biblical, logical, and true. But, like I’ve said before, I could be wrong. It’s a rare moment that I agree with Senor Calvin on ANYTHING! LOL

]

 

[Anna_Scott]

Maybe you and i just need to hold out for that Anglican Orthodox Catholic Church to start up. Vespers, incense, long beards, the Book of Common Prayer, coffee hour, rosaries, Mary, holy water, pews, levened bread LOL

I think there is a Anglican Orthodox Church:
(Emphasis is mine.)
"The church was founded as a conservative alternative to the Episcopal Church, with apostolic succession being initially preserved through Old Catholic and Eastern Orthodox lines. For more than the first 30 years of its history the Church practiced a very low church variety of Anglicanism, even limiting the celebration of Holy Communion to once a month. Then in 1999 the Presiding Bishop, Robert Godfrey, and the majority of the clergy and laity met in synod. The synod decided to align the Church closer to the liturgical standards of the majority of the Continuing Anglican jurisdictions. [3] Laity close to the founding bishop, and a minority of clergy, opposed the changes, separated, and started a new church[4] adopting the Anglican Orthodox Church name.

On 30 April 2000 Bishop Godfrey retired as Presiding Bishop in favor of his suffragan bishop, Scott Earle McLaughlin. Bishop McLaughlin is the fourth and current Presiding Bishop of the church. In order to match the name of its international communion, in 2005 the jurisdiction changed its name from the Episcopal Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of America to the Orthodox Anglican Church.[5]

Bishop McLaughlin was a signatory to the Bartonville Agreement in 1999 and in 2007 to a Covenant of Intercommunion between the OAC and the Old Catholic Church in Slovakia, represented by the Most Revd Augustin Bacinsky.[6]" (Wikipedia en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orthodox_Anglican_Church)

Does anyone know anything about this Church?

Anna

 

[Cranmer2010]

LOL! Well thanks be to God, Cran, that you found your niche, your place. I envy you (I guess envy is a deadly sin, oops! ) in that and wish you so many blessings where you are. I hope it cultivates the holy life for you, your wife, and son.

We have one thing in common, both our sons are at a Lutheran school…

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I know one thing…it 'taint in my area!

I think there is a Anglican Orthodox Church:
(Emphasis is mine.)
"The church was founded as a conservative alternative to the Episcopal Church, with apostolic succession being initially preserved through Old Catholic and Eastern Orthodox lines. For more than the first 30 years of its history the Church practiced a very low church variety of Anglicanism, even limiting the celebration of Holy Communion to once a month. Then in 1999 the Presiding Bishop, Robert Godfrey, and the majority of the clergy and laity met in synod. The synod decided to align the Church closer to the liturgical standards of the majority of the Continuing Anglican jurisdictions. [3] Laity close to the founding bishop, and a minority of clergy, opposed the changes, separated, and started a new church[4] adopting the Anglican Orthodox Church name.

On 30 April 2000 Bishop Godfrey retired as Presiding Bishop in favor of his suffragan bishop, Scott Earle McLaughlin. Bishop McLaughlin is the fourth and current Presiding Bishop of the church. In order to match the name of its international communion, in 2005 the jurisdiction changed its name from the Episcopal Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of America to the Orthodox Anglican Church.[5]

Bishop McLaughlin was a signatory to the Bartonville Agreement in 1999 and in 2007 to a Covenant of Intercommunion between the OAC and the Old Catholic Church in Slovakia, represented by the Most Revd Augustin Bacinsky.[6]" (Wikipedia en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orthodox_Anglican_Church)

Does anyone know anything about this Church?

Anna

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I think, like I said a while ago, the Atonement is one of the biggies that keeps me from consdiering Orthodoxy to a serious level.

For example, Christus Victor, which the Orthodox basically view as the Atonement in their eyes, says that Christ died on the Cross to overcome death and that the Crucifixion has nothing to do with repayment or substitution but rather an end to The Law. By the Christus Victor angle the condemnation of a perfect man (Christ) is unjust so the Law is overthrown. As the Law is overthrown, so are the forces of evil. And then there’s the theosis angle to it. Jesus became what we are so we can become like Him.

My concern is HOW did Jesus overcome death? That’s inadequate IMO. He overcame death by satisfying the terms of the Law. What are those terms? The terms are death, according to Paul, to anyone who cannot satisfy ALL of the requirements of the Law. According to Paul, to break even the least of the Law is to break the ENTIRE law. So Christ came, perfect, suffered in our place. If He doesn’t suffer in our place (substitutionary) then how does it apply to us? Just having a just man die doesn’t end the Law IMO? Having a just man die IN OUR PLACE would end the Law’s demands against us lowly humans. Just having a perfect man die period would only apply to Christ. He’s not just an archetype, He is dying in our stead. The Scriptures point to this. I can’t see how the Law would end with its legal claims against us just by a perfect man dying. From what I’ve read, Christus Victor supposes that the claims against us are dropped because the Law itself becomes unjust killing a perfect man. That seems too out there for me. So to make the Law into hypocrisy is what ends it?

Death is not just the focus of the Crucifixion, sin is. Sin is death. They’re intertwined. I have felt that sin must be squashed first to open the doors of life. Sin must be atoned for. We see atonement in the Scriptures of the OT long before this leading up to a prefigurement of it. Isaiah has sacrificial atonement language showing the suffering servant bearing our sins, our pains, our stripes, our punishment. So I think the end of death is the endgame but the means is penal substitution.

This is a definite piece of me that is Protestant in my thinking or Catholic. Both can incorporate this view I believe. But Orthodoxy is different.

 

[Anna_Scott]

I know one thing…it 'taint in my area!

Well, you are in California. . . .

I didn’t know this Church existed. I Googled your Church suggestion of “Anglican Orthodox Catholic Church” and the Anglican Orthodox Church came up.

Makes me think of “Seinfeld” when George decided to convert to “Latvian Orthodox” because of his girlfriend.

The Latvian Bishop asked George if there was one aspect of the faith that he found particularly attractive? George said, “I think the hats. The hat conveys that solemn religious look you want in a faith. Very pious.”

But that’s not the funniest part. On the Seinfeld DVD, they said they tried to make up a name of a religion and came up with Latvian Orthodox. The writers didn’t know Latvian Orthodox was the name of a real Church. And–after the show aired, they got letters from the real Latvian Orthodox Church saying they appreciated the publicity.

Anna

 

[Nine_Two]

I’m going to pick and choose a few of the things you said and comment on them, forgive me if I accidently delete something you see as contextual, thus taking something out of context.

If I am to be Orthodox I have to disregard to HUGE accomplishments of Catholicism in Western Europe and in the New World. I have to see them as schismatics who have a perverted view of leadership with a pseudo-dictator who views himself supreme and universal over all the rest. I’d have to throw out a lot of Augustinian thinking, the Atonement views of Augustine and Ambrose and the gang, and I’d have to have a position that the Catholics are most likely not even validly consecrating the Eucharist OR/AND might not even be validly baptized! I’d have to look at the Catholics as incomplete and outside the True Church.

I don’t think you have to disregard the accomplishments of Catholics, although you would have to accept the view that Catholics don’t have the entire truth (which it sounds like you already believe… you just also believe that Orthodox are in the same boat. ). While I, unfortunatly like many Orthodox, haven’t spent significant time studying St. Augustine, I think you are quite right that much of his teachings are at odds with the way Orthodoxy has developed.
While I once would have agreed that you’d have to accept that Catholics are most likely not validly performing the sacrements, my opinion was changed by an incredibly biased book published by the MP a few centuries ago which made the comment, and provided sources that time and again when the Church has commissioned groups to look into Catholic baptism they’ve consistantly found that they should be considered valid. This usually lasts for a bit until relations between the churches sour and become acrimonious.
Although the Church has never pronounced on the validity of any other sacriment, Baptism seems to be the big one. Given the reaction of the Church to certain other heresies I’d go so far as to say that any Baptism done under the trinitarian formula, regardless of intent, is valid. But then I’m not a theologean.

I like the ‘if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it’ thinking the Orthodox have.

Only if applied carefully. I know many Orthodox take that line of thought overboard and use it as an excuse not to improve elements of parish life. Of course that’s not what you meant, but in my experience the mindset does lead some there.

I am more fascinated with Western history than eastern any day of the week so I have a touch of bias toward Catholicism, a Tolkien mentality I guess.

I’d agree that Western History is more interesting, precisely because more is going on. The East is defined by large polities limited in number, the West had more states than can be easily counted. But at the same time I don’t think this translates to a theological level.

I am having severe difficulty buying infallibility, purgatory, Indulgences (!!!), the treasury of merit, etc. I’m fine with Marian dogmas but don’t see why they’re ‘essential’ for salvation?

Oddly it is the last of those you list (Marian dogmas) that stopped me from looking further into the Catholic Church then I did. I accept a good number of the Marian dogmas myself, but I disagree on the idea of them as dogma. Whether or not I believe Mary was assumed into heaven, or died and decomposed like the rest of us shall, just doesn’t seem to be something that God will bring up at the time of Judgement.

So, like I think Anna is feeling, I adore elements of both sides but (just speaking for myself) have trouble with the anti-Catholic sentiments that the Orthodox are often prone to (not saying our Orthodox brothers on this thread like Nine, Harpazo, etc.!, very charitable men indeed), the idea that one or the other is invalid, etc.

I agree, there is certainly an historic tendency to anti-Catholicism, and some of that is ingrained in local traditions. At the same time I think it is something brought on more by individuals than the Church.

Blessings to all…

I pray Christ continues to sustain you on your journey.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Kate and I are big Seinfeld fans. We just watched the entire series over about a two month period on DVD. We’d watch 2-3 episodes per night after putting the kids to bed. That “Latvian Orthodox” episode just killed me.

My favorite part was George trying to “cheat” and Kramer having “the Kavorca!”

Then the chick George converted for leaves to another country!

I think my favorite episode was when George went to that faith healer and got turned into a purple egg plant. That guy says, “you use warm water in the shower, don’t you?” George says, “yeah.” The healer says, “stop doing that.” And George says, “just a little bit?” The guy says, “none!” LOL They put that triangle pyramid thing on George’s head.

George in the limousine posing as a racist leader who authored “The Game” was hilarious so was the one with Kramer seeing “pig people” in the hospital LOL

Well, you are in California. . . .

I didn’t know this Church existed. I Googled your Church suggestion of “Anglican Orthodox Catholic Church” and the Anglican Orthodox Church came up.

Makes me think of “Seinfeld” when George decided to convert to “Latvian Orthodox” because of his girlfriend.

The Latvian Bishop asked George if there was one aspect of the faith that he found particularly attractive? George said, “I think the hats. The hat conveys that solemn religious look you want in a faith. Very pious.”

But that’s not the funniest part. On the Seinfeld DVD, they said they tried to make up a name of a religion and came up with Latvian Orthodox. The writers didn’t know Latvian Orthodox was the name or a real Church. And–after the show aired, they got a letters from the real Latvian Orthodox Church saying they appreciated the publicity.

Anna

 

[Anna_Scott]

Kate and I are big Seinfeld fans. We just watched the entire series over about a two month period on DVD. We’d watch 2-3 episodes per night after putting the kids to bed. That “Latvian Orthodox” episode just killed me.

My favorite part was George trying to “cheat” and Kramer having “the Kavorca!”

Then the chick George converted for leaves to another country!

I think my favorite episode was when George went to that faith healer and got turned into a purple egg plant. That guy says, “you use warm water in the shower, don’t you?” George says, “yeah.” The healer says, “stop doing that.” And George says, “just a little bit?” The guy says, “none!” LOL They put that triangle pyramid thing on George’s head.

George in the limousine posing as a racist leader who authored “The Game” was hilarious so was the one with Kramer seeing “pig people” in the hospital LOL

I know. I’m hopelessly addicted to “Seinfeld.” My sister laughs at me, because I say there is a “Seinfeld” episode for just about every situation in life. Even on an Orthodox religious thread. I rest my case.

Anna

 

[Anna_Scott]

I’m going to pick and choose a few of the things you said and comment on them, forgive me if I accidently delete something you see as contextual, thus taking something out of context.

I don’t think you have to disregard the accomplishments of Catholics, although you would have to accept the view that Catholics don’t have the entire truth (which it sounds like you already believe… you just also believe that Orthodox are in the same boat. ). While I, unfortunatly like many Orthodox, haven’t spent significant time studying St. Augustine, I think you are quite right that much of his teachings are at odds with the way Orthodoxy has developed.

While I once would have agreed that you’d have to accept that Catholics are most likely not validly performing the sacrements, my opinion was changed by an incredibly biased book published by the MP a few centuries ago which made the comment, and provided sources that time and again when the Church has commissioned groups to look into Catholic baptism they’ve consistantly found that they should be considered valid. This usually lasts for a bit until relations between the churches sour and become acrimonious.
Although the Church has never pronounced on the validity of any other sacriment, Baptism seems to be the big one. Given the reaction of the Church to certain other heresies I’d go so far as to say that any Baptism done under the trinitarian formula, regardless of intent, is valid. But then I’m not a theologean.

Only if applied carefully. I know many Orthodox take that line of thought overboard and use it as an excuse not to improve elements of parish life. Of course that’s not what you meant, but in my experience the mindset does lead some there.

I’d agree that Western History is more interesting, precisely because more is going on. The East is defined by large polities limited in number, the West had more states than can be easily counted. But at the same time I don’t think this translates to a theological level.

Oddly it is the last of those you list (Marian dogmas) that stopped me from looking further into the Catholic Church then I did. I accept a good number of the Marian dogmas myself, but I disagree on the idea of them as dogma. Whether or not I believe Mary was assumed into heaven, or died and decomposed like the rest of us shall, just doesn’t seem to be something that God will bring up at the time of Judgement.
I agree, there is certainly an historic tendency to anti-Catholicism, and some of that is ingrained in local traditions. At the same time I think it is something brought on more by individuals than the Church.

I pray Christ continues to sustain you on your journey.

Very interesting post.

Thanks so much,
Anna

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Many thanks for your thoughts, Nine. As always, your posts are a pleasure to read. And it’s so nice to have folks like you, Hesychios, Harpazo, etc. NOT taking things as a slam. I notice most of my Orthodox friends in here, when a seeker questions something about Orthodoxy, they never dig in their claws in attack mode. That, my brother, is a powerful witness. I have recently, and you can ask Anna about this, been verbally smacked down and ripped apart like a burglar in a junk yard by pitbulls by Catholics on a thread I started. You yourself were there a bit. I couldn’t believe the instant instinct to just jump, denegrate, and immediately suspect the seeker and try to lacerate the questioner’s reputation rather than help answer the seeker’s questions?

Orthodox seem to have a level head and a desire to guide and answer questions without impassioned fanatic pleas. I like that. There’s no sales pitch, just good analysis.

And regarding the “if it ain’t broke don’t fix it” part, I didn’t mean that the Orthodox are completely apathetic or never concern themselves with any change at all, I just meant that they don’t feel the need to build new devotions, new doctrines, tinker with the liturgy, and all that stuff all the time. they only deal with real problems when they become a problem and innovation is kept at a minimum unless totally necessary. I like that.

I think the Orthodox garb looks pretty goofy though. The priest’s outfits are pretty dang odd. The head dress looks like a fez And the beards, yeesh. Not feelin’ that aspect too much Never was a ZZ Top fan

I’m going to pick and choose a few of the things you said and comment on them, forgive me if I accidently delete something you see as contextual, thus taking something out of context.

I don’t think you have to disregard the accomplishments of Catholics, although you would have to accept the view that Catholics don’t have the entire truth (which it sounds like you already believe… you just also believe that Orthodox are in the same boat. ). While I, unfortunatly like many Orthodox, haven’t spent significant time studying St. Augustine, I think you are quite right that much of his teachings are at odds with the way Orthodoxy has developed.
While I once would have agreed that you’d have to accept that Catholics are most likely not validly performing the sacrements, my opinion was changed by an incredibly biased book published by the MP a few centuries ago which made the comment, and provided sources that time and again when the Church has commissioned groups to look into Catholic baptism they’ve consistantly found that they should be considered valid. This usually lasts for a bit until relations between the churches sour and become acrimonious.
Although the Church has never pronounced on the validity of any other sacriment, Baptism seems to be the big one. Given the reaction of the Church to certain other heresies I’d go so far as to say that any Baptism done under the trinitarian formula, regardless of intent, is valid. But then I’m not a theologean.

Only if applied carefully. I know many Orthodox take that line of thought overboard and use it as an excuse not to improve elements of parish life. Of course that’s not what you meant, but in my experience the mindset does lead some there.

I’d agree that Western History is more interesting, precisely because more is going on. The East is defined by large polities limited in number, the West had more states than can be easily counted. But at the same time I don’t think this translates to a theological level.

Oddly it is the last of those you list (Marian dogmas) that stopped me from looking further into the Catholic Church then I did. I accept a good number of the Marian dogmas myself, but I disagree on the idea of them as dogma. Whether or not I believe Mary was assumed into heaven, or died and decomposed like the rest of us shall, just doesn’t seem to be something that God will bring up at the time of Judgement.
I agree, there is certainly an historic tendency to anti-Catholicism, and some of that is ingrained in local traditions. At the same time I think it is something brought on more by individuals than the Church.

I pray Christ continues to sustain you on your journey.

 

[josephdaniel29]

Orthodox also view Anglicanism as having a heavy TAINT of Calvinism in its theology and praxis. Think about the 39 Articles and at times you’ll feel like you’re in Geneva circa 1600 LOL…then there’s the filioque, always a favorite of the Orthodox

If you haven’t heard Met Jonah’s address to the ACNA Assembly it is quite interesting. Here is a link. Just scroll over to his address

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

You know what, joseph? I did hear it, twice all the way through. I heard it when it first was given, then a month later or so I listened to it all the way through again. Great speech. The Anglicans, namely the more evangelical and women’s ordination crowd needed to hear it badly. I personally had no problem with his requirements: drop the filioque, drop the Calvinist undertones and theology in evangelical circles, eliminate W.O. completely.

Sounds good…

The only thing I found humorous was that he was basically telling them to become Orthodox LOL…they might as well convert!

In all honesty I think his great speech fell on deaf ears largely. My rector at St. Paul’s Anglican parish laughed at it and said, “yeah, right.” And I spoke with a couple of bishops who turned to each other and rolled their eyes when he was listing the requirements. My bishop, John-David Schofield, lived in an Orthodox monastery for a few years and got to know Jonah there. They remain great friends. Schofield thinks a merger is a serious possibility but I haven’t heard any other bishops that think so.

If you haven’t heard Met Jonah’s address to the ACNA Assembly it is quite interesting. Here is a link. Just scroll over to his address

 

[josephdaniel29]

Nine_Two,

How much variation is there in Orthodox theology? Doesn’t seem to be all that much—Which leads me to my next question: Why do you think Orthodoxy has been able to hold on to “orthodox thought” without a universal primacy?

Anna

We are inculcated from either birth or at the time of our conversion with the idea that we are personally responsible for passing on the faith precisely as we have received it, whole and unchanged. The bishops don’t look at their job so much as defining the faith but rather as taking the baton he received from his predecessor and passing it on to his successor.

We maintain the faith because the Church is not beholden to the whims of men, either an individual (in the case of the pope) or a group (in the case of a council).

From the 1848 Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs

First, because those things that are ours were once venerable to the Westerns, as having the same divine Offices and confessing the same Creed; but the novelties were not known to our Fathers, nor could they be shown in the writings of the orthodox Western Fathers, nor as having their origin either in antiquity or catholicity. Moreover, neither Patriarchs nor Councils could then have introduced novelties amongst us, because the protector of religion is the very body of the Church, even the people themselves, who desire their religious worship to be ever unchanged and of the same kind as that of their fathers

We as laity take our responsibility with the utmost seriousness. As to why the Anglican Church has gone the way it has I don’t know.

Yours in Christ
Joe

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Honestly I wish I could find good video of an Orthodox liturgy online. I go to Youtube but they’re pretty lousy videos, shakey and hard to hear, only bits and pieces, etc.

There is a Coptic Orthodox church in my town but it’s ALL middle-easterners who are parishoners. I’d feel like a fish out of water to enter that place! Then there is a Serbian Orthodox parish in Fresno, one hour away north, and a Greek Orthodox also in Fresno, again an hour drive.

Is it true that most Orthodox liturgies last about an hour and a half?

 

[josephdaniel29]

Honestly I wish I could find good video of an Orthodox liturgy online. I go to Youtube but they’re pretty lousy videos, shakey and hard to hear, only bits and pieces, etc.

There is a Coptic Orthodox church in my town but it’s ALL middle-easterners who are parishoners. I’d feel like a fish out of water to enter that place! Then there is a Serbian Orthodox parish in Fresno, one hour away north, and a Greek Orthodox also in Fresno, again an hour drive.

Is it true that most Orthodox liturgies last about an hour and a half?

It can vary greatly. If you are talking about Eastern Orthodox the regular Sun liturgy lasts between about an hour and a half to upwards of three hours depending on the parish. Russian Old Rite liturgies can last considerably longer than that because they don’t abbreviate anything.

 

[Nine_Two]

Honestly I wish I could find good video of an Orthodox liturgy online. I go to Youtube but they’re pretty lousy videos, shakey and hard to hear, only bits and pieces, etc.

There is a Coptic Orthodox church in my town but it’s ALL middle-easterners who are parishoners. I’d feel like a fish out of water to enter that place! Then there is a Serbian Orthodox parish in Fresno, one hour away north, and a Greek Orthodox also in Fresno, again an hour drive.

Is it true that most Orthodox liturgies last about an hour and a half?

Coptic services, as I understand it are longer than the Orthodox services if that’s a concern, no idea how long they are.

Orthodox services in my experience are generally about an hour and a half, although that can vary, especially when you take into account Communion and the Sermon. Some priests like long sermons, some like short and sweet, and because Communion has to be distributed by either a priest or a deacon, it depends on who is on hand, there is no way to speed it up if you just have one priest and no deacons for a large parish, which can happen.

 

[Anna_Scott]

We are inculcated from either birth or at the time of our conversion with the idea that we are personally responsible for passing on the faith precisely as we have received it, whole and unchanged. The bishops don’t look at their job so much as defining the faith but rather as taking the baton he received from his predecessor and passing it on to his successor.

We maintain the faith because the Church is not beholden to the whims of men, either an individual (in the case of the pope) or a group (in the case of a council).

From the 1848 Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs

First, because those things that are ours were once venerable to the Westerns, as having the same divine Offices and confessing the same Creed; but the novelties were not known to our Fathers, nor could they be shown in the writings of the orthodox Western Fathers, nor as having their origin either in antiquity or catholicity. Moreover, neither Patriarchs nor Councils could then have introduced novelties amongst us, because the protector of religion is the very body of the Church, even the people themselves, who desire their religious worship to be ever unchanged and of the same kind as that of their fathers

We as laity take our responsibility with the utmost seriousness. As to why the Anglican Church has gone the way it has I don’t know.

Yours in Christ
Joe

Joe,

I really appreciate your comments and the quote from the 1848 Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs. I am so impressed by all the comments from Orthodox forum members, and the genuine desire to help----and in such a respectful way. Can’t emphasize that enough.

I know that some people find their place within Christianity very easily. For others, like myself, it seems to be a rough road. Through prayerful study of Scripture and history, false doctrines of the Baptist Church were exposed; and I knew I had to leave the church of my upbringing–which led to the common Protestant problem of “where do I go?” There are so many Protestant denominations. Honestly, I think nondenominational Churches are popular, because people don’t know where to go–which gives new meaning to the idea of “lost sheep.”

For awhile, in my CAF posts, I wrote that I felt like I was drowning in a sea of Protestant voices—all claiming the truth revealed to them through the Holy Spirit. Since, many doctrines are polar opposites; clearly not everyone is hearing the Holy Spirit. Which means some are bearing false witness against God, Himself. Scary thought.

I starting attending a conservative Episcopal Church. Big step for this former Baptist. There, I first discovered the liturgy (“high church”) and finally understood Baptism and the Eucharist as Sacraments, and embraced the “Real Presence.” I began to understand infant Baptism, and many other things that were part of the early Church. I have been working through the issues on these forums along the way. Those who know me, like gurney, have heard all this before (gurney, please forgive the repetition.)

So, here I am trying to understand where to go from here. I keep praying and studying, and my decision varies depending on the day. One day I think I have this figured out; the next day I am back a “square one.”

So, I guess this is the long way of saying, when one is on a rough journey, it’s nice to find those along the way who offer nourishment to a weary traveler. There is certainly nourishment offered and received on this thread.

Anna

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

It’s amazing how, just when you feel comfortable with something, you read and study and question again.

I’ve been a big believer in confession/reconciliation all my life. But recently, just by chance amidst my reading (which is admitedly too much!) I read Augustine’s tenth chapter in “Confessions:”

***What then have I to do with men, that they should hear my confessions - as if they could heal all my infirmities - a race, curious to know the lives of others, slothful to amend their own? Why seek they to hear from me what I am; who will not hear from Thee what themselves are? And how know they, when from myself they hear of myself, whether I say true; seeing no man knows what is in man, but the spirit of man which is in him? ***

And then I was reading St. John Chrysostom. In a homily on Psalm 50 he says this:
"We do not request you to go to confess your sins to any of your fellow-men, but only to God!

And so I got curious. I tried to find somewhere, anywhere where I could find auricular confession in the Church in the first 500 years. So far either I’m one lousy searcher or there just isn’t any examples of it at all?

 

[Nine_Two]

Anna, God will provide.

Between being Protestant and going Orthodox I largely gave up every aspect of Christianity, I think what you are doing is much healthier in that respect.