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

[Anna_Scott]

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?

gurney,

Your man Augustine gave you a new thing to ponder this week, as if you needed more. lol

I thought you had the confession thing sorted out? Regardless of those quotes, I am sticking to Confession. Remember what I wrote to you about my experience with confession? Burdens lifted? Something happened that I could not achieve on my own. Christ did give the disciples the right to forgive sins. Sins would have to be known/confessed before the disciples could forgive through Christ, wouldn’t they?

Anna

 

[Nine_Two]

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?

Interesting quotes.

I know that the the form which confession takes has changed quite a bit, although I don’t know what form it took at the time of St. John Chrysostom or St. Augustine.
At the earliest times it was always done upon ones reception into the church, in front of everyone in the Parish. It would only be repeated if one committed apostacy and wanted to rejoin the Church.

My understanding is that it took on the 1-on-1 aspect with the legalization of the church and the sudden growth it experienced, since the community was no longer bound under duress, people began to join for the wrong reasons and didn’t take such things seriously, and so those confessions would turn into gossip etc.

I’m not sure if it had expanded into a regular thing at the time of St. Augustine and St. John Chrysostom, although I would argue that even a worst case scenario it has a very therapeutic aspect to it, and you might as well confess to someone who is sworn to keep them to himself under pain of losing his job, and more importantly his place in the community.

 

[Anna_Scott]

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.

Sounds like you had quite a journey, yourself. Any advice?

Anna

 

[Nine_Two]

Sounds like you had quite a journey, yourself. Any advice?

Anna

Read lots, particularly the bible, and try to read it as analytically as possible.

I actually wish I’d known about this site when I was searching, talking to others is a big help, something that wasn’t all that open to me.

 

[Anna_Scott]

Read lots, particularly the bible, and try to read it as analytically as possible.

I actually wish I’d known about this site when I was searching, talking to others is a big help, something that wasn’t all that open to me.

NT,

Wise advice. I have trouble with the “analytical” issue. I recently read a book about Lectio Divina and the Benedictines. There is definitely a difference between studying Scripture; and meditating on Scripture–waiting upon the voice of God. I’m working on this.

You’re right. It does help to talk to others along the way. I really don’t know what I would have done without these forums.

Anna

 

[josephdaniel29]

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?

We don’t confess to men, we confess to God in the priest’s presence. In fact the prayers of the priest before confession say that exactly.

“My brother/sister, do not be ashamed to relate to God, before me, all that you came to tell; because you are not telling these things to me but to God, before whom you stand.”

I found a couple of quotes from the Catholic Encyclopedia that may be of interest.

St. Athanasius (d. 373):

“As the man whom the priest baptizes is enlightened by the grace of the Holy Ghost, so does he who in penance confesses his sins, receive through the priest forgiveness in virtue of the grace of Christ” (Frag. contra Novat. in P.G., XXVI, 1315).

St. John Chrysostom (d. 407)

“Not only when they (the priests) regenerate us (baptism), but also after our new birth, they can forgive us our sins” (On the Priesthood III.5 sq.)

St. Cyprian (A.D. 251)

“Let each confess his sin while he is still in this world, while his confession can be received, while satisfaction and the forgiveness granted by the priests is acceptable to God” (The Lapsed c. xxix)

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

LOL…my problem is I have too many books and I’m a nervous reader. I always have to be reading. I’m the opposite of most people! LOL! My dad hates to read. He always says, “why read the book when you can watch the movie?” to which I, even as a young kid, shrugged and told him, “dad, that’s a pretty lousy example you’re settin’ there!” LOL. My mom was never much of a reader either. Kate isn’t a huge reader.

Why me? Heck if I know. It gets me into trouble. I have books from all perspectives, half my trouble. I have a book called “Confess Your Sins” by John Stott. Stott is a brilliant evangelical Anglican pastor. He was the chaplain for the royals for some time. He is considered one of the leading evangelical voices in the world, along with Packer, the other big name vangie Anglican.

Stott is 100% not only recommending against auricular confession but he actually feels it’s harmful, shows an immature level of spirituality, is a total misreading of Scripture, and that it’s dangerous to the soul. He’s really passionate about it. Anyway, he talks about “binding and loosing.” He shares the common Reformation idea, and he pounds it home hard in the book, that binding and loosing sins is NOT through a formal ritual or through auricular confession at all, it’s through the preaching of the Gospel. He says Christ gives it in that context. By preaching the Good News, the truth, the Gospel, the fullness of God’s word, with the acceptance of the Gospel the Church is forgiving sins and through the individual’s refusal to accept the Gospel, refusal to repent, and falling on deaf ears the Church causes one to retain his sins. It is through an open heart, through listening, through growing in faith and wanting the Gospel that sins are shed, through refusal and a prideful, stubbornness that they are retained. It is not through a direct, ritualistic action that these things happen, between a priest and penitent, but rather through the Church at large and the believer in his/her heart. Very interesting.

Whether you believe it or not, it’s fascinating to hear that perspective. Like Luther said, Paul’s words in Scripture are not “do penance” as the Catholic bible had said at that time, but “be penitent.”

As Spock would say, fascinating…

gurney,

Your man Augustine gave you a new thing to ponder this week, as if you needed more. lol

I thought you had the confession thing sorted out? Regardless of those quotes, I am sticking to Confession. Remember what I wrote to you about my experience with confession? Burdens lifted? Something happened that I could not achieve on my own. Christ did give the disciples the right to forgive sins. Sins would have to be known/confessed before the disciples could forgive through Christ, wouldn’t they?

Anna

 

[Anna_Scott]

LOL…my problem is I have too many books and I’m a nervous reader. I always have to be reading. I’m the opposite of most people! LOL! My dad hates to read. He always says, “why read the book when you can watch the movie?” to which I, even as a young kid, shrugged and told him, “dad, that’s a pretty lousy example you’re settin’ there!” LOL. My mom was never much of a reader either. Kate isn’t a huge reader.

Why me? Heck if I know. It gets me into trouble. I have books from all perspectives, half my trouble. I have a book called “Confess Your Sins” by John Stott. Stott is a brilliant evangelical Anglican pastor. He was the chaplain for the royals for some time. He is considered one of the leading evangelical voices in the world, along with Packer, the other big name vangie Anglican.

Stott is 100% not only recommending against auricular confession but he actually feels it’s harmful, shows an immature level of spirituality, is a total misreading of Scripture, and that it’s dangerous to the soul. He’s really passionate about it. Anyway, he talks about “binding and loosing.” He shares the common Reformation idea, and he pounds it home hard in the book, that binding and loosing sins is NOT through a formal ritual or through auricular confession at all, it’s through the preaching of the Gospel. He says Christ gives it in that context. By preaching the Good News, the truth, the Gospel, the fullness of God’s word, with the acceptance of the Gospel the Church is forgiving sins and through the individual’s refusal to accept the Gospel, refusal to repent, and falling on deaf ears the Church causes one to retain his sins. It is through an open heart, through listening, through growing in faith and wanting the Gospel that sins are shed, through refusal and a prideful, stubbornness that they are retained. It is not through a direct, ritualistic action that these things happen, between a priest and penitent, but rather through the Church at large and the believer in his/her heart. Very interesting.

Whether you believe it or not, it’s fascinating to hear that perspective. Like Luther said, Paul’s words in Scripture are not “do penance” as the Catholic bible had said at that time, but “be penitent.”

As Spock would say, fascinating…

gurneyhalleck1,

I think maybe you prefer books, because TV doesn’t always keep up with the speed of your thoughts.

Anna

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I know. I know. I think too much :hypno:
I’m a confession/reconciliation-minded person and I think it’s historically part of the Church. This isn’t an issue for me really but I find the evangelical side fascinating. It’s interesting what they SAY and even more fascinating how they cherry pick quotes and what they DON’T say about it.

gurneyhalleck1,

I think maybe you prefer books, because TV doesn’t always keep up with the speed of your thoughts.

Anna

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Hi Joseph,
Have no fear, I’m a fan and believer in auricular confession. I know it’s an ancient discipline. I just find the evangelical argument interesting. My mind works in weird ways LOL

We don’t confess to men, we confess to God in the priest’s presence. In fact the prayers of the priest before confession say that exactly.

“My brother/sister, do not be ashamed to relate to God, before me, all that you came to tell; because you are not telling these things to me but to God, before whom you stand.”

I found a couple of quotes from the Catholic Encyclopedia that may be of interest.

St. Athanasius (d. 373):

“As the man whom the priest baptizes is enlightened by the grace of the Holy Ghost, so does he who in penance confesses his sins, receive through the priest forgiveness in virtue of the grace of Christ” (Frag. contra Novat. in P.G., XXVI, 1315).

St. John Chrysostom (d. 407)

“Not only when they (the priests) regenerate us (baptism), but also after our new birth, they can forgive us our sins” (On the Priesthood III.5 sq.)

St. Cyprian (A.D. 251)

“Let each confess his sin while he is still in this world, while his confession can be received, while satisfaction and the forgiveness granted by the priests is acceptable to God” (The Lapsed c. xxix)

 

[JohnnyReb]

I can’t speak for Anna, but I have some definite feelings in my heart that cause me to not want to make a total commitment to either Catholicism OR Orthodoxy despite my appreciation for and deep respect for the Orthodox. I happen to think the Orthodox have done a splendid job of preserving their polity, avoiding heresies like the Reformation created, their liturgy hasn’t been watered-down, and their morality/theology is pretty consistent.

My problem, however, is this. For me to be a Catholic (and make no mistake, I’m very close to Catholicism in most of my views, I stress ‘most’) I would have to insist that the Orthodox are in schism and that they are illicitly existing without proper leadership in the papacy. They are sheep without a shepherd theoretically and they lack the fullness of the faith. I don’t buy that.

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’m not sure I like either of those pieces of thinking, with respect to all. I happen to be more Catholic in my thinking on the Atonement, heck, more Protestant even, in my views on that issue, not at all Orthodox. I also share the Catholic/Reformed views on Original Sin. I happen to share the Orthodox views on Church polity, liturgy, their views (negative ones) on indulgences and purgatory, etc. I share their views on being conciliar, the value of Eucharistic ecclesiology, how saints are determined, etc. I like the ‘if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it’ thinking the Orthodox have.

With Mary I’m fine with both. I like the devotion to Mary in the rosary. I like the Catholic devotions like the Stations and Rosary, etc.

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.

But I’m not willing to say Honorius just “failed to teach” and that he wasn’t a heretic. Boloney.

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?

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.

That’s why I have caucused with the Anglicans for a while. I feel that they appreciate both sides and don’t see either as the “true” Church. ** I often wonder if both Orthodoxy and Catholicism are parts of a whole. They are broken and neither has the fullness until they rejoin with the Holy Spirit’s superglue? ** The East is lacking without the Pope, but the West is lacking without the other Patriarchates. They have lost so much in their separation, so much richness. It’s like two divorced parents both claiming they’re the complete parent, the whole puzzle put together, when the pieces are broken.

I digress. This is just how I’ve felt lately. I’m hesitant to give either side FULL credit and jump on board. I could be wrong, very wrong. I’m open to that.

Blessings to all…

Wow, I basically agree, except I would add Transubstantiation to that list as well. I believe in real presence, but I am not dogmatic about “how” it occurs. I have held for awhile that Orthodoxy and Rome are sort of in schism with each other. Of course holding such a position invites criticism from both sides. Each side claims that other is in schism against them, and I suppose both of them are right and wrong to a certain degree.

The Great Schism between east and west is tragic. It is interesting to note that most of the Roman dogmas I have a hard time with were formulated after the Schism-Transubstanition, Purgatory, Indulgences, The Assumption of Mary (don’t necessarily disagree with it, but have a hard time seeing it as necessary for salvation).

The Protestant in me says that all these dogmas obscure the true Gospel, which is the only thing necessary to be believed for salvation. On the other hand, Protestantism in many cases has gone too far, come up with too many innovations themselves, and divorced themselves too greatly from historical Christianity, especially in Evangelican circles. That is what I admire about the Catholic and Orthodox traditions, the preservation of historical Christianity.

Likewise, I cannot embrace a rigid practice of Sola Scriptura, that is what attrachs me to embracing the Anglican triangle or the Wesleyan quadrilateral. I am very sympathetic to Catholic criticism of the praxis of SS. However, I am not sure if Tradition on its own merit can and should be used to establish doctrine. That is where I think I side with the Protestants.

 

[Alexander_Roman]

Yeah you would feel that way. The 39 articles represent a very Protestant influence on Anglicanism. Then there are the priest-who Edwin points out- who says IV Lateran has more authority for him than the 39 articles, and we can see clear evidence of this ambiguity.

Actually, soon to be Blessed John Henry Cardinal Newman did write an analysis of the historical/theological background to the 39 articles and he concluded that they could be held in a “Catholic sense.” In essence, the articles, where they part Catholic company, were a reaction to the authors’ own misconceptions about Catholic theology based on bad local Catholic practice.

Alex

 

[Alexander_Roman]

Dear GurneyHalleck,

Thank you for your thoughtful posts!

As a Catholic (even an Eastern Catholic), you need not consider the Orthodox to be, well, anything bad . . .

There is separation between the Catholic and Orthodox Churches, but Catholics are less likely to use the “S” word than the Orthodox. As an Eastern Catholic, and having done a thorough study of Orthodox theology, I can say however that Orthodoxy and Catholicism can become one tomorrow if they can work out a common theology of the Petrine Primacy in the person of the Pope of Rome. Orthodoxy is not so much “rudderless,” as it believes in a collegial primacy where all the patriarchs and bishops together in an Ecumenical Council can pronounce infallibly.

As for Orthodoxy’s rejection of the West’s great spiritual achievements - in fact, Orthodoxy does not do that. Throughout her history, Orthodoxy has followed and even adopted those achievements from devotions to saints to theological schools (even Thomas Aquinas was referred to as “Blessed Thomas” by a number of Orthodox scholars who developed a personal devotion to him as a result of their study of his writings).

What this means is that the ball is not so much in your court, but in God’s. Faith is the stuff of mystical union with God that is already implanted in us by God Himself.

 

[Nine_Two]

Actually, soon to be Blessed John Henry Cardinal Newman did write an analysis of the historical/theological background to the 39 articles and he concluded that they could be held in a “Catholic sense.” In essence, the articles, where they part Catholic company, were a reaction to the authors’ own misconceptions about Catholic theology based on bad local Catholic practice.

Alex

Seems to me article six mitigates tradition no matter how you interprete it, and article 10-13 flatly contradict a canon of the Council of Trent which declares an anathema on anyone who does not accept that good works help with salvation (Session 6, Canon 24).

The 39 Canons may be rectifiable with modern Catholicism, but they were not compatible with Catholicism at the time.

 

[Anna_Scott]

Seems to me article six mitigates tradition no matter how you interprete it, and article 10-13 flatly contradict a canon of the Council of Trent which declares an anathema on anyone who does not accept that good works help with salvation (Session 6, Canon 24).

The 39 Canons may be rectifiable with modern Catholicism, but they were not compatible with Catholicism at the time.

Nine_Two,

I don’t see all in the Anglican Communion adhering to the 39 Articles, especially those who lean more towards Catholicism.

Anna

 

[Anna_Scott]

. . . .As an Eastern Catholic, and having done a thorough study of Orthodox theology, I can say however that Orthodoxy and Catholicism can become one tomorrow if they can work out a common theology of the Petrine Primacy in the person of the Pope of Rome. Orthodoxy is not so much “rudderless,” as it believes in a collegial primacy where all the patriarchs and bishops together in an Ecumenical Council can pronounce infallibly.

The views regarding the primacy of Peter also affect those of us in the Anglican Communion who are considering Catholicism and Orthodoxy. As we’ve discussed earlier in the thread, Orthodoxy has succeeded in preserving the “ancient” Christian beliefs, without a “universal” primacy. In contrast, the Episcopal Church, and others in the Anglican Communion, have failed miserably.

Anna

 

[Alexander_Roman]

Seems to me article six mitigates tradition no matter how you interprete it, and article 10-13 flatly contradict a canon of the Council of Trent which declares an anathema on anyone who does not accept that good works help with salvation (Session 6, Canon 24).

The 39 Canons may be rectifiable with modern Catholicism, but they were not compatible with Catholicism at the time.

I’m not disagreeing with you! I don’t have Newman’s analysis handy, but he did say that the doctrine of good works that the Anglicans of the day THOUGHT the Catholic church held to was one it did NOT. He gives an outline of what the Anglicans thought was the Catholic teaching, where it fell short of real Catholic teaching and therefore that if the Anglicans writing the 39 articles understood it properly - their theology would have been in agreement.

Alex

 

[Alexander_Roman]

The views regarding the primacy of Peter also affect those of us in the Anglican Communion who are considering Catholicism and Orthodoxy. As we’ve discussed earlier in the thread, Orthodoxy has succeeded in preserving the “ancient” Christian beliefs, without a “universal” primacy. In contrast, the Episcopal Church, and others in the Anglican Communion, have failed miserably.

Anna

Dear Anna,

It is always a blessing to commune with someone so spiritual and engaged in what must be a difficult spiritual struggle! (I feel so beneath you!)

Certainly, Anglo-Catholic writers have suggested a papal primacy of honour much like what Orthodoxy has always been ready to ascribe to the Pope of Rome. Also, the Papacy as the final arbiter in church conflict (i.e. primacy of jurisdiction when needed) is something that Rome exercised during the first millennium when the East and West were united (with tiffs here and there).

I was on a walking tour when I went to an Anglican parish that was the walk’s HQ. As we rested, I picked up the church bulletin there. The letters to the editor were all about the conflicts in the Anglican church then (gay clergy and the like). At least two of the Anglican letter writers said, in effect, “If our bishops can’t solve this problem, we should appeal to the Bishop of Rome. We were united with Rome before and why can’t we be now? The Bishop of Rome would move to resolve a local church matter if our own bishops cannot.” I almost fell off my pew when I read that!

Ultimately, I think that Anglicans tend toward Rome rather than Orthodoxy due to “culture.” Although Orthodoxy has made the Western Rites more than comfortable within its jurisdictions.

All the best to you!

Alex

 

[Anna_Scott]

Dear Anna,

It is always a blessing to commune with someone so spiritual and engaged in what must be a difficult spiritual struggle! (I feel so beneath you!)

pshaw shaw:

Certainly, Anglo-Catholic writers have suggested a papal primacy of honour much like what Orthodoxy has always been ready to ascribe to the Pope of Rome. Also, the Papacy as the final arbiter in church conflict (i.e. primacy of jurisdiction when needed) is something that Rome exercised during the first millennium when the East and West were united (with tiffs here and there).

I understand your position, and have had numerous discussions with Catholics on the issue. While I don’t want the emphasis of this thread to be Catholic vs. Orthdox; I will say that I was surprised to learn that East and West view history very differently, especially when it comes to the “universal primacy” of the Bishop of Rome. Catholics claim the Pope always held this primacy. Some Orthodox claim the East was unaware of this “ecclesiological development” in the West, until it was too late to stop it. See the following quote (Emphasis is mine.):
**
(“The Primacy of Peter, Essays in Ecclesiology and the Early Church,” John Meyendorff, Editor, Chapter 3, St. Peter in Byzantine Theology, John Meyendorff, Page 77)**
"Historians have more than once described the disastrous effect of the Crusades upon the relations between Christians of the East and West. The mutual accusations turned into a real uprising of hatred after the capture of Constantinople by the Westerners in 1204. As is known, Innocent III began by solemnly protesting against the violence of the Crusaders, but finally he decided to profit from the given situation and to act in the same way in which his predecessors had acted in other eastern territories reconquered from the Moslems. He appointed a Latin Patriarch to Constantinople. This action appeared to the whole Christian East not only as a religious sanction of conquest, but as a sort of theological justification of aggression. The election of a Latin Emperor in Byzantium could still be interpreted as being in conformity with the laws of war, but by virtue of what right or custom was the Patriarch of the West appointing his own candidate, the Venetian Thomas Morosini to the See of St. John Chrysostom?

In all the anti-Latin documents of that period we see mention of this so-called “right” of the Pope, a right of which the Eastern Church had no knowledge. All of a sudden the East became more fully aware of an ecclesiological development which had taken place in the West and which it was much too late to stop."

I was on a walking tour when I went to an Anglican parish that was the walk’s HQ. As we rested, I picked up the church bulletin there. The letters to the editor were all about the conflicts in the Anglican church then (gay clergy and the like). At least two of the Anglican letter writers said, in effect, “If our bishops can’t solve this problem, we should appeal to the Bishop of Rome. We were united with Rome before and why can’t we be now? The Bishop of Rome would move to resolve a local church matter if our own bishops cannot.” I almost fell off my pew when I read that!

Yet, not surprising. Indeed, Anglicans are entering the Catholic Church. I may eventually be one of them. Certainly, a final arbitrator is appealing, when so much turmoil is going on within the Anglican Communion–and especially when the very liberal Episcopal Presiding Bishop, Katharine Jefferts Schori, is claiming the “Holy Spirit” is guiding the same-sex agenda. All I can say is, God help us all.

Quote from Episcopal Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori: “the Spirit does seem to be saying to many within the Episcopal Church that gay and lesbian persons are God’s good creation, that an aspect of good creation is the possibility of lifelong, faithful partnership, and that such persons may indeed be good and healthy exemplars of gifted leadership within the Church, as baptized leaders and ordained ones. The Spirit also seems to be saying the same thing in other parts of the Anglican Communion, and among some of our Christian partners, including Lutheran churches in North America and Europe, the Old Catholic churches of Europe, and a number of others.” Link: episcopalchurch.org/79425_122717_ENG_HTM.htm. . .

Ultimately, I think that Anglicans tend toward Rome rather than Orthodoxy due to “culture.” Although Orthodoxy has made the Western Rites more than comfortable within its jurisdictions.

All the best to you!

Alex

Anglicans may be more inclined toward Rome. However, I’m investigating Orthodoxy, as well as Catholicism; and I am not the only one on the forums to consider both.

I appreciate your comments. Hope you are enjoying the forums.

Anna

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Interestingly enough, the ACNA lists the 39 Articles on their website as something they all agree to believe and follow as an Anglican body. They claim to uphold them…

Nine_Two,

I don’t see all in the Anglican Communion adhering to the 39 Articles, especially those who lean more towards Catholicism.

Anna