M
Madaglan
Guest
The Primacy of Peter, ed. Fr. John Meyendorff, also contains several good essays on Eucharistic Ecclesiology.
Orthodox and Anglicans-Compare & Contrast Primacy of Peter/Keys/Rock/Authority
- Status
H
Hesychios
Guest
Quite so!
It was the church of the city of Rome which first and foremost had the respect of the wider communion in the early years, and for good reasons.
A
Anna_Scott
Guest
Joe,
Very interesting points.
Even when I was still in the Baptist Church, I held Pope John Paul II in high regard (though most of my Baptist brethren never mentioned him.) I do think the power of the Holy Spirit was definitely revealed in the life this Pope. He is one of the great figures in Christian history, and accomplished so much good in the world.
Very insightful post.
Joe,
Thanks so much for the book recommendation. That might be an excellent book to follow the “Primacy of Peter,” which I just read and which is the inspiration for this thread.
Anna
A
Anna_Scott
Guest
This is very similar to the teachings of our Rector (conservative Episcopal Church). He said that priests don’t administer the Sacraments, because they have a position of authority in the Church: rather, they have a position of authority, because they administer the Sacraments. He went on to say that the presbyter’s authority is a fulfillment of the Sacramental life with which he has been entrusted. He did make a point to say that “the laying on of hands” is central to the apostolic succession of all three “catholic” communions: the Eastern Orthodox, the Roman Catholic, and the Anglican Churches.
Do you see any conflicts here with Orthodox beliefs?
Didn’t Cardinal Kasper write a book on the Church and the Eucharist. Can’t remember the title. Will Google it. It is interesting that he is leaning toward Eucharistic Ecclesiology.
Thanks,
Anna
A
Anna_Scott
Guest
Hesychios,
I’m so glad you commented on this thread. I hope to hear more from you.
Anna
G
gurneyhalleck1
Guest
John Paul II was the main magnet that sucked me back into Catholicism circa 2000-2002. He was my pope all my life. Since I could remember he was pope and when I became old enough to appreciate his WWII experiences, his bravery as cardinal in Poland under communist rule, his amazing papacy and assassination attempt/forgiving his assassin, the bravery against communism in the 80’s with Reagan, his desire to reach out to Protestants and Orthodox and non-Christians/Jews, his kindness, his warmth, his wide-travels and ultimately his just utterly GENUINE nature, the man seemed like something dropped out of heaven for us to savor.
I can’t say that Benedict has come within a parsec of JP2. Cardinal Wojtiwa will always be the pope of my heart. So much love brewing in one man, like a volcano of holiness. God I miss him sometimes.
I have gotten in the mood to see him so many times. So what I do is Kate and I watch the John Voigt mini series where he portrayed JP2. I thought it was so well done. Always, always gets me teared up and sentimental about him. On loan from God.
My parents went to the Vatican 6 months before the pope died. They got blessed from him at his address. They’re so fortunate.
I can’t say that Benedict has come within a parsec of JP2. Cardinal Wojtiwa will always be the pope of my heart. So much love brewing in one man, like a volcano of holiness. God I miss him sometimes.
I have gotten in the mood to see him so many times. So what I do is Kate and I watch the John Voigt mini series where he portrayed JP2. I thought it was so well done. Always, always gets me teared up and sentimental about him. On loan from God.
My parents went to the Vatican 6 months before the pope died. They got blessed from him at his address. They’re so fortunate.
A
Anna_Scott
Guest
gurney,
I know. The accomplishments of Pope John Paul II are really quite remarkable. I think most Anglicans and Orthodox hold him in high esteem. Though, personally, I do not see every Pope in the same way.
I also saw the movie with John Voight. It got to me ,too. :bighanky:
Anna
G
gurneyhalleck1
Guest
One thing that I don’t think people who are on the opposing side of the papal infallibility debate talk about enough is how many times the popes have been RIGHT. They have been wrong so seldom that it’s truly truly impressive if we take it into account. Honorius is the main poster boy for a failure of a pope but otherwise with some bad judgments politically and socially as well as privately, most Popes have been the leading champions against heresy and immorality.
T
Timothy17
Guest
17 And Jesus answered him, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven.
Quite simply, this is what Catholics mean by papal infallibility.
Reference other OT passages speaking of the gates of Jerusalem, of the Holy Hill, Mt. Zion, and the Holy City, which, naturally, is the counter-image to the gates of hell. By comparison and contrast you can gleam the significance and scriptural context of this statement.
There is a passage from Isaiah that foreshadows this event. I believe the Faith section of this website has tracts in regards to Peter that show this plainly.
Pax,
Tim
A
Anna_Scott
Guest
gurney,
This is probably one of many reasons, Anglicans and Orthodox hold the Bishop of Rome in high regard.
*Edited to Add: * However, I am much more inclined toward Eucharistic Ecclesiology. I appreciate Madaglan’s post in this regard:
I can’t imagine that God would not hear the Eucharistic Prayers of an Anglican Priest.
Anna
Edited to Add P.S.*** I realized after posting, that this sounds a bit argumentative and it is not intended to be. My thoughts just went from Papal authority to Eucharistic Ecclesiology. I think I need to call it a night. “A Night.”
A
Anna_Scott
Guest
Hello, Timothy17. Hope things are going well in Canada. I’ve visited nearly every Province (though none of your three territories.) Beautiful country and great people.
Appreciate your post; but how does this compare and contrast the Anglican and Orthodox views of the Primacy of Peter/Keys/Rock/Authority?
Anna
S
Soldier_X
Guest
In my experiences with AMiA and TEC churches (of several flavors), I have always found that the priests hold the Pope in high regard due to his office. Differences and disagreements with his positions aside, there is an interesting situation at play. Clearly, many American Anglicans want a more Orthodox-style polity. Among the more traditional and conservative types, there can be an emphasis on local “orthodoxy” that makes one right even if the national leadership is wrong. That’s where I have stood for the last several years (not that I am anything; just making my position known. 
). Meanwhile, the ACNA situation leans toward a more Catholic model in that the whole universal body must be pure, not just the local body. So in the former case (Conservative Episcopalians), we hope and pray for a good diocesan bishop. In the ACNA/AMiA case, they cannot be yoked with those who lead the Church into grave scandal and apostasy.
So again, we find many different streams of Anglican thought here. But in both cases, I have witnessed a yearning for a leader of more strength and character than TEC’s Presiding Bishop. There’s a timelessness about the Papacy that is appealing - perhaps not to the Radical Revisionists, but to many of us. And there’s certainly an understanding that Rome really did go into all the world and preach the Gospel; this leads to a certain respect for the guy whose worldwide Communion is older and greater than our own.
So, while I don’t pretend to be an expert on the plethora of Anglican views in this matter, I think there’s a deep yearning for something like the Pope - for someone who can actually lead in Christ’s name. Even if some of us are more like the Orthodox in our local emphases than others might happen to be, I think that we ultimately see Peter as the Rock (though some see his confession). We see keys given to bishops, but specially to him. And we recognize that without his authority, we would have none. Though we are not under his direct successor’s authority (which points again to a more Orthodox understanding), we acknowledge it. My church even prays for the Bishop of Rome from time to time. Deep down, we know that we ought to do so.
). Meanwhile, the ACNA situation leans toward a more Catholic model in that the whole universal body must be pure, not just the local body. So in the former case (Conservative Episcopalians), we hope and pray for a good diocesan bishop. In the ACNA/AMiA case, they cannot be yoked with those who lead the Church into grave scandal and apostasy.So again, we find many different streams of Anglican thought here. But in both cases, I have witnessed a yearning for a leader of more strength and character than TEC’s Presiding Bishop. There’s a timelessness about the Papacy that is appealing - perhaps not to the Radical Revisionists, but to many of us. And there’s certainly an understanding that Rome really did go into all the world and preach the Gospel; this leads to a certain respect for the guy whose worldwide Communion is older and greater than our own.
So, while I don’t pretend to be an expert on the plethora of Anglican views in this matter, I think there’s a deep yearning for something like the Pope - for someone who can actually lead in Christ’s name. Even if some of us are more like the Orthodox in our local emphases than others might happen to be, I think that we ultimately see Peter as the Rock (though some see his confession). We see keys given to bishops, but specially to him. And we recognize that without his authority, we would have none. Though we are not under his direct successor’s authority (which points again to a more Orthodox understanding), we acknowledge it. My church even prays for the Bishop of Rome from time to time. Deep down, we know that we ought to do so.
C
Cranmer2010
Guest
I’m not so optimistic. I think that there were many popes in the middle ages who not only were wrong, but were in such contrast to who Christ is and what he wants for his people that it did irreprehensible damage to the Catholic church. However, I do share your high opion of JP2. He was truly a uniter.
G
gurneyhalleck1
Guest
Hey Cranmer! Nice to see a post of yours. Haven’t seen you for days, man!
I hear you. The medievel popes often times were horrendous, but many were outstanding. Pope Leo X’s theology and attitude definitely helped Martin Luther’s cause and was a part of the spark that ignited the Reformation.
Pope John XII was pretty disgraceful. The guy was a sex maniac, a murderer, and was killed by a jealous husband catching him in the sack with his wife. Classy character
Pope Boniface VIII was an interesting dude. Dante had a field day making fun of the guy.
Leo X was a money-blowing, very corrupt individual.
Pope Stephen VI had a previous pope’s body exhumed, tried, and de-fingered. Ya gotta wonder about a dude like that LOL
I hear you. The medievel popes often times were horrendous, but many were outstanding. Pope Leo X’s theology and attitude definitely helped Martin Luther’s cause and was a part of the spark that ignited the Reformation.
Pope John XII was pretty disgraceful. The guy was a sex maniac, a murderer, and was killed by a jealous husband catching him in the sack with his wife. Classy character
Pope Boniface VIII was an interesting dude. Dante had a field day making fun of the guy.
Leo X was a money-blowing, very corrupt individual.
Pope Stephen VI had a previous pope’s body exhumed, tried, and de-fingered. Ya gotta wonder about a dude like that LOL
A
Anna_Scott
Guest
Soldier X,In my experiences with AMiA and TEC churches (of several flavors), I have always found that the priests hold the Pope in high regard due to his office. Differences and disagreements with his positions aside, there is an interesting situation at play. Clearly, many American Anglicans want a more Orthodox-style polity. Among the more traditional and conservative types, there can be an emphasis on local “orthodoxy” that makes one right even if the national leadership is wrong. That’s where I have stood for the last several years (not that I am anything; just making my position known.
So again, we find many different streams of Anglican thought here. But in both cases, I have witnessed a yearning for a leader of more strength and character than TEC’s Presiding Bishop. There’s a timelessness about the Papacy that is appealing - perhaps not to the Radical Revisionists, but to many of us. And there’s certainly an understanding that Rome really did go into all the world and preach the Gospel; this leads to a certain respect for the guy whose worldwide Communion is older and greater than our own.
So, while I don’t pretend to be an expert on the plethora of Anglican views in this matter, I think there’s a deep yearning for something like the Pope - for someone who can actually lead in Christ’s name. Even if some of us are more like the Orthodox in our local emphases than others might happen to be, I think that we ultimately see Peter as the Rock (though some see his confession). We see keys given to bishops, but specially to him. And we recognize that without his authority, we would have none. Though we are not under his direct successor’s authority (which points again to a more Orthodox understanding), we acknowledge it. My church even prays for the Bishop of Rome from time to time. Deep down, we know that we ought to do so.
I can see how Anglicans may want a more Orthodox-style polity; but will it work? At this point in history, I think the Orthodox have done a far better job, than the Anglican Communion, in maintaining “orthodox” Christianity, without submitting to a universal type of primacy.
I just can’t see how the Orthodox approach to ecclesiology is going to work for those in such sharp disagreement, even within TEC. Those who are leaving TEC and moving in directions such as AMiA, really don’t want to be identified with TEC, period.
Indeed, many hope and pray for a different kind of leader in TEC; but I don’t see that happening anytime soon. Sadly, I think the battles are just getting started. The big question is, can those with so many different views remain in “communion” with one another? For many, the answer is emphatically “no,” clearly demonstrated by those making a clean break with TEC.
There are two Anglican Churches in my area that broke from TEC. One is a member of the Diocese of the Holy Cross and a registered/affiliated parish of Forward in Faith (United Kingdom and North America). Their website says they “prayerfully separated themselves from the Episcopal Church and its departure from Biblical, Liturgical and Moral standards.”
The other Anglican Church that broke from TEC, is aligned with AMiA – Anglican Mission in the Americas – a North American missionary movement in North America under the Province of Rwanda. They broke ties with TEC for similar reasons.
Episcopalians have been removed from Anglican Communion’s ecumenical dialogues (announced June 7, 2010.) Link: episcopalchurch.org/79425_122717_ENG_HTM.htm. Also, the Archbishop of Canterbury proposed stripping any decision-making powers from Episcopalians in the Inter-Anglican Standing Commission on Unity, Faith and Order.
I agree, there is a timelessness about the Papacy; and no doubt, many Anglicans may convert to Catholicism. This is already happening. Some are moving in the Orthodox direction and some the Lutheran direction–though Lutherans have their own liberal wing–plenty of problems there as well.
There are a number of us (in the Anglican Communion) here at CAF, who are considering both Catholicism and Orthodoxy. With things looking so bad in TEC, it’s tempting to bolt through the doors of Catholic Cathedrals. I get those impulses often. My life would certainly be easier; but as a good friend pointed out, running from something is not a reason to convert to Catholicism. I agree. So, for the moment, I am resisting the urge to “bolt” and am prayerfully considering both Catholicism, and Orthodoxy.
Any Orthodox comments on these issues? What kind of ecclesiology do you think would work in the troubled waters of the Anglican Communion?
Anna
H
Harpazo
Guest
From my limited perspective as an Orthodox layman, I see the Anglican Communion as a sinking ship heading into a mine field. They have drifted so off course that I find it to be sad, dangerous and frightening. They have no leadership whatsoever and they seem to have lost all continuity with Apostolic Christianity favoring whatever the post-modern world will feed them. In the early 1900s there was some serious dialogue between the Anglicans and Orthodox, up until the former decided to ordain women to the priesthood (which we would view as an impossibility and a blasphemous act to even attempt).
It seems to me that there is little desire for people to hold onto any sense of orthodoxy in Anglicanism. I know precious little about the “Continuing churches” but I do admire them for refusing to bow to the blatant apostasy of modern Anglicanism and to maintain Christian truth. However, from what I have seen even within the “Continuum” there is not much unity if any at all, whether administrative or doctrinal I do not know.
For what it’s worth, I think the ACNA and any other Anglican groups would do well to heed His Beatitude +Met. JONAH’s advice to abandon their novelties and enter into the Orthodox Church. Many scoffed at the idea, while some seriously pondered it. I would love to see more of these struggling Christians enter into the fold of the Holy Orthodox Church and would welcome them as brothers and sisters. Back home in VA, there was a Continuing Anglican bishop who was received into Orthodoxy as a priest and he is the rector of a Western Orthodox parish in Lynchburg. I’m sure that was a sacrifice for him, but from what I can tell, he hasn’t looked back.
I find it very sad that Anglicans in Africa have to send missionaries over here to America.
Perhaps through the missionary efforts of the Patriarchate of Alexandria (which is doing a lot of work in Africa) they too will enter into the continuity of Ancient Christianity.That’s my two cents on the matter.
In Christ,
Andrew
A
Anna_Scott
Guest
Harpazo,From my limited perspective as an Orthodox layman, I see the Anglican Communion as a sinking ship heading into a mine field. They have drifted so off course that I find it to be sad, dangerous and frightening. They have no leadership whatsoever and they seem to have lost all continuity with Apostolic Christianity favoring whatever the post-modern world will feed them. In the early 1900s there was some serious dialogue between the Anglicans and Orthodox, up until the former decided to ordain women to the priesthood (which we would view as an impossibility and a blasphemous act to even attempt).
It seems to me that there is little desire for people to hold onto any sense of orthodoxy in Anglicanism. I know precious little about the “Continuing churches” but I do admire them for refusing to bow to the blatant apostasy of modern Anglicanism and to maintain Christian truth. However, from what I have seen even within the “Continuum” there is not much unity if any at all, whether administrative or doctrinal I do not know.
For what it’s worth, I think the ACNA and any other Anglican groups would do well to heed His Beatitude +Met. JONAH’s advice to abandon their novelties and enter into the Orthodox Church. Many scoffed at the idea, while some seriously pondered it. I would love to see more of these struggling Christians enter into the fold of the Holy Orthodox Church and would welcome them as brothers and sisters. Back home in VA, there was a Continuing Anglican bishop who was received into Orthodoxy as a priest and he is the rector of a Western Orthodox parish in Lynchburg. I’m sure that was a sacrifice for him, but from what I can tell, he hasn’t looked back.
I find it very sad that Anglicans in Africa have to send missionaries over here to America.
That’s my two cents on the matter.
In Christ,
Andrew
I appreciate your candor. And I fear your assessment may be correct. Indeed it is sad when Anglicans in Africa have to send missionaries to America. At least they were willing. God bless them for that. It will be interesting to see how all this plays out in the next five to ten years.
I did check online for Orthodox Churches in my area. I found St. Anthony the Great, Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North American. I’ll plan to visit sometime soon.
Thanks for you comments,
Anna
G
gurneyhalleck1
Guest
I think a lot of more anti-papal Anglicans or Anglicans with deep-seeded distrust toward the Catholic magisterium are always more likely to explore Orthodoxy with nary a thought of becoming Catholic. Oddly enough, it seems to me Catholicism has far more in common with Anglicanism than Anglicanism has with Orthodoxy. First of all, the view of Original Sin and the Atonment (more Augustinian and Ambrosian) within the Anglican framework ARE more akin to Catholicism. The devotions of more anglo-Catholic parishes and even some regular Anglican parishes are more like the Catholic Church at Lent (stations, benediction, unlevened bread) plus the layout and inner workings are more Catholic it seems. I think Anglican to Catholic is actually more of a lateral move than Anglican to Orthodox. A lot of Anglicans see Orthodox as similar to themselves since they lack a pope and are episcopal in structure. I’m not so sure.
C
Cranmer2010
Guest
I’m not so negative about the ACNA. There are churches beginning to move out of the Diocese of the Holy Spirit which is sort of an on-deck circle if you will into their permanent diocese homes. The process is working and the ACNA is more and more established by the week. There are problems and issues for the ACNA which await hard work and difficult heart wrenching decision making. Show me a church who doesn’t deal with these things eventually. I sincerely hope and pray that the Archbishop of Canterbury will be pushed off the fence by the nudging of the Holy Spirit and begin to work for the good of the whole Communion. This just might be the preliminary look of what is to come.
C
Cranmer2010
Guest
10-4 for sure. And just the mere fact that the Anglican church is a direct split from the Catholic church.
- Status