Orthodox-Anglican Dialogue breakdown?

  • Thread starter Thread starter T_More
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
It doesn’t say anything that wasn’t known before, although it is quite scathing.
 
T_More said:
A friend pointed out this article recently and I wasn’t sure if had been posted here before. This took place right before Benedicts visit to Britain. A rather scathing discourse, I must say.

catholicexchange.com/2010/09/17/134412/
Click to expand...
good for the patriarch. God bless him for standing up for the Truth without fear.

to me this shows how ecumenism is not a good thing. either you accept the Truth through the One Holy Church or be banished until repentance. this dialogue which brings compromises to the Truth is not going to work. thanks be to God.
 
It’s brilliant; beautiful in its frankness. I wish more Roman Catholic leaders were so honest.

The Catholic Church has stated, restated, and reaffirmed repeatedly that Anglican orders are invalid, that the Church of England has separated itself from the apostolic succession. When Rome dialogues with the Anglican leadership about “reunion”, therefore, Rome is really dialoguing with a bunch of laymen, according to Rome’s own insistence, and so what is the Catholic Church attempting, really, to reunite with?

The Orthodox prelate quoted talks about the Anglicans departing from the apostolic succession on account of their ordination of women priests. He also laments that the Anglicans seem to be distancing themselves from scriptural morality and from the “orthodox” faith in favor of contemporary secular morals.

Agreed. Fine. In that case, if the Orthodox have arrived at such a conclusion, why continue to dialogue with them? What can such a dialogue achieve, I wonder?

But the Roman Catholic Church, having always insisted that the Church of England separated itself from the apostolic succession long, long ago, and having now re-established the Catholic hierarchy in England, should not have begun an “ecumenical” dialogue with the Anglicans to begin with, as though the Church of England were an authentic component of the Christian Church. Either the Anglican leadership are priests and bishops or they are laymen with no recognizable ecclesiastical standing, at all.

The Roman Catholic Church has stated that the latter is true. Why, then, the dialogue at all?

I say three cheers for the Orthodox.
 
Why the dialogue? Perhaps because there are human beings in the Anglican communion? Surely you aren’t arguing that it would be useless to attempt to reunite these PEOPLE with the catholic church? They have their own leadership and out or respect, that’s who you start dialogue with.

Did the Prodigal son’s father stop and make sure the son understood his new place upon returning? No! First priority is to express love and make welcome. That comes first. Once the relationship exists, you can deal with the hard stuff.

Nobody responds to “Your faith is in vain, you are wrong and you must repent and convert.” Clarity is good, but only in service to the lost. You don’t exaggerate clarity at the expense of the lost for the morale of the converted. We need to get that in prayer and sacraments.
 
Pregustator said:
It’s brilliant; beautiful in its frankness. I wish more Roman Catholic leaders were so honest.

The Catholic Church has stated, restated, and reaffirmed repeatedly that Anglican orders are invalid, that the Church of England has separated itself from the apostolic succession. When Rome dialogues with the Anglican leadership about “reunion”, therefore, Rome is really dialoguing with a bunch of laymen, according to Rome’s own insistence, and so what is the Catholic Church attempting, really, to reunite with?

The Orthodox prelate quoted talks about the Anglicans departing from the apostolic succession on account of their ordination of women priests. He also laments that the Anglicans seem to be distancing themselves from scriptural morality and from the “orthodox” faith in favor of contemporary secular morals.

Agreed. Fine. In that case, if the Orthodox have arrived at such a conclusion, why continue to dialogue with them? What can such a dialogue achieve, I wonder?

But the Roman Catholic Church, having always insisted that the Church of England separated itself from the apostolic succession long, long ago, and having now re-established the Catholic hierarchy in England, should not have begun an “ecumenical” dialogue with the Anglicans to begin with, as though the Church of England were an authentic component of the Christian Church. Either the Anglican leadership are priests and bishops or they are laymen with no recognizable ecclesiastical standing, at all.

The Roman Catholic Church has stated that the latter is true. Why, then, the dialogue at all?

I say three cheers for the Orthodox.
Click to expand...
One might, reading this, reasonably ask why the Orthodox would continue to talk about reunification with the Catholic Church? After all, the CC shows no sign of backing away from what the OC considers to be heterodox positions, and they don’t see them as having valid orders either.
 
There is much that is good in the Anglican Church. Those who remain - who, for reasons only they can know, have not departed for more universally sound Churches - need prayers desperately. So, too, do they need support from others. A word of encouragement is quite helpful when it seems that insiders are wolves and outsiders have given up on the few remaining “good guys.” Hilarion Alfeyev makes excellent points, and in the end he pledges to continue the dialogue. Here’s hoping that the continuation includes encouragement and prayer - not just from the Orthodox, but from all corners of the Christian world.
 
Bluegoat said:
One might, reading this, reasonably ask why the Orthodox would continue to talk about reunification with the Catholic Church? After all, the CC shows no sign of backing away from what the OC considers to be heterodox positions, and they don’t see them as having valid orders either.
Click to expand...
yes, but the Truth always prevail in the end. in the end they all come to where Jesus commanded, the CC. she is the CC from the beginning and no matter what they call her, they cannot take away the Truth that Jesus has entrusted to her. she alone is the voice in the wilderness. where peter is there is the CC.
 
Bluegoat said:
One might, reading this, reasonably ask why the Orthodox would continue to talk about reunification with the Catholic Church? After all, the CC shows no sign of backing away from what the OC considers to be heterodox positions, and they don’t see them as having valid orders either.
Click to expand...
That’s a pretty good poke in the eye! 😃

But the difference is one of degree. If I say the plate is orange and you insist that it is green, we are just going to waste our breath discussing it, right? But if you are sure it is cyan and I’m sure it is light blue, we might be able to get somewhere on further discussion.

Some EO dispute Catholic apostolic succession, some don’t. That’s hardly a universal topic. Catholicism DOES recognize the Holy Orders of the EO priesthood. Common ground exists, at least among many. Serious theologians mostly today recognize the filioque controversy as one of emphasis and linguistics problems rather than inherently incompatible theology. Again, light blue versus cyan.

But again, I got a good chuckle out of the effectiveness of the jab! 👍
 
Why the dialogue? Perhaps because there are human beings in the Anglican communion? Surely you aren’t arguing that it would be useless to attempt to reunite these PEOPLE with the catholic church? They have their own leadership and out or respect, that’s who you start dialogue with.
Click to expand...
Did the Prodigal son’s father stop and make sure the son understood his new place upon returning? No! First priority is to express love and make welcome. That comes first. Once the relationship exists, you can deal with the hard stuff.
Click to expand...
Nobody responds to “Your faith is in vain, you are wrong and you must repent and convert.”
Click to expand...
No, no, come on now. To go on about them being human beings is sentimental and unhelpful. Obviously individual Anglicans are human beings, with souls, too; souls that Christ would save. I am not saying that the Church shouldn’t encourage Anglicans or anyone else to convert to the fold of Christ. But that’s another matter, entirely.

What I lament is that the Church (today) courts the Anglican hierarchy as if they were clergy, as if they were prelates, as if they were Church, while at the same time teaching that they cannot be. Is it not dishonest, disingenuous, and misleading to the Christfaithful to do so? How can the Church justify an official ecumenical dialogue with a non-Church as though, for example, the Bishop of Rome and the so-called Archbishop of Canterbury were equal and on a par with one another? Archlayman of Canterbury Rowan Williams may be a good and intelligent man, but he is not the authentic primate of the Church of England. What service do we do to confused Anglicans by treating the Anglican hierarchy as though it were authentic and venerable and worthy of the Pope’s respect?

I say all that with no animosity toward Anglicans at all. In point of actual fact, I like the way the Anglicans have preserved the majesty and solemnity of Catholic worship, whereas we, ourselves, have all but abandoned the same. Liturgically-speaking, we could learn alot from them, in many cases. I

I certainly welcome Anglicans converting to the Roman Catholic faith and I welcome the contributions that they will make to our Church. I think that they will have a positive influence on the way our liturgy is celebrated, for one thing. But I have never understood why the dialog between the Holy See and Canterbury is in any way useful. If we say that they aren’t the authentic Church of England and they aren’t even real clergy, then what is there to dialogue about? To say they are not authentic, and at the same time treat them like they are indeed can cause nothing but confusion.
 
Pregustator said:
No, no, come on now. To go on about them being human beings is sentimental and unhelpful. Obviously individual Anglicans are human beings, with souls, too; souls that Christ would save. I am not saying that the Church shouldn’t encourage Anglicans or anyone else to convert to the fold of Christ. But that’s another matter, entirely.

What I lament is that the Church (today) courts the Anglican hierarchy as if they were clergy, as if they were prelates, as if they were Church, while at the same time teaching that they cannot be. Is it not dishonest, disingenuous, and misleading to the Christfaithful to do so? How can the Church justify an official ecumenical dialogue with a non-Church as though, for example, the Bishop of Rome and the so-called Archbishop of Canterbury were equal and on a par with one another? Archlayman of Canterbury Rowan Williams may be a good and intelligent man, but he is not the authentic primate of the Church of England. What service do we do to confused Anglicans by treating the Anglican hierarchy as though it were authentic and venerable and worthy of the Pope’s respect?

I say all that with no animosity toward Anglicans at all. In point of actual fact, I like the way the Anglicans have preserved the majesty and solemnity of Catholic worship, whereas we, ourselves, have all but abandoned the same. Liturgically-speaking, we could learn alot from them, in many cases. I

I certainly welcome Anglicans converting to the Roman Catholic faith and I welcome the contributions that they will make to our Church. I think that they will have a positive influence on the way our liturgy is celebrated, for one thing. But I have never understood why the dialog between the Holy See and Canterbury is in any way useful. If we say that they aren’t the authentic Church of England and they aren’t even real clergy, then what is there to dialogue about? To say they are not authentic, and at the same time treat them like they are indeed can cause nothing but confusion.
Click to expand...
I so agree with you. perhaps the same way they are doing wiht luterans and protestant theologians.
 
Metropolitan Hilarion isn’t the only Orthodox cleric willing to mince no words in ecumenical dialogue. Here is a video from the general assembly of the Presbyterian Church U.S.A. An Orthodox priest was invited to give an “ecumenical greeting.” Needless to say I don’t think they will invite an Orthodox priest next year. 😉

Link

Enjoy!
 
josephdaniel29 said:
Metropolitan Hilarion isn’t the only Orthodox cleric willing to mince no words in ecumenical dialogue. Here is a video from the general assembly of the Presbyterian Church U.S.A. An Orthodox priest was invited to give an “ecumenical greeting.” Needless to say I don’t think they will invite an Orthodox priest next year. 😉

Link

Enjoy!
Click to expand...
i only see a woman talking. where is the priest?
 
josephdaniel29 said:
Metropolitan Hilarion isn’t the only Orthodox cleric willing to mince no words in ecumenical dialogue. Here is a video from the general assembly of the Presbyterian Church U.S.A. An Orthodox priest was invited to give an “ecumenical greeting.” Needless to say I don’t think they will invite an Orthodox priest next year. 😉

Link

Enjoy!
Click to expand...
The moderator seemed annoyed at the end of that. 😃
 
manualman said:
That’s a pretty good poke in the eye! 😃

But the difference is one of degree. If I say the plate is orange and you insist that it is green, we are just going to waste our breath discussing it, right? But if you are sure it is cyan and I’m sure it is light blue, we might be able to get somewhere on further discussion.

Some EO dispute Catholic apostolic succession, some don’t. That’s hardly a universal topic. Catholicism DOES recognize the Holy Orders of the EO priesthood. Common ground exists, at least among many. Serious theologians mostly today recognize the filioque controversy as one of emphasis and linguistics problems rather than inherently incompatible theology. Again, light blue versus cyan.

But again, I got a good chuckle out of the effectiveness of the jab! 👍
Click to expand...
It’s interesting that is your perception. If you are thinking of modern western Anglicanism, you’re right. However, I would say if you are thinking of what I would call “classical” Anglicanism, I tend to see it as closer in many ways to Orthodoxy than Catholisism. And there was a time, before all the present foolishness, that many Orthodox thought the same way.

While it is trye that some Orthodox think that Catholic priests are really priests, and the Eucharist really the Eucharist, remember that some also think the same of the Anglicans. I tend to think it is a bit misleading to say that they think either of us have validity, because that is not really the way they understand that issue. As far as I know, none dispute the apostolic succession of either the Catholics or the Anglicans. (For that matter, Catholics don’t dispute Anglican Apostolic succession, really. Just the validity of the orders.)

THe things standing between the Orthodox and the Catholics - the understanding of the papacy, the understanding of the Atonement and indulgences - are huge, and there doesn’t seem to be much flexibility around them. The issues between Anglicans and the Orthodox are of a somewhat different nature, and some types of Anglicans there is very little indeed.

But I’m glad I gave you a chuckle in any case.🙂
 
Bluegoat, I’d like to clarify something in your post. Catholic teaching on Anglican orders is indeed that Apostolic Succession was lost during the Calvinization period under King Edward when an entire generation (plus) of Anglican bishops was ordained using an invalid ordination process that denigrated the inherent sacramentality of ordination itself. Since the sacramental sense of ordination was not renewed until an entire generation later, there were no more true Anglican bishops anymore capable of ordaining new priests or bishops; they had all died off during the Calvinist period.

Obviously Anglicans have a radically different opinion on the above, but I’m just trying to bluntly explain the catholic understanding of what happened.

Some EO believe that the “errors” of the Roman Catholic Church are of sufficient magnitude to have invalidated Latin orders too. I’m not an EO expert by a long shot, but since at no time did the RCC disparage the value or intent of the sacrament of Holy Orders, I have a hard time understanding their logic.

It really wasn’t meant as a clever retort? All the better! 👍
 
manualman said:
Bluegoat, I’d like to clarify something in your post. Catholic teaching on Anglican orders is indeed that Apostolic Succession was lost during the Calvinization period under King Edward when an entire generation (plus) of Anglican bishops was ordained using an invalid ordination process that denigrated the inherent sacramentality of ordination itself. Since the sacramental sense of ordination was not renewed until an entire generation later, there were no more true Anglican bishops anymore capable of ordaining new priests or bishops; they had all died off during the Calvinist period.

Obviously Anglicans have a radically different opinion on the above, but I’m just trying to bluntly explain the catholic understanding of what happened.

Some EO believe that the “errors” of the Roman Catholic Church are of sufficient magnitude to have invalidated Latin orders too. I’m not an EO expert by a long shot, but since at no time did the RCC disparage the value or intent of the sacrament of Holy Orders, I have a hard time understanding their logic.

It really wasn’t meant as a clever retort? All the better! 👍
Click to expand...
The precise point in time in which Apostolciae Curae assumes the Apostolic succession was lost to the Church of England is difficult to pin down. Francis Clark (at the time, Fr. Clark, S.J.), in an excellent study with which I do not agree ANGLICAN ORDERS AND DEFECT OF INTENTION), makes it from the point of the consecration of ++Parker, in 1559, that is, in Elizabeth’s time, not Edward’s. The claim was that the Edwardine Ordinal constituted an invalid form, sacramentally, because it failed to specify the priestly function of offering the eucharistic sacrifice. This must be couple with the assumption of invalid intent (on the part on ++Parker’s consecrators), since the particular problem which was judged to render the form in valid is also found in a number of rites which the RCC does deem as valid.

GKC
 
I’d go one step further and say even if the sucession was lost. The Dutch Touch was used later on a few Anglicans and that infused it into a few Anglican Lines Note I said a few, not all of them. Yet, It would be extremely difficult to track down which was which. So when you add a valid Apostolic Sucession in a few, plus Liturgical developements that that keep a Roman Catholic theme and a hierarchal structure ie Deacon, Priest, Bishop. I feel that The Roman Catholic Church held out this olive branch. Obviously not all Anglicans will go. Yet a few will. As for the Orthodox since they didn’t exactly come from them its no surprise that they’d have something to say on the matter as they have nothing to lose.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top