Christian Discussion Thread III

[Distruzio]

I think you mean this Flood:

[Distruzio]

Their claims are, indeed, considered valid. As are the Roman Catholic claims. This is part of why Anglican Catholics are considered protestant but not Protestant. They protested Rome, sure. But they didn't commit heresy doing it.

Officially, the Orthodox Church considered Protestants "heretical Christians" or "Christian heretics." The Anglicans aren't, necessarily, included in this distinction because of the history Constan mentioned above.

How can the Anglican Church not be heretical? It was formed when a fat insane King decided he should be head of the Church so he could divorce his wife...

That isn't heresy. That's politically motivated schism. The first is anathema. The second is sin. We all know what Jesus position on sinning is.

[Mostrov]

I know I'm not a real participant in this thread, but I noticed the strong Orthodox presence and was wondering some things. What is the Orthodox position on Anglicanism since some people lump them in with the Catholic, Orthodox, and Oriental Churches as if it isn't protestant?

Catholic, just not Roman Catholic. Also the English Reformation.

Well, since the Orthodox and the Anglicans began to seriously take notice of each other's existence (which is to say, since the 17th or 18th century), relations have been generally good. The Orthodox Church isn't in the business of coming up with classifications of other faith communities, so there's no official stance on whether Anglicans are Protestants or not, but on several occasions in the past, the Orthodox Church has more or less stated that she considered the Anglicans to be the Western Christians that are closest to the Orthodox position. This would seem to imply that they are not viewed as Protestant. However, due to recent changes in Anglicanism, it's not clear if that is still the case.

Orthodox-Anglican relations reached their highest point in the early 20th century, when there was serious discussion of establishing full communion between us. At a high-level meeting of clergy from the two Churches in the 1920s, it was found that "nothing stands in the way" of unification between the Orthodox and the Anglicans. So, for a brief moment, it looked like we may actually become one Church. However, this was a very controversial issue even then.

In the mean time, unfortunately, we have moved a lot further apart, and all talk of unification has ceased. The Anglicans introduced a series of radical changes in the second part of the 20th century, in terms of liturgy, ordination and doctrine, which pushed them very far in the direction of theological liberalism and away from the Orthodox position. Today, we are definitely a lot closer to the Catholic Church than we are to the Anglicans, and the past statements that were made about Orthodox-Anglican similarity are probably no longer valid.

What radical changes are you referring too? Alternative forms of worship? The missal or breviary? The Anglican Service book?
Presumably this in reference to the ordination of women and homosexuals, yet it is worth noting that there isn't really much consensus on this and this has already created great rifts in an already diverse community, nor is anything actually binding due to the nature of the communion.
It is one of the more convincing arguments for disestablishment I confess, primarily due to political pressure.

Their claims are, indeed, considered valid. As are the Roman Catholic claims. This is part of why Anglican Catholics are considered protestant but not Protestant. They protested Rome, sure. But they didn't commit heresy doing it.

Officially, the Orthodox Church considered Protestants "heretical Christians" or "Christian heretics." The Anglicans aren't, necessarily, included in this distinction because of the history Constan mentioned above.

Given the Southern European (especially Iberian) effect on Catholic doctrine after the Council of Trent as well as the substantially influence of the German Reformation on the English, where exactly would you draw the line on Heresy? Especially considering that some Anglicans can be exceedingly protestant.

Apologies for brevity.

[Distruzio]

Their claims are, indeed, considered valid. As are the Roman Catholic claims. This is part of why Anglican Catholics are considered protestant but not Protestant. They protested Rome, sure. But they didn't commit heresy doing it.

Officially, the Orthodox Church considered Protestants "heretical Christians" or "Christian heretics." The Anglicans aren't, necessarily, included in this distinction because of the history Constan mentioned above.

Given the Southern European (especially Iberian) effect on Catholic doctrine after the Council of Trent as well as the substantially influence of the German Reformation on the English, where exactly would you draw the line on Heresy? Especially considering that some Anglicans can be exceedingly protestant.

Changing dogma. That's it.

[Mostrov]

How can the Anglican Church not be heretical? It was formed when a fat insane King decided he should be head of the Church so he could divorce his wife...

This isn't particularly true, nor did he seek divorce. He sought annulment, papally sanctioned annulment. Furthermore, why declare yourself head of the church? Why not create an anti-pope? Henry VIII was certainly not 'protestant'. If you want to speak of Heresy, I'd imagine Edward VI would be where to start.
Divorce was taboo just as long as it was in Catholicism and still is depending on which circles you dwell in.

[Mostrov]

Changing dogma. That's it.

What dogma? There isn't really any dogma, you can have different churches with radically different dogmas yet all under the broader understanding of Anglicanism. Even the Thirty-Nine Articles aren't binding and you get great variance on what exactly is followed. Doctrine yet not Dogma, especially as it was promulgated by Parliament which makes the whole thing murkier.

[Grave_n_idle]

Jesus explains what his church is in the scripture, and it doesn't require any buildings, any elected priesthood, or any books.

I don't know what the product is you think you're selling, but the guy it's all named after didn't see Christ-ian as entailing any of the peripherals you're discussing as necessary.

Jesus was a Jew, GnI. Remember? I rather doubt He delivered His message as a faithful Jew to faithful Jews with the addendum, "This is how we can worship God and not be dicks... except all of that shit. Forget all that shit."

Jesus would, indeed, have been a Jew - which is why his earthly ministry fits his religion, and his supposed 'Great Commission' is so inconsistent.

But I don't think Jesus' ministry calls for priests, churches or books, either. Indeed, quite the opposite. He taught a relationship that was in the spirit of the law, not the letter of the law. That was his big complaint about the 'church' as it existed. No, according to Matthew 18, what is needed is convocation - not adherence to codes, or ownership of things.

[Distruzio]

Changing dogma. That's it.

What dogma? There isn't really any dogma, you can have different churches with radically different dogmas yet all under the broader understanding of Anglicanism. Even the Thirty-Nine Articles aren't binding and you get great variance on what exactly is followed. Doctrine yet not Dogma, especially as it was promulgated by Parliament which makes the whole thing murkier.

I'm not suggesting that the Anglican Communion (or the Continuing Anglicans) has violated dogma. I'm suggesting quite the opposite. I'm implying that because of their submission to the Communion heresy does not exist (or is so greatly diminished that it is irrelevant - such as the Roman Catholic dogmatic claim to Papal Authority).

[Constantinopolis]

The Latin Mass is closer to the Orthodox Liturgies in look and feel in my opinion - provided you make sure to go to a High Mass rather than a Low Mass. The biggest problem newcomers have is not understanding that the old Mass is more multi-layered than the "new" Mass and has more parts that are said quietly by the priest while music is being sung. By that I mean the old Mass has many places where the priest and choir/congregation are doing different things at the same time.

Well, that sounds very familiar. Maybe Protestants or Catholics used to the new Mass would be confused, but Orthodox visitors wouldn't.

The Orthodox Liturgy has many such parts where the priest and the choir/congregation are doing different things at the same time (usually the priest saying a quiet prayer in the altar while the choir sings a hymn). Interestingly, in recent years some larger churches and cathedrals have installed microphones in the altar and speakers in the nave, so the congregation can hear the priest's quiet prayers and the hymn sung by the choir at the same time. If done right, it sounds very harmonious.

(side note: I'm used to referring to the space you call "sanctuary" as the "altar" - I'm not sure if this is common usage for native English-speaking Orthodox, but it is for me)

I know that some western rite Orthodox use a form of liturgy virtually identical to the old Latin Mass, but in English.

I have never been to a Western rite Orthodox Liturgy - the number of Western rite parishes is extremely small, and (as far as I know) all of them are in North America. But yes, the Western Rite was created in the early 20th century by taking the Roman Mass current at the time, translating it into the vernacular, and making small changes to some of the wording in order to bring it in line with Orthodox theology.

Regarding the Anglicans - from what you say it seems the Orthodox considered them to have valid apostolic succession. The Catholic Church, in contrast, has declared them to have been invalid ever since the ordination ritual was changed in the 1500s - even though they were not considered invalid when Queen Mary briefly re-established Catholicism.

That's another topic that I know nothing about - the validity (or lack thereof) of Anglican apostolic succession. Based on the history of Anglican-Orthodox relations, I would assume that yes, the Orthodox Church considered Anglicans to have valid apostolic succession, at least up to the mid-20th century. Given recent developments, however, such as the ordination of women as priests and bishops, the current Orthodox position on Anglican orders may be different.

I have participated in a number of discussions online and in real life with "liturgically progressive" Catholics and find it interesting how many of them tend to most harshly criticize the aspects of the traditional Latin Mass that are also found in the Eastern Rites, and cite these things as examples of why all permissions to use the old Mass must be revoked ASAP. The following are often cited as extreme "impoverishments" in the old Latin Mass and cited as reasons for why it must not be allowed: "eastward" worship, the one year lectionary, no communion in the hand, elaborate church vestments, use of deacons and subdeacons, no EMHCs, and having a physical barrier between the sanctuary and nave (communion rail). When I bring this up, I'm told that these things are okay in the Eastern Rites because Vatican II said those rites should be preserved and restored while the Latin Rite should be reformed. So apparently an iconostasis is fine, but a short little communion rail prevents active participation.

Ack! Those "liturgically progressive" Catholics sound so wrong.

Communion in the hand is one practice that I personally find to be especially egregious. The body of Christ should be treated with the deepest awe and reverence. One does not simply take Him away like a snack. Besides, I assume Catholic priests ritually wash their hands before Mass, just as Orthodox priests do before the Divine Liturgy, correct? So how could anyone take Communion in the hand without, at minimum, going through the same ritual?

In Orthodoxy, the iconostasis is very important symbolically, not so much because it is a wall but mainly because it is a thing with doors. The presence of those doors between the nave and the altar - and their opening and closing at certain times during services - is what matters most about the iconostasis. The altar represents Heaven and the nave represents Earth, so the doors between the two spaces are important in showing how Christ opens the doors of Heaven to us. When the priest opens the Royal Doors and comes out from the altar bearing the Eucharist, that represents the Incarnation of Christ and Him reaching down to us, offering His Body and Blood so that we may be lifted up.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

I think they kinda are necessary. Following Jesus' message of Love is necessary for Salvation.

You could say Salvation is unnecessary; you could agree that Salvation is necessary but say some Other religion is the Truth.

But this is the Christian thread, so People gotta be told the Message. If no bible, no churches, no tradition, no pastors or priests. then no Message.

Jesus explains what his church is in the scripture, and it doesn't require any buildings, any elected priesthood, or any books.

I don't know what the product is you think you're selling, but the guy it's all named after didn't see Christ-ian as entailing any of the peripherals you're discussing as necessary.

It requires people. The priesthoods the books and buildings are supposed to be aids for the people.

[The Flood]

I think you mean this Flood:

(Image)

Was talking about Catholic Churches, I have no idea what Orthodox Churches should look like

[Tarsonis Survivors]

The Latin Mass is closer to the Orthodox Liturgies in look and feel in my opinion - provided you make sure to go to a High Mass rather than a Low Mass. The biggest problem newcomers have is not understanding that the old Mass is more multi-layered than the "new" Mass and has more parts that are said quietly by the priest while music is being sung. By that I mean the old Mass has many places where the priest and choir/congregation are doing different things at the same time.

Well, that sounds very familiar. Maybe Protestants or Catholics used to the new Mass would be confused, but Orthodox visitors wouldn't.

The Orthodox Liturgy has many such parts where the priest and the choir/congregation are doing different things at the same time (usually the priest saying a quiet prayer in the altar while the choir sings a hymn). Interestingly, in recent years some larger churches and cathedrals have installed microphones in the altar and speakers in the nave, so the congregation can hear the priest's quiet prayers and the hymn sung by the choir at the same time. If done right, it sounds very harmonious.

(side note: I'm used to referring to the space you call "sanctuary" as the "altar" - I'm not sure if this is common usage for native English-speaking Orthodox, but it is for me)

I know that some western rite Orthodox use a form of liturgy virtually identical to the old Latin Mass, but in English.

I have never been to a Western rite Orthodox Liturgy - the number of Western rite parishes is extremely small, and (as far as I know) all of them are in North America. But yes, the Western Rite was created in the early 20th century by taking the Roman Mass current at the time, translating it into the vernacular, and making small changes to some of the wording in order to bring it in line with Orthodox theology.

Regarding the Anglicans - from what you say it seems the Orthodox considered them to have valid apostolic succession. The Catholic Church, in contrast, has declared them to have been invalid ever since the ordination ritual was changed in the 1500s - even though they were not considered invalid when Queen Mary briefly re-established Catholicism.

That's another topic that I know nothing about - the validity (or lack thereof) of Anglican apostolic succession. Based on the history of Anglican-Orthodox relations, I would assume that yes, the Orthodox Church considered Anglicans to have valid apostolic succession, at least up to the mid-20th century. Given recent developments, however, such as the ordination of women as priests and bishops, the current Orthodox position on Anglican orders may be different.

I have participated in a number of discussions online and in real life with "liturgically progressive" Catholics and find it interesting how many of them tend to most harshly criticize the aspects of the traditional Latin Mass that are also found in the Eastern Rites, and cite these things as examples of why all permissions to use the old Mass must be revoked ASAP. The following are often cited as extreme "impoverishments" in the old Latin Mass and cited as reasons for why it must not be allowed: "eastward" worship, the one year lectionary, no communion in the hand, elaborate church vestments, use of deacons and subdeacons, no EMHCs, and having a physical barrier between the sanctuary and nave (communion rail). When I bring this up, I'm told that these things are okay in the Eastern Rites because Vatican II said those rites should be preserved and restored while the Latin Rite should be reformed. So apparently an iconostasis is fine, but a short little communion rail prevents active participation.

Ack! Those "liturgically progressive" Catholics sound so wrong.

Communion in the hand is one practice that I personally find to be especially egregious. The body of Christ should be treated with the deepest awe and reverence. One does not simply take Him away like a snack. Besides, I assume Catholic priests ritually wash their hands before Mass, just as Orthodox priests do before the Divine Liturgy, correct? So how could anyone take Communion in the hand without, at minimum, going through the same ritual?

In Orthodoxy, the iconostasis is very important symbolically, not so much because it is a wall but mainly because it is a thing with doors. The presence of those doors between the nave and the altar - and their opening and closing at certain times during services - is what matters most about the iconostasis. The altar represents Heaven and the nave represents Earth, so the doors between the two spaces are important in showing how Christ opens the doors of Heaven to us. When the priest opens the Royal Doors and comes out from the altar bearing the Eucharist, that represents the Incarnation of Christ and Him reaching down to us, offering His Body and Blood so that we may be lifted up.

Honestly, the communion in hand was more a health thing than anything else I believe. Secondly, tell me what difference is there between a priest putting a wafer in my mouth, or him handing it to me and me putting I in my mouth? Is my flesh so corrupt, yet my tounge not? Also in RCC laity are permitted to handle the host and blood.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

I think you mean this Flood:

(Image)

Was talking about Catholic Churches, I have no idea what Orthodox Churches should look like

Like this

[The Flood]

How can the Anglican Church not be heretical? It was formed when a fat insane King decided he should be head of the Church so he could divorce his wife...

That isn't heresy. That's politically motivated schism. The first is anathema. The second is sin. We all know what Jesus position on sinning is.

But divorce is against Church dogma, so that is heretical right there. And surely declaring one's self head of the Church without grounds is heresy, if not blasphemy?

[Constantinopolis]

Honestly, the communion in hand was more a health thing than anything else I believe. Secondly, tell me what difference is there between a priest putting a wafer in my mouth, or him handing it to me and me putting I in my mouth? Is my flesh so corrupt, yet my tounge not? Also in RCC laity are permitted to handle the host and blood.

I just have a personal dislike for the idea of communion in hand, that's all. It seems disrespectful. But I don't claim this view to be based on any doctrinal issues or theological points or anything like that. So no, it's not about our hands being somehow more corrupt than our tongues. It's just a personal view of which acts appear respectful and which acts appear not. I am aware of the fact that "respectfulness" is an inherently subjective concept.

[Distruzio]

That isn't heresy. That's politically motivated schism. The first is anathema. The second is sin. We all know what Jesus position on sinning is.

But divorce is against Church dogma, so that is heretical right there. And surely declaring one's self head of the Church without grounds is heresy, if not blasphemy?

Divorce violates certain Church doctrines, not dogma.

As for the second sentence..... thats not exxaccctlly how it happened. And it certainly isn't without precedence within the Catholic history... now is it? An Orthodox couldn't point at the Anglican and say, "Ha! See you're heretical because the King declared himself head of the Church arbitrarily!" while acknowledging the Roman Catholics as legitimate because, from our perspective, that's exactly what the Pope did. If the Pope remains valid despite making that politically motivated claim against the Orthodox, then we can't really deny legitimacy to the Anglicans for the King doing something quite similar.

[Constantinopolis]

(Image)

Like this

Tsk tsk, Tarsonis, I feel much anger in you. Anger leads to... something. Something bad, I think.

Was talking about Catholic Churches, I have no idea what Orthodox Churches should look like

For some reason I have a personal fascination with this:

In the unlikely event that I will ever visit Antarctica, I would very much love to pray there.

[The Flood]

(Image)

Like this

Tsk tsk, Tarsonis, I feel much anger in you. Anger leads to... something. Something bad, I think.

Was talking about Catholic Churches, I have no idea what Orthodox Churches should look like

For some reason I have a personal fascination with this:

In the unlikely event that I will ever visit Antarctica, I would very much love to pray there.

Who built an Orthodox Church in Antartica? That's pretty cool. And the Church actually looks pretty good, too. Perhaps the best looking building on that whole continent

[Distruzio]

Tsk tsk, Tarsonis, I feel much anger in you. Anger leads to... something. Something bad, I think.

For some reason I have a personal fascination with this:

In the unlikely event that I will ever visit Antarctica, I would very much love to pray there.

Who built an Orthodox Church in Antartica? That's pretty cool. And the Church actually looks pretty good, too. Perhaps the best looking building on that whole continent

We're Orthodox Flood. We're irresistible.... even to penguins. That's who built the church.

[The Flood]

Who built an Orthodox Church in Antartica? That's pretty cool. And the Church actually looks pretty good, too. Perhaps the best looking building on that whole continent

We're Orthodox Flood. We're irresistible.... even to penguins. That's who built the church.

As a Canadian Catholic, I will make it my mission to see a Catholic Church built on the North Pole

By polar bears!

[Tarsonis Survivors]

(Image)

Like this

Tsk tsk, Tarsonis, I feel much anger in you. Anger leads to... something. Something bad, I think.

Was talking about Catholic Churches, I have no idea what Orthodox Churches should look like

For some reason I have a personal fascination with this:

In the unlikely event that I will ever visit Antarctica, I would very much love to pray there.

Anger leads to poorly timed holocaust jokes.

[The Archregimancy]

Was talking about Catholic Churches, I have no idea what Orthodox Churches should look like

Like this

Tarsonis, I'll gently point out that the Orthodox Church - particularly the Russian part - has direct experience of people intentionally blowing up churches as part an organised government-run campaign within living memory.

Everyone here seems to appreciate this was a joke, but please try and remember that some people might be sensitive towards this sort of thing.

[Mostrov]

But divorce is against Church dogma, so that is heretical right there. And surely declaring one's self head of the Church without grounds is heresy, if not blasphemy?

You're conflating Henry VIII with the entirety of Anglican history, which is a common mistake.

As recently as 1936 divorce was still considered so unacceptable within the Anglican Communion as a whole that the formal head of the church was forced to abdicate rather than marry a divorcee. While it was technically permitted, prior to the Matrimonial Causes Act of 1857 divorce was governed in England and Wales by the Church of England, and in practice restricted to wealthy individuals who could negotiate the complex annulment process or afford a Private Bill in Parliament. The 1857 Act was only passed over a personal filibuster from William Gladstone in one of the last flurries of his youthful conservatism.

I'd argue that a far greater difference between Anglicanism and either the Catholic or Orthodox Churches is the lack of any real doctrinal unity within the Anglican Church, which manages to encompass both happy-clappy charismatic evangelicals and liturgically conservative Anglo-Catholics, both the socially liberal in favour of the ordination of women and gay men and the socially conservative adamantly opposed to both.

Anglicanism has no single agreed confession of faith (the 39 Articles are the closest equivalent), no equivalent to the Catholic magisterium or Orthodox Holy Tradition. Historically, this doctrinal flexibility was a great strength; today Anglicanism's one of the Communion's greatest strengths is also proving to be one of its greatest weaknesses, as the different groups within Anglicanism prove themselves to be increasingly unwilling to tolerate each other's presence within the Communion.

Presumably that means all annulments in the RC are unchristian? Again it was not a divorce, it was attempting to be a papally sanctioned annulment to the extent that Cardinal Wolsey was sent to Rome to argue its canonical claim.

I just have a personal dislike for the idea of communion in hand, that's all. It seems disrespectful. But I don't claim this view to be based on any doctrinal issues or theological points or anything like that. So no, it's not about our hands being somehow more corrupt than our tongues. It's just a personal view of which acts appear respectful and which acts appear not. I am aware of the fact that "respectfulness" is an inherently subjective concept.

What about the Anglican idea of communion, speaking of the most common (modern) practice, which includes an altar rail and genuflection, but receives the in the hand before consumption, but doesn't walk away as the modern Catholic practice seems to indicate. Not that medieval Christianity actually had a consistent policy on the whole thing.

[The Flood]

But divorce is against Church dogma, so that is heretical right there. And surely declaring one's self head of the Church without grounds is heresy, if not blasphemy?

You're conflating Henry VIII with the entirety of Anglican history, which is a common mistake.

As recently as 1936 divorce was still considered so unacceptable within the Anglican Communion as a whole that the formal head of the church was forced to abdicate rather than marry a divorcee. While it was technically permitted, prior to the Matrimonial Causes Act of 1857 divorce was governed in England and Wales by the Church of England, and in practice restricted to wealthy individuals who could negotiate the complex annulment process or afford a Private Bill in Parliament. The 1857 Act was only passed over a personal filibuster from William Gladstone in one of the last flurries of his youthful conservatism.

I'd argue that a far greater difference between Anglicanism and either the Catholic or Orthodox Churches is the lack of any real doctrinal unity within the Anglican Church, which manages to encompass both happy-clappy charismatic evangelicals and liturgically conservative Anglo-Catholics, both the socially liberal in favour of the ordination of women and gay men and the socially conservative adamantly opposed to both.

Anglicanism has no single agreed confession of faith (the 39 Articles are the closest equivalent), no equivalent to the Catholic magisterium or Orthodox Holy Tradition. Historically, this doctrinal flexibility was a great strength; today Anglicanism's one of the Communion's greatest strengths is also proving to be one of its greatest weaknesses, as the different groups within Anglicanism prove themselves to be increasingly unwilling to tolerate each other's presence within the Communion.

Presumably that means all annulments in the RC are unchristian? Again it was not a divorce, it was attempting to be a papally sanctioned annulment to the extent that Cardinal Wolsey was sent to Rome to argue its canonical claim.

And he failed to receive an annulment, because he had no legitimate grounds for one.

Instead, he declared himself governor of the Church, and divorced his wife, and then proceeded to divorce and often execute several more wives after that.

[Angleter]

Honestly, the communion in hand was more a health thing than anything else I believe. Secondly, tell me what difference is there between a priest putting a wafer in my mouth, or him handing it to me and me putting I in my mouth? Is my flesh so corrupt, yet my tounge not? Also in RCC laity are permitted to handle the host and blood.

Unfortunately, it was purely ideological. If it were a health thing, Communion on the tongue would have been specifically warned against for that reason, rather than remaining the official norm, and the Vatican would've had to explain why having the congregation do the Sign of Peace won't kill us all too. The justification (alongside active participation, making the laity more important, etc.) was that it was commonplace in the first millennium, and that we would be 'restoring' the 'truly traditional' practice. That it had fallen out of favour and been banned towards the end of the first millennium seems to have been of no consequence to anybody.