Christian Discussion Thread IV

[Tarsonis Survivors]

Now setting the Eastern Orthodox aside, (because I don't know their policies on Exorcism)

The Orthodox Church uses the term "exorcism" to refer to any set of prayers intended to expel demons from a person, location, or object. As such, most Orthodox exorcisms simply consist of a priest saying certain prayers and sprinkling someone or something with holy water, and in the vast majority of cases this is done just in case, not because there is any actual sign of demonic possession. Such "exorcisms" (which other Christians would probably just call prayers) are performed quite liberally on many different occasions. Some people have one performed on a new house before moving into it, for example, and several exorcisms are part of the prayers read during the sacrament of baptism.

But these are "just in case" exorcisms, like I said (in case there happens to be a demon here, get out). As for what happens when there are actual signs of possession, I don't really know. I have never heard of a case of seriously suspected demonic possession. There is a procedure, and I know that it involves some investigation and approval from a bishop, but I do not know anything beyond that.

We consider those to be blessings, not exorcisms, but no use quibbling over pedantry.

[Constantinopolis]

The Orthodox Church uses the term "exorcism" to refer to any set of prayers intended to expel demons from a person, location, or object. As such, most Orthodox exorcisms simply consist of a priest saying certain prayers and sprinkling someone or something with holy water, and in the vast majority of cases this is done just in case, not because there is any actual sign of demonic possession. Such "exorcisms" (which other Christians would probably just call prayers) are performed quite liberally on many different occasions. Some people have one performed on a new house before moving into it, for example, and several exorcisms are part of the prayers read during the sacrament of baptism.

But these are "just in case" exorcisms, like I said (in case there happens to be a demon here, get out). As for what happens when there are actual signs of possession, I don't really know. I have never heard of a case of seriously suspected demonic possession. There is a procedure, and I know that it involves some investigation and approval from a bishop, but I do not know anything beyond that.

We consider those to be blessings, not exorcisms, but no use quibbling over pedantry.

Technically we use the term "blessing" to refer to prayers for God to bestow something positive upon us, and the term "exorcism" to refer to prayers for God to expel something negative (namely, demons) from our presence, but many people call them all "blessings", especially in the West, where the word "exorcism" carries horror-movie connotations.

So yeah, we also call them blessings sometimes.

[Agritum]

Now setting the Eastern Orthodox aside, (because I don't know their policies on Exorcism)

The Orthodox Church uses the term "exorcism" to refer to any set of prayers intended to expel demons from a person, location, or object. As such, most Orthodox exorcisms simply consist of a priest saying certain prayers and sprinkling someone or something with holy water, and in the vast majority of cases this is done just in case, not because there is any actual sign of demonic possession. Such "exorcisms" (which other Christians would probably just call prayers) are performed quite liberally on many different occasions. Some people have one performed on a new house before moving into it, for example, and several exorcisms are part of the prayers read during the sacrament of baptism.

But these are "just in case" exorcisms, like I said (in case there happens to be a demon here, get out). As for what happens when there are actual signs of possession, I don't really know. I have never heard of a case of seriously suspected demonic possession. There is a procedure, and I know that it involves some investigation and approval from a bishop, but I do not know anything beyond that.

The benediction of houses is common among Catholics too. Well, Italian ones, as far as I know. I didn't mind welcoming the priest to bless my den of heathenry, myself. He also ran out of water and blessed some new one from the tap, which was an interesting experience.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

We consider those to be blessings, not exorcisms, but no use quibbling over pedantry.

Technically we use the term "blessing" to refer to prayers for God to bestow something positive upon us, and the term "exorcism" to refer to prayers for God to expel something negative (namely, demons) from our presence, but many people call them all "blessings", especially in the West, where the word "exorcism" carries horror-movie connotations.


So yeah, we also call them blessings sometimes.

I think it comes from the Idea that unholy spirits can't occupy holy things. so they bless the house, in order to chase spirits away. Semantics really.

Exorcism involves directly invoking the offending spirit.

[Constantinopolis]

And you wouldn't need to worry about the two communions existing in parallel for very long, anyway. The liberal one would certainly cease to exist by the end of this century.

Well, since you're certain, I'm sure you wouldn't mind sharing the evidence that's creating that certainty. After all, half the Anglican Communion isn't going to just stop existing because you don't like their endorsement of egalitarianism.

It's not half. The number of practicing members of the Church of England is abysmally low. According to the CoE's own statistics, "1.7 million people take part in a Church of England service each month", and "approaching 3 million people participate in a Church of England service on Christmas Day or Christmas Eve." The nominal membership is 27 million, but when 24 out of those 27 (meaning 89%) don't even bother to go to church for Christmas, you've got an empty shell of a Church on your hands. The Church of England is dying, and unless it changes course it will be dead by the end of this century. You can have a Church with 1-3 million practicing members and 24 million nominal ones, but when the practicing membership dwindles below a certain point, the organization will no longer be able to continue existing, and the millions of nominal members will find that there is nothing left for them to be nominal members of.

And it's not egalitarianism that is causing this decline. Not at all. Egalitarianism is a very good and wonderful thing (after all, I'm a communist, how could I be against it?). The problem is relativism and laxity. Religions draw their strength from their claims to universal truth, so when those claims are relaxed, qualified or abandoned, people lose faith and leave the religion in question.

Traditionalism is the lifeblood of any religion, because traditionalism is what makes those claims to universal truth plausible. If you're doing the same things you've been doing for hundreds of years (or thousands), then people will take you seriously when you claim to hold some universal, unchanging truth. "Here we are, and here we stand, and we will not change for anything or anyone" is precisely what people are looking for in religion. Eternal principles, stability in the chaos of life, a rock in the stormy seas of history, battered but never broken. A place of refuge, a shield of protection, an unconquered fortress with walls as old as civilization itself. I can say it a thousand ways, the point is that what people want from religion is stability and certainty.

If you keep changing your practices depending upon the politics, culture, or social mores of the time, then people will look at your fortress and see that you regularly invite foreign armies in, they will look at your rock in the middle of the storm and notice that the winds have pushed it along. They will lose faith, and they will leave. It doesn't matter if the foreign army you invited into your fortress was a peacekeeping force full of the best intentions, or if your rock moved by the wind is better suited to the new location anyway. The point is that you have shown yourself to be unstable. Changeable. Not eternal.

When it comes to religion (but not politics), traditionalism is an important virtue in and of itself. In matters of religion, changes - even positive ones! - should generally be avoided unless there is an extremely pressing need for them.

[Benuty]

I fail to see what orgasms have to do with needing an exorcism .

[Tarsonis Survivors]

I fail to see what orgasms have to do with needing an exorcism .

uh.., what?

[The Flood]

Now setting the Eastern Orthodox aside, (because I don't know their policies on Exorcism)

The Orthodox Church uses the term "exorcism" to refer to any set of prayers intended to expel demons from a person, location, or object. As such, most Orthodox exorcisms simply consist of a priest saying certain prayers and sprinkling someone or something with holy water, and in the vast majority of cases this is done just in case, not because there is any actual sign of demonic possession. Such "exorcisms" (which other Christians would probably just call prayers) are performed quite liberally on many different occasions. Some people have one performed on a new house before moving into it, for example, and several exorcisms are part of the prayers read during the sacrament of baptism.
But these are "just in case" exorcisms, like I said (in case there happens to be a demon here, get out). As for what happens when there are actual signs of possession, I don't really know. I have never heard of a case of seriously suspected demonic possession. There is a procedure, and I know that it involves some investigation and approval from a bishop, but I do not know anything beyond that.

I would guess it is probably very similar to the Catholic procedure, given that most things of that nature are shared between the Churches.

[The Flood]

Well, since you're certain, I'm sure you wouldn't mind sharing the evidence that's creating that certainty. After all, half the Anglican Communion isn't going to just stop existing because you don't like their endorsement of egalitarianism.

It's not half. The number of practicing members of the Church of England is abysmally low. According to the CoE's own statistics, "1.7 million people take part in a Church of England service each month", and "approaching 3 million people participate in a Church of England service on Christmas Day or Christmas Eve." The nominal membership is 27 million, but when 24 out of those 27 (meaning 89%) don't even bother to go to church for Christmas, you've got an empty shell of a Church on your hands. The Church of England is dying, and unless it changes course it will be dead by the end of this century. You can have a Church with 1-3 million practicing members and 24 million nominal ones, but when the practicing membership dwindles below a certain point, the organization will no longer be able to continue existing, and the millions of nominal members will find that there is nothing left for them to be nominal members of.

And it's not egalitarianism that is causing this decline. Not at all. Egalitarianism is a very good and wonderful thing (after all, I'm a communist, how could I be against it?). The problem is relativism and laxity. Religions draw their strength from their claims to universal truth, so when those claims are relaxed, qualified or abandoned, people lose faith and leave the religion in question.

Traditionalism is the lifeblood of any religion, because traditionalism is what makes those claims to universal truth plausible. If you're doing the same things you've been doing for hundreds of years (or thousands), then people will take you seriously when you claim to hold some universal, unchanging truth. "Here we are, and here we stand, and we will not change for anything or anyone" is precisely what people are looking for in religion. Eternal principles, stability in the chaos of life, a rock in the stormy seas of history, battered but never broken. A place of refuge, a shield of protection, an unconquered fortress with walls as old as civilization itself. I can say it a thousand ways, the point is that what people want from religion is stability and certainty.

If you keep changing your practices depending upon the politics, culture, or social mores of the time, then people will look at your fortress and see that you regularly invite foreign armies in, they will look at your rock in the middle of the storm and notice that the winds have pushed it along. They will lose faith, and they will leave. It doesn't matter if the foreign army you invited into your fortress was a peacekeeping force full of the best intentions, or if your rock moved by the wind is better suited to the new location anyway. The point is that you have shown yourself to be unstable. Changeable. Not eternal.

When it comes to religion (but not politics), traditionalism is an important virtue in and of itself. In matters of religion, changes - even positive ones! - should generally be avoided unless there is an extremely pressing need for them.

Perhaps the decline of the Church of England will lead traditionalists to seek communion with Rome!

*cups hands together deviously*

[Mostrov]

Well, it would be possible to create two separate, parallel Anglican Communions, one traditionalist (composed of the majority of faithful, centered in the Global South, and also attracting traditionalists from the Global North) and the other one composed of the current leadership and mainstream of the CoE and the American Episcopalians.

I'm not saying it would be a good thing, but if things continue on the current path, it may become the least bad option. And you wouldn't need to worry about the two communions existing in parallel for very long, anyway. The liberal one would certainly cease to exist by the end of this century.

You speak as though there is some sort of continuity amongst these areas. Of which there isn't, the idea of breaking from Canterbury is about as appealing as a Catholic from that of Rome.
What exactly defines an Anglican in that case? Especially given that what you would decry as a Southern Anglican is usually more low church in any case. Of course this goes against the strong vein of ritualism and re-establishing itself as a distinctly English church in the tractarian tradition, as opposed to one that is merely a schismatic protestant denomination amongst many.

It's not half. The number of practicing members of the Church of England is abysmally low. According to the CoE's own statistics, "1.7 million people take part in a Church of England service each month", and "approaching 3 million people participate in a Church of England service on Christmas Day or Christmas Eve." The nominal membership is 27 million, but when 24 out of those 27 (meaning 89%) don't even bother to go to church for Christmas, you've got an empty shell of a Church on your hands. The Church of England is dying, and unless it changes course it will be dead by the end of this century. You can have a Church with 1-3 million practicing members and 24 million nominal ones, but when the practicing membership dwindles below a certain point, the organization will no longer be able to continue existing, and the millions of nominal members will find that there is nothing left for them to be nominal members of.

Yet in spite of that it still remains a central part of the nations history and identity. The same problems can be issued against the Russian Orthodox Church.

Perhaps the decline of the Church of England will lead traditionalists to seek communion with Rome!

*cups hands together deviously*

Personally I would rather swallow poisons than accept that, although again I am a proponent of Rome being sacked and everything being dragged off to Canterbury.

[The Flood]

Perhaps the decline of the Church of England will lead traditionalists to seek communion with Rome!
*cups hands together deviously*

Personally I would rather swallow poisons than accept that, although again I am a proponent of Rome being sacked and everything being dragged off to Canterbury.

Why support a heretical Church founded by a mad king called Henry VIII, over the True Church, founded by the King of Kings, also known as Jesus Christ?

[Mostrov]

Why support a heretical Church founded by a mad king called Henry VIII, over the True Church, founded by the King of Kings, also known as Jesus Christ?

The same heretical church who according to the very same church of Rome had acknowledged apostolic succession by reinstating almost all Anglican clergy under the reign of Mary and Phillip? Or you mean a church established under the advice of theologians within England at the time that conveniently ignores the English Reformation and the Elizabethan Religious settlement?

What heresy is there actually? I don't find the reaffirmation of the Apostolicae Curae a convincing response to Saepius Officio, especially given the churches recognition of Anglican Usage, and post-vatican II actually holding mass in the native tongue (one of the reasons for initial schism in the first place). Unless of course you wish to challenge the latter as being illegitimate, given papal primacy, and the former as such naturally follows on, given that there are now Anglicans who can hold to standard a purer version of worship than official catholic canon.

XIX. Of the Church. The visible Church of Christ is a congregation of faithful men, in which the pure Word of God is preached, and the Sacraments be duly ministered according to Christ's ordinance, in all those things that of necessity are requisite to the same. As the Church of Jerusalem, Alexandria, and Antioch, have erred, so also the Church of Rome hath erred, not only in their living and manner of Ceremonies, but also in matters of Faith.

Unless of course you like to argue that the medieval church was a rather serene entity uncompromised by such petty political events as the imprisonment of the pope by the Spanish Emperor? Or the Borgias? Unless of course you are a sedevacantist in which case why call yourself Catholic?

[Agritum]

Well, it would be possible to create two separate, parallel Anglican Communions, one traditionalist (composed of the majority of faithful, centered in the Global South, and also attracting traditionalists from the Global North) and the other one composed of the current leadership and mainstream of the CoE and the American Episcopalians.

I'm not saying it would be a good thing, but if things continue on the current path, it may become the least bad option. And you wouldn't need to worry about the two communions existing in parallel for very long, anyway. The liberal one would certainly cease to exist by the end of this century.

You speak as though there is some sort of continuity amongst these areas. Of which there isn't, the idea of breaking from Canterbury is about as appealing as a Catholic from that of Rome.
What exactly defines an Anglican in that case? Especially given that what you would decry as a Southern Anglican is usually more low church in any case. Of course this goes against the strong vein of ritualism and re-establishing itself as a distinctly English church in the tractarian tradition, as opposed to one that is merely a schismatic protestant denomination amongst many.

It's not half. The number of practicing members of the Church of England is abysmally low. According to the CoE's own statistics, "1.7 million people take part in a Church of England service each month", and "approaching 3 million people participate in a Church of England service on Christmas Day or Christmas Eve." The nominal membership is 27 million, but when 24 out of those 27 (meaning 89%) don't even bother to go to church for Christmas, you've got an empty shell of a Church on your hands. The Church of England is dying, and unless it changes course it will be dead by the end of this century. You can have a Church with 1-3 million practicing members and 24 million nominal ones, but when the practicing membership dwindles below a certain point, the organization will no longer be able to continue existing, and the millions of nominal members will find that there is nothing left for them to be nominal members of.

Yet in spite of that it still remains a central part of the nations history and identity. The same problems can be issued against the Russian Orthodox Church.

Perhaps the decline of the Church of England will lead traditionalists to seek communion with Rome!

*cups hands together deviously*

Personally I would rather swallow poisons than accept that, although again I am a proponent of Rome being sacked and everything being dragged off to Canterbury.

Admittedly, your cathedral (which is already quite nice) would really look good with some additional bling from Rome.

[Constantinopolis]

Well, it would be possible to create two separate, parallel Anglican Communions, one traditionalist (composed of the majority of faithful, centered in the Global South, and also attracting traditionalists from the Global North) and the other one composed of the current leadership and mainstream of the CoE and the American Episcopalians.

I'm not saying it would be a good thing, but if things continue on the current path, it may become the least bad option. And you wouldn't need to worry about the two communions existing in parallel for very long, anyway. The liberal one would certainly cease to exist by the end of this century.

You speak as though there is some sort of continuity amongst these areas. Of which there isn't, the idea of breaking from Canterbury is about as appealing as a Catholic from that of Rome.

I don't understand. The Archbishop of Canterbury is merely primus inter pares, is he not? He is the primate of the Church of England alone, not some sort of universal head of the Anglican Communion in the way that the Pope is the universal head of the Catholic Church. The Anglican Communion could exist without Canterbury. They could select a new primus inter pares from among the other primates, could they not?

In the Orthodox Church, the Patriarch of Constantinople is primus inter pares, but the Orthodox Church does not depend on the existence of the See of Constantinople or on maintaining communion with it. The Patriarchate of Constantinople could cease to exist tomorrow, and the Orthodox Church would simply appoint the next patriarch in canonical order (namely, the Patriarch of Alexandria) as primus inter pares, and continue as before.

What exactly defines an Anglican in that case? Especially given that what you would decry as a Southern Anglican is usually more low church in any case. Of course this goes against the strong vein of ritualism and re-establishing itself as a distinctly English church in the tractarian tradition, as opposed to one that is merely a schismatic protestant denomination amongst many.

Well, I imagine there are specifically Anglican doctrines and practices that bind the Anglican Communion together, right? (this is not a rhetorical question - I genuinely don't know if there is a single established Anglican doctrine and set of practices, although I hope there is)

It's not half. The number of practicing members of the Church of England is abysmally low. According to the CoE's own statistics, "1.7 million people take part in a Church of England service each month", and "approaching 3 million people participate in a Church of England service on Christmas Day or Christmas Eve." The nominal membership is 27 million, but when 24 out of those 27 (meaning 89%) don't even bother to go to church for Christmas, you've got an empty shell of a Church on your hands. The Church of England is dying, and unless it changes course it will be dead by the end of this century. You can have a Church with 1-3 million practicing members and 24 million nominal ones, but when the practicing membership dwindles below a certain point, the organization will no longer be able to continue existing, and the millions of nominal members will find that there is nothing left for them to be nominal members of.

Yet in spite of that it still remains a central part of the nations history and identity. The same problems can be issued against the Russian Orthodox Church.

National history and identity do not matter. Living in Christ is what matters. Any church - Orthodox, Anglican, Catholic, Protestant, whatever - that focuses more on national identity than on genuine Christian faith, is a church in very deep trouble. Nationalism is poison. It rots away one's interest in actual Christian doctrine, drains the rituals of the Church of their Christian meaning and fills them with national meaning instead. A person who is Christian for the sake of his nation and ancestors rather than for the sake of Christ, is no Christian at all.

Of course, this is a recurring problem and an ever-present danger for any church that has existed for many hundreds of years and has become associated with a certain national identity over time. English Anglicans, Polish Catholics, Russian Orthodox, Assyrian Nestorians and many others are susceptible to the danger of making an idol out of their national identity and worshiping that instead of God.

So the fact that the Church of England remains a central part of the nation's history and identity shouldn't be treated as some sort of comfort, or a reason to worry less about the CoE's decline.

[Mostrov]

I don't understand. The Archbishop of Canterbury is merely primus inter pares, is he not? He is the primate of the Church of England alone, not some sort of universal head of the Anglican Communion in the way that the Pope is the universal head of the Catholic Church. The Anglican Communion could exist without Canterbury. They could select a new primus inter pares from among the other primates, could they not?

In the Orthodox Church, the Patriarch of Constantinople is primus inter pares, but the Orthodox Church does not depend on the existence of the See of Constantinople or on maintaining communion with it. The Patriarchate of Constantinople could cease to exist tomorrow, and the Orthodox Church would simply appoint the next patriarch in canonical order (namely, the Patriarch of Alexandria) as primus inter pares, and continue as before.

I recall having a similar conversation with the Archregimancy before; since I fall more on the Anglo-Catholic side of things (although I prefer the term High Church) I naturally gravitate towards centralisation. You have to recall the Anglican church is essentially based upon continuation of english liturgical traditions, so without something that can be regarded as a quintessentially English character it doesn't really make much sense - especially given its strong role in regards to the state, such as the head of the Church being the current monarch, even amongst foreign communions.

Well, I imagine there are specifically Anglican doctrines and practices that bind the Anglican Communion together, right? (this is not a rhetorical question - I genuinely don't know if there is a single established Anglican doctrine and set of practices, although I hope there is)

There isn't; nothing is binding, that is why you get episcopalians who are in favour gay marriage, evangelists who think that icons are the spawn of satan and Anglo-Catholics who are more conservative than the SSPIX.
It doesn't really need any doctrine or identity, because it very much focuses on historical descent and tradition; hence continuity.

National history and identity do not matter. Living in Christ is what matters. Any church - Orthodox, Anglican, Catholic, Protestant, whatever - that focuses more on national identity than on genuine Christian faith, is a church in very deep trouble. Nationalism is poison. It rots away one's interest in actual Christian doctrine, drains the rituals of the Church of their Christian meaning and fills them with national meaning instead. A person who is Christian for the sake of his nation and ancestors rather than for the sake of Christ, is no Christian at all.

It is naturally a large part of Anglicanism due to uniquely English modes of worship, of course it was actually nationalism that kept the church strong for much of its existence with the equivocacy of being English with being a member of the church, at least given the anti-whig (and usually anti-catholic) hysteria of the 18th Century.
It can be regarded as an organic spirituality that is quintessentially English, something perhaps best represented in say And did those feet in ancient time. It is a very insular faith.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

Why support a heretical Church founded by a mad king called Henry VIII, over the True Church, founded by the King of Kings, also known as Jesus Christ?

The same heretical church who according to the very same church of Rome had acknowledged apostolic succession by reinstating almost all Anglican clergy under the reign of Mary and Phillip? Or you mean a church established under the advice of theologians within England at the time that conveniently ignores the English Reformation and the Elizabethan Religious settlement?

What heresy is there actually? I don't find the reaffirmation of the Apostolicae Curae a convincing response to Saepius Officio, especially given the churches recognition of Anglican Usage, and post-vatican II actually holding mass in the native tongue (one of the reasons for initial schism in the first place). Unless of course you wish to challenge the latter as being illegitimate, given papal primacy, and the former as such naturally follows on, given that there are now Anglicans who can hold to standard a purer version of worship than official catholic canon.

XIX. Of the Church. The visible Church of Christ is a congregation of faithful men, in which the pure Word of God is preached, and the Sacraments be duly ministered according to Christ's ordinance, in all those things that of necessity are requisite to the same. As the Church of Jerusalem, Alexandria, and Antioch, have erred, so also the Church of Rome hath erred, not only in their living and manner of Ceremonies, but also in matters of Faith.

Unless of course you like to argue that the medieval church was a rather serene entity uncompromised by such petty political events as the imprisonment of the pope by the Spanish Emperor? Or the Borgias? Unless of course you are a sedevacantist in which case why call yourself Catholic?

Technically, due to certain dogmas surrounding the Pope, having the Monarchy as the head of the Church instead of the Pope would be enough to classify the Anglican as heretical. But, with some wonderful legalese inherent in organized religion, we call it a political division, not a dogmatic one, thus making the Anglican church schismatic, or at worst Apostic

[Ryfylke]

Well, since you're certain, I'm sure you wouldn't mind sharing the evidence that's creating that certainty. After all, half the Anglican Communion isn't going to just stop existing because you don't like their endorsement of egalitarianism.

It's not half. The number of practicing members of the Church of England is abysmally low. According to the CoE's own statistics, "1.7 million people take part in a Church of England service each month", and "approaching 3 million people participate in a Church of England service on Christmas Day or Christmas Eve." The nominal membership is 27 million, but when 24 out of those 27 (meaning 89%) don't even bother to go to church for Christmas, you've got an empty shell of a Church on your hands. The Church of England is dying, and unless it changes course it will be dead by the end of this century. You can have a Church with 1-3 million practicing members and 24 million nominal ones, but when the practicing membership dwindles below a certain point, the organization will no longer be able to continue existing, and the millions of nominal members will find that there is nothing left for them to be nominal members of.

So you're absolutely certain of trends a century out because you compiled an assortment of attendance data. Wow. Somewhere, David Hume is having an aneurysm.

I'm sure your perspective is somewhat different coming from one of the "Big Two" denominations, but over on the Protestant side, we've learned that you can have a successful Church with as many or few members as you can name. Where the Word is read and the sacraments administered, there is a living Church, regardless of the number of members it has.

And it's not egalitarianism that is causing this decline. Not at all. Egalitarianism is a very good and wonderful thing (after all, I'm a communist, how could I be against it?). The problem is relativism and laxity. Religions draw their strength from their claims to universal truth, so when those claims are relaxed, qualified or abandoned, people lose faith and leave the religion in question.

And the ordination of women is lax and relativistic, how, exactly?

Traditionalism is the lifeblood of any religion, because traditionalism is what makes those claims to universal truth plausible. If you're doing the same things you've been doing for hundreds of years (or thousands), then people will take you seriously when you claim to hold some universal, unchanging truth. "Here we are, and here we stand, and we will not change for anything or anyone" is precisely what people are looking for in religion. Eternal principles, stability in the chaos of life, a rock in the stormy seas of history, battered but never broken. A place of refuge, a shield of protection, an unconquered fortress with walls as old as civilization itself. I can say it a thousand ways, the point is that what people want from religion is stability and certainty.

If we're afraid to admit the Church can, has, and will make mistakes and that we should absolutely try to fix those mistakes, we should really stop with this whole Christianity thing, considering how much value we supposedly place on sanctification.

If you keep changing your practices depending upon the politics, culture, or social mores of the time, then people will look at your fortress and see that you regularly invite foreign armies in, they will look at your rock in the middle of the storm and notice that the winds have pushed it along. They will lose faith, and they will leave. It doesn't matter if the foreign army you invited into your fortress was a peacekeeping force full of the best intentions, or if your rock moved by the wind is better suited to the new location anyway. The point is that you have shown yourself to be unstable. Changeable. Not eternal.

No church should retain or adopt a policy just to keep members. They should do so because they believe it is the right thing to do, and that is what the Anglicans have done. If you refuse to adopt a policy that is right because you are afraid you will lose members, you've let the Church succumb to a force even worse than mutability: timidity.

When it comes to religion (but not politics), traditionalism is an important virtue in and of itself. In matters of religion, changes - even positive ones! - should generally be avoided unless there is an extremely pressing need for them.

So, basically, the Church should conduct itself solely for the purposes of retaining members. "Don't fight for what's right for fear of losing members, unless not fighting will cause lose you members, then go ahead!" Yeah, no. It is neither right nor safe to go against conscience.

[The Rich Port]

It makes me wonder how far gone my relationship with my mother is that she has told me I am going to Hell because I don't believe in God.

Needless to say, it has nothing to do with Christianity, and yet that's the first thing she falls back on. Why?

[Othelos]

It makes me wonder how far gone my relationship with my mother is that she has told me I am going to Hell because I don't believe in God.

Needless to say, it has nothing to do with Christianity, and yet that's the first thing she falls back on. Why?

Maybe to justify her belief that you're living the wrong way?

[The Flood]

Why support a heretical Church founded by a mad king called Henry VIII, over the True Church, founded by the King of Kings, also known as Jesus Christ?

The same heretical church who according to the very same church of Rome had acknowledged apostolic succession by reinstating almost all Anglican clergy under the reign of Mary and Phillip? Or you mean a church established under the advice of theologians within England at the time that conveniently ignores the English Reformation and the Elizabethan Religious settlement?

What heresy is there actually? I don't find the reaffirmation of the Apostolicae Curae a convincing response to Saepius Officio, especially given the churches recognition of Anglican Usage, and post-vatican II actually holding mass in the native tongue (one of the reasons for initial schism in the first place). Unless of course you wish to challenge the latter as being illegitimate, given papal primacy, and the former as such naturally follows on, given that there are now Anglicans who can hold to standard a purer version of worship than official catholic canon.

XIX. Of the Church. The visible Church of Christ is a congregation of faithful men, in which the pure Word of God is preached, and the Sacraments be duly ministered according to Christ's ordinance, in all those things that of necessity are requisite to the same. As the Church of Jerusalem, Alexandria, and Antioch, have erred, so also the Church of Rome hath erred, not only in their living and manner of Ceremonies, but also in matters of Faith.

Unless of course you like to argue that the medieval church was a rather serene entity uncompromised by such petty political events as the imprisonment of the pope by the Spanish Emperor? Or the Borgias? Unless of course you are a sedevacantist in which case why call yourself Catholic?

I'm not knowledgeable enough to address all of this, but I will address some of it.

Queen Mary and King Phillip of Spain reversed the English reformation, and re established communion with Rome. They ended the heresy started by Henry VIII. But when Elisabeth I came to the throne, she reversed everything Mary did, and began the heresy anew.

If only Mary and Phillip had born an heir, there'd be no schism with England today. That, and England and Spain might be one country

[Pope Joan]

The Church of Rome was not established by Jesus. It grew from word of mouth and covert missionaries just like the churches of Syria or Ethiopia.

I think Jesus has an interest in its well-being, despite its increasing misogyny. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jonathan- ... 83311.html

But it never was the only church, despite its many declarations to the contrary.

If there is to be a church which is "one, holy, apostolic and universal (catholic)", it will need to include a variety of opinion including those mislabeled "heretical". I claim a philosophical descent from the Donatists, myself. That heresy said that it mattered whether or not the priest was immoral. (Look at what modern grief could have been spared if this doctrine had been followed.) But Augustine said oh no, all that matters is the ongoing institution.

[Constantinopolis]

I claim a philosophical descent from the Donatists, myself. That heresy said that it mattered whether or not the priest was immoral. (Look at what modern grief could have been spared if this doctrine had been followed.) But Augustine said oh no, all that matters is the ongoing institution.

There's a very good reason for that. If, as the Donatists claimed, the sacraments performed by an immoral priest are invalid, then the people baptized by an immoral priest are not really baptized, the people who confess to an immoral priest don't actually have their sins forgiven, and the people who receive the Eucharist consecrated by an immoral priest have not really taken Communion. In other words, if the Donatists were right, then God punishes innocent people for the sins of an immoral priest, by withholding grace from them. Obviously you can see why that's a heretical doctrine.

[Constantinopolis]

It's not half. The number of practicing members of the Church of England is abysmally low. According to the CoE's own statistics, "1.7 million people take part in a Church of England service each month", and "approaching 3 million people participate in a Church of England service on Christmas Day or Christmas Eve." The nominal membership is 27 million, but when 24 out of those 27 (meaning 89%) don't even bother to go to church for Christmas, you've got an empty shell of a Church on your hands. The Church of England is dying, and unless it changes course it will be dead by the end of this century. You can have a Church with 1-3 million practicing members and 24 million nominal ones, but when the practicing membership dwindles below a certain point, the organization will no longer be able to continue existing, and the millions of nominal members will find that there is nothing left for them to be nominal members of.

So you're absolutely certain of trends a century out because you compiled an assortment of attendance data. Wow. Somewhere, David Hume is having an aneurysm.

I'm not absolutely certain, but the fact is that (a) the number of practicing members of the CoE is extremely low and declining, and (b) religion on the whole is declining in the West. Neither of those trends - especially not the latter one - is likely to be reversed soon, unless some kind of spectacular reversal of fortunes takes place. That is highly improbable. The most likely scenario is that religion will continue to decline and the CoE will decline faster and more thoroughly than the majority of religious groups. As such, I think it is very likely that the CoE will cease to exist as an independent entity by the end of this century. I expect that it will end by merging with some other denomination(s) when it becomes small enough.

I'm sure your perspective is somewhat different coming from one of the "Big Two" denominations, but over on the Protestant side, we've learned that you can have a successful Church with as many or few members as you can name. Where the Word is read and the sacraments administered, there is a living Church, regardless of the number of members it has.

Don't misunderstand me. Being a small Church is not any kind of problem in and of itself. The problem of the CoE is that it is a small Church even though it used to be much bigger. In other words, participation (and to a lesser extent nominal membership) is dropping fast. It's not the size that's the problem, it's the decline. A small group is fine, but if that small group is getting increasingly smaller...

And it's not egalitarianism that is causing this decline. Not at all. Egalitarianism is a very good and wonderful thing (after all, I'm a communist, how could I be against it?). The problem is relativism and laxity. Religions draw their strength from their claims to universal truth, so when those claims are relaxed, qualified or abandoned, people lose faith and leave the religion in question.

And the ordination of women is lax and relativistic, how, exactly?

Well, I wasn't really focusing on the ordination of women specifically, but rather was talking about recent liberal attitudes in general (especially with regards to sexuality, but also the afterlife, hell, the uniqueness and importance of the death and resurrection of Christ as the only path to salvation, and so on).

But regarding the ordination of women specifically, it is lax and relativistic because it dismisses 2000 years of consistent Church practice as being nothing more than an artifact of patriarchal culture (despite this practice being followed in every single culture that the Church has ever existed in, despite the legions of strong female saints and leaders who never had a problem with it, and so on). The ordination of women is lax and relativistic because it says, "Oh, this thing that we've always done? Yeah, never mind, that was wrong."

Traditionalism is the lifeblood of any religion, because traditionalism is what makes those claims to universal truth plausible. If you're doing the same things you've been doing for hundreds of years (or thousands), then people will take you seriously when you claim to hold some universal, unchanging truth. "Here we are, and here we stand, and we will not change for anything or anyone" is precisely what people are looking for in religion. Eternal principles, stability in the chaos of life, a rock in the stormy seas of history, battered but never broken. A place of refuge, a shield of protection, an unconquered fortress with walls as old as civilization itself. I can say it a thousand ways, the point is that what people want from religion is stability and certainty.

If we're afraid to admit the Church can, has, and will make mistakes and that we should absolutely try to fix those mistakes, we should really stop with this whole Christianity thing, considering how much value we supposedly place on sanctification.

There's a difference between "the Church has made mistakes" (which we should always admit and fix), and "the Church has promoted wrong doctrines as part of its official teachings". Just like there's a difference between a professor having character flaws and a professor teaching false things in class. The former is to be expected. The latter casts doubt as to whether he should be a professor at all.

For example, the Catholic Church has admitted and apologized for many past mistakes, such as the trial of Galileo, the recent child abuse scandal, and so on. But if the Catholic Church were to decide that, actually, Luther was right all along, that would be equivalent to a declaration that the Catholic Church has no theological ground to stand on and no reason to exist.

If you keep changing your practices depending upon the politics, culture, or social mores of the time, then people will look at your fortress and see that you regularly invite foreign armies in, they will look at your rock in the middle of the storm and notice that the winds have pushed it along. They will lose faith, and they will leave. It doesn't matter if the foreign army you invited into your fortress was a peacekeeping force full of the best intentions, or if your rock moved by the wind is better suited to the new location anyway. The point is that you have shown yourself to be unstable. Changeable. Not eternal.

No church should retain or adopt a policy just to keep members. They should do so because they believe it is the right thing to do, and that is what the Anglicans have done. If you refuse to adopt a policy that is right because you are afraid you will lose members, you've let the Church succumb to a force even worse than mutability: timidity.

Agreed. But I am saying that it's really hard - perhaps impossible - to believe at the same time that (1) the recent liberal changes adopted by Anglicans were the right thing to do, and (2) the Anglican Communion is the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church which has always remained faithful to the teachings of Christ. Belief in (1) casts serious doubt upon (2), and belief in (2) casts serious doubt upon (1).

So I'm saying that, basically, you have to choose: Either you really think these changes are the right thing to do, in which case you must believe that the Church was wrong for almost two thousand years about some really important stuff, in which case you have very little reason to remain a Christian - or you think the Church was correct about its consistent teachings and practices throughout its existence, in which case the recent changes are NOT the right thing to do.

When it comes to religion (but not politics), traditionalism is an important virtue in and of itself. In matters of religion, changes - even positive ones! - should generally be avoided unless there is an extremely pressing need for them.

So, basically, the Church should conduct itself solely for the purposes of retaining members. "Don't fight for what's right for fear of losing members, unless not fighting will cause lose you members, then go ahead!" Yeah, no. It is neither right nor safe to go against conscience.

No. That's not what I'm saying. What I am saying is this: If your "fight for what's right" involves going against things that the Church has consistently taught and practiced for almost its entire existence, then your beliefs about "what's right" are probably incompatible with Christianity. Either change your beliefs about what's right, or give up Christianity.

Notice the word "consistently" and the clause "for almost its entire existence". They are important. I am not talking about beliefs and practices that the Church has endorsed in some historical periods but not others. I am not talking about specific measures that were adopted to deal with a specific situation, and which may have been wrong. I am talking about things that the Church has consistently taught and practiced for almost its entire existence. Having all-male priests and bishops is one of these things.

(there were, however, female deacons in the early Church - I wrote about that before)

[The Flood]

So you're absolutely certain of trends a century out because you compiled an assortment of attendance data. Wow. Somewhere, David Hume is having an aneurysm.

I'm not absolutely certain, but the fact is that (a) the number of practicing members of the CoE is extremely low and declining, and (b) religion on the whole is declining in the West. Neither of those trends - especially not the latter one - is likely to be reversed soon, unless some kind of spectacular reversal of fortunes takes place. That is highly improbable. The most likely scenario is that religion will continue to decline and the CoE will decline faster and more thoroughly than the majority of religious groups. As such, I think it is very likely that the CoE will cease to exist as an independent entity by the end of this century. I expect that it will end by merging with some other denomination(s) when it becomes small enough.

I'm sure your perspective is somewhat different coming from one of the "Big Two" denominations, but over on the Protestant side, we've learned that you can have a successful Church with as many or few members as you can name. Where the Word is read and the sacraments administered, there is a living Church, regardless of the number of members it has.

Don't misunderstand me. Being a small Church is not any kind of problem in and of itself. The problem of the CoE is that it is a small Church even though it used to be much bigger. In other words, participation (and to a lesser extent nominal membership) is dropping fast. It's not the size that's the problem, it's the decline. A small group is fine, but if that small group is getting increasingly smaller...

And the ordination of women is lax and relativistic, how, exactly?

Well, I wasn't really focusing on the ordination of women specifically, but rather was talking about recent liberal attitudes in general (especially with regards to sexuality, but also the afterlife, hell, the uniqueness and importance of the death and resurrection of Christ as the only path to salvation, and so on).

But regarding the ordination of women specifically, it is lax and relativistic because it dismisses 2000 years of consistent Church practice as being nothing more than an artifact of patriarchal culture (despite this practice being followed in every single culture that the Church has ever existed in, despite the legions of strong female saints and leaders who never had a problem with it, and so on). The ordination of women is lax and relativistic because it says, "Oh, this thing that we've always done? Yeah, never mind, that was wrong."

If we're afraid to admit the Church can, has, and will make mistakes and that we should absolutely try to fix those mistakes, we should really stop with this whole Christianity thing, considering how much value we supposedly place on sanctification.

There's a difference between "the Church has made mistakes" (which we should always admit and fix), and "the Church has promoted wrong doctrines as part of its official teachings". Just like there's a difference between a professor having character flaws and a professor teaching false things in class. The former is to be expected. The latter casts doubt as to whether he should be a professor at all.

For example, the Catholic Church has admitted and apologized for many past mistakes, such as the trial of Galileo, the recent child abuse scandal, and so on. But if the Catholic Church were to decide that, actually, Luther was right all along, that would be equivalent to a declaration that the Catholic Church has no theological ground to stand on and no reason to exist.

No church should retain or adopt a policy just to keep members. They should do so because they believe it is the right thing to do, and that is what the Anglicans have done. If you refuse to adopt a policy that is right because you are afraid you will lose members, you've let the Church succumb to a force even worse than mutability: timidity.

Agreed. But I am saying that it's really hard - perhaps impossible - to believe at the same time that (1) the recent liberal changes adopted by Anglicans were the right thing to do, and (2) the Anglican Communion is the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church which has always remained faithful to the teachings of Christ. Belief in (1) casts serious doubt upon (2), and belief in (2) casts serious doubt upon (1).

So I'm saying that, basically, you have to choose: Either you really think these changes are the right thing to do, in which case you must believe that the Church was wrong for almost two thousand years about some really important stuff, in which case you have very little reason to remain a Christian - or you think the Church was correct about its consistent teachings and practices throughout its existence, in which case the recent changes are NOT the right thing to do.

So, basically, the Church should conduct itself solely for the purposes of retaining members. "Don't fight for what's right for fear of losing members, unless not fighting will cause lose you members, then go ahead!" Yeah, no. It is neither right nor safe to go against conscience.

No. That's not what I'm saying. What I am saying is this: If your "fight for what's right" involves going against things that the Church has consistently taught and practiced for almost its entire existence, then your beliefs about "what's right" are probably incompatible with Christianity. Either change your beliefs about what's right, or give up Christianity.

Notice the word "consistently" and the clause "for almost its entire existence". They are important. I am not talking about beliefs and practices that the Church has endorsed in some historical periods but not others. I am not talking about specific measures that were adopted to deal with a specific situation, and which may have been wrong. I am talking about things that the Church has consistently taught and practiced for almost its entire existence. Having all-male priests and bishops is one of these things.

(there were, however, female deacons in the early Church - I wrote about that before)

What would your opinion be if the Orthodox or Catholic Church decided to allow female ordination?

[Constantinopolis]

What would your opinion be if the Orthodox or Catholic Church decided to allow female ordination?

My opinion could range anywhere between "probably not a good move, but it's no big deal" and "this is horrendous and toying with heresy, I can't believe they did that", depending on how and in what context such a decision is made, and especially depending on the kinds of arguments used to support it.

I've explained the reason for having all-male priests and bishops before:

The Eucharist is the sacrament that unites us with each other and with God; it heals the unnatural division between humanity and divinity. We were created for communion with God, but through sin we break that communion. Once broken, this communion cannot be restored in any way by ourselves acting alone. It can only be restored by God, with our cooperation. Christ became man, died and rose from the grave in order to enable the restoration of communion between human and divine, in order to make it possible for us to become One again. This principle - the communion of humanity and divinity, two natures joining together, two becoming one - is represented and revealed to us in nature by the union of male and female. Ultimately, we believe that God created the two sexes (and sexual reproduction) as a revelation or "icon" of the communion between human and divine.

This is also, by the way, the reason why we must be monogamous: sexual union is an icon of the Eucharist, we are to have one partner as we have one God, and adultery is an icon of idolatry.

So if the two sexes are a representation of the two natures - human and divine - that are to be joined in the Eucharist, then the priests and bishops who consecrate the Eucharist (and who are icons of Christ during the Divine Liturgy) must be of one sex only, because, when they celebrate the Eucharist, they represent the divine side of the union. The Christian Eucharistic priesthood must be either all-male or all-female, to underline the fact that God is one of the two parts of a union which is to be accomplished. And since Christ and the Apostles were male, we have an all-male priesthood rather than an all-female one.

Now, you will notice that this is all about symbolism. Christian symbolism matters and should be taken extremely seriously, but it is not, strictly speaking, unchangeable. It's certainly not dogma. So if the Orthodox or Catholic Church made a decision to change the symbolism surrounding the Eucharist in such a way that priests and bishops of both sexes could exist, and if a serious and comprehensive argument was made on purely theological grounds (i.e. NOT political grounds) about why the change is necessary and why it is somehow consistent with Holy Tradition and does not constitute a repudiation or condemnation of earlier Church practice... then I still wouldn't like it very much (unless the argument is really persuasive), but I would accept it as completely legitimate and no big deal.

If the above conditions are not satisfied and the decision to begin female ordination is taken simply out of a desire to "modernize", or for political reasons, or in a way that represents a break with Holy Tradition or a repudiation or condemnation of earlier Church practice, then I would consider it to be a dangerous act, maybe even bordering on heresy (if it was done really badly) and I would actively support the faction(s) within the Church that are campaigning to have it reversed. Even in this case, however, I would oppose any schismatic groups that might break away from the Church over this issue. Schism is never justified unless the Church completely falls into apostasy and stops being the Church - which is a very, very far cry from a mere dispute over ordination.

However, the whole scenario of female ordination in the Orthodox Church or the Catholic Church is impossible anyway - certainly within our lifetimes, if not forever. In the Orthodox Church, support for female ordination is almost completely non-existent, and in any case the only body that could possibly authorize it is an Ecumenical Council. Ecumenical Councils only meet in cases of dire need, we haven't had one in over a thousand years, and there is absolutely no way that one would be called over the issue of female ordination, even if it actually had some support.

As for the Catholic Church, if I remember correctly, Pope John Paul II ended the discussion by declaring it an infallible doctrine that the clergy must be male. So if the Catholic Church wanted to allow female ordination now, it would have to overturn the authority of the Pope in order to do it.