Is that roasting fowl I smell? No; it isn't chickens, just their dung........

Well, I've got beer and brats going. That'll be a lot more edifying than the Tanzania Song and Dance, evidently!

The truth is starting to sink in to Canon Gary it sounds like.

In all of the communications out of Tanzania not one, NOT ONE, has spoken of any censure, discipline, break, or "second province".

I don't think the primates "missed an historic oppurtunity", I don't think it was ever even a possiblity. The sentiment that the primates would somehow fix or address the TEC problem has been a pipe dream all along.

When folks like me have pointed out the inevitable in the past we have been attacked as naysayers, reasserters, jumping the gun, impatient, etc.

We were all trying to save our beloved orthodox brothers the shock of what was to come of this meeting. Most did not listen and today their hearts are surely troubled and painful. They have been abandoned it would seem.

Let's all be in prayer for those who see the inaction of Tanzania so far and are troubled.

If the clear teaching of the scriptures were going to be upheld by the primates they would have done so long ago. They have had 4 years and they still do nothing but talk, and oh yes...listen.

Christ have mercy.

" ...The defendant is not so much the Episcopal Church as the new religion that has arisen in the name of the Episcopal Church. ..."
I think that says it all, really. All the congregations which left TEC to ally themselves with the African churches can now see they have made a horrible mistake.
As another poster remarked, My God Have Mercy Upon Them.

Nope, the shoe needs to drop.

I'm waiting for the shoe!

Quote:

I don't get it.

Suppose a bunch of primates said PECUSA was apostate. Suppose a few more than already have declared broken or impared communion.

Heck, suppose a majority of primates said the response to Windsor was inadequate. And said that they wanted the ABC & ABY to dis-invite PECUSA to future "Anglican Communion" meetings.

SO WHAT?!

It would still make precisely NO difference. NO difference to PECUSA's behavior and teaching. NO difference to the marginalization of the traditionalists (should I say "moderate revisionists?") left in her organization. NO difference to the arguments in court, or the pain and $ those fights will cost.

Really, the only difference would be that the "traditionalists" still in PECUSA could say "ha ha, told you so" to their fellows.

Nothing else would change. Not the apostasy. Not the institution. Not the courts. Not the head-in-the-sand congregations.


Regardless of what the primates say or do -- regardless of what the ABC says or does -- the fact remains that you're in PECUSA until you decide to leave PECUSA.

You're yoked with unbelievers until you throw off the yoke.

And sitting around waiting for the primates to do something which, constitutionally & legally, they can't even do... or for their statements to make a difference to PECUSA which they'll never make... isn't throwing off the yoke. It's just complaining about it.


pax,
LP

Looks like the liberal group was right. Nothing's going to happen. I guess I've just wasted 3 years waiting for Godly leadership in the Anglican Communion. Looks like I need to shake the dust off my sandals and move on. Makes me want to vomit.

"Cheer-up Rose, at least the band is nice and we've got our Episcopal name and building. And I hear the Primates will try to raise the ship at Lambeth 2008."

I think it is too early to judge the fruits of the meeting. It could be that both sides are avoiding any leaks that could blow things out of proportion on the liberal or othodox side.

At this point, everything has to do with actions and not words.

AMiA and CANA didn't wait and took a risk. I respect that.

Even if the outcome is some amazing dual structure, that will not settle matters. It will come down to lawsuits. In 10 years or so, perhaps properties etc. will go to the ones that stayed true to the Bible and orthodoxy. Is it worth fighting this fight when we should be fighting for the souls of the unchurched?

I'm not sure what the possibilities are here. I know that many of the Primates have been in a state of broken or "impaired" (whatever that means) communion with TEC for some time. Short of a formal show of excommunication and a refusal to meet with TEC until they repent, I'm not sure what anybody's looking for or expecting. I read there has been talk about the setting up of a two-tiered structure and an alternate province, etc. I don't really understand the ecclesiology involved though. One is in communion or not. If, somehow, the Global South is waiting on Canterbury to approve such a scheme and put it into practice, I think that we may safely assume that Our Lord will return long before their hopes are satisfied on that account.

There's nothing left to do but formally, openly excommunicate TEC and all those who have acted to normalize homosexual activity. Nothing.

lh

First response: shock; major disappointment. Then, Hey, guys, wake up! Don't YOU 'smell the coffee' in this kitchen?? Face it, the Anglican Church of Cranmer, Latimer, Hooker, Ryle, (you name the Americans), et al. is no more! It's historical "successor" and (illegitimate) "heir" is no longer "holy" nor "apostolic" nor "catholic". "Peace, peace, when there is no peace." More later (maybe).

Right about now the Continuing Churches look real good.

Global South = GS = Gutless South

++Akinola and his friends will need to prove that they aren't CHICKEN.

I haven't been as giddy as some observers anticipating a major blow out and quite frankly expected a certain amount of fudge. But judging by events today it was more like Death By Chocolate than fudge. I too have wasted three years for TEC to get the naughty chair and instead they have been given a treat to reward their temper tantrum. There is no way even if there are secret negotiations going on that this is witnessing Christ. I am done with TEC now. It is dead to me and so are the GS...or should I say BS... bishops who have been ostensibly courageous but are apparently blowhards with no real fire in their belly to fight the good fight. I am sick to my stomach at this turn of events. How naive of me to think that something resembling Christianity would emerge from this whole collection of clerical collared politicians. The line in the sand hasn't moved yet again...it's gone!!! Getting anyone in authority in the "Communion" (joke HERE) to actually make a bold decision is like trying to nail Jello to a tree. My search for a new spiritual home is now on.

MicroCar,

And you shall be welcomed with open arms and no questions asked. We don't care now why it took you so long or what you may have lost in TEC.

Look to the future. A future filled with uncompromised worship of the Triune God in the true Apostolic tradition of the faith once delivered to the Saints.

No more gay clerics. No more priestesses and other women dressing and acting like men. No more feminist garbage from the pulpit. No more winking at sin and calling it good.

The continuing churches stand now as they have for three decades, ready to receive those who wish to continue in the Anglican tradition minus the innovations of the 1960's and 70's.

We have been here, bible and prayerbook in hand waiting to give refuge to all who will finally get it. By the way, it's a 1928 prayerbook that has the same theology that the 1549 book had. No more books of alternative services with its prayer A, B,C,D,G,T and Z. No more handshake "baptismal covenants" that place social justice over conversion.

I must warn you though. The first time you come and experience Christian worship the way it should be, have a handkerchief ready. God will touch your heart and you will know that you are finally home.

Sam +

United Episcopal Church of North America
www.united-episcopal.org
or simply click on our sheild to the right!

We can be sure that, regardless of the results of this meeting, Akinola et. al. will see to it that an alternative communion/jurisdiction is set up. They will not continue fellowship under the status quo.

Lapittengr is right. Nothing magic is going to come out of this meeting.

The worst thing that could happen is Akinola agreeing to "wait patiently" for another unspecified amount of time in the hopes that the winds will shift.

I don't see him doing that.

I think we can be quite confident that Akinola will not allow the Orthodox to flounder, and will not abide with the current fellowship status. The Orthodox will separate, and we will leave the chaff behind for good.

THAT is our hope. THAT is what we should be praying for.

"Akinola will see to it that an alternative jurisdiction/communion will be set up."

Anglican06,

Dear brother,I disagree. I don't think that Akinola is going to risk "going it alone". I say alone because I don't believe any of the others have the guts to go with him, apart from Rowan. The institution has its comforts and recognition. I don't believe most primates are willing to give that up.

I do believe that we should be praying, but I don't think that Akinola is going to be the great Black Night from Africa to rescue the orthodox.

Maybe I'm wrong though I don't think so.

In this case, it would be a comfort to be wrong.

Quote:

The "orthodox" have had 30 years to separate and leave the chaff behind for good.

Those still in PECUSA still haven't done so.

Since the late 70s, any parish could have gathered its people and left PECUSA (back then with more chance of keeping the building & property) and joined the Continuing church movement. They didn't.

Since the mid-90s, any parish could have gathered its people and left PECUSA and joined the AMiA (and even kept the empty honor of still being in the "Anglican Communion" that way). They didn't.

Since 2003, any parish could have appealed to the primates willing to cross boundaries and transfered themselves into a Global South jurisdiction. They didn't.


So if ++Akinola -- who can do no more than refuse to be in communion with PECUSA and offer to take parishes into his jurisdiction (which he has already) done -- were to stand up again and denounce PECUSA, do you really think that would make a difference to the people still on the fence?

Maybe. Hopefully.

But the fact is that there have been fence sitters for 30 years now, complaining about being "yoked to unbelievers" but doing nothing about it.

And I fear that for most of them, Tanzania is going to be yet one more ignored line in the White Sands.


It isn't up to ++Akinola. It never has been.

It's up to each parish of Episcopalians. Right here. Right now.

Just as it has always been.


pax,
LP

My brothers and sisters in Christ,

Somehow I cannot imagine the Apostolic Fathers gathering with such wavering and deference to sinful behavior. “We will all leave friends?” What the hell does that have to do with Biblical truth? "I am still friends with the heretic," how nice!

Can we truly correct ourselves? My fear is we cannot; and the glory of the Church Catholic once residing in the Anglican expression has lost any claim to truth.

But where do we go?

Quote:

For my money, if anyone genuinely wishes to be catholic & orthodox in the Anglican tradition, there's really only one option -- the Continuing Church movement.

Certainly, it's the one real bastion of traditional and orthodox Anglicanism left in the U.S.

Everyone will, of course, have to make their own investigations and decisions.

But it's certainly one option which all who value the "glory of the Church Catholic once residing in the Anglican expression" should consider.

As that glory is still there.


pax,
LP


Some starting links:
APCK
ACA
ACC

Several other, smaller groups are also "genuine" Continuing churches, tracing their origins directly back to the Synod of St. Louis and ascribing to the Affirmation of St. Louis.

Many other non-PECUSA Anglican bodies also exist, such as the REC or CEEC, and though often lumped with the "Continuing Churches" (thus creating the popular impression that there are 40 or more "continuing" jurisdictions), actually have their own, often quite different, origins.

An overview of the origins of the larger of the various groups -- both Continuing and related -- may be found here.

Apart from absorbing well heeled big buck tithing congregations in Texas (AMIA) and Virginia (CANA) what the heck good is it when ++Kolini and ++Akinola and the whole disappointing GS crew ie Venables etc.,yada yada continue at table with the likes of +Schori (TEC)and ++Hutchinson (ACC)? They are still in freeking communion!!!! Which means you are all still in freeking communion with Jesus denying heritics!!!!!

Are you all simplistic losers? Your Bishops won't ever go. Your deluded

I am out of the GS....NOW! Continuing Church here I come
Micro+

From the beginning of the CC movement, the common strategy of ECUSA (in both its radical and "orthodox" manifestations) was to pretend that we don't exist. The "reasserters" (who seem to be very down-in-the-mouth this evening) by and large continue this policy. But as LP has demonstrated, the CC are concentrated in 3 or 4 major bodies, small but viable, with a 25 year track record of quietly thriving in our Lord's service. The calm and stability of the CC are a striking contrast to the weeping, wailing, and gnashing of teeth which the reasserters are currently exhibiting. Since they have abandoned the Catholic ethos of the Anglican tradition, and are "Anglican" in no meaningful sense, what do they have to "reassert" besides their petulance and hatred for the church which they so desperately cling to?

Good thing I held off donating until the job was done.

I must second or third or fourth, as the case may be, the other posters who mentioned the Continuing Anglican churches as a place for Anglicans to go. The Church of England is only a few steps behind TEC, if at all; and recent events seem to demonstrate that the African churches, for which so many seemed to have so much hope, are too weak to be that hope.

My particular commitment is to a local communion of the PCK; which uses the 1928 Prayer Book, the 1940 Hymnal; has no women masquerading as men, and obviously no homosexual priests and so forth. The 39 Articles are still alive and well. I have been a member for about 4 1/2 years and only wish it had been longer. I attended an ECUSA church for a while in the early 1990s and got disgusted. I had been away from the Church for many years and thought ECUSA would be like coming home. Boy was I ever wrong.

I had no knowedge of the Affirmation of St. Louis and churches springing up from that; unfortunately. The priest of the local ECUSA church certainly never let on that such churches existed. He just told me that lots of things had changed. I gave it (ECUSA) 18 months of faithful attendance and then just had enough of the priest quoting liberal political journals and barely acknowleding the Bible and its truths. I wrote to him explaining my feelings, who knows why; maybe I thought he would change. I stopped going there. I was churchless for about 12 years.

Another poster mentioned the emotional experience of attenting a real Church. The first three or four times I went I had to carry lots of tissues; I had to say to myself, "Now today you are not going to cry." I don't cry, usually; but I could not help myself then. Be prepared, it's a wonderful homecoming and a powerful emotional experience to go back to Church again.

It would seem that there may be no place for whole congregations to go unless they can affiliate with something like the PCK. It may simply have to be more of an individual decision. Perhaps some congregants may seek a like minded priest and start a church. That is how the church I am part of (St. Augustine of Canterbury in Chico, CA) began. A retired priest, a card table, and 2 couples, in 1978 I believe it was. It (our Church) still is not large (though we have a lovely old Episcopal church originally built in 1904, a coffee shop, and meeting hall, a library, and lots more with more to come; all thanks in large part to our Pastor's boundless energy and expertise) but size is not the important thing.

The remnant of Anglicanism is not numbered in the millions I think; but that does not matter either. I do think it is a remnant, perhaps the last true Christian remnant.

Good wishes to all in your search for the "faith of the saints."

David Jackson

I voted with my feet years ago, and look upon these proceedings as more stalling. Everyone thought in 2003 that things would change. They didn't. My soul is worth more than a label of Episcopalian or Anglican.

Follow the money folks and you won't be surprised. As small and insignificant as the Episcopal church is in numbers both as Christian denominations and the world-wide Anglican religion, they pay the bills for the current hierarchy that wants their retirement checks.

The next eagerly awaiting moment of reckoning will be in 2008 and Williams will push that out by having an alternative form of conference instead of Lambeth. And by the time Lambeth does occur, you will all forget there was even an issue about the Bible.

Satan loves compromise and I believe he is laughing his head off right now.

If ++Akinola walks out of there with Schori and TEC in good stead I have some very serious soul searching to do in the next few days.

Quote:

May God meet you in your prayers.

But one question -- if ++Akinola does *not* walk out with them, but walks away from them, what iota of difference does that really make about remaining in PECUSA?

Whether ++Akinola compromises with or denounces PECUSA -- or say, rather, whether he's able to bring the gathered primates to a significant censure of PECUSA or not -- how does that make any difference to the fact that if you receive communion from a priest under a bishop who is in PECUSA then you are in PECUSA, and in communion with KJS, VGR, Spong, and the rest of them.

++Akinola's opinion of them, the Anglican Communion's censure or endorsement of them, is irrelevant to that fact.

If there is soul searching that needs doing, then doesn't it need doing regardless of what comes out of Tanzania in the next few days?

pax,
LP

LP - I'm out of PECUSA. CANA or Continuing is in the immediate future and I was leaning toward CANA. I will continue to pray on this.

The peace of our Lord be with you also.

LP - I'm out of PECUSA. CANA or Continuing is in the immediate future and I was leaning toward CANA. I will continue to pray on this.

The peace of our Lord be with you also.

Anyone for a Western Rite Orthodox Church. Check your phone books The Episcopal cult has SNAFU'd us again. :-x :-x :-x

Quote:

And that for, chiefly, one simple reason -- those who accepted the "revisionism" of the 70s-80s of PECUSA (including WO) did so by the very same surrendering of Scripture & Tradition to the spirit of the age as today's apostates... by the very same contortions of Scripture's clear meanings in order to accomodate their own "social justice" agenda.

The theological & ecclesiastical ramifications of the WO and the "polysexuality" (and, for that matter, the divorce) revisionisms have notable differences... but the underlying rejection of the normative authority of Scripture and Tradition is the same.

And the Continuing Church movement has always been a reminder of that fact to PECUSA's "traditionalists" -- which is why the orthodox often come in for even more contempt or censure by these "moderate revisionists" than do the apostates. Over at Stand Firm (which has done stellar work in keeping up with the news) the apostates are "our Worthy Adversaries"... anglocatholics less so!

So the insecurity whence the veiled hostility comes is understandable.

It also ought to serve as a good indication whither genuinely orthodox & catholic Anglicans ought to turn.

pax,
LP

From Catholic Orthodoxy and Anglo-Catholicism, 1866, by J. J. Overbeck:
Quote:

Xeno --

By this argument, someone who doesn't hold even one of Rome's dogmas is guilty of abandoning them all and is a "Protestant". Since two of those dogmas will necessarily include papal supremacy and infallibility, this argument is tantamount to saying that one is either a Roman or a Protestant.


However, it is, I think, true to say that there are some of Rome's dogmas which "anglocatholics" would describe as "pious opinions" -- even "truths" -- but not describe as "dogmatic truths".

This observation, naturally, leads on to a whole discussion about normative authority, the question of the "magisterium", the status of Ecumenical Councils vs the papacy, etc etc etc.


Again, for purposes of this thread, suffice the observation that one need not abandon Anglicanism if abandoning apostate PECUSA -- and that those who think of themselves as "catholic" rather than "protestant" in the Anglican tradition ought to be looking to the Continuing church movement.

If nothing else, Romans should be cheering on the Continuing church as a place for those Anglicans who cannot, in good conscience, turn to Rome... for it is only with such Anglicans that any sort of productive ecumenical talks (even if decades or generations down the road) could occur.

pax,
LP

"The Primates by whatever means were lulled into reconciliation mode."

Well, this is certainly the "Dark Night of the Soul." Susan Russell, on the other hand is crowing like a cock at daybreak on her blog. (No pun intended.) Equally smug is "Episcope"--the TEC blog.

This is about the closest I've come to crossing the Tiber in years. How did my sandals get so dusty? I wonder if it's time to go outside and shake off the dust.

45From the sixth hour until the ninth hour darkness came over all the land. 46About the ninth hour Jesus cried out in a loud voice, "Eloi, Eloi,[c] lama sabachthani?"—which means, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?"[d] Matt 27:45-46 NIV

lapittengr wrote:
"For my money, if anyone genuinely wishes to be catholic & orthodox in the Anglican tradition, there's really only one option -- the Continuing Church movement."

I usually agree with you, lapittengr, but here I must disagree. I believe that the Continuing Church movement is a very good option. The current movement (CANA, AMiA, etc) is an apostate "one trick pony"—they are comprised of folks who tolerated the heresy in TEc for 30 years, all the while denigrating the faithful who departed and formed the Continuing Churches, and only left over the single issue of the consecration of an openly homosexual bishop. If the only options were TEc, the current movement or the Continuum, it would be a no-brainer to choose one of the Continuing Churches. But there are other good options—some AngloCatholics might be better suited to the Roman Catholic Church and some Evangelical Anglicans might very well be better suited to one of the Protestant denominations, such as the Methodist Church.

But an obvious better option for orthodox Anglicans is to become Orthodox Anglicans—instead of talking about being orthodox, actually become Orthodox. What a concept! The Antiochian Orthodox Church has a Western Rite—an Anglican Liturgy (like 1928 BCP) and Anglican culture with Orthodox doctrine and theology. Instead of tracing your roots back 500 years to the Church of England, trace them back to the Brits who attended the Councils of the Early Church and be a member of the 2000-year old Church where we were first called Christians (Acts 11:26). Now, there's an option!

Blessings,

chaps

MarkP: No don't you dare. Being there done that. Got the T shirt too. Ignore those who are fast at it earning their salvation trolling for souls.

For example

"Since it hasn't been mentioned in a positive way by many, let me put in a "plug" for the Catholic Church. I assert once again, unashamedly, that I found the Catholic Church to be ROME SWEET HOME."

You got to love em. Need to get a life ~Br_Carlo~

Over Cranmer's, Latimer's and Ridley's charred and rotting corpse is my response. Focus on Jesus not on churches. Your soul is at stake.

~Br_Micro~

Three points.

First, liturgy
Quote:
If all one cares about in Anglicanism is the liturgy, and has no concern for, or no knowledge of theology & ecclesiology, then to switch from one "1928 BCP" parish to another, even across denominations (e.g. to Anglican Rite RC or Western Rite Orthodoxy) may be no big deal. For most people, though, I think Anglicanism is more than just the liturgy -- for most people, that is, who are considering switching jurisdictions.

Second, history:
Quote:
I know one of the "talking points" among the Orthodox is that they're the patristic church, and they haven't changed for 1800 years, etc etc. But such claims simply don't stand up to historical investigation. "Anglocatholics" can trace their faith back not just 500 years to the first days of the separate English Catholic church, but back through the patristic period as well. In being obedient to Scripture and Tradition (i.e. Creeds, Ecumenical Councils, etc), anglocatholics are every bit as "ancient" as the Orthodox. Of course, their liturgy may be more modern... but, heck, that's true of Western Rite Orthodoxy as well, as you just pointed out.


Third, theology:

It is untrue for the Orthodox to claim there have been no "changes" or "developments" in their own teaching over the years... just as there have been developments in the West.

Further, not all Orthodox "developments" have been the kind of "expounding what was always there _in nuce_" -- the good kind of "development of doctrine" (e.g. the clearer articulation of the Trinity).

To take the most obvious example, the Orthodox -- especially the Antiochians (or so I'm told) -- are blatantly un-Scriptural on divorce and remarriage.

Scripture and Tradition are absolutely crystal clear that no layman is to divorce after a sacramental marriage -- for that marriage is "until death do you part" -- at least not until the spouse has passed on.

The Romans, for all that their system of annulments can be open to abuse, uphold this clear teaching of Scripture and Tradition -- and annulment is not the dissolution of a sacramental marriage but rather (at least when properly done), is the informed finding that a sacramental marriage was never there in the first place. The Church cannot undo a sacramental marriage -- "what God has joined, let no man put assunder."

There can indeed be a "failed" marriage -- e.g. one spouse is recidivistly adulterous and the other spouse, for their own sanity and spiritual well-being must leave: but this does not destroy the sacramental marriage. Christ says that one spouse may leave an adulterous one... He does not say that that spouse may subsequently remarry. And Paul, expounding on Christ's teaching, explicitly forbids it.

Such remarriages -- i.e. while a previous "sacramental spouse" is still living -- is explicitly forbidden in all the canon law of the early church. Indeed, even remarriage after the *death* of a spouse came to be frowned upon... to the point that a canon (I think from the 6th? century) said that individuals could only have 3 sacramental marriages, and the 2nd and 3rd only after being widowed from the previous one.

The modern Orthodox church has thrown out this clear Scriptural and patristic teaching. It permits remarriage after divorce from a sacramental marriage, by way of bowing to contemporary culture. I asked a Greek priest about this once, his defense was "oh, people are going to remarry anyway... we might as well get the Church involved in it." When I pointed out that this was the same argument Episcopalians used to justify homosexual "marriages", he had no answer.

In fact, it's the very canon which forbids (and it's quite clear on this) more than 2 remarriages AFTER BEING WIDOWED that gets cited as "precident" for throwing out Scripture and Tradition's clear teaching about marriage and allowing remarriage while the former "sacramental" spouse still lives.

Don't take my word for it; googling can find any number of pages which show the Orthodox saying that "The church will permit up to, but not more than, three marriages for any Orthodox Christian"... here's one.

This rejection of the authority of Scripture and Tradition on marriage is the camel's nose in the tent -- it's exactly what started the Episcopal Church down it's current path several decades ago. And once the nose of divorce-from-a-sacramental-marriage-and-subsequent-remarriage-while-the-former-spouse-yet-lives camel (which is the specific violation of Scripture and Tradition), pretty soon the whole camel, including the VGR-backside, is in the tent.


So here is one example where I think that switching from anglocatholic Anglicanism to Antiochian Orthodoxy would be "trading down" in theology, as it would be setting aside one clear and authoritative teaching of Scripture and patristic Tradition for the sake of conformity to contemporary culture.


This is not to say that there aren't appealing elements of Orthodoxy. There are. But the case is not as simple and clear-cut as you make it out to be.

And, anyway, to convert from one *denomination* to another is tantamount to deciding that the old one is *wrong* and the new one *right* in all their major points of disagreement.

For "traditional" Episcopalians who have finally had enough -- who reject PECUSA's apostasy but not Anglicanism per se -- the Continuing church is the natural place.

Only if they find Anglicanism itself theologically vacuuous does moving to Orthodoxy or the Romans make sense... and that only after due consideration and genuine conviction that Anglicanism was wrong and the new jurisdiction *right* on the matters of disagreement.


pax,
LP

lapittengr wrote:
"By this argument, someone who doesn't hold even one of Rome's dogmas is guilty of abandoning them all and is a "Protestant". Since two of those dogmas will necessarily include papal supremacy and infallibility, this argument is tantamount to saying that one is either a Roman or a Protestant."

You are so stuck in your Rome vs. Protestantism false dichotomy that you didn't "get" Overbeck's point—that AngloCatholicism claims to be based on the teachings of the Fathers, but AngloCatholics pick and choose which of the Fathers' teachings to follow. Since being Catholic (the “One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church” referred to in the Creed) requires acceptance of the *fullness* of the Faith—100% of it—AngloCatholics aren't really Catholics: they're Protestants (rebels protesting against the Fathers). The relevancy of xenophore's quotation is that those calling themselves orthodox Anglicans are the same as those who called themselves AngloCatholics in Overbeck's day—they aren't really Orthodox:

[We are desirous to hear what the Anglo-Catholics can reply to this my statement of facts. I do not expect to hear attempts to show the little importance of this dogma (the contrary to which I showed above), or the advisability of excluding its practical bearing—the only question on which my argument turns is the double unquestionable fact.

1.That the doctrine of the Invocation of Saints is, avowedly, a dogma of the ORTHODOX Church;

2.That those who do not hold all the dogmas, are by the ORTHODOX Church considered not to belong to the Catholic Church.]

Blessings,

chaps

I wondered how long it would take the Whore of Babylon to show up, Mephistopheles like.

FOR SHAME! FOR SHAME!

The day the pope liquidates his ill-gotten gains ("Sell all that you have and follow me") I will give him and his zombie followers credit for something other than fantasies of regained SPQR.

Rome is an empire without the balls to call itself one.

You BH are too blinded by SQPR to notice your own bedazzlement.

As I've said on this site before, the African cavalry were never going to ride in and save the "orthodox" in North America. The "orthodox" can't even save themselves - look how they've put up with/compromised with the revisionists for years.

The Global South is simply going to sit around and wait for the apostate North to die a natural death and then move in with missionary churches and start from afresh. I reckon they've discovered that you can't pour new wine into old wineskins (as someone else once said before).

With apologies to Patrick Henry - - -

No man thinks more highly than I do of the devotion, as well as abilities, of the very worthy gentlemen who have just addressed the meeting in Tanzania. But different men often see the same subject in different lights; and, therefore, I hope that it will not be thought disrespectful to those gentlemen, if, entertaining as I do opinions of a character very opposite to theirs, I shall speak forth my sentiments freely and without reserve.

This is no time for ceremony. The question before the Primates is one of awful moment to this Communion. For my own part I consider it as nothing less than a question of orthodoxy or apostacy; and in proportion to the magnitude of the subject ought to be the freedom of the debate. It is only in this way that we can hope to arrive at truth, and fulfill the great responsibility which we hold to God and our church. Should I keep back my opinions at such a time, through fear of giving offense, I should consider myself as guilty of treachery towards my church, and of an act of disloyalty towards the majesty of heaven, which I revere above all earthly kings.

It is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, and listen to the song of that siren, till she transforms us into beasts. Is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for truth? Are we disposed to be of the number of those who, having eyes, see not, and having ears, hear not, the things which so nearly concern their eternal salvation?

For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth -- to know the worst and to provide for it. I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided; and that is the lamp of experience. I know of no way of judging of the future but by the past. And judging by the past, I wish to know what there has been in the conduct of the Episcopal Church for the last forty years, to justify those hopes with which gentlemen have been pleased to solace themselves and the Communion?

Is it that insidious and ill-used term of “bonds of affection”? Trust it not, sir; it will prove a snare to your feet. Suffer not yourselves to be betrayed with a kiss. Ask yourselves how this gracious desire for “bonds of affection” comports with these warlike preparations which cover our court system and darken our hearts. Are civil suits necessary to a work of love and reconciliation? Have we shown ourselves so unwilling to work out an equitable solution that force must be called in to win back our love? Let us not deceive ourselves, sir. These are the implements of war and subjugation -- the last arguments to which bishops resort. I ask gentlemen, sir, what means this array of civil suits, if its purpose be not to force us to submission? Can gentlemen assign any other possible motives for it?

And what have we to oppose to them? Shall we try argument? Sir, we have been trying that for the last forty years. Has either side anything new to offer on the subject? Nothing.

We have held the subject up in every light of which it is capable; but it has been all in vain. Shall we resort to entreaty and humble supplication? What terms shall we find which have not been already exhausted? Let us not, I beseech you, sir, deceive ourselves longer.

Sir, we have done everything that could be done to avert the storm which is now coming on. We have petitioned; we have remonstrated; we have supplicated; we have prostrated ourselves before the Anglican Communion, and have implored its interposition to arrest the heretical hands of the Episcopal Church.

Our petitions have been slighted; our remonstrances have produced additional litigation and insult; our supplications have been disregarded; and we have been drawn out only to discover an endless wilderness in which the leaders have yet to show the courage to lead. In vain, after these things, may we indulge the fond hope of peace and reconciliation. There is no longer any room for hope.

If we wish to be honest to God Christians -- if we mean to preserve inviolate those inestimable truths for which we have been so long contending -- if we mean not basely to abandon the noble struggle in which we have been so long engaged, and which we have pledged ourselves never to abandon until the glorious object of our contest shall be obtained, we must fight! I repeat it, sir, we must fight! An appeal to action and to the God of Hosts is all that is left us!

They tell us, sir, that we are weak -- unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be the next week, or the next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when an Episcopal bishop shall force a same-sex union in every parish? Shall we gather strength by irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance, by lying supinely on our backs, and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have squeezed every cent and drop of life from us?

Sir, we are not weak, if we make a proper use of the means which the God of nature hath placed in our power. The courageous orthodox, armed in the holy cause of truth, and in such a church as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us. Besides, sir, we shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just God who presides over the destinies of churches, and who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us.

The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave. Besides, sir, we have no election. If we were base enough to desire it, it is now too late to retire from the contest. There is no retreat but in submission to apostacy! Our chains are forged! Their clanking may be heard on the plains of Lambeth! The schism is inevitable -- and let it come! I repeat it, sir, let it come!

It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, "Peace! Peace!" -- but there is no peace. The schism is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from Lambeth will bring to our ears the clink of revisionist tea cups, complete with outstretched pinky, agreeing to conduct another “study”! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is money so dear, or property so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of heresy and apostacy? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me Truth, or give me leave!

Thank you Aspire 1983, you dignified this moment in history, maybe the end of history.

lapittengr wrote:
"Three points.
"First, liturgy
" ...
"If all one cares about in Anglicanism is the liturgy, and has no concern for, or no knowledge of theology & ecclesiology, then to switch from one "1928 BCP" parish to another, even across denominations (e.g. to Anglican Rite RC or Western Rite Orthodoxy) may be no big deal. For most people, though, I think Anglicanism is more than just the liturgy -- for most people, that is, who are considering switching jurisdictions."

That's a strange argument to hear from an Anglican—since the BCP is about all that Anglicans seem to have in common (and they don't really have that any more).

lapittengr wrote:
“Second, history:
“I know one of the 'talking points' among the Orthodox is that they're the patristic church, and they haven't changed for 1800 years, etc etc. But such claims simply don't stand up to historical investigation.”

Are you denying that the Orthodox Church of Jerusalem was founded on the Day of Pentecost? See Acts 2. Are you denying that the Orthodox Church of Antioch was founded by the Apostles Peter, Paul, and Barnabas? See Acts 11:22-25 and Gal 2:11 as well as the testimony of the Fathers: Anacletus (Ep iii), Marcellus (Ep iii), St Innocent I (Ep xiv), St Damasus (Pontifical Book), St Jerome ("De Viris Illustribus"), St Leo (Sermon on Sts Peter and Paul). So, what are you saying—that they failed to faithfully preserve the Apostolic Faith? What basis do you have for asserting that they didn't (“don't stand up to historical investigation”)? You arrogantly dismiss Orthodoxy based on no evidence, but that won't make the critical question go away: what excuse does Anglicanism have for deviating from the Apostolic Faith?

lapittengr wrote:
“ 'Anglocatholics' can trace their faith back not just 500 years to the first days of the separate English Catholic church, but back through the patristic period as well.”

That's my point, lapittengr—the Ecclesia Anglicana was Orthodox until it was subjegated to Rome. But that doesn't mean that the Church of England has ever been Orthodox. It is reasonable to argue that the early leaders of that Church intended to restore the ancient Ecclesia Anglicana (eg, John Jewel’s Apology of the Church of England), but that effort failed—that was Overbeck's point in xenophore's quotation.

lapittengr wrote:
“In being obedient to Scripture and Tradition (i.e. Creeds, Ecumenical Councils, etc), ...”

Close, but not Orthodox—that was Overbeck's point in xenophore's quotation.

lapittengr wrote:
“... anglocatholics are every bit as 'ancient' as the Orthodox.”

The Ecclesia Anglicana was both ancient and Orthodox. Unfortunately, the Roman Catholics wiped it out. The Church of England attempted to restore that Church and AngloCatholicism is a good example of that, but it didn't quite make it. Therefore, it is incorrect to state that “anglocatholics are every bit as 'ancient' as the Orthodox.” But please don't take that in a negative way—AngloCatholicism is so close to Orthodoxy, why not just go all the way? You're acting like someone who's drowning—hitting and kicking at the lifeguard—as if Western Orthodoxy were a threat to you. Please get over that attitude—you and all AngloCatholics need to realize that Western Orthodoxy is not a threat, it's a fulfillment. Why do you suppose there has been such a long and productive conversation between Anglicans and Orthodox? Why is the Continuum insisting on “doing its own thing”?

lapittengr wrote:
“Of course, their liturgy may be more modern... but, heck, that's true of Western Rite Orthodoxy as well, as you just pointed out.”

It sounds like you don't realize how old the Anglican Liturgy is. Although Thomas Cranmer had to reconstruct it—mostly from the Sarum Mass—its key elements date at least back to the 8th century and probably several centuries earlier than that. That's why it was accepted—with modifications—as an Orthodox Liturgy (the Divine Liturgy of St Tikhon). But the modifications are significant because they point out how close AngloCatholicism is to Orthodoxy, but that it isn't quite there.

lapittengr wrote:
“Third, theology:
“It is untrue for the Orthodox to claim there have been no 'changes' or 'developments' in their own teaching over the years... just as there have been developments in the West.
“Further, not all Orthodox 'developments' have been the kind of 'expounding what was always there _in nuce_' -- the good kind of 'development of doctrine' (e.g. the clearer articulation of the Trinity).
“To take the most obvious example, the Orthodox -- especially the Antiochians (or so I'm told) -- are blatantly un-Scriptural on divorce and remarriage.”

Now there's a good example of why, if you have questions about something, you should go to the source instead of listening to gossip. It's hilarious that you—an Anglican—picked the example of divorce—as if Anglicanism was really strict on the subject. Remember Henry VIII? What about the divorced clergy in the Continuum?

lapittengr wrote:
“Scripture and Tradition are absolutely crystal clear that no layman is to divorce after a sacramental marriage -- for that marriage is "until death do you part" -- at least not until the spouse has passed on.”

Why are you ignoring clergy? Orthodox priests may not marry after they are ordained—a matter of discipline, not doctrine. But it means that, for priests, remarriage is out of the question—even if the wife dies.

lapittengr wrote:
“The Romans, for all that their system of annulments can be open to abuse, uphold this clear teaching of Scripture and Tradition -- and annulment is not the dissolution of a sacramental marriage but rather (at least when properly done), is the informed finding that a sacramental marriage was never there in the first place. The Church cannot undo a sacramental marriage -- 'what God has joined, let no man put assunder.' “

And how is that relevant? Orthodox apply similar criteria for divorces that the Romans apply for annulments (but Orthodox are more strict). So what's your complaint—that we call it a “divorce”? The Romans resort to a legal fiction and Orthodox tell the truth—and you complain about the Orthodox? Strange logic, lapittengr.

lapittengr wrote:
“There can indeed be a 'failed' marriage -- e.g. one spouse is recidivistly adulterous and the other spouse, for their own sanity and spiritual well-being must leave: but this does not destroy the sacramental marriage. Christ says that one spouse may leave an adulterous one... He does not say that that spouse may subsequently remarry....”

We find Jesus' words on the subject in two locations. It is clear from both of them that fornication destroys a sacramental marriage, but it is not clear in the first occurrence whether remarriage is allowed:

"Furthermore it has been said, 'Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce.' But I say to you that whoever divorces his wife for any reason except sexual immorality causes her to commit adultery; and whoever marries a woman who is divorced commits adultery." Mt 5:32.

However, although it is not explicitly stated in the second occurrence, the wording is different and implies that remarriage is allowed in the case of adultery:

"And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery." Mt 19:9.

The passage that immediately follows makes it quite clear that remarriage is allowed, since it deals with the difficulty of remaining celibate:

His disciples said to Him, "If such is the case of the man with his wife, it is better not to marry." But He said to them, "All cannot accept this saying, but only those to whom it has been given: For there are eunuchs who were born thus from their mother’s womb, and there are eunuchs who were made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. He who is able to accept it, let him accept it." Mt 19:10-12.

Thus, your approach—forbidding all remarriage—amounts to pharisaism—”fencing” the law.

In practice, no-fault divorce—divorce on demand—has resulted in adultery being committed in most cases by the time ecclesiastical authorities get involved, so in most cases the non-adulterous spouse is allowed to remarry in both the Roman and Orthodox Churches.

lapittengr wrote:
“And Paul, expounding on Christ's teaching, explicitly forbids it.”

Well, lapittengr, that's really an interesting line of reasoning. First you extol the Romans for “uphold[ing] this clear teaching of Scripture and Tradition” and then you state that Paul “explicitly forbids it.” You need to be consistent—the Romans base some of their “annulments” that you approve of on what they call the “Pauline Priviledge”:

Now to the married I command, yet not I but the Lord: A wife is not to depart from her husband. But even if she does depart, let her remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband. And a husband is not to divorce his wife. But to the rest I, not the Lord, say: If any brother has a wife who does not believe, and she is willing to live with him, let him not divorce her. And a woman who has a husband who does not believe, if he is willing to live with her, let her not divorce him. For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband; otherwise your children would be unclean, but now they are holy. But if the unbeliever departs, let him depart; a brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases. But God has called us to peace. 1 Cor 7:10-15.

Since you are so approving of Roman practice, I will also point out that the Romans also have something called the “Petrine Priviledge”—the Pope can annul a marriage “for the good of the Church”!

lapittengr wrote:
“Such remarriages -- i.e. while a previous "sacramental spouse" is still living -- is explicitly forbidden in all the canon law of the early church. Indeed, even remarriage after the *death* of a spouse came to be frowned upon... to the point that a canon (I think from the 6th? century) said that individuals could only have 3 sacramental marriages, and the 2nd and 3rd only after being widowed from the previous one.
“The modern Orthodox church has thrown out this clear Scriptural and patristic teaching. It permits remarriage after divorce from a sacramental marriage, by way of bowing to contemporary culture. I asked a Greek priest about this once, his defense was "oh, people are going to remarry anyway... we might as well get the Church involved in it." When I pointed out that this was the same argument Episcopalians used to justify homosexual "marriages", he had no answer....”

You seem to have a talent for finding and repeating bad info, lapittengr. To understand the Orthodox teaching on divorce (which is the same as it's always been), we have to start with the Orthodox teaching on marriage (which is the same as it's always been).

Marriage in its purest form is a natural order according to divine intention. It is the basis of the family, which is the community where man’s noblest feelings are able to develop. Marriage is in its essence a holy institution and its holiness has been sealed through the Church, which views marriage as a divine institution and mystery. It is not therefore the agreement and free will of the marriage partners that establishes the marriage, but it is the grace of God in particular which is essential, and this is given through the approval of the Church, in the person of the bishop.

Doctrine regarding the indissolubility of marriage is based on its holiness. The holiness and indissolubility of marriage exalt monogamy. References are often made to the Old Testament in this regard (Mal 2:14).

But, as Mystery or Sacrament, the Christian marriage is undoubtedly confronted with the “fallen” state of mankind. It is presented as the unachievable ideal. But there is a distinct difference between a “Sacrament” and an “ideal,” because the first is “an experience involving not only man, but one in which he acts in communion with God,” in this he becomes a partner of the Holy Spirit while remaining human with his weaknesses and faults (Meyendorff, Marriage: An Orthodox Perspective, 21).

The theory of the indissolubility of marriage has a strong pedagogical significance. The motivation Christ gives is a command. Those who commit themselves to the covenant of marriage should do all they can not to separate, as they have God to thank for their oneness. But the additional motivation: “Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate.” (Mk 10:9; Mt 19:6) does not signify a magical adherence. In every Mystery or Sacrament, excluding Baptism, the exertion of man’s free will is required. The “not separate” is a divine request, as is “do not kill.” But man is free and can dissolve his marriage and kill his fellow man. In both cases he commits grievous sin (Matsoukas, Dogmatic and symbolic theology, 497).

The Church has been faithful throughout the centuries to the principle referred to by Paul, that a second marriage is an aberration of the Christian statute. In this sense, the Orthodox doctrine confirms not only the “indissolubility” of marriage, but also its uniqueness. Every true marriage can be uniquely the “only” one.

The problem of divorce often touches on a painful human reality. The tradition of the Church of the first centuries—which continues to have authority for the Orthodox Church—put the emphasis very strongly on two related points:

- the “uniqueness” of the authentic Christian marriage,
- the permanence of married conjugal life.

We may recall here the analogy that Paul makes between the unity of Christ and his Church and that of the bride and bridegroom. This analogy that is at the root of the Mystery assumes the real and continuing unity of the married couple, which therefore totally excludes a simultaneous polygamy and views one single marriage as the ideal.

Divorce does not heal the diseased marriage but kills it. It is not a positive action or intervention. It is about dissolving the “mini-Church” that has been formed through the marriage relationship (G. Patronos, Marriage in theology and in life, 119). Scripture attributes divorce to the callousness of man (Mt 19:8). This is seen as a fall and sin. And yet the Orthodox Church can however permit divorce and remarriage on the grounds of what the Lord says in Mt 19:9. According to +Kallistos Ware, divorce is an action of “economia” and “expression of compassion” of the Church toward sinful man. “Since Christ, according to the Matthaean account, allowed an exception to His general ruling about the indissolubility of marriage, the Orthodox Church also is willing to allow an exception” (L'Orthodoxie—Eglise des septs conciles, 380-381).

We need to ask ourselves: did Christ consider marriage as being indissoluble? We need to be very clear in this since, when Christ teaches that marriage may not be dissolved, that does not mean that He is stating that it cannot occur. The completeness of the marriage relationship can be tainted by erroneous behavior. In other words, it is the offense that breaks the bond. The divorce is ultimately a result of this break. This is also the teaching of the Fathers: “It is not the letters of divorce that dissolve the marriage in relation God but the errant behavior” (P.G. 72:380D).

The violation of a marriage relationship is divided into two groups:

- those resulting from adultery (unfaithfulness and immoral behavior)
- those proceeding from the absence of one of the partners (which must, however, have certain distinctives).

According to the spirit of Orthodoxy, the unity of the married couple cannot be maintained through the virtue of juridical obligation alone: the formal unity must be consistent with an internal symphony (L’Huillier, Le divorce selon la théologie et le droit canonique de l’Eglise orthodoxe in Messager de l’Exarchat du Patriarcat Russe en Europe occidentale, 25-36).

The problem arises when it is no longer possible to salvage anything of this symphony, for “then the bond that was originally considered indissoluble is already dissolved and the law can offer nothing to replace grace and can neither heal nor resurrect, nor say: ‘Stand up and go’” (Evdokimov, Sacrement de l’amour—le mystère conjugal à la manière de la tradition orthodoxe, 264).

The Church recognizes that there are cases in which marriage life has no content or may even lead to loss of the soul. St John Chrysostom says in this regard that: “better to break the covenant than to lose one’s soul” (P.G. 61:155). Nevertheless, the Orthodox Church sees divorce as a tragedy due to human weakness and sin.


Despite the fact that the Church condemns sin, she also desires to be an aid to those who suffer and for whom she may allow a second marriage. This is certainly the case when the marriage has ceased to be a reality. A possible second marriage is therefore only permitted because of “human weakness.” As St Apostle Paul says concerning the unmarried and widows: “if they cannot exercise self-control, let them marry” (1 Cor 7:9). It is permitted as a pastoral concession in the context of “economia,” to the human weakness and the corrupt world in which we live.

There is, in other words, a close relationship in every dimension between divorce and the possibility of remarriage. It is important here to explain a fundamental element of the Orthodox Church’s doctrine, namely that the dissolving of a marriage relationship does not ipso facto grant the right to enter into another marriage. As we look back to the time of the primitive Church, the Church of the first centuries, we see that the Church did not have any juridical authority with regard to marriage and did not, therefore, make any statement concerning their validity. St Basil the Great, for example, referred not to a rule but to usage, as far as this problem was concerned (L’Huillier, Les sources canoniques de saint Basile in Messager de l’Exarchat du Patriarcat Russe en Europe occidentale (no 44), 210-217). Concerning a man who had been cheated by his wife, he declares that the man is “pardonable” (to be excused) should he remarry. It is good to remember that the Orthodox Church has, in general, always had a sense of reluctance regarding second marriages. It is, therefore, completely wrong to assert that Orthodox Christians may marry two or three times!

Orthodox canon law can permit a second and even a third marriage “in economia,” but strictly forbids a fourth. In theory, divorce is only recognized in the case of adultery, but in practice is also recognized for other reasons. There is a list of causes of divorce acceptable to the Orthodox Church. In practice, the bishops sometimes apply “economia” in a liberal way. By the way, divorce and remarriage are only permitted in the context of “economia,” ie, out of pastoral care, out of understanding for weakness. A second or third marriage will always be a deviation from the “ideal and unique marriage,” but often a fresh opportunity: “The Church neither ‘recognized’ nor ‘granted’ divorce. It is seen as a great sin, but the Church has never ceased to offer sinners a ‘new opportunity’ and she was always prepared to receive them again, as long as they were penitent” (Meyendorff, Marriage: An Orthodox Perspective, 64). This is seen as an opportunity to “correct a mistake” (Peckstadt, Het orthodox huwelijk in Een open venster op de Orthodoxe Kerk).

So, what is this “economia” exactly? In a theological, scholarly contribution, the present Ecumenical Patriarch, Bartholomeos, while still the Metropolitan of Philadelphia, explained in a clear and concise way what “economia” is. He suggests that it is generally accepted that the ecclesiastical economia is an image of the divine economia and love and kindness. That the economia is as old as the Church itself is evident from a reading of the New Testament. This is very clear for example in Acts 16:3 “he took him and circumcised him because of the Jews who were in that region, for they all knew that his father was Greek.” However the economia in the Orthodox Church has never been systematically or officially defined. “It concerns a characteristic, a true privilege and precious treasure of the Church” (The problem of oikonomia today in Kanon, Jahrbuch der Gesellschaft fur das recht der Ostkirchen, 42). In the pan orthodox meetings of the 20th Century there have been attempts to give a definition to economia, but in the end this has been abandoned, “because economia is something that is rather experienced than described and defined ... in the Orthodox Church, in which it is a characteristic and ancient privilege" (ibid, 40).

But the question remains, what is “economia”? Well, according to the canon law of the Orthodox Church, economia is “the suspension of the absolute and strict applications of canon and church regulations in the governing and the life of the Church, without subsequently compromising the dogmatic limitations. The application of economia only takes place through the official Church authorities and is only applicable for a particular case” (Rodopoulos, Oikonomia nach orthodoxem Kirchenricht in Studies I – canon, pastoral, liturgical, ecumenical and various, 231). This is allowed for exceptional and severe reasons, but creates no precedent. The Church, which continues to extend Christ’s redeeming work in the world, has on the basis of the Lord’s commandments, and of the Apostles, determined a number of canons. Through these, the Church helps the believers to come to salvation. But it should be noticed that these rules are not applied on a juridical basis, for the Church always holds in mind what the Lord Himself has said: “The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath” (Mk 2:27).

A canon is a “rule” or “guide” for the service of worship, the Sacraments, and the governing of the Church. There are canons determined by the Apostles, the Church Fathers, the local, regional and the general or ecumenical councils. Only the bishop, as head of the local Church, enforces them. He can enforce them rigidly (“akrivia”) or flexibly (“economia”), but “precision” is the norm. Once the particular circumstance has passed—that demanded a conceding and accommodating judgment—“akrivia” assumes once again her full force: the “economia,” which was necessary in a specific situation, should not become an example and later be retained as the rule (Trembelas, Dogmatique de l”Eglise orthodox catholique:III, 61). The “economia” is for the Orthodox Church a notion that cannot be compared to “dispensation” in the Roman Catholic Church—dispensation is an anticipated exception, which provides a juridical norm parallel to the official regulation.

“Economia” is based on Christ’s command to His Apostles: “Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained” (Jn 20:22-23). This is the case when the human marriage experience becomes impossible, due to the spiritual death of love. It is then that the Church—as the Body of Christ—with understanding and compassion and out of personal concern, can apply the “economia” “by accepting the divorce and not rejecting the sinful humanly weak believers, or depriving them from God’s mercy and further grace” (Peckstadt, Het orthodox huwelijk in Een open venster op de Orthodoxe Kerk. See also: Peckstadt, De economia in de Orthodoxe Kerk in 25 jaar Orthodoxe Communauteit Heilige Apostel Andreas Gent (1972-1997), 65). It is the precise goal of “economia” that the weak person not be irrevocably banned from Communion in the Church, according to Christ’s example, Who came, after all, to save the lost.

lapittengr wrote:
“This rejection of the authority of Scripture and Tradition on marriage is the camel's nose in the tent -- it's exactly what started the Episcopal Church down it's current path several decades ago. And once the nose of divorce-from-a-sacramental-marriage-and-subsequent-remarriage-while-the-former-spouse-yet-lives camel (which is the specific violation of Scripture and Tradition), pretty soon the whole camel, including the VGR-backside, is in the tent.”

First of all, the above clearly demonstrates that it is *you*—not Orthodoxy—who has “reject[ed] ... the authority of Scripture and Tradition on marriage.” That puts the camel's nose squarely in the Anglican tent, where it belongs. You correctly perceive that revisionism is “exactly what started the Episcopal Church down it's current path several decades ago,” but you are blind as to its source: Anglicanism itself—“cherry picking” the Scriptures and Canons and an absence of the proper exercise of Apostolic authority. It started right from the beginning with the adoption (coercion) of the 39 “Articles”—an unholy political compromise that introduced the (in)famous Anglican “tolerance” of heresy and the via media approach. To state the obvious, “revisionism begets revisionism”—what Anglicanism is experiencing now is simply a case of the chickens “coming home to roost.”

lapittengr wrote:
“So here is one example where I think that switching from anglocatholic Anglicanism to Antiochian Orthodoxy would be "trading down" in theology, as it would be setting aside one clear and authoritative teaching of Scripture and patristic Tradition for the sake of conformity to contemporary culture.”

“So here is one example where I think that” you are blindly rejecting an opportunity to join the “clear and authoritative teaching of Scripture and patristic Tradition for the sake of conformity to” Anglican “culture.” AngloCatholicism is, in fact, very *close* to Scripture and Patristic Tradition, but fails because of its “cherry picking,” as pointed out above. Remember the story of King Joash and the arrows? King Joash stopped short (2 Kings 13:14-19) and the Israelites paid a steep price for it (2 Kings 13:25). So why are you stopping short in your pursuit of the Apostolic Faith?

lapittengr wrote:
“This is not to say that there aren't appealing elements of Orthodoxy. There are. But the case is not as simple and clear-cut as you make it out to be.”

It's not as complicated as you're making it out to be. But you need to overcome your Anglocentrism—the stinking disease of Anglican cultural addiction—to see it. It's really like “falling off a log”—it's obvious and relatively simple, but you're making it difficult in your mind because (a) it's an idea that's new to you and (b) you're still grasping at the illusion that Anglicanism can straighten itself out on its own (which it can't). In fact, the Continuum hasn't been able to unify itself for 30 years because of squabbling over the issue of authority, but they could all be easily reunified by simply moving to the Western Rite of the Orthodox Church. Will they do it? Probably not because their bishops are more into building their own fiefdoms than they are into doing what's good for the Church.

lapittengr wrote:
“And, anyway, to convert from one *denomination* to another is tantamount to deciding that the old one is *wrong* and the new one *right* in all their major points of disagreement.”

That's a very interesting perspective—a very “black and white” perspective that isn't very useful or healthy because it implies that you will only “convert” to a Church that is perfect. We won't have a perfect Church until Christ returns.

lapittengr wrote:
“For 'traditional' Episcopalians who have finally had enough -- who reject PECUSA's apostasy but not Anglicanism per se -- the Continuing church is the natural place.”

As I stated earlier, I believe that the Continuum is a *very* good choice—but why stop short?

lapittengr wrote:
“Only if they find Anglicanism itself theologically vacuuous does moving to Orthodoxy or the Romans make sense... and that only after due consideration and genuine conviction that Anglicanism was wrong and the new jurisdiction *right* on the matters of disagreement.”

There's that self-sabotaging attitude again. Why does someone have to “find Anglicanism itself theologically vacuuous” and “that Anglicanism was wrong and the new jurisdiction *right* on the matters of disagreement”? What about just *better* or *closer* to the Apostolic Faith? Can't you see what you're doing? You're creating an impossible scenario so that you can have an excuse for staying where you are. Ask yourself if you would convert to Anglicanism today—is it the best choice you could make today? If the answer is “no” you need to look around. I can't even begin to tell you how much more peaceful my life became when I left the Continuum and put all that Anglican infighting behind me.

Blessings,

chaps

chaps, all i will add is;
Hallelujah, Halleluyah, Alleluia,
הַלְּלוּיָהּ
humbly, gregory


The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ,
and the love of God,
and the fellowship of the Holy Ghost,
be with us all evermore.
Amen.

Look at the Bright side. This inaction by the Bishops will increase and strengthen the churchs in the AMIA that still preach and believe all of the scriptures.

The Bible hasn't changed.

Jeff Pollard
Montgomery, Alabama

Told you they would be gutless...

As this thread is about the situation in Tanzania, and as my initial post was simply "remember the option of the Continuing Church", let's save the extended Orthodoxy-vs-CC thread for later. Not what people are looking for here.

So merely a few quick points:

re history:

I didn't say that the Orthodox weren't *continuous* with the apostolic church, merely that they weren't *unchanged* from it. I would say the same about the Romans and anglocatholics.

Now, each group may _disagree_ with each other about how to guard the inheritance of the patristic era. E.g. what's normative, what's pious opinion.

Anglocatholics of the Continuum look to the Creeds, the Ecumenical Councils, and the consensus of the Fathers. This is, in fact, the patristic outlook on Tradition... those things are normative, on other matters there are acceptable variations in pious beliefs.

The Romans will claim that "papal supremacy" dates from the first days of the church and that others are unfaithful to Tradition to reject it; Orthodox and anglocatholics will claim that such supremacy is a Roman innovation and that *not* rejecting it is being unfaithful to Tradition. And so forth.

Anyway, the fact is that there has been "development" among the Orthodox... you don't walk into a modern American Orthodox church and find it unchanged from the 4th century, despite the fact that some Orthodox try to present it that way. That's all I meant.


Your historical overview of Ecclesia Anglicana all starts from the premise that "Orthodoxy is right; Rome is wrong" and so simply dismisses the English church after Augustine.

This really simplifies matters -- especially as, despite it's pretensions to papal supremacy -- Rome really didn't start exercizing a monarchial rule until the Reformation. (Indeed, one can see the English church asking in the 16th c for nothing more than the same autonomy from the papacy which France had had for the previous two).

But if you start with that premise, then you argue in the same "logical circle" as the Romans who start with the premise that papal supremacy & infallability were there from day one and pre-judge all definitions & history accordingly... e.g. that it was the Orthodox who broke away from the true apostolic & patristic church when they rejected the pope's assertion of authority in the 11th century.



re: marriage

This is a complicated subject, not best suited to blogging.

In *theory* annulments are Scriptural and Traditional. That is to say, in Scripture itself there is a distinction between "Christian marriage" and "non-Christian marriage" in Paul, one that is mirrored & expanded in patristic literature.

If you read all of the Gospel and Epistles' teaching together, it's quite clear that adultery is acceptable grounds for separation from a "sacramental" marriage, but not for remarriage after. 1 Cor 7:10-11 makes quite explicit what the Lord's teaching is to mean. It is only to the "rest" (v. 12) that the "Pauline privilege" applies.

So while Matt 19 says it's okay to separate after adultery, it does *not* say (and you read into it to try to make it say that... and read it *against* 1 Cor 7) that remarriage thereafter is okay. Paul's commentary on Christ's words in 1 Cor 7 is quite explicit.

Thus, reading Scripture as a whole -- and consistently with Tradition -- a *sacramental* marriage is binding until death: it *cannot* be disolved, even though there are legitimate occasions for separation. So adultery in a *sacramental* marriage may be grounds for separation (Matt 19), but not for remarriage (1 Cor 7).

Roman annulment is -- in theory -- based on the distinguishing between "sacramental" and "non-sacramental" marriages, and applying the different Scriptural & Traditional injunctions to each... i.e. determining if it's sacramental (no remarriage possible) or not.


My understanding of the Orthodox practice -- and correct me if I'm wrong -- is that they're laxer in that determination. E.g. marriage is allowed even after a *sacramental* marriage in case of adultery. Your reading of Matt 19 in contradiction to 1 Cor 7 would suggest this.

On this score, the Roman (and anglocatholic) tradition is more in accord both with the express words of Scripture and the history of patristic canon law than the Orthodox.


I agree with you that the Orthodox do better than Anglicans in terms of being faithful to patristic teaching about clergy. While the celebate episcopacy among orthodox is as much an "innovation" as it is among Romans (granted, a 5-6th century "innovation"), the no-marriage-after-ordination practice is a sound patristic precedent which Anglicans haven't followed.


But enough on the digression about marriage... which really needs its own thread.


Finally, re "conversion" -- no, it's not a "perfect or nothing" situation ... if denomination X really is judged, after careful thought and prayer, to be "better" or "closer" on the matters of difference, that works too... sounds like that's the process you've gone through.



Anyway, back to the main thread -- I don't seek to dissuade people from considering Orthodoxy or Rome, merely to remind them that there is also a faithful ANGLICAN option in the Continuing church.

And for those who *aren't* convinced of Orthodoxy's claims to uniqueness, or Rome's claims to uniqueness, it's a good presence to bear in mind.


pax,
LP

AMEN and AMEN for brother Chaps

Hey, guys. Get a grip and go read David Virtue's new posting, "Day Three..."

Regarding chaps post above on Orthodox marriage and divorce:

Thank you. I have never studied the question in the depth you apparently have. I just knew the basics. I appreciate the lesson that the added defense it gives me in the face of misdirected criticisms.

lh

lapittengr,

The above exchange points out the need for authority in the Church. chaps availed himself quite well and gave a persuasive account of Orthodox teaching. You have given an good account of Anglo-Catholic teaching. The question always boils down to "who's to say?" Private opinions are how heresy arises and spreads. I don't see however an argument based on a statement quoted from Tradition that clearly contradicts Orthodox teaching.

Nonetheless, I am much more cozy with my Anglo-Catholic cousins than chaps, xenophore or BHTech seem to be.

To all of those who look at these discussions and see strife and contention: Observe the subjects discussed. We're not talking about gay marriage or ordination of non-celibate homosexuals. We're not talking about women's ordination. We're not talking about sola scriptura. We're not talking about the Trinity, Apostolic Succesion, etc. We're talking about matters in dispute for 1000 years.

I dare say that our souls are safer than those whose churches argue about any of the above.

lh

Thanks, Chaps. Your post is a keeper.

Also thanks to lp for the spirited and thoughtful posts. You are one I always read.

It is true that Orthodoxy theology and liturgy has developed. But as St. Vincent wrote so forcefully in his Commonitory (paraphrase)-- theology and practice may develop but it cannot become something other than it was.

He wrote this in part at least to counter what was seen as the innovations of St. Augustine and this is part of the reason why we Orthodox can't go with St. Augustine's take on things. He indeed was an innovator and much of his thought is not in sync with the majority that went before him.

The West had one primary Church Father, the East had many and their consensus was not Augustine's.

Neal

"Blessed are they that expect nothing, for they shall not be disappointed..."

chaps,

I didn't realize that you were our old friend under a new name. I should have known by way of your extensive knowledge. Interesting to hear you've switched to the Eastern Rite.

Eis polla eti,

lh

lapittengr wrote:
"As this thread is about the situation in Tanzania, and as my initial post was simply 'remember the option of the Continuing Church', let's save the extended Orthodoxy-vs-CC thread for later. Not what people are looking for here."

I agree. Please understand that I am not "against" the Continuing Churches--they are already fairly close to being Orthodox and I just want to encourage them not to "stop short." Let's finish what was started: the resoration of the ancient British Church--which was Orthodox. You may be interested to check out the British Orthodox Church: http://www.britishorthodox.org/ Poke around on their site--check out the "about" link and the "British Orthodox Fellowship." I'm going to turn my attention to Tanzania now and we can pick this up again later if you would like.

Blessings,

chaps

Quote:

With this kind of post it's no wonder you won't name yourself.

Honestly - It seems like many primates never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity.