Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: Kolokotronis; BelegStrongbow
For example, doesn't open communion excuse a failure to believe in the Incarnation, the Perpetual Virginity of the Most Holy Theotokos, the Trininty and the Resurrection? Conversely, perhaps open communion is the result of these heresies or the reductio ad absurdam of the original compromises made in Anglicanism.

Kolokotronis, I suspect the answer is the former, though one could make the argument that the "original compromises" (hmmm... maybe I should capitalize that: Original Compromises) were the means by which the heresy was able to creep in, unchecked.

I don't know the answer to this, but it is apparent that heresy is a malignancy which has been allowed to grow and spread in the Anglican Church for a very long time. As unpopular as it may be in the West, rigid orthodoxy in both praxis and belief in the Faith is absolutely necessary for the preservation of that Faith and the theosis of the People of God. Without it, everything just falls apart, the people stumble into sin, the Evil One rejoices and all creation groans.

I see the problem within Anglicanism as two-fold:

1) an unreadiness to say "thus far and no further." This is probably born of the Original Compromises, due to the temptation to say "you're already over the line." Although there has been a fair amount of back & forth over the centuries that has even led to divisions (interesting, though, that the REC is preparing a return -- and there are indeed reunifications occurring).

One solution would seem to be a statement of where the lines lie -- a rigid orthodoxy of praxis & belief, but drawn with a wider circle than the Orthodox. On the other hand, with a stronger corrective mechanism operating, perhaps "thus far and no further" could be made to work.

2) the lack of a strong corrective mechanism. I'm repeating myself for the n-teenth time here, but Anglicanism lacks the strong mechanisms for self-correction within the body that the Orthodox have. And while the Anglican mechanisms will never be as strong, they are not acting as strongly as they could -- or should. In part I blame this upon their never having been used before, thus there was a reluctance to use them when they should have first been brought to bear, and there is a continuing reluctance to use them now when they ought to be applied forcefully.

It's this reluctance that has led into what are, in my forming opinion, travesties such as "continuing impaired communion" -- "impaired communion" ought to be a temporary condition that ends within a certain time either in restored communion or no communion; it's not a measure of 15% communion, or 55% communion, or whatever. As with the condition of being pregnant, such a thing cannot be.

The hope I have, though it's not a big one at this time, is that the Global South will ultimately be successful in eliminating the big heresy and then turn to the lessers. The weapon they wield, membership in the wordwide Anglican Communion, may not seem powerful to others, but to us Anglicans who've grown up steeped in that tradition, it is significant indeed. Being outside the wwAC (as I have been for 22 years) is a little like having lost a limb.

Only time will tell.

OTOH, I've written ++Akinola before to complain. Maybe I need to make more noise.

12 posted on 03/27/2005 8:09:42 AM PST by sionnsar (†trad-anglican.faithweb.com† || Iran Azadi || Where are we going, and why are we in this handbasket?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies ]


To: sionnsar; MarMema
"I'm repeating myself for the n-teenth time here, but Anglicanism lacks the strong mechanisms for self-correction within the body that the Orthodox have."

They are not really "mechanisms" as such. What keeps us on the straight and narrow, so to speak, is the mindset, sionnsar. Its all about how we view and live the Faith. We all have a place within the Church. Each of us, hierarchs, clergy and laity have a role to play. None can exist and be Orthodox without the others. Excesses are avoided and heresies recognized and dealt with because all three parts of the Church act in a sort of partnership, in a "syndeesmos". But it also presupposes a total commitment to the Faith and the Church by all, a true commitment to live in the world but not be of the world. As I said before, it is rather the ultimate counter cultural way to live, at least here in the West.

It may be that when viewed from the outside, our hierarchs and their synods and our lower clergy appear very powerful. And within their roles in the Church they are, probably more so than the same Anglican orders, but that said the commitment of those men and of all the laity to preserve inviolate the Truths once revealed and the liturgical practices, monasticism and prayer life which both protect and inculcate those Truths is really the key. That means living life and viewing the world in a way which the West hasn't seen, at least not in any great way, for 1000 years.

Your idea of writing again to ++Akinola is a good one. As I have commented before, Africans seem to have an incredible innate Orthodoxy about them, which leads me to believe that the problems of the AC lie squarely in the Western mindset of some of the Churches in the AC. ++Akinola has more than once impressed me with his likeness to +Athanasius. Do write to him. Tell him the Orthodox think its time for an Anglican Athanasius. It is highly appropriate that that Athanasius be an African like the original.
13 posted on 03/27/2005 10:20:01 AM PST by Kolokotronis (Nuke the Cube!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson