Posted on 04/05/2005 6:39:32 PM PDT by sionnsar
[To the Traditional Anglican ping list: I am posting this article not because I think Anglicanism is fundamentally flawed (at the very least, such is a rush to judgement because it has not reached the final act), and not because I think the Continuing churches ought to be dismissed (I belong to a Continuing church, after all!). And I am not posting this to say Constantinople is better than Rome or anywhere else for "sincere Anglicans." I am posting this because I have found Orthodoxy difficult to understand, due to lack of exposure and communication. I am sure many of you have observed my public exchanges with Kolokotronis as I try to learn, to understand. What I've realized is that it's not just a matter getting tangled up in all the Greek I don't understand, there's a lot more going on. And I have not found an English word that expresses it: "mysticism" certainly doesn't -- it misses the mark by a mile. When the author says: "The consequence of this difference is a radically different worldview overall and an equally radically different view of the Christian life", this is exactly what I've learned, in limited fashion. I know I'm not the only one curious; I get the occasional question from members of the Traditional Anglican ping list. So when I encountered this article (on the same site where memory says an earlier article posited Rome as the answer), after two days of dithering I decided to post it for purposes of better ecumenical understanding -- at the risk, perhaps, of flame wars between the Orthodox and Roman Catholic FReepers. (And I will note to those FReepers, descend to that level and you won't look good to potential converts. *\;-) --sionnsar]
Reading the discussion on this blog, I have come to the conclusion that the issues of the internal problems of Anglicanism must be treated separately from the question of where Anglicans should turn. If I see a flaw in my pervious essay on Anglican Comprehensiveness, it is that I tried to deal with the two together in such a brief form that it sounds, even to me, rather triumphalistic. I hope that this piece will be rectify that problem to a degree. This is not to say that I recant anything I said before. I think, however, it can be safely said that all who read here recognize that Anglicanism is fundamentally flawed, and that the fundamental flaw is a lack of authority. The question then becomes, where are sincere Anglicans to turn? The options presented in Pontificator’s essay “Looking into the Crystal Ball” are three: Orthodoxy, Roman Catholicism, and Continuing Anglicanism. The last of these he dismisses and I believe that his reasons are sound and need no further elaboration. This leaves Rome and Constantinople, and I chose Constantinople. But why? To date, historically, some Anglicans have gone one way and others the other way. Two prominent figures are John Cardinal Newman and, more recently, Bishop Kallistos (Timothy) Ware. Newman, from what little I have read of him saw essentially the same problems that I saw years ago when I was faced with the moral obllgation to leave the Anglican Communion. Why then, I even asked myself, did I choose Orthooxy? Looking back at where I was 23 years ago (a year before I was faced with the choice), I’d have to say that Rome simply wasn’t an option to me. If Orthodoxy hadn’t come along (what a backward way of saying it!), I think it would have taken A LOT for me to be convinced to go to Rome. The fact is, that I never seriously considered Rome.
I never bought my mother’s anti-Catholicism. Even though I was raised in a broad-church parish, I was always more of an Anglo-catholic, no, Orthodox mind. I might even have bought more into scholasticism eventually, in the absence of the Orthodox option, but indulgences and papal supremacy/infallibility were a real problem. In reference to those two points I like to borrow from the 39 Articles: they are fond things, vainly invented, with no warranty of Scripture, rather repugnant to the Word of God. I am, of course, conflating the language from various articles here. I see this all the more with the indulgences than with the papal claims. The whole doctrine of merits and everything associated with indulgences I just find as horrifying and I find no substantive basis for it in Tradition.
With regard to the Papal claims, I am much more convinced by the Orthodox interpretation of the role of the Papacy in Church history. Likewise, and in part consequently, I am also more convinced by the Orthodox understanding of Tradition itself being the authority, not an institution - even a church institution. Not only do I accept the Orthodox understanding of Roman primacy, I also am keenly aware that no ecclesial institution is a priori infallible. The doctrinal declarations of every saint, every bishop, every council, but face the test of Tradition. No council was a priori ecumenical. This will indeed be a worry for some Anglicans who are desperately seeking an absolute organ of Truth. Still I don’t see a problem, because the standard is still there - the kanon pisteos. While no ecclesiastical institution is a priori infallible, the grace of God acting in the Ecumenical Councils is discernible and undeniable. My questions about which Episcopal priest to believe about the veneration of the Theotokos and other matters were settled when I learned about the Ecumenical Councils and Tradition as a whole. The authority is there in the life of the Church expressed by her liturgy, her saints, her councils, and whatever other means I might have forgotten. The Orthodox identification of catholicity with conciliarity I believe is true to Apostolic Tradition, reflected in the Apostolic Council of Jerusalem that we read about in the Acts of the Apostles. Furthermore, it reflects the Truth of the Triune Godhead – the perfect communion of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. That speaks volumes to me if I ask, “what do I think Christ intended?” Although authority was the original key issue for me, one which inevitably and immediately led to ecclesiology, I have to say that over the course of my years in the Orthodox Church I have determined that there are two issues that divide the West from the East on such a fundamental level that they must be overcome for any real reunion to take place. These are the Latin (Augustinian) doctrine of original guilt, and the anti-Palamite scholasticism. The former problem, seems to me to underlie so much of Western Theology, both Roman and Protestant, and is, as far as I can tell, the necessary presupposition to the doctrines of purgatory, indulgences, and the Immaculate Conception (“a very poor solution to a non- existent problem” as an Orthodox priest friend calls it).
The difference between the Orthodox and Roman doctrines of original sin arises from the Latin translation of Romans 5;12, The Augustinian teaching is based on the Latin “in quo omnia peccaverunt” or “in whom all have sinned” as opposed to the Greek original, “in that” or “because all have sinned.” The former implies a personal guilt of the entire human race. While Roman Catholics and Protestants may differ on how the guilt is transmitted, the end result is the same. All people are personally guilty unto damnation. This single presupposition has set a particular context for all of Western theology. What is Christian life all about? Why do I go to church? Why do I receive the Holy Sacraments? In the end, it is to make it up to God. Hence there arose the doctrine of indulgences, acts of supererogation and merits. From the Tridentine version of the teaching in which this guilt is passed on through sex, one arrives at the Immaculate Conception, and then the confusion among Roman Catholics about the Assumption of the Theotokos. Furthermore, devotional prayers like Salve Regina and acts of reparation before the Blessed Sacrament reflect a a spirituality based on the presupposition of personal guilt for Adam’s transgression and consequential damnation – and the hope that if one is good enough – nicely behaved before God, properly contrite and appreciative of His mercy, one might escape the eternal torment of hell that one deserves just for having been born a descendant of Adam.
The Orthodox Church affirms that we have inherited not Adam’s guilt, but the full consequences of his sin. My favorite analogy is to a baby born to a drug- addicted mother. The baby is not guilty of being a druggie, but he or she bears in the body, as well as in the environment, the consequences of the mother’s addiction. The baby will be physically impaired and will live in an environment that inclines toward following the path of addiction; so likewise, we bear in our bodies the consequence of illness and death and in our environments the myriad of temptations we face. I would affirm with Augustine, as Twelve-Step programs have amply demonstrated in the secular world, that we are POWERLESS. We absolutely require the grace of God. Yes, I affirm the Orthodox doctrine of synergy, but the doctrine of synergy does not deny the absolute need for God’s part in that synergy.
The consequence of this difference is a radically different worldview overall and an equally radically different view of the Christian life. In the Orthodox understanding, Christian life is about communion with God. While Orthodox would not deny that our own personal sins demand divine justice, we are confident as we say at the end of so many prayers, hymns, and litanies, that “Thou art a merciful God Who lovest mankind.” The result of this conviction is that I am free to focus on finding a life of “mystic sweet communion with” the All- Holy Trinity and “those whose rest is won.” I can be certain that if communion with God, yes, through repentance for my many sins, is my chief aim in life, I shall, with God’s help, and only with His help, inherit the crown. This is not to say that I get to sit back and take it easy. No, there is a lifetime of work to do, and repentance is certainly a chief component of that work. Communion is not something that happens overnight or in the grave. It is something that is nurtured in this life and cared for like a plant. One need only read the liturgical texts for Great Lent to see how much importance Orthodox place on the inner life. One also need only look at the scandals that rock even Orthodox churches to know how a travesty of that inner life can bring the opposition of deification and communion.
Speaking of deification I come to St. Gregory Palamas and the hesychast tradition, totally rejected by Rome. (I must admit that I am perplexed by the Byzantine-Rite Catholics on this point. Gregory Palamas is considered to be a navel-gazing idolater by Rome. What to the Uniates do with this? Palamas is so integral to Byzantine Christianity that I can’t see how Byzantine Catholics can escape him. For this reason, if for no other, I find the Unia untenable.) I think it is significant that Orthodox place more importance on the feast of the Transfiguration than Roman Catholics. It is the Orthodox teaching that one can truly know God, through His divine energies. On Tabor, Christ showed in Himself the potential for deification open to all people. It is not true that Orthodox focus on the Resurrection and Transfiguration instead of the Incarnation. The significance for the human race of the Resurrection and Transfiguration is predicated upon the Incarnation: the fullness of humanity and divinity, unchanged, unconfused, but totally united in the one person of Christ. We are indeed called, as St. Peter said, to be partakers of the divine nature. As St. Gregory the Theologian (Nazianzen) said, God became man that man might become like God.” We are called to be, and able to be, by grace, absolutely everything that Christ is by nature. Thus, real total, communion with God is possible. It is possible and even the ideal for man to have such communion with God as to intimately know God as He reveals Himself in His energies. This is the fundamental basis for the veneration of relics even. A person can be so united to God in communion, as to glow with the light of Tabor as Christ did, as St. Seraphim of Sarov did, so as to have their earthly remains remain vessels and fountains of God’s grace. Does this not answer Article XXII of the Thirty-nine Articles regarding superstition in the veneration of relics? It is not magic, but the grace of God pouring out of created things, like the bones of saints, which is made possible by the intimate contact with God’s divine energies – grace. This comes about through holy living – the radical giving of oneself to the Holy Trinity. Truly, the two teachings are inseparable in Orthodoxy. How could genuine communion be possible if we were inherently (literally) guilty, but how could genuine communion not be possible given that we live by Grace and under the letter of the Law? Together the Orthodox teaching of ancestral sin and personal deification and genuine communion with the All-Holy Trinity make for a very different view of Christian life. It is one that is indeed “full of sweet, pleasant, and unspeakable comfort to godly persons, and such as feel in themselves the working of the Spirit of Christ, mortifying the works of the flesh, and their earthly members, and drawing up their mind to high and heavenly things, as well because it doth greatly establish and confirm their faith of eternal Salvation to be enjoyed through Christ as because it doth fervently kindle their love towards God”–-much more so than the predestination doctrine of Article XVII.
Twenty-two years after my conversion, I still find only one option. If then revisionist Anglican prelates who have the upper hand are right, church is just a silly game, and I don’t want to play. With Roman Catholicism there are the issues of the relationship between teaching authority, the papacy and ecclesiology in general to which I do not find satisfactory answers and there is also that problem of original guilt. Admittedly, if I accepted the Roman solution to the authority problem, I’d have to swallow the bitter pill of original guilt; but this is not the case. Fortunately for me I find the Orthodox teaching on the ancestral curse and deification to be faithful to Apostolic Tradition. More importantly, I find Orthodox sobornost, the identification of catholicity with conciliarity, to be faithful to the genuine Tradition handed down from the Apostles, and iconographic of the All- Holy Trinity.
Traditional Anglican ping, continued in memory of its founder Arlin Adams. "Please discuss politely" ping
posted on 08/05/2003 5:19 PM PDT by polemikos
You are correct, and a link to it has been posted on FR in the past. It is essentially the 1928 BCP, with the absolutely ugliest and clunkiest (IMHO) element of the '79 inserted, and of course the other necessary minor updates.
I seem to recall the Orthodox have done much the same, but they ignored the "absolutely ugliest and clunkiest (IMHO) element of the '79" and added other necessary minor but rather lengthy updates.
*\;-)
Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant... all using the Anglican Book of Common Prayer. Amazing.
There are MAJOR differences between the 1928 Book of Common Prayer and the Anglican Use Book.
Thanks for the links, btw.
I amend my statement. I was referring to Holy Communion/Mass only.
It is one thing to read it on a page, it is another thing to experience it the way it has been shaped, nuanced, and loved into a parish's liturgical offering to the Most Holy Trinity.
:)
It is somewhat different from Our Lady of Walsingham in Houston, but it is nonetheless heavenly.
Bump for later.
Orthodoxy is IMPOSSIBLE to understand by reading (or Internet exchanges) alone. That is because of its radical incarnational nature. The only way to begin to understand Orthodoxy is by experiencing Orthodox worship. And there are English-language Orthodox churches all over the place, so that you can worship in your own language, rather than Greek, Slavonic, Arabic, Romanian, etc.
It was St. Athanasius who first said, "God became man so that man might become God". He is a Western saint, too. Martin Luther also taught that Christians become united with Christ through grace (see "The Freedom of the Christian Man"). But his various misunderstandings of how close or how far away the early Lutheran movement was from Orthodoxy (which he called "the Greek church") could be explained by his not ever experiencing Orthodox worship. However, that was not his fault, since there were no Orthodox communities in his area, and he was hemmed in by the ban of the Empire and the Roman church. Moreover, the Turk separated him from the Orthodox as well.
It was left to the second generation of Lutheran reformers to make contact with the Orthodox, but that is a whole other long story...
Much love to you, HS, haven't seen you much here lately. Hope things are going great for you and wishing you the peace from above.
" That is because of its radical incarnational nature.'
Please point us in the direction of material that will help understand that phrase. It is very compelling language, but understanding is necessary.
We are prone to particularism. May God Bless you for your efforts to reach out and understand us. Please always feel welcome to come for a visit. I will treat you to lunch. And bring your delightful wife, as I think fondly of her and would love to see her again. :-)
It's a good post, btw.
This is not a patristic phrase that I have ever heard, although I'm sure a modern American Orthodox theologue has coined the term.
I'm not sure what it means, but the content of the post in question and Marmema's post should give a clue -- Orthodoxy is intensely practical.
It is experiential, not in the sense that "whatever you experience must be true," but in the the sense that ultimately every belief in the church is learned through active participation in the liturgical life of the church and through the application of the Orthodox Christian ascetic life. It is only when we begin to live the dogmas of the church that we truly and deeply understand them.
The other posters are absolutely right: one must "come and see" in order to understand Orthodoxy. What one can understand without attending some services is quite limited.
Thank you for your thoughtful response.
The 'come and see' approach is always valid, but I have concerns because at least one of the local Orthodox churches seems to spend more time explaining how the rest of Christendom is wrong than trying to draw worshippers to the living Christ.
As an Anglican, I am weary of the hyper-critical approach to homiletics. There is always an enemy and it is seldom Satan, instead it is usually some human agency. Sadly that is true of both liberal and conservative parishes.
As for me, it may seem simplistic, but I want to see Jesus.
It's not that there isn't a place for "compare and contrast" within certain contexts, if that is where an individual or a parish is in its search for understanding. But it shouldn't be what parish life is about.
There is a prayer we pray at every service on weekdays in Great Lent (accompanied by prostrations to the ground), which goes in part "grant me to see my failings, and not to condemn my brother..." It is meant to be taken seriously.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.