[sionnsar]

Any answers to his questions?

[GMMAC]

For anyone unfamiliar with same, here's the Eastern Rite Catholic Liturgy.

Eastern Catholicism reconciled many of the issues expressed above for this former "High Church" Anglican.

[Tax-chick]

I am troubled by the absence of a final court of appeal in controversies of faith and morals.

So would I be.

[kosta50]

Regardless, it seems to me that if Orthodoxy truly is the one Church of Jesus Christ in the exclusive sense it claims to be, then not only would it be confident in its power and authority to convene an Ecumenical Council, but it would have done so by now

An Ecumenical Council requires the presence of the Pope or his legate, and must be attended by the Church of the East as well as the West. In addition to that, they have to profess the same faith. Thus, it is not possible for the Eastern Orthodox, or the Roman Catholic Church to call an Ecumenical Council at the present moment -- although Roman Catholics claim to have had more such councils simply because the Orthodox were invited.

The Orthodox Church was not just 'lucky' not to need 'central authority' as the author speculates -- the Eastern Church never had central authority. The Patriarch of the West, on the other hand, always ruled his Patriarchate as a central authority. The undivided Church had five Patriarch, four of whom were Eastern. Western Church never knew more than one patriarch at one time.

Could it be that the Orthodox just 'do it better' by following in the Apostolic tradition of equality among bishops and fraternal consensus?

As for the author's rambling about St. Augustine -- he apparently does not understand that individual fathers do not make pronouncements for the Church. The Ecumenical Councils do. St. Augustine was free to speculate, but the Church does not have to accept it as something carved in stone. His work was unknown to the East for over 1,000 years. Some of it is in agreement with the teachings of the East and some of it (i.e. "original sin") is rejected.

The Orthodox are not bashing Western Christianity, as this person asserts. We can read your theology. We find it unrecognizable in some cases, because the undivided Church knew not of some of the innovations added after the Schism.

The problem the Orthodox see with Western theology is best described by Prof. Alexander Kalimoros in his The River of Fire, which I highly recommend for reading by the non-Orthodox:

What does Western theology teach about death? All Roman Catholics and most Protestants consider death as a punishment from God. God considered all men guilty of Adam’s sin and punished them by death, that is by cutting them away from Himself; depriving them of His life-giving energy, and so killing them spiritually at first and later bodily, by some sort of spiritual starvation. Augustine interprets the passage in Genesis "If you eat of the fruit of this tree, you will die the death" as "If you eat of the fruit of this tree, I will kill you."

We find this foreign and distant. The Western concept of God is alien to the East

The "God" of the West is an offended and angry God, full of wrath for the disobedience of men, who desires in His destructive passion to torment all humanity unto eternity for their sins, unless He receives an infinite satisfaction for His offended pride.

What is salvation for Western theology? Is it not salvation from the wrath of God?...Do you see, then, that Western theology teaches that our real danger and our real enemy is our Creator and God? Salvation, for Westerners, is to be saved from the hands of God!

The divide goes along the juridical concepts of God prevalent in the West, and as such nothing even close to the Church as it was established by the patristic tradition.

This juridical conception of God, this completely distorted interpretation of God’s justice, was nothing else than the projection of human passions on theology. It was a return to the pagan process of humanizing God and deifying man. Men are vexed and angered when not taken seriously and consider it a humiliation which only vengeance can remove, whether it is by crime or by duel. This was the worldly, passionate conception of justice prevailing in the minds of a so-called "Christian" society.

Western Christians thought about God’s justice in the same way also; God, the infinite Being, was infinitely insulted by Adam’s disobedience. He decided that the guilt of Adam’s disobedience descended equally to all His children, and that all were to be sentenced to death for Adam’s sin, which they did not commit. God’s justice for Westerners operated like a vendetta. Not only the man who insulted you, but also all his family must die. And what was tragic for men, to the point of hopelessness, was that no man, nor even all humanity, could appease God’s insulted dignity, even if all men in history were to be sacrificed. God’s dignity could be saved only if He could punish someone of the same dignity as He. So in order to save both God’s dignity and mankind, there was no other solution than the incarnation of His Son, so that a man of godly dignity could be sacrificed to save God’s honor.

Finally, the author says

“The Church is a house with a hundred gates,” wrote Chesterton; “and no two men enter at exactly the same angle.” Finally, I can only rely upon my reason, my intuitions, my feelings, my faith, under the grace and mercy of God

Well that betrays his Anglican roots, no doubt -- and Protestant mind; when it comes to truth, we trust ourselves. Adam is alive and well!

[Agrarian]

You know, the situation that Anglicans find themselves in is so difficult that I hesitate to comment on the individual struggles that any given pilgrim has. I was not raised Anglican, but I spent 7 years "in and around" that world, and many parts of classical Anglicanism were quite influential in my own spiritual journey.

There are more former Anglicans and former Anglican clergy in Orthodoxy than you can shake a stick at. There are obviously a lot to chose to go Catholic as well. Others have elected to try to maintain Anglican distinctives in the Continuing Anglican world. Others have decided to do the best they can within "official" Anglicanism.

I think that if you look at each of these choices, you will find a lot of complex reasons for their choices. At root, I think that a lot of the things that drive these decisions depend on what kind of Anglican one was in the first place, what ones personal influences are, what ones inclinations are, and what one sees as being the deficiencies of Anglicanism.

For the author of this piece, it appears that having centralized authority is important, and it seems that his personal vision of of what Anglicanism (or rather, Christianity) should be involves an embrace of Thomistic scholastic thinking. In this case, it would really not make sense to become Orthodox.

One thing that he says that I basically agree with is when he says:

Neither Orthodoxy nor Catholicism, in my judgment, can be conclusively identified as the one and true Church by these kinds of rational arguments, as interesting and important as they may be in themselves. Arguments and reasons must be presented and considered as we seek to make the necessary choice between Rome and Constantinople, yet ultimately we are still confronted by mystery and the decision and risk of faith.

I would disagree that the choice between Rome and Orthodoxy is "necessary" for Anglicans -- it ignores the fact that some traditional Anglicans are very satisfactorily pursuing their spiritual journey within the Continuing churches and even within official Anglicanism itself, and that they have valid reasons for not wanting to convert either to Catholicism or Orthodoxy.

That said, for those who feel that they perhaps cannot remain within Anglicanism, reading books and having discussions are important things, but the centerpiece of any Anglican's decision must be "come and see."

Christianity is personal, not an abstract theology. Christian theology is learned at prayer, not with one's nose in a systematic theology textbook. To see what a church believes, see how they worship and how they live. One should visit the Orthodox churches in one's area several times, and get to know people. One should visit the Catholic churches in one's area and get to know people.

Only then can an Anglican know whether he wants to take another step on a spiritual journey, and what that step should be.

We have a retired Anglican priest who regularly attends our parish. At first, he had a lot of questions about what we believe and questions on books to read. It is interesting that, especially since going through Holy Week with us, he seems more and more to be just absorbing the services, which he attends more and more, now attending virtually every weekday and weekend service. Any discussions are about the hymns that were chanted in the service -- not in a dissecting way, but in the sense of continuing to experience them.

I have no idea whether he will become Orthodox. I don't think anyone has even discussed the matter with him, nor is there any need to, unless he decides to bring the matter up himself. We have a Methodist minister who has been attending our Vespers off and on for years, and a Catholic priest who is at Vespers more often than not. We enjoy them all, and don't presume to tell them where their journey needs to go, and when.