The Byzantine Forum
Newest Members
RusFrog, JanSorman, Icons, George, SJ, kaleb
5652 Registered Users
Who's Online Now
0 registered members (), 161 guests, and 103 spiders.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Photos
Byzantine Nebraska
Church of the Holy Trinity (UGCC) - Brazil
Papal Audience 10 November 2017
Upgraded Russian icon corner
Russian Greek Catholic Global Congress
Forum Statistics
Forums26
Topics34,865
Posts412,685
Members5,652
Most Online3,380
Dec 29th, 2019
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 2 of 5 1 2 3 4 5
Re: Eastern - Rite Anglicans and Old Catholics? [Re: asianpilgrim] #393349 04/16/13 12:09 PM
Joined: May 2012
Posts: 324
Roman Interloper Offline
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: May 2012
Posts: 324
A Church of England outside of England makes no apparent sense, except insofar as it followed the expanding British Empire. Even then, it's illogical. A Church of England of the East, however, makes no sense whatsoever. It's like having, say, a "Church of England of Scandinavia".

Eastern Churches in communion with the Patriarch of Rome, however, make perfect sense. That was once universally the case, of course. I ask one to recall a time before, say, the year 1054.

Re: Eastern - Rite Anglicans and Old Catholics? [Re: SERA] #393354 04/16/13 01:25 PM
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 978
Nelson Chase Offline
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 978
Quote
Hopefully this society will gather people with similar interest of Eastern Rite Anglicanism to help explore the idea further and share resources and ideas.


I think, respectfully, that Anglicans should stick to their own Anglican liturgy, which when done well is beautiful.

The Eastern Orthodox and Eastern Catholic Churches are Churches that follow the various eastern rites. There is no historical (except for the minority of protestant Mar Thoma Christians) Eastern Church in communion with Anglicanism.

An "Eastern-rite" Anglican would be, I suppose, a parish (with no historical connection to the Christian East) adopting a liturgy and spirituality (not to mention a theology) that is not its own and not in communion with the historical Church that follow that liturgical tradition.

(I'm not a fan of Western-rite Orthodoxy for much of the same reason)

Now if an actual Eastern Orthodox or Eastern Catholic Church were to enter Communion with the Anglican Communion (highly un-likely given the current state of the Anglican Communion) then I suppose that particular Church could be an "Eastern Anglican Church" but at this time there is no such thing.



Re: Eastern - Rite Anglicans and Old Catholics? [Re: asianpilgrim] #393355 04/16/13 01:30 PM
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 978
Nelson Chase Offline
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 978
Quote
Hopefully this society will gather people with similar interest of Eastern Rite Anglicanism to help explore the idea further and share resources and ideas.


I think a better endevor is to fully follow traditional Anglicanism and work for reunion of the Churches. There already is a wonderful Anglican-Orthodox orginzation called the Fellowship of St. Alban & St. Sergius .

Re: Eastern - Rite Anglicans and Old Catholics? [Re: Roman Interloper] #393357 04/16/13 01:35 PM
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 839
I
IAlmisry Offline
Member
Offline
Member
I
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 839
Originally Posted by Roman Interloper
A Church of England outside of England makes no apparent sense, except insofar as it followed the expanding British Empire. Even then, it's illogical. A Church of England of the East, however, makes no sense whatsoever. It's like having, say, a "Church of England of Scandinavia".

Eastern Churches in communion with the Patriarch of Rome, however, make perfect sense. That was once universally the case, of course. I ask one to recall a time before, say, the year 1054.

No, the Patriarch of Rome was in communion with the Eastern Churches. What you describe presupposes the Churches of the East resembled the Latin Patriarchate of Jerusalem-btw, what sense does that make? The Latin Patriarchs of Constantinople, Alexandria and Antioch? The Latin ordinary of Kiev?

The Church of Rome outside of Rome makes as much apparent sense as the Church of England in the British Empire/Commonwealth. And pretty much resembles the mode of expansion-how did it expand into Latin America to produce your present supreme pontiff?

As for the "Church of England of Scandinavia" that almost happened: the Lutheran Church of Sweden (and Finland) retained its claims to apostolic succession like the Anglicans, and there were attempts at union during their Reformations.

Btw, the Byzantine Lutheran church was formed in Polish occupied Galicia between the wars.

Re: Eastern - Rite Anglicans and Old Catholics? [Re: Nelson Chase] #393358 04/16/13 01:46 PM
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 839
I
IAlmisry Offline
Member
Offline
Member
I
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 839
Originally Posted by Nelson Chase
Quote
Hopefully this society will gather people with similar interest of Eastern Rite Anglicanism to help explore the idea further and share resources and ideas.


I think, respectfully, that Anglicans should stick to their own Anglican liturgy, which when done well is beautiful.

The Eastern Orthodox and Eastern Catholic Churches are Churches that follow the various eastern rites. There is no historical (except for the minority of protestant Mar Thoma Christians) Eastern Church in communion with Anglicanism.

An "Eastern-rite" Anglican would be, I suppose, a parish (with no historical connection to the Christian East) adopting a liturgy and spirituality (not to mention a theology) that is not its own and not in communion with the historical Church that follow that liturgical tradition.

(I'm not a fan of Western-rite Orthodoxy for much of the same reason)

Now if an actual Eastern Orthodox or Eastern Catholic Church were to enter Communion with the Anglican Communion (highly un-likely given the current state of the Anglican Communion) then I suppose that particular Church could be an "Eastern Anglican Church" but at this time there is no such thing.

Sure there is: the Mar Thoma Syrian Church
http://marthoma.in/
is in full communion with the Anglicans.

Its liturgy etc. was brought into full conformity with Protestant principles:
Quote
Icons, pictures, statues, and drawings of saints were removed from homes, churches, and places of worship.
All prayers for the dead and to the Blessed Virgin Mary and the Saints were omitted.
Insisted that Sunday services are to be held in a very reverent and spiritual way. During that time reading and expounding Scriptures is to be done.
Conducted Worship services including Holy Communion in the mother tongue, Malayalam.
Holy Communion was not celebrated when there were none to receive.
Mandated that Communion under both kinds should be distributed separately.
Considered the practice of praying for the dead and of doing obeisance at their graves with lighted candles as abhorrent.
Intercession of saints and prayers for the dead were discarded.
Auricular confession was discontinued.
Believed that those who come for confession should ask for forgiveness with fasting and prayer, instead of offering oil, incense and candles.
Insisted that Bishops should ordain only candidates who have been examined by them and the malpans (Syriac professors).
Repudiated the custom of smearing charcoal on the forehead on Ash Wednesday.
‘’Doctrines upheld’’ :
The Church unequivocally hold the doctrine of the Trinity as interpreted by the creed of Nicea, Constantinople and Ephesus.
The Church is neither Nestorian nor Monophysite.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malank...sing_of_the_Church_.E2.80.93_Reformation

(I'm a big fan of Western-rite Orthodoxy for much of the same reason)

Re: Eastern - Rite Anglicans and Old Catholics? [Re: Nelson Chase] #393359 04/16/13 01:47 PM
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 839
I
IAlmisry Offline
Member
Offline
Member
I
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 839
Originally Posted by Nelson Chase
Quote
Hopefully this society will gather people with similar interest of Eastern Rite Anglicanism to help explore the idea further and share resources and ideas.


I think a better endevor is to fully follow traditional Anglicanism and work for reunion of the Churches. There already is a wonderful Anglican-Orthodox orginzation called the Fellowship of St. Alban & St. Sergius .

You mean work for reunion of the traditional Anglican churches?

Re: Eastern - Rite Anglicans and Old Catholics? [Re: IAlmisry] #393365 04/16/13 03:09 PM
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 978
Nelson Chase Offline
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 978
Quote
You mean work for reunion of the traditional Anglican churches?


Sadly, yes the Anglican churches are very much divided. Though, I was suggesting that Anglicans live their tradition traditionally and then work for the reunion of their church with the Orthodox/Catholic Church.

Re: Eastern - Rite Anglicans and Old Catholics? [Re: Roman Interloper] #393366 04/16/13 03:49 PM
Joined: Feb 2013
Posts: 209
E
eastwardlean? Offline
Member
Offline
Member
E
Joined: Feb 2013
Posts: 209
Originally Posted by Roman Interloper

Eastern Churches in communion with the Patriarch of Rome, however, make perfect sense. That was once universally the case, of course. I ask one to recall a time before, say, the year 1054.


While I also think that an Eastern rite Anglicanism doesn't make lots of sense, I'm not sure this particular argument is compelling. After all, communion once existed not only between the Eastern churches and the Popes of Rome, but also between those Eastern churches and the other churches of the West, including the English church and the Archbishops of Canterbury.

Re: Eastern - Rite Anglicans and Old Catholics? [Re: IAlmisry] #393368 04/16/13 04:52 PM
Joined: Feb 2013
Posts: 209
E
eastwardlean? Offline
Member
Offline
Member
E
Joined: Feb 2013
Posts: 209
Originally Posted by IAlmisry

No, the Patriarch of Rome was in communion with the Eastern Churches. What you describe presupposes the Churches of the East resembled the Latin Patriarchate of Jerusalem-btw, what sense does that make? The Latin Patriarchs of Constantinople, Alexandria and Antioch? The Latin ordinary of Kiev?

The Church of Rome outside of Rome makes as much apparent sense as the Church of England in the British Empire/Commonwealth. And pretty much resembles the mode of expansion-how did it expand into Latin America to produce your present supreme pontiff?



IAlmisry, I think there are a couple of important issues that your post raises. First, I doubt there are many here who would defend the move to replace the historic patriarchates by erecting Latin ones. I certainly don't.

But it seems to me that you introduce their example to make a different point--namely, that those patriarchates created by Westerners to replace the historic ones reflected (or enacted) a very different understanding of what patriarchs and patriarchates really were. That seems a fair point. But again, it seems to me that a great many of the people here would probably not really disagree with you.

When you raise the issue of the Western-Roman evangelization of the Americas, I think you also touch on something very important. People often tend to equate the Western Catholic church with the Roman patriarchate. It isn't really clear to me that this should really be the case. I think it is telling of the decline of synodal governance and the trajectory of centralization within the communion. However, if I can agree about all of that, I think that I can also fairly challenge you about your constant return to Pastor Aeternus and Vatican I, as if the Catholic Church--and even the Popes themselves--hasn't realized the need to correct the 'unbalanced' picture and undertaken an effort to restore and strengthen the structures for collegial governance within the church. If your point is just simply that we aren't there yet, again I agree. And I imagine that many others would.



Re: Eastern - Rite Anglicans and Old Catholics? [Re: IAlmisry] #393463 04/19/13 04:26 PM
Joined: May 2012
Posts: 324
Roman Interloper Offline
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: May 2012
Posts: 324
Originally Posted by IAlmisry
No, the Patriarch of Rome was in communion with the Eastern Churches.


I believe it would stand to reason, in that case, that the Eastern Churches were in communion with him. Yes? Or am I missing some unknown subtlety of the English language whereby one of these ideas does not suppose the other?

quote]What you describe presupposes the Churches of the East resembled the Latin Patriarchate of Jerusalem-btw, what sense does that make? The Latin Patriarchs of Constantinople, Alexandria and Antioch? The Latin ordinary of Kiev? [/quote]

None, if you ask me. What has that got to do with the price of eggs, however? Have I advocated a defense of Latin counter-patriarchates? I don't believe so.

Quote
The Church of Rome outside of Rome makes as much apparent sense as the Church of England in the British Empire/Commonwealth. And pretty much resembles the mode of expansion-how did it expand into Latin America to produce your present supreme pontiff?


The Catholic Church is not a national Church confined to a certain country or culture. There is no legitimate comparison to be made. The Church of England makes no claim to be the Catholic Church; it claims, on the other hand, to be that part of the Catholic Church that subsists within England (thus its name). My Church is not known as the Church of Rome. The Church of Rome is simply the Diocese of Rome. My Church is known as the Catholic Church. It is that Church, not the Church of Rome, to which I refer.


Re: Eastern - Rite Anglicans and Old Catholics? [Re: Roman Interloper] #393465 04/19/13 10:18 PM
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 839
I
IAlmisry Offline
Member
Offline
Member
I
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 839
Originally Posted by Roman Interloper
Originally Posted by IAlmisry
No, the Patriarch of Rome was in communion with the Eastern Churches.


I believe it would stand to reason, in that case, that the Eastern Churches were in communion with him. Yes?

Pastor Aeternus has his Eastern Patriarchs request communion with him:
Quote

Codex Canonum Ecclesiarum Orientalis Canon 76

1. By means of a synodal letter, the synod of bishops of the patriarchal Church notifies the Roman Pontiff as soon as possible about the canonical conduct of the election and enthronement and that the new patriarch made a profession of faith and the promise to exercise his office with fidelity in the presence of the synod according to the approved formulas. Synodal letters that an election took place are also to be sent to the patriarchs of the other Eastern Churches.
2. The new patriarch must as soon as possible request ecclesiastical communion from the Roman Pontiff by means of a letter signed in his own hand.

Of course, as usually, the Vatican has added its own twist to an ancient institution to interject "Roman" into "One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic": in this case, the Koinonika and Eirenika, the letters of communion every primate sent to his peers to demonstrate his profession of the Orthodox Faith and introduction to their communion. Even the archbishops of Rome-unlike the Vatican-sent these letters "request[ing] ecclesiastical communion from" "the patriarchs of the other Eastern Churches"-the Pope of Rome was dropped in 1009 when Pope Sergius sent his letters and perhaps (it is not certain) contained the filioque in it. Hence he was not in communion with them after that date, a fact that Pope Leo IX sent Card. Humberto to New Rome with the demand to reinsert his name and commune with him.

It is like the Vatican ruling that an Ecumenical Council cannot be held without him, and if the "supreme pontiff" dies during a Council (as happened with its Vatican II), the Council must stop and be reconvened by his successor. The Ecumenical Councils knew of no such rule: the Sixth Ecumenical Council continued on although Pope St. Agatho died two months after it opened and his successor was not consecrated until almost a year after the near year long Council closed.

Originally Posted by Roman Interloper
Or am I missing some unknown subtlety of the English language whereby one of these ideas does not suppose the other?
Not just in English, but more importantly, I am not missing any subtlety that can be misconstrued into a proof for non-facts.

Originally Posted by Roman Interloper
Originally Posted by IAlmisry
What you describe presupposes the Churches of the East resembled the Latin Patriarchate of Jerusalem-btw, what sense does that make? The Latin Patriarchs of Constantinople, Alexandria and Antioch? The Latin ordinary of Kiev?

None, if you ask me. What has that got to do with the price of eggs, however? Have I advocated a defense of Latin counter-patriarchates? I don't believe so.

Originally Posted by Roman Interloper
A Church of England outside of England makes no apparent sense, except insofar as it followed the expanding British Empire. Even then, it's illogical. A Church of England of the East, however, makes no sense whatsoever. It's like having, say, a "Church of England of Scandinavia".

Eastern Churches in communion with the Patriarch of Rome, however, make perfect sense. That was once universally the case, of course. I ask one to recall a time before, say, the year 1054.

You don't see any sense in the spread of Anglican/Episcopalian churches across the globe, but somehow Latin ordinaries sent by the Vatican across the globe make sense. confused

All those "Eastern Churches in communion with the Patriarch of Rome" that you speak of are, with the sole exception of the Maronites (who alone constituted the Monothelite church), are ALL "counter-patriarchates," spawned from Latin inspired schisms in their Mother Churches (which, except for Alexandria, wasn't Rome). In Jerusalem, it's not even a counter-patriarchate. Just Latin.

Originally Posted by Roman Interloper
Originally Posted by IAlmisry
he Church of Rome outside of Rome makes as much apparent sense as the Church of England in the British Empire/Commonwealth. And pretty much resembles the mode of expansion-how did it expand into Latin America to produce your present supreme pontiff?

The Catholic Church is not a national Church confined to a certain country or culture. There is no legitimate comparison to be made.
Yes, that was the excuse given for dropping the title "Patriarch of the West," but no matter how big the parish, it still leaves you parochial: insisting on one language (up until recently) anywhere in the world. Latin is a language of a nation, confined to a certain culture. And it is only one sign of the Vatican's confines in a particular-sui juris?-culture.

Originally Posted by Roman Interloper
The Church of England makes no claim to be the Catholic Church; it claims, on the other hand, to be that part of the Catholic Church that subsists within England (thus its name).
Hence the Protestant Episcopal Church of the United States that "subsists" in the USA, the Scottish Episcopal Church "subsists" in Scotland, the Church of Ireland "subsists" in Ireland, the Episcopal Church in Jerusalem and the Middle East "subsists" in the Middle East, the Mar Thoma Syrian Church subsists in South India, etc.

Your point?

Originally Posted by Roman Interloper
My Church is not known as the Church of Rome.

LOL. That is exactly what many know it as.

Originally Posted by Roman Interloper
The Church of Rome is simply the Diocese of Rome.

So Pope Francis could have gone back to Buenos Aires, and ruled as supreme pontiff from there, no?

Originally Posted by Roman Interloper
My Church is known as the Catholic Church.

You call it that (as do many). You don't speak for all of us. Btw, in many languages like Arabic, Slavonic, Romanian etc. the word that means "Catholic"=Vatican differs from the word used in "One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.

Originally Posted by Roman Interloper

It is that Church, not the Church of Rome, to which I refer.
Pastor Aeternus refers to the Church of Rome and "the Roman pontiff."

Re: Eastern - Rite Anglicans and Old Catholics? [Re: IAlmisry] #393466 04/19/13 11:59 PM
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 978
Nelson Chase Offline
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 978
Quote
You don't see any sense in the spread of Anglican/Episcopalian churches across the globe, but somehow Latin ordinaries sent by the Vatican across the globe make sense.


And Orthodox ordinaries in Western Catholic lands is different than a Latin Ordinary is Russia, how?

Re: Eastern - Rite Anglicans and Old Catholics? [Re: asianpilgrim] #393467 04/20/13 12:02 AM
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 978
Nelson Chase Offline
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 978
Quote
All those "Eastern Churches in communion with the Patriarch of Rome" that you speak of are, with the sole exception of the Maronites (who alone constituted the Monothelite church), are ALL "counter-patriarchates," spawned from Latin inspired schisms in their Mother Churches (which, except for Alexandria, wasn't Rome). In Jerusalem, it's not even a counter-patriarchate. Just Latin.


I think this is an over simplified, not completely honest or historically correct statement about the existence and reunion of Eastern Orthodox Christians with the Church of Rome after the Council of Florence.

Re: Eastern - Rite Anglicans and Old Catholics? [Re: Nelson Chase] #393468 04/20/13 01:19 AM
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 839
I
IAlmisry Offline
Member
Offline
Member
I
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 839
Originally Posted by Nelson Chase
Quote
You don't see any sense in the spread of Anglican/Episcopalian churches across the globe, but somehow Latin ordinaries sent by the Vatican across the globe make sense.


And Orthodox ordinaries in Western Catholic lands is different than a Latin Ordinary is Russia, how?

I'm not the one complaining about the Anglicans (at least not here, on this point, from this angle).

On the one hand, outside of Italy, your previous Patriarch of the West has mooted your question: the Patriarch of the West-or at least the claimant in question-has repudiated the title and "abolished" the Patriarchate. Non-existent Patriarchs and defunct Patriarchs have no jurisdiction. Orthodox "ordinaries" (not an Orthodox term) can go anywhere in that vacuum.

How is it different? The Orthodox have only recently done it. The Vatican has been at it for almost a millenium. In fact, the Vatican has thought of nothing of installing counter-patriarchates to expel the legitimate ones, and when it can't dislodge them, it perpetuates its pretenders in exile, ready to retry (e.g. its present patriarchate of Jerusalem-an ancient autocephalous Church that doesn't merit even sui juris status-or even Eastern): it was even so important that when the three "fonts of unity" battled it out in the Great Western Schism, they not only held three separate college of cardinals, curias, etc. they had three different sets of "patriarchs of the Eastern Sees" living in "exile" in Rome.

In the case of Russia, the Vatican has been doing this at least from 1320. I think that the first Orthodox bishop "Western Catholic lands" happened only in 1834 (Warsaw). Over a half century earlier, the Russian Empress Catherine on her own initiative had already erected a Latin bishoprick for the Vatican in her own domain (Mohilev 1772: with a little irony, the see of the last Orthodox bishop in the Commonwealth, with the first partition it left the Orthodox in the Commonwealth for the first time without a resident hierarchy).

The Sacred Canons penalize bishops interfering in dioceses not theirs (e.g. Canon 8 of Ephesus): the Vatican has continually incurred such penalties that moot your question.

I know that your supreme pontiff thinks himself above the
Sacred Canons-or at least his predecessors did-but we know better.

Re: Eastern - Rite Anglicans and Old Catholics? [Re: Nelson Chase] #393469 04/20/13 01:27 AM
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 839
I
IAlmisry Offline
Member
Offline
Member
I
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 839
Originally Posted by Nelson Chase
Quote
All those "Eastern Churches in communion with the Patriarch of Rome" that you speak of are, with the sole exception of the Maronites (who alone constituted the Monothelite church), are ALL "counter-patriarchates," spawned from Latin inspired schisms in their Mother Churches (which, except for Alexandria, wasn't Rome). In Jerusalem, it's not even a counter-patriarchate. Just Latin.


I think this is an over simplified, not completely honest or historically correct statement about the existence and reunion of Eastern Orthodox Christians with the Church of Rome after the Council of Florence.

Not over, not less than complete, or inaccurate in the least. For one thing, the Vatican's Crusader's expelled the Patriarchs of Constantinople, Antioch and Jerusalem (they didn't succeed in Alexandria, but not from lack of trying) and set up their own, long before Florence-itself another example of the Caesaropapism that we Orthodox are condemned for.

Page 2 of 5 1 2 3 4 5

The Byzantine Forum provides message boards for discussions focusing on Eastern Christianity (though discussions of other topics are welcome). The views expressed herein are those of the participants and may or may not reflect the teachings of the Byzantine Catholic or any other Church. The Byzantine Forum and the www.byzcath.org site exist to help build up the Church but are unofficial, have no connection with any Church entity, and should not be looked to as a source for official information for any Church. All posts become property of byzcath.org. Contents copyright - 1996-2020 (Forum 1998-2020). All rights reserved.
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.3