www.byzcath.org Forums News & Events Church News Orthodox Hail New Ecumencial Officer

New Episcopal Ecumenical Officer To Reach out to Orthodox, Muslims and Jews.

The newly appointed officer for ecumenical and interfaith relations for the Episcopal (Anglican) Church in the United States has vowed to make the strengthening of Christian-Jewish-Muslim relations one of his ecumenical priorities.
Improving ties between Episcopalians and Orthodox Christians is another of his priorities.

In an interview with ENI, Bishop Christopher Epting said his current position�Episcopal Bishop of the state of Iowa�had prepared him well for his new position.

His appointment was announced in December by the church's head, Presiding Bishop Frank T. Griswold. Bishop Epting takes up the post of Deputy for Ecumenical and Interfaith Relations in April.

"The ecumenical movement is alive and well locally, and the grassroots are leading the way," Bishop Epting told ENI. Local American churchgoers often "scratch their heads" at theological disagreements among churches at the national and international level, he said.

He said he was happy that at local level ecumenical dialogue and cooperation were progressing well, but ecumenical cooperation at a national level was also important. "It's not 'either-or' but 'both-and'," Bishop Epting said.

Announcing Bishop Epting's appointment, to succeed David Perry who is retiring, Bishop Griswold said the Episcopal Church intended to "establish interfaith dialogue and to expand our relations with churches of the East. I can think of no one better suited both by experience and temperament to assume this important ministry on behalf of our church."

In recent years many of the Episcopal Church's ecumenical efforts have focused on relations with the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA), which culminated in the implementation of full communion between the two denominations. Now that that had been accomplished, Bishop Epting said, his church could turn its attention to other ecumenical concerns, while continuing to strengthen its relationship with the ELCA and other U.S. denominations.

Interfaith dialogue among Christians, Jews, and Muslims was at an important juncture, he said, particularly given the sensitive situation in the Middle East. He said Anglicans could play an important role in "a fair balance" of dialogue between people of the three Abrahamic faiths.

He also pointed out that Anglicanism had a unique place in church history. Though part of the Protestant tradition that grew out of the Reformation, the Anglican Church had strong roots in Roman Catholic tradition, particularly in liturgy. As a result, the Episcopal Church in the U.S. and Anglican churches abroad had been able to comfortably occupy a "bridge space" between Protestants and Catholics, Bishop Epting said.

That role could serve the Episcopal Church well in ongoing dialogue with Eastern Churches, Bishop Epting told ENI. He said that Anglicans and Orthodox have had a positive relationship.

"And we've learned a lot from Orthodox spirituality," he added.

In recent years, the Russian Orthodox Church had developed ties with the Anglican and Episcopal churches in surprising ways, including asking Anglicans for advice on the role of military chaplains following the fall of Soviet communism.

In his new job, Bishop Epting wants to continue to draw U.S. Episcopalians and members of Orthodox churches closer together. Bishop Epting, the first bishop to hold the ecumenical officer's position, said he applauded efforts by Robert Edgar, the general secretary of the National Council of Churches (NCC) to expand dialogue with the nation's Roman Catholic, Evangelical and Pentecostal churches.

"It's crazy for the NCC to call itself the National Council of Churches without Evangelical or Catholic participation," Bishop Epting said, adding that in Iowa his church had good relations with Catholic, Evangelical and Orthodox Christians.

"The ecumenical table can be enlarged," he said. But he added that there was a danger in trying to eliminate all theological or political differences among churches. "It's an important balance that has to be struck."

Response to the appointment from Orthodox bodies was quick and positive. Metropolitan Theodosius of the Orthodox Church in America said "Bishop Epting is an excellent choice for this position. We look forward to building even closer ties between us." Nikki Stephanopolos, Communications Director for the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese also called Bishop Epting a valued partner with Orthodoxy in ecumenical cooperation.

[ 02-05-2002: Message edited by: Kurt ]

The newly appointed officer for ecumenical and interfaith relations for the Episcopal (Anglican) Church in the United States

I use an Anglican Book of Common Prayer for the psalms and canticles when praying the hours at home (thanks again, Lance Weakland). Coverdale's and Cranmer's translations (putting aside for the moment Cranmer's own compositions), while not always accurate (but not heretical), are treasures of the English language.

When it comes to cultural trappings, the Anglicans often are good teachers showing how traditional Roman Catholic religious culture can be promoted — in English! (Hooray for the Anglican Use RC churches in Texas!) Mother Angelica is hip to this and has broadcast Anglican evensong with the King's College, Cambridge boys' choir on EWTN.

However.

See my page on "The Orthodox Take on Anglican Claims to Orders' linked to the Faith page of my site, and this letter from Fr Alexander Schmemann to an Episcopalian: http://www.concentric.net/~Kyinsman/Schmemann.html#Concerning Women\'s Ordination [concentric.net]

Response to the appointment from Orthodox bodies was quick and positive. Metropolitan Theodosius of the Orthodox Church in America said "Bishop Epting is an excellent choice for this position. We look forward to building even closer ties between us." Nikki Stephanopolos, Communications Director for the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese also called Bishop Epting a valued partner with Orthodoxy in ecumenical cooperation.

Individual Orthodox bishops and spokeswomen are fallible, unlike the Church as such. It's no skin off my nose if Met. Theodosius is wrong. (Catholicism teaches the Pope can and does make mistakes in prudential judgement too. And traditionalists say so.) I hope these merely were being polite and charitable.

But the only real purpose for dialogue with Anglicans is to evangelize them and pave the way for individual conversions. Anglicanism is not a Church; it is the shell of one with the trappings of episcopal government.

Don't trot out papal prooftexts — it's tiresome, as is your penchant for using Catholic official statements and policy to attempt to silence Orthodox and Byzantine convert voices on this forum you don't like. I can trot one out too — one that is still binding: Apostolic� Cur�. It's linked to my Faith page for all who would like to read it.

As for Muslims and Islam, my site speaks for me. Many thanks to Free Greek for first posting Rumi's words. That excerpt is now a page linked to my main/news page.

http://oldworldrus.com

[ 02-05-2002: Message edited by: Serge ]

I am somewhat perplexed.

After the last posts, I'm not sure whether I should be an 'ecumenist' or an unabashed defender of the "One Holy Catholic and Orthodox Church".

It seems that Anglicans can teach Roman Catholics how to do liturgy, but this education can come from them despite that they are not "Church", but merely an organization whose members are ripe for individual conversions. ("Anglicanism is not a Church; it is the shell of one with the trappings of episcopal government.") But using the trappings of American Protestantism is a no-no in terms of box-church architecture, 'group meeting' liturgics, etc. I don't see the rationale of allowing one non-Church group, but not the other to 'influence' contemporary American Roman Catholicism.

I am also distressed at the following: "Don't trot out papal prooftexts — it's tiresome, as is your penchant for using Catholic official statements and policy to attempt to silence Orthodox and convert Byzantine voices on this forum you don't like. I can trot one out too — one that is still binding: Apostolic� Cur�. It's linked to my Faith page for all who would like to read it."

It seems that papal documents, Conciliar documents, historical texts, etc. are only valid if used in defense of 'traditional' interpretations of what the Church is and what it should do. But if the documents are used to allow the 'sensus fidelium' to be used to support more 'contemporary' interpretations, then the texts are disallowed. This doesn't make sense.

Might I also ask a broader question: why is it that many/most of Brother Serge's posts end up with an exhortation to visit his website? I can understand a person's desire to have 'traffic'. But I would think that discussions on a specific topic, in a specific forum, with specific individuals should be handled in the appropriate 'here and now' context. Perhaps I'm being overly-sensitive, but I am feeling the same way I do when the telemarketers wake me up early on Saturday morning to make me "an offer I can't refuse".

In general, from the point of view of an unabashed Gospelite, I am more than willing to just accept what people say about themselves until and unless I am given evidence to the contrary. I think that Metropolitan Theodosius (and other Orthodox hierarchs) are trying to be not 'polite', but rather 'accepting' of the fellow baptized and their efforts to bring God's people together. It's not 'fallibility' or 'infallibility'; it's love of neighbor.

May the Good Shepherd bring all His flock together in love, peace, harmony and acceptance.

Blessings!

Dr. John,

You make some interesting points.

What is that old saying about an ox being gored?

Steve
JOY!

I am somewhat perplexed.

Mocking.

After the last posts, I'm not sure whether I should be an 'ecumenist' or an unabashed defender of the "One Holy Catholic and Orthodox Church".

Both. Teach the truth with love.

It seems that Anglicans can teach Roman Catholics how to do liturgy

Yes, "it seems' they can, because the trappings they have preserved or revived (150 years ago) are not really theirs to begin with but are from the medieval Catholic Church, with the perfectly orthodox reform of using the vernacular, something we agree is a good thing. (I'm not a strawman trad you can ridicule for demanding Latin.)

but this education can come from them despite that they are not "Church", but merely an organization whose members are ripe for individual conversions.

One can be perfectly orthodox and at the same time acknowledge that those outside the visible Church can have some shred of the truth (yes, Vatican II was right here) and tell the truth, even things the actual Church should be saying but is not.

But using the trappings of American Protestantism is a no-no in terms of box-church architecture, 'group meeting' liturgics, etc. I don't see the rationale of allowing one non-Church group, but not the other to 'influence' contemporary American Roman Catholicism.

So Dr John is mocking me for listening to Protestants. Because I am using the faith as a criterion to discern, and the Protestants in question here simply are repeating, in English, the same truths as the traditional Roman, Byzantine and all other traditional rites. (I rarely if ever have seen an Episcopal church that was an example of "box-church architecture' — it is more likely you'll see stone altars against the wall, choir stalls and rood screens.)

There is no contradiction — I am simply not typing a message Dr John wants to read. But since he can't throw me off the forum for it (yet? ... this regime of moderators may resort to that next), there is a smear instead.

It seems that papal documents, Conciliar documents, historical texts, etc. are only valid if used in defense of 'traditional' interpretations of what the Church is and what it should do.

Yes. Context, context, context. The criterion by which I accept or reject input from outside the Church, including from the secular world, too.

But if the documents are used to allow the 'sensus fidelium' to be used to support more 'contemporary' interpretations, then the texts are disallowed. This doesn't make sense.

Cute.

The criterion is the Church's own teaching (including in its traditional rites — liturgy is a source and teacher of the faith according to Orthodox), which any Church member can use to suss what Protestants, including Anglicans, are saying and separate the wheat from the chaff.

Might I also ask a broader question: why is it that many/most of Brother Serge's posts end up with an exhortation to visit his website? I can understand a person's desire to have 'traffic'. But I would think that discussions on a specific topic, in a specific forum, with specific individuals should be handled in the appropriate 'here and now' context. Perhaps I'm being overly-sensitive, but I am feeling the same way I do when the telemarketers wake me up early on Saturday morning to make me "an offer I can't refuse".

Oh, ho, now Dr John is resorting to ad hominem! Look, "Brother', nobody MAKES you log onto the forum and read posts like answering the phone, so that insulting analogy fails. Secondly, the fact is on fora like these the same questions, the same issues, are brought up and gone over regularly, over and over and over again. Rather than waste my time reinventing the wheel, a few pages on my site save me lots of time giving the same answers. If you don't like or agree with the content on http://oldworldrus.com [oldworldrus.com,] , fine — 1) don't go there or 2) write your complaints in my guestbook for all to read.

In general, from the point of view of an unabashed Gospelite

Better reread those Gospels. Jesus was no relativist.

I am more than willing to just accept what people say about themselves until and unless I am given evidence to the contrary.

What Anglicanism is (not to be confused with the Catholic trappings it sometimes uses) has been obvious since fairly early on, as the English Catholic martyrs rightly saw.

I think that Metropolitan Theodosius (and other Orthodox hierarchs) are trying to be not 'polite', but rather 'accepting' of the fellow baptized and their efforts to bring God's people together.

But even they are vague about the means. Met. Theodosius jolly well could be thinking "evangelize these people with the Orthodox faith'. And dogmatically, Met. Theodosius as an Orthodox says neither yea nor nay whether non-Orthodox are baptized. What he believes on the matter is opinion, nothing more, in Orthodoxy.

It's not 'fallibility' or 'infallibility'; it's love of neighbor.

Cute. Criticize Dr John and one is unloving of one's neighbor. WRONG! Unitarian Universalists teach love of neighbor. The Church does too, but is more. It is infallible — God's voice on earth.

May the Good Shepherd bring all His flock together in love, peace, harmony

Во едину, святую, соборную и апостольскую Церковь. In the one, holy, Catholic and apostolic Church.

and acceptance

Yet you ridicule me for "accepting' the Anglicans' presentation of Catholic liturgics in English.

So who's really the "judgemental' one here?

http://oldworldrus.com

[ 02-06-2002: Message edited by: Serge ]

Sorry, Serge.

I'm coming, once again, to the understanding that you have a particular agenda. I think that the agenda is: preservationist.

If the Anglicans, 'old' liturgical Catholics (legit or otherwise), or 'my thinking' Orthodox (damn the others as relativist), or whatever do what I think is 'traditionally acceptable', then I'll accept them. If they don't acquiesce in what I think is correct, then they will be condemned as 'relativist', or outside the pale of orthodoxy (big and small "o").

Sorry to say, I have had a problem understanding what is (in your opinion) legitimate 'orthodoxy'. It is not a consistent theological opinion, but rather a mish-mash of opinions that support an 'immutable' and 'unchanging' understanding of the Church, as you understand it.

If the Anglicans support 'legitimate' Western historicity, then they're OK. (But they're not "Church"). However, if the legitimate Patriarch and Council of the Roman Church mandate 'aggiornamento' and 'updating', then the Roman Church is heretical, apostate and anti-thetical to 'orthodoxy' (i.e., what my Irish grandmother used to do).

To be sure, there are problems in some RC parishes about how to be relevant to their parishoners. But, others have done a damn good job in doing so. (Many of us have been to the so-called 'Novus Ordo Masses' and been -- honestly speaking -- surprised at their spirituality and ability to speak to contemporary American Catholics).

Sorry, "Serge". I just can't accept the judgement of a post-Irish RC who has become a "Russian"; who is a proponent of all things Russian as the yardstick of Orthodoxy. And who is the self-appointed judge of what is 'orthodox' (small "o") in both the Roman Catholic, Byzantine Catholic and Orthodox communities.

Our Roman Catholic brethren have a lot of things on their plates as a result of the 'aggiornamento' mandated by our Father, John XXIII, and the second Vatican Council. But they're working it out. Perfectly? No. But trying? You bet!!! And they're bringing a lot of people to Christ as the Savior of their Souls.

Secondly, we Byzantine Catholics have a HUGE amount of stuff on our plates since we have been called to re-institute our legitimate traditions and to do so amongst the overwhelming Roman hegemony in our Western communities. No easy task; but we are trying to do it. And we catch assaults from both some of our Orthodox brethren ("uniates"), as well as our traditionalist ('you just a rite' folks) Roman Catholic co-religionists.

Luckily for us, many of our Orthodox brethren, "cradles", don't buy the jurisdictional stuff; they just feel like we're 'family'. A sure sign that they're just wussy 'ecumenists' and worthy of o/Orthodox condemnation for selling out to "them". (Gee, who'd know that a former RC, Protestant, or whatever could tell us who is or who is NOT a legitimate 'orthodox' Christian as is understood by the Church. Sorry, Massa, us poor illiterate folks just don't know them canons and who we can love. Forgive us, Massa!!! We thought them jus' kinfolks.)

And, as a parallel, many of our Roman brethren understand us in various ways as a "Church" who are part of the communion of the Holy Father in Rome. Unfortunately, some RCs see us as just 'funny Catholics' who have an indult to be 'queers' within the Roman Catholic (i.e. the 'true Catholic' =Roman ) Church. Others, legitimately and following the canons, see us as a community who have an identity and are part of the Holy Father's family.

I am concerned that you have an agenda, and that you are trying to force it upon the discussion. The elements of the agenda consist of the facts that:

1. Any Western developments that contradict the "historical" (as you interpret them) manifestations of church life are anathema. Even if they are the result of Conciliar mandates. (I.e., the Holy Spirit is not operative in the 'post-modern' Roman community unless their manifestations are congruent with 19th century ecclesiastical practice that you seem to worship.)

2. Any ecclesiastical community that is 'outside the pale' of canonicity is not a Church, but rather a 'shell' of ecclesiastical structure (but we can use their 'formats' as a paradigm of what is legitimate). But only 'some' non-Catholic ecclesiastical groups are worthy of consideration ddepending upon their homogeneity with a particular ecclesiology, i.e., "my way" or the highway. Only the 'old stuff', but only the 'old stuff' that fits my paradigm. High Anglican, but not other-American-protestant.


The manifestation of one's life as a follower of the Gospel depends upon two major and distinct factors: The Gospel; and the individual's life.

The Gospel is clear about how we should live our lives. "Love God; love one's neighbor as one's self."

How one lives the Gospel is directly dependent upon one's lifestyle. One can voluntarily accept the lifestyle of 18th Century India, or 19th Century Lebanon, or early 20th Century Russia. All well and good. But if one lives in 21st century North America, then one should recognize that this is where reality lives.

It's OK to play 18th century Novgorod, but realize that it's theater. If that theater brings people to the Gospel, then GREAT! But don't at the same time condemn the 21st Century approaches as anathema. They too bring folks to Christ and His Gospel. Even the minimalist church buildings and 'camp meeting' approaches to Mass. Amd evenl the guitar music which is so often mundane and trite. But: some folks LIKE it and it brings them to Christ. And THAT'S the goal.

It's the Gospel and its message that are important. Not one form or another.

Leave folks be. Let the Holy Spirit do what He needs to do.

And don't ever, EVER, make judgements about where the Church allows people to go. I may not like one thing or another. And so I may have to seek another venue, but I must never, ever, tell folks that they are wrong in the Church's pilgrimage. Play a part: indeed. (Even a loud part.) But condemn as 'unorthodox'; who the hell am I to do so. That's overweening pride, i.e., hubris.

May the Lord give us the strength to both love and accept all of our brethren and not judge each other. But work together to build up the Body of Christ which is the Church.

Blessings, y'all! (And Missionize! Go get 'em!!)

I'm coming, once again, to the understanding that you have a particular agenda. I think that the agenda is: preservationist.

Oh, horrors!

If I am so anal-retentive then why have I adopted Lance's program for praying the hours — and using a Church of England prayer book to do so?

'my thinking' Orthodox (damn the others as relativist)

Lie. This isn't about self-righteousness but about the objective truth found in ALL traditional rites. It is not I who damn relativism (indifferentism in Roman Catholic parlance) but the Church.

I have had a problem understanding what is (in your opinion) legitimate 'orthodoxy'. It is not a consistent theological opinion, but rather a mish-mash of opinions that support an 'immutable' and 'unchanging' understanding of the Church, as you understand it.


Translation: The doctor is upset he can't pigeonhole me as either a strawman Latin traditionalist nor as a hardline Orthodox. Waah, no fair!

If the Anglicans support 'legitimate' Western historicity, then they're OK.

The "historicity' certainly is and I acknowledge the messenger. If my friend who's into post-Jungian analysis tells the truth I acknowledge her too. But that doesn't make me a post-Jungian.

(But they're not "Church").

Objectively speaking, no, they're not the Church.

However, if the legitimate Patriarch and Council of the Roman Church mandate 'aggiornamento' and 'updating', then the Roman Church is heretical, apostate and anti-thetical to 'orthodoxy' (i.e., what my Irish grandmother used to do).


First a Kurt-like argumentum ad auctoritatem (O, Universal Pastor, I smite in thy name). Then a misrepresentation of my views. Where, oh, where on this forum have I called the Roman Church AS SUCH any of those things? The facts that I use an Anglican prayer book to read the Psalms of David, and support the vernacular in worship, prove I am not bound by any mythical Irish granny notions presumed by you.

Popes can, do and have made mistakes in prudential judgement. Catholicism agrees. The so-called aggiornamento as carried out by Paul VI (John XXIII wrote for the retention of Latin, BTW) was such.

Sorry, "Serge". I just can't accept the judgement of a post-Irish RC who has become a "Russian"; who is a proponent of all things Russian as the yardstick of Orthodoxy.

Whoa, ho, more ad hominem from the self-styled fount of charity. I was tonsured with that name so lose the mock quotation marks. And you're one to talk. You were Roman Catholic half your life. I don't care if you're half-Greek. Doesn't make you orthodox by birthright. "Post-Irish RC' = "transritualist'. Both Dr John and Kurt throw names like mud at the traditionalist newcomers they hate so much, and would LOVE to see the Byzantine Catholic Churches become Uniate branches of AmChurch.

a proponent of all things Russian as the yardstick of Orthodoxy

Hmmm. Defending the traditional Latin Mass, Coptic Rite, Armenian Rite, Malankara Rite, Chaldean Rite, etc. All orthodox. Promotes private use of the Rosary. Uses a Book of Common Prayer. All things Russian?! Get off it.

Nowhere, here or on http://oldworldrus.com , have I disparaged Orthodox usages (Greek, Romanian, Bulgarian, Antiochian, etc.) that are not Russian. I actually don't do a lot of visiting of other churches, and when it comes to big-O Orthodox usage, Russian is what I know, so that's the example I use.

Our Roman Catholic brethren have a lot of things on their plates as a result of the 'aggiornamento' mandated by our Father, John XXIII, and the second Vatican Council.

I hear a chorus of "God Bless the Pope' in the background.

But they're working it out. Perfectly? No. But trying? You bet!!!

Three cheers � la Alex for the restoration movement (Adoremus, EWTN), the Anglican Use and the indult-Mass movement! Уpa! Уpa! Уpa!

And they're bringing a lot of people to Christ as the Savior of their Souls.

The statistics and other evidence tell another story. Empty seminaries and convents, closed churches, plummeted Mass attendance. The precious "renewal' is a failure.

Secondly, we Byzantine Catholics have a HUGE amount of stuff on our plates since we have been called to re-institute our legitimate traditions and to do so amongst the overwhelming Roman hegemony in our Western communities. No easy task; but we are trying to do it. And we catch assaults from both some of our Orthodox brethren ("uniates"), as well as our traditionalist ('you just a rite' folks) Roman Catholic co-religionists.

Actually your approach to the whole thing, accepting AmChurch views alongside Byzantine trappings, is a rehash of "you're just a rite, folks'.

Luckily for us, many of our Orthodox brethren, "cradles", don't buy the jurisdictional stuff; they just feel like we're 'family'.

There is ample evidence on the forum that many here consider me to hold this view and feel the same about me. Why else would I start a thread promoting helping a Ukrainian Catholic church? An idea you seemed to support.

A sure sign that they're just wussy 'ecumenists' and worthy of o/Orthodox condemnation for selling out to "them".

What on earth has this to do with me? You are attacking a strawman here.

I am concerned that you have an agenda,

Spare me your condescending church-worker-act "concern'.

and that you are trying to force it upon the discussion

Translation: I don't like this discussion and don't want to read it. Well, Herr Doktor, you and the rest of the тpoйкa (triumvirate) have the option of throwing me off and can have the fun of explaining to my friends why.

It's OK to play 18th century Novgorod

You really look down on traditional Russian practice! It came out when you wrote about Our Lady of Kazan Chapel. You write about it as if it were a dear relative who's slightly backward. Just like others of the AmChurch persuasion ridiculing Tridentine practices.

Sure, 18th-century Novgorodites used psalters in Miles Coverdale's English. Next...

http://oldworldrus.com

[ 02-06-2002: Message edited by: Serge ]

I'm trying to find my true home. Other than St. Michael's in NYC can anyone direct me to some more "Orthodox in Communion with AmChurch" parishes?

K.

Thank you, Dr. John,

You are concise and to the point. It is the Spirit Who is Guiding the Churches. Councils and Patriarchs and Hierarchs and sensum fidei are the sources to which Latin Catholics like Eastern and Oriental Catholics and Orthodox go to learn what is orthodox or Orthodox. They suffice.

Trusting that Spirit, we can join eachother in building the Body of Christ. We, all of us, work to find ways to help those who do not believe to meet Christ and cooperate with the working of the Spirit.

We are all Church in all of our Churches, even those who are labeled using mental constructs having no ontological reality outside the mind, like AmChurch. No amount of labeling can separate God from His people. We are all simply the people of God working to build up His Body. Thank you for continuing to remind us of that.

Chasuables and chalices and liturgical language are important, but when they become more important than what they are a minor part of, something is out of kilter. The focus is out of wack it seems to me.

I am heartened by your Gospelite presence here. May you continue to shine its Light into dark corners to help us see more clearly for a long time to come.

I am also glad that you are part of the triumverate, troika in Russian, not my choice of words, which monitors this site. Your work and the work of the other monitors and the administrator helps to keep the forum from becoming the capitve of any one poster and his friends. You keep the discussion at a civil level.

I know that it is a difficult task. I thank you for it.

Steve
JOY!

[ 02-06-2002: Message edited by: Inawe ]

Dear Kurt,

Thank you for presenting the teaching of the magisterium of the Catholic Communion from appropriate authority. Isn't that what one expects here on a site that is an unofficial organ of the Byzantine Catholic Church in America?

Of course.

It helps one to keep clear who is teaching what and by what authority they do so.

I know where the Orthodox in Commuion with AmChurch Parish is located. But how does one get inside another person's head?

It's a mental construct. I guess you'll just have to go on being the Byzantine Catholic who loves his Church that you are! Makes me rejoice that your Church and mine are in Communion with eachother in the Universal Pastor.

Thanks again for your witness here.

Steve
Joy!

[ 02-06-2002: Message edited by: Inawe ]

Dear Friends,

I jump in here with . . . with some trepidation, but I did here Serge invoke me for some cheering!

I think it is no use for Dr. John and Reader Sergius (bless me a sinner!) to argue about ecumenism from their respective corners, er, positions.

The fact is Orthodox and Catholics have different theological paradigms when it comes to ecumenism and what they expect it to achieve.

Although the Anglican orders and ecclesial reality, whatever it is (and the RC Church does recognize it has a form of it)is deficient by Catholic standards, the ecumenical discussians between Catholics and Anglicans have ALWAYS affirmed that, once in union with Rome, the Anglican Church would constitute a Patriarchate and Particular Church in its own Rite (no pun intended, believe me).

The paradigm of individual conversions only doesn't even really apply to current Orthodox thinking about Anglicans either. Then why else would there be the Western Rites based on the Book of Common Prayer etc.?

Orthodoxy in the 19th century also had a similar approach to the West, envisioning the development of Western Rite Orthodox Particular Churches along the Tridentine, Anglican and other Rites, as opposed to individual Christians coming over to Eastern Orthodoxy with its Byzantine spiritual culture.

Personally, I think it is also a good thing when participants here try not to go after one another for what they say or their agendas.

We all have an agenda, even me, in some way. And when people don't agree with me, I do get upset. When people don't like me, it upsets me more (what's not to like ?)

And we come here to read and learn about new things.

That Reader Sergius and Kurt don't see eye to eye is something that we all know already!

I also have nothing against Irishmen becoming Russian Orthodox. Fr. Serge Keleher is a case in point. He is Irish (!) and yet he has done so much for our Church. As does the other Serge in our lives, Reader Sergius.

God love you all,

Alex

I've yet to ever express a dissent from the Catholic Church on this forum, but I may come close now.

I do think we Catholics (I would never speak for the Orthodox and they should feel no obligation to respond to this) should affirm the ecclesial character of Anglican communties.

We have already done so in small steps. At times, Anglicans HAVE been received corporately into the Catholic Church (Anglican use parishes and the Society of the Atonement).

We Catholics, while we have a highly developed theology of 'where the bishop is, there is the church', we are weak on also affirming theologically the intergrity of parish communtiies (to which most lay people IS the church). Parishes are not simply 'chapels of ease' of the Cathedral. They have an indepedent integrity. Cannot we affirm that in that same sense, Anglican parishes are churches?

Food for thought.

God bless the Anglican-Orthodox dialogue.

K.

Thanks, Alex.

Dr John, Kurt and Steve sound like they're considering "getting a room'. Hey, when it comes to the secular world (as opposed to the sacraments of the Church), if it's not a public health hazard, what goes on behind closed doors is nobody's business.

I know where the Orthodox in Commuion with AmChurch Parish is located. But how does one get inside another person's head?

It's a mental construct.


"Honey, there is no such thing as the Mafia. The papers made it all up.' — Don Michael Corleone

http://oldworldrus.com

"Thank you for presenting the teaching of the magisterium of the Catholic Communion from appropriate authority. Isn't that what one expects here on a site that is an unofficial organ of the Byzantine Catholic Church in America?

Of course."

MODERATOR: Is this statement by Steve true or false? My understanding (which may very well be incorrect in this) is that this was conceived as a place principally for Byzantine Christians (Orthodox and Catholic) to interact with one another and with others -- not a place principally for Catholics of different ritual churches to interact and affirm the "Catholic magisterium". Which is it?

Brendan

[ 02-06-2002: Message edited by: Brendan ]

Dear Brendan,

Alas, at the risk of sounding "narrowly sectarian" , I will go with you on the train that says "Orthodoxy" but will have to get off where it says "Magisterium."

The "different ritual Churches" in union with Rome do share in this same Magisterium, do they not? (At least so I've always thought, but I consider you the theological expert on BOTH Catholicism and Orthodoxy - especially since you've been to both).

And Catholics, all CAtholics, may argue based on reason and experience. Or, they may simply say, "I believe because this is what the Church teaches."

And I don't want to say that I have a dislike for Western Catholics and have them keep quiet here because, for one reason, you were one of those once too!

And so was Reader Sergius, for that matter.

Actually, although I love you both, I am really a spiritual "pure-breed" here, Eastern from birth!

Although I don't make any claims to an immaculate conception in this regard . . .

And the Magisterium tells us that we can talk with our Orthodox brothers at the same time admonishing us not to call you "schismatics" and the like as they used to in the old days.

I like the Magisterium - don't you?

Bless y'a, Big Guy, just bless y'a!

Alex