tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9073400.post6148140207837976752..comments2023-10-28T05:58:07.377-07:00Comments on Anglicans Ablaze: The future of ACNA relations with the OCAUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger59125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9073400.post-17919621312594640902010-11-16T23:16:36.695-08:002010-11-16T23:16:36.695-08:00A few observations relative to the ever-mutating R...A few observations relative to the ever-mutating Rt. Rev. Ray Sutton of the mutational REC at:<br /><br />http://reformationanglicanism.blogspot.com/2010/11/boultbee-i-pg12-thirty-nine-articles.htmlReformationhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06818168068978748081noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9073400.post-59199359240998596912010-10-23T10:16:33.244-07:002010-10-23T10:16:33.244-07:00Joe,
Further, the 39 article in question can’t be...Joe,<br /><br />Further, the 39 article in question can’t be directed at the decree of Trent, not that this matters much to the Orthodox anyway, since the article was adopted prior to the Tridentine formulation and further that the latter formula is not identical to the teaching of the scholastics since it denies adoratio to the saints.<br /><br />As for the Liturgical phrase “save us” what we have here from you is the reaction of someone outside of Orthodoxy and who is evaluating such phrases independently from any consideration of how the Orthodox use such terms and what their possible theological meaning could be. Your argument is depends on a straw man.<br /><br />The reading of even Anglican works on this topic would go some long way in informing you of their intended meaning. The phrase “save us” can be used in a narrow and a wide sense. The narrow sense would be the way that God is the ultimate and only primary source for salvation, whereas the wider usage denotes those who by divine power derivatively may give aid and participate in our salvation. It is a great biblical truth that all Christians participate in some form or another derivatively in the salvation of others, by preaching, teaching, prayer and so forth. <br /><br />Secondly, Orthodox sources confirm the way I have cashed out the usage. In the Catechism of Bernardakis used at one time in the Greek jurisdiction it states,<br /><br />“We do not sin, because we do not make gods of these saints, but only invoke them to intercede for us with God.”<br /><br />The Catechism of Kyriakos states, “Prayer, properly speaking, is directed to God; but if we pray also to the saints, we do this not because we look on them as a sort of gods, who are able of themselves to help us-God forbid such blasphemy!- but because we believe that, as friends of God by reason of their holiness and moral purity they intercede with Him on our behalf by means of their prayers, as also we who are alive pray for one another, and can ask for one another’s prayers.”<br /><br />Similar statements can be found in the Longer Catachism of the Russian Church or other Orthodox sources. Please note that these sources show that the sense that you’ve put on to such expressions is exactly the sense that the Orthodox reject, namely that the saints of themselves, underivatively the source of divine power or in other words, deities.<br /><br />You ask how the saints can hear said prayers, and by doing so seem to make an implicit argument that they cannot do so. But Scripture speaks of the angels in heaven finding out about sinners repenting and as well as say Elijah in heaven being aware of what transpires on Earth. Added to this is scriptural information in say Revelation where the saints are in the presence of God when prayers are lifted to God. Certainly it would require divine power for the saints to hear our intercessions, but given the doctrine of theosis or deification, that the saints share in the divine life and are made immortal, it isn’t exactly difficult to see how this could be so.Acolyte4236https://www.blogger.com/profile/06247421363309732839noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9073400.post-80217986459273110172010-10-23T10:15:37.693-07:002010-10-23T10:15:37.693-07:00Joe,
Now you’ve changed the objections and left m...Joe,<br /><br />Now you’ve changed the objections and left my previous points untouched. You’ve also missed the point of my last objection. You wrote that a Christian could do just fine without all those things from tradition. If that is so, then why retain any of it? Second, the Anglican position has not historically been that of the Presbyterians that everything that is done liturgically must have warrant of scripture. Rather it has been that the church has the right to decree in areas where Scripture is silent and said rites or acts are not contrary to Scripture. And it is the church who judges and it is not left up to just any man to do so for himself. And third, if tradition is to go, then plenty of other things are to go too, like say the formal canon of Scripture since that is a tradition too.<br /><br />You assert, but do not demonstrate that saintly invocation lacks scriptural warrant. This is fallacious for a number of reasons. First, it tries to saddle Orthodoxy with Protestant presuppositions and so you beg the question. Second, your approach is scattershot and you throw out a number of things that you find objectionable from a Protestant perspective but without any investigation or analysis of what these terms or phrases could mean within the tradition of use. And further, we do not even have the same canon of scripture so what could count as scriptural for me, may not for you and so you beg the question here.<br /><br />Also you ignore Anglican defenses and expositions of saintly invocation. Take Darwell Stone’s work on the Invocation of the Saints, at google books. Take some of the facts in hand. The Ten Articles published in 1536, in articles 7 and 8 advocates honoring the saints, not with that honor due to God alone, but a lesser honor appropriate for them. This meaning was retained in the 39 Articles of Religion and directed at Roman Catholic theologians who tended to confuse these two senses. The irony is that Catholic theologians who did so are suffering from the same malady as their Anglican counterparts, namely a terminological imprecision inherited from the Libiri Carolini and the Franks in general. <br /><br />Please note for example what said articles state, “…yet it is very laudable to pray to saints in heaven everlastingly living, whose charity is ever permanent, to be intercessors, and to pray for us and with us unto Almighty God…”<br /><br />Similar statements can be found in the Bishops Book and the Kings Book.<br /><br />What was excluded was that of various Roman theologians who due to terminological confusion via the Franks, argued it was acceptable to give adoratio to the saints and invoke them on this basis. Almost all of the preceding condemnations in Anglican formularies and documents take aim at the doctrine of the “schoolmen.” But the doctrine of the scholastics is not isomorphic with that of the Orthodox (and not Trent either for that matter) and this is in part due to the lack of a grasp of the theology of the 7th Ecumenical council in the West. Any reading of say such bright minds as Aquinas will bear out that they did not know the council directly and did not grasp its teaching, which has significant bearing on the proper relation of the faithful to the saints.Acolyte4236https://www.blogger.com/profile/06247421363309732839noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9073400.post-16813622062241235142010-10-22T13:15:47.845-07:002010-10-22T13:15:47.845-07:00Once the Church emerges from the catacombs and the...Once the Church emerges from the catacombs and the services and sacraments of the Church become better known (though the Creed, the services and the sacraments are still primarily kept secret even in St. Cyril of Jerusalem's day), then the fullness of the Church's practices and teachings are made better known. After the Council of Ephesus, earlier devotions regarding the mother of God are expanded on dramatically, but the kernel had already been there. The same is true of other 3rd and 4th century attestations of the invoking the saints. For example:<br /><br />St. Hippolytus of Rome (+c. 236)<br /><br />[Appealing to the three companions of Daniel] Think of me, I beseech you, so that I may achieve with you the same fate of martyrdom.<br /><br />St. Ephraim the Syrian (+373)<br /><br />Remember me, ye heirs of God, ye brethren of Christ, supplicate the Saviour earnestly for me, that I may be freed though Christ from him that fights against me day by day.<br /><br />Ye victorious martyrs who endured torments gladly for the sake of the God and Saviour; ye who have boldness of speech towards the Lord Himself; ye saints, intercede for us who are timid and sinful men, full of sloth, that the grace of Christ may come upon us, and enlighten the hearts of all of us that so we may love him.<br /><br />Letter of the Second Ecumenical Council to Emperor St. Theodosius the Great (Constantinople, 381 AD)<br /><br />May God by the prayers of the Saints, show favour to the world, that you may be strong and eminent in all good things as an Emperor most truly pious and beloved of God.<br /><br />St. Cyril of Jerusalem (+386)<br /><br />We then commemorate also those who have fallen asleep before us, first, patriarchs, prophets, apostles, martyrs, that God, by their prayers and intercessions, may receive our petitions.<br /><br />The Cappadocians<br /><br />“In one of his letters, St. Basil (+379) explicitly writes that he accepts the intercession of the apostles, prophets and martyrs, and he seeks their prayers to God. (Letter 360) Then, speaking about the Forty Martyrs, who suffered martyrdom for Christ, he emphasizes that they are common friends of the human race, strong ambassadors and collaborators in fervent prayers. (Chapter 8)<br /><br />“St. Gregory of Nyssa (+395-400) asks St. Theodore the Martyr …to fervently pray to our Common King, our God, for the country and the people (Encomium to Martyr Theodore).<br /><br />“The same language is used by St. Gregory the Theologian (+390) in his encomium to St. Cyprian. (Gen. 44: 2 and Encomium to Julian, Iuventinus and Maximinus, 3).”<br /><br />Etc.<br /><br />Miracle-working such as we see in Acts is the result of the Incarnation, the hypostatic union of human and divine nature. The ability to hear prayers is also due to this, it isn't a semi-divine ability of the saints as simple human beings - it is due to their union with Christ. <br /><br />The difference between latreia and douleia, hyperdouleia and proskynesis is also important, and eminently clear in the Greek of the early Church and the Fathers (if not in our English).123https://www.blogger.com/profile/14514075641944568806noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9073400.post-90165331290637361742010-10-22T13:15:37.979-07:002010-10-22T13:15:37.979-07:00The OCA in the vesper service invokes Mary with &q...<i>The OCA in the vesper service invokes Mary with "save us". How's this.</i><br /><br />This language is common to all Orthodox, Byzantine and 'Eastern' rites, in general, not just the OCA.<br /><br />You ask important questions, it's a shame you assume there are no answers. In fact, the answers have been around for a long, long time. Prior to discovery Orthodoxy, I didn't know much about what was outside of my little denomination's boundaries either - and what I did know was generally a caricature.<br /><br />The mother of God can 'save us' in the same way St. Paul says the believing spouse can save his/her unbelieving spouse.<br /><br />Such language, and the role of the mother of God generally, is attested to early on. For instance, the Egyptian Liturgy for the Nativity of Christ dates to the 200s (while most of the Church was hiding in the catacombs) and assumes the Theotokos (mother of God) can her them when it says:<br /><br />"Beneath thy tenderness of heart<br />we take refuge, O Theotokos,<br />disdain not our supplications in our necessity,<br />but deliver us from perils,<br />O only pure and blessed one."123https://www.blogger.com/profile/14514075641944568806noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9073400.post-21110707071163436872010-10-22T12:54:58.531-07:002010-10-22T12:54:58.531-07:00Back to a more directly relevant comment on the or...Back to a more directly relevant comment on the original post: a video of Metropolitan Jonah's speech to ACNA can be viewed here:<br /><br />http://byztex.blogspot.com/2009/06/metropolitan-jonah-speaks-to-anglican.html<br /><br />Additional information (especially valuable are the links within each post) can be found here:<br /><br />http://westernorthodox.blogspot.com/2009/06/next-western-rite.html<br /><br />http://westernorthodox.blogspot.com/2009/06/met-jonah-renews-st-tikhons-dialogue.html123https://www.blogger.com/profile/14514075641944568806noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9073400.post-52652397653224494162010-10-22T11:07:03.383-07:002010-10-22T11:07:03.383-07:00"They are useless they find justifiable warra..."They are useless they find justifiable warrant in Scriptures." <br /><br /> The above should read, <br /><br />"They are useless unless they find justifiable warrant in Scriptures."Joe Mahlerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11159602829251282904noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9073400.post-66447794633471950352010-10-22T09:43:29.537-07:002010-10-22T09:43:29.537-07:00"Furthermore, if your reasoning were right, y..."Furthermore, if your reasoning were right, you should dispense with the BCP, the Homilies and the rest of the Anglican baggage." <br /> They are useless they find justifiable warrant in Scriptures. And yes they are dispensable but the Bible is not.<br /> Now the praying to saints and invoking theotokas (sp) do not find any justifiable warrant in Scriptures and smack at if not in fas idolatry. The OCA in the vesper service invokes Mary with "save us". How's this. Can she even hear us. Is she some goddess of a sort. Is "Orthodoxy" polytheistic? All of this stuff certainly is in no wise comfortable with the Bible, Old or New Testaments.Joe Mahlerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11159602829251282904noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9073400.post-83466858891234951802010-10-21T15:13:26.357-07:002010-10-21T15:13:26.357-07:00Joe Mahler,
It may be true that the Scriptures ar...Joe Mahler,<br /><br />It may be true that the Scriptures are the highest authority, but it doesn’t follow that they are the only authority. Second, even being the highest authority doesn’t place just anyone as a competent, let alone, an authoritative judge as to what the scriptures teach or determining their contents. To paraphrase Wilde, the Bible is like mirror, you can’t have an ape looking in and an apostle looking out. Plenty of Anglican divines have argued against Sola Scriptura against the Puritans. Just so long as Anglicans argue that the church is the judge as to what scripture teaches, they oppose Sola Scriptura.<br /><br />The usefulness of other writings may be so in so far as they agree with the scriptures, but it doesn’t follow from that, that the judgment of anyone as to what agrees with scripture is necessarily the correct, let alone authoritative one.<br /><br />Further, that criteria won’t be useful since various Christian doctrines are not capable of being derived from the Bible alone since they are Christian doctrines that establish the extent of what constitutes the Bible itself. The formal canon of Scripture as spelled out by say the Articles of Religion is not a biblically derived teaching. It is extra biblical. If it is not on par authoritatively with Scripture itself, at least formally so, then what constitutes the bible can legitimately vary over time. Protestants revised the canon once and so there is no principle reason why they may not choose to do so again.<br /><br />I grant that there are missionaries, but plenty of them are carrying forth a non-Reformation view of the Gospel and so are carrying no gospel at all on Reformation principles. Somehow I don’t see how you would be happy about that.<br /><br />I must argue to the contrary that Christians do quite well without tradition. Just turn on your television and watch what Christians end up believing when Creeds, Confessions and councils are removed. It isn’t even bad enough to qualify as heterodoxy, it is quackadoxy. Furthermore, your position is actually that not of the classical Reformers who enshrined tradition as a subordinate authority, but that of the Anabaptists. Calvin’s Geneva strictly endorsed what the religious authorities, and not every private individual, judged to be scriptural.<br /><br />Furthermore, if your reasoning were right, you should dispense with the BCP, the Homilies and the rest of the Anglican baggage.Acolyte4236https://www.blogger.com/profile/06247421363309732839noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9073400.post-81089511659353694002010-10-21T12:34:33.698-07:002010-10-21T12:34:33.698-07:00The authority of Scriptures is truly Catholic/cath...The authority of Scriptures is truly Catholic/catholic and universal among Christians. The usefulness of theological writings goes only so far as they are in agreement with Holy Writ. They are not necessarily inspired, and being of human origin may well be in error. They are not inerrant as is the Bible.<br />You rely too much on non Biblical writings. When did you take up to be judge as to whom Providence sends and does not send. Christianity is growing throughout the world, even in the pagan islamic dominions. These effective missionaries are not of the eastern persuasions. They carry a simply Gospel without the baggage of man made up tradition. They have produced the Scriptures in hundreds of languages other than Latin, Greek, and Slavonic. Some of these languages are spoken by a few hundred people. But these missionaries are preaching the Gospel of Jesus Christ and equipping the new Christians with the most important book and the only book from which doctrine may be authoritatively derived, the Bible. They bring with them no clumsy ecclesiastical structure which derives most of its specifics from man made up traditions. Christians do quite well without the writings of the early church but they cannot do without the Bible. Stick to Scriptures, even the Nicene Creed appeals to Scriptures for it validity.Joe Mahlerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11159602829251282904noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9073400.post-44098605943381047842010-10-21T11:52:13.872-07:002010-10-21T11:52:13.872-07:00Joe,
Asserting a conclusion is not the same as a ...Joe,<br /><br />Asserting a conclusion is not the same as a proof of it, so that asserting that there is no biblical support for episcopacy as of the esse of the church doesn’t prove anything. It is dismissible by a simple contrary assertion.<br /><br />Sure there is a distinction between bishops and presbyters in the NT. I’d direct you to not a few Anglican works that have presented such arguments, not the least of which is Felix Cirlot’s, massive work, Apostolic Succession: Is it True? But more to the point, while the NT calls all bishops presbyters, it does not label all presbyters as bishops. The same is true with the term apostolos. All apostles are presbyters, but that doesn’t imply that all presbyters were apostles. And your argument would prove too much since diakonos is also used interchangeably with presbuteros but Presbyterians do not take that to mean that deacons and presbyters are the same office. Interchangable usage, particularly one way, doesn’t imply co-extensive semantic domains.<br /><br /><br />Further, take the evidence from Third John, which was so strong and compelling that for nearly a century Presbyterians desired to remove it from the canon of Scripture. It speaks of an office holder that is superior to presbyters but lower than an apostle and it takes an apostle, namely John to deal with him in a disciplinary manner. A rose by any other name…<br /><br />As for the plurality of bishops in a locale, this is irrelevant, since the thesis of episcopacy doesn’t entail that there can only be one bishop in a locale. It only entails that bishops alone are the source of the ministry, that is, only bishops can ordain. This is what monarchial episcopate means, monarchia, single source. Further, there is no biblical or extra biblical evidence to the effect that presbyters could ordain of themselves and that such a belief was of apostolic origin.<br /><br />It may be true as you write that organizations that are grounded in traditions of men, of merely human authority seek to protect that authority and status. It is also true that those sects found on the private judgment of a given teacher do the same. Either way, that doesn’t prove that the Orthodox are such an organization either way and so it is useless to your cause.<br /><br />Ecclesiology is an important doctrine because it is a consequence of the two twin pillars of Christianity-the Trinity and the Incarnation, both doctrines that the Reformers fudged on. When Lutherans like Chemnitz write that person and nature mean the same thing in Christology or practically every Reformed theology from Calvin to Perkins writes that Jesus is a divine and human person formed out of the union of the two natures this doesn’t inspire confidence that they possess the biblical faith. Chalcedonian Christology just isn’t compatible with the Reformation. Pick one or the other.<br /><br />All the things you note concerning soteriology are duly important, but you’ve given no reason for thinking that the Orthodox neglect those. And further you seem to ignore the obvious point that such doctrines are a function of Christology. The Reformers held what they did ultimately about predestination and monergistic regeneration because of their Christological beliefs and not the other way around. <br /><br />Your assertion that there are no intercessors other than Christ contradicts Paul’s explicit statements asking for intercession or speaking of many intercessors in Christ. Here you confuse intercession with mediation. Clergy are not mediators and so you create a straw man.<br /><br />Secondly, the Gospel never comes apart from those who are sent, whether it is Christ sent from the Father, the Apostles sent out or their successors. The first question then is who sent you and then afterwards, what doctrine do you present? Who then commissioned the Reformers? They had neither an ordinary commissioning nor an extraordinary commissioning.Acolyte4236https://www.blogger.com/profile/06247421363309732839noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9073400.post-78874598739388056002010-10-21T10:59:37.493-07:002010-10-21T10:59:37.493-07:00"Without agreement on authority in the church..."Without agreement on authority in the church, we will not agree on anything else."<br /><br />WOW! So, the monarchical bishop is essential to Christian fellowship. Will you go so far as to say, "without bishops, there is no church"? The "orthodox" ecclesiology is not provable by Scriptures. There is no Biblical distinction between presbyters and bishops. Both words appear in the Bible but both are treated the same in function and requirements. A church with bishops (note plural) no presbyters are mentioned and vice versa. <br /><br />BUT, I'm really surprised that no agreement may be had if first agreement must be made on the AUTHORITY OF THE CHURCH.<br /><br />The authority of the Church comes from God. It's authority and function are spelled out in Scriptures. Religious organizations which rely heavily on traditions of men find a clergy more interested in protecting their own position, authority, and power. Ecclesiology, therefore, becomes the most important doctrine to them. Funny, that was neither the Gospel of Jesus nor the thrust of the teachings of the Apostles. Faith in Jesus, regeneration, salvation, and sanctification were the Gospel, are the Gospel, and will be the Gospel.<br /> Did you know that the Church would exist even if every member the the clergy were wiped from the face of the earth. Apostolic succession is a contrivance of man and in no wise provable by Scriptures.<br /> The Good News is that by God's grace you are saved if you believe in Jesus Christ. The Good News is that the Christian is freed from the slavery of sin to be a slave of God to do righteousness. That no one stands between the Christian and Christ. That the Christian may go directly to God without any intercessor. Jesus is God. He is our Advocate and Mediator. He is the sacrifice for our sins. The one full and perfect sacrifice. The only other sacrifice that we make is ourselves as living sacrifices. Christians need to study the Scriptures to do righteously, not because doing the works of the Law will save them, that is by Grace and by Faith, but to live to please God in all his doings. The Gospel is quite simple. Enough burden has been placed on us to do the righteousness that God demands without the added burden of the Pharisees, ancient or modern.<br /> No, if being a Christian first depends on agreement in ecclesiology then no one is saved. For who first believes in "orthodox" ecclesiology before he believes in Jesus Christ?????????Joe Mahlerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11159602829251282904noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9073400.post-28278198019726571162010-10-20T13:32:13.446-07:002010-10-20T13:32:13.446-07:00Joe,
Since the topic of this thread is concerning...Joe,<br /><br />Since the topic of this thread is concerning Orthodoxy and not Catholicism, I am not sure what relevance an anti-papal polemic has here. It is simply irrelevant.<br /><br />Second, your argument is a bad one since it trades on an equivocation of sense. To stand in the place of or be a substitute can be taken in a variety of senses. One can do so as an authorized representative, which surely has strong biblical warrant, regardless of how one wishes theologically to cash out representation. Or one can thinking a substitute as a fraudulent or malicious imposter. The two senses are not the same. Anti-Christ uses the latter but not necessarily the former as has been pointed out above by others. The Apostles use representational language of themselves. So the only way to make your argument go through is to convict the apostolic band of being anti-Christ.Acolyte4236https://www.blogger.com/profile/06247421363309732839noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9073400.post-72994420537249875742010-10-20T13:04:43.308-07:002010-10-20T13:04:43.308-07:00The source for my first quote referring to Fr. Gre...The source for my first quote referring to Fr. Gregorios (Hatziemmanouil) of the Cell of St John the Theologian, Mt. Athos is Fr. Steven Kostoff'a blog, the second is by (then) Bp. Kallistos Ware. The original pieces can be found:<br /><br />http://orthodoxmeditations.blogspot.com/2010/10/christ-is-celebrant.html<br /><br />http://www.stpaulsirvine.org/html/priesthood_ware.htm123https://www.blogger.com/profile/14514075641944568806noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9073400.post-55877845094669526842010-10-20T12:57:17.228-07:002010-10-20T12:57:17.228-07:00St Ignatius of Antioch writing soon after the clos...St Ignatius of Antioch writing soon after the close of the biblical canon wrote:<br /><br />"When ye are obedient to the bishop as to Jesus Christ it is evident to me that ye are living not after men, but after Jesus Christ ... Be ye obedient also to the presbytery as to the Apostles of Jesus Christ." (ad Trallians, 2)<br /><br />But, again, this gets back to a question of authority. If we don't agree on basic principles, we will not agree on those derived from them. It's probably best to simply drop it.123https://www.blogger.com/profile/14514075641944568806noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9073400.post-75290922670126199332010-10-20T12:50:39.873-07:002010-10-20T12:50:39.873-07:00Without agreement on authority in the church, we w...Without agreement on authority in the church, we will not agree on anything else.<br /><br />To address your last rather unfair jab regarding antichrist and the idea that anyone can stand in the place of Christ:<br /><br />Hieromonk Gregorios [in his <i>The Divine Liturgy - A Commentary in the Light of the Fathers</i>] relates how St. John Chrysostom explains the role of the celebrant in the Eucharist:<br /><br />'The real celebrant of the eucharistic Mystery is Christ: He who celebrated the Divine Eucharist 'at the Last Supper is the same One who now also performs these Mysteries. We priests are in the position of servants. The One who sanctifies and changes [the Holy Gifts] is Christ.' The celebrant is the instrument of the Holy Spirit; he stands in the place of Christ.'<br /><br />Notice that Hieromonk Gregorios does not say that the celebrant stands "in place of Christ," but rather "in the place of Christ." Christ is not absent - but present - in the Liturgy; that presence being actualized and realized in and through the sacramental priesthood of the Church.<br /><br />Additionally, this excerpt from from "Man, Woman and Priesthood, edited by Peter Moore, SPCK, London, 1978:<br /><br />‘Our Lord and God Jesus Christ’, says St Cyprian of Carthage (d. 258), ‘is himself the high priest of God the Father; he offered himself as a sacrifice to the Father and commanded that this should be done in memory of him; thus the priest truly acts in the place of Christ (vice Christi).’(28) ‘It is the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit who perform everything, teaches St John Chrysostom (d. 407); ‘but the priest lends his tongue and supplies his hand.(29) ... It is not man who causes the bread and wine to become Christ's Body and Blood: this is done by Christ himself, crucified for our sakes. The priest stands before us, doing what Christ did and speaking the words that he spoke; but the power and grace are from God.’(30)<br /><br />The priesthood, then, is always Christ's and not ours. The priest in church is not ‘another’ priest alongside Christ, and the sacrifice that he offers, in union with the people, is not ‘another’ sacrifice but always Christ's own. The ministerial priest, as priest, possesses no identity of his own: his priesthood exists solely in order to make Christ present. This understanding of the ministerial priesthood is clearly affirmed by St Paul: ‘We come therefore as Christ's ambassadors; it is as if God were appealing to you through us’ (2 Cor. 5.20); ‘you welcomed me as an angel of God, even as Christ Jesus’ (Gal. 4,14). St Ignatius of Antioch (d. c. 107) speaks similarly: ‘The bishop presides as the image of God.’(31) In the words of Antiochus the Monk (seventh century): ‘The priests should be imitators of their high priest [i.e. the bishop], and he in his turn should be imitator of Christ the high priest.’(32) In the consecration service of an Orthodox bishop, the chief officiant prays: ‘O Christ our God ... who hast appointed for us teachers to occupy thy throne ... make this man to be an imitator of thee the true Shepherd.’<br /><br />The bishop or priest is therefore an imitator, image, or sign of Christ the one mediator and high priest. In short, the ministerial priest is an icon. ‘Standing between God and men,’ writes St Theodore the Studite (d. 826), ‘the priest in the priestly invocations is an imitation of Christ. For the apostle says: "There is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus" (1 Tim. 2.5). Thus the priest is an icon of Christ.’(33) This notion of the priest as an icon has far-reaching implications:<br /><br />First, there can be no question of any identification between the priest and Christ, for an icon is in no sense identical with that which it depicts.(34)<br /><br />Secondly, an icon is not the same as a photograph or a realistic portrait; and so, when the priest is considered as an icon, this is not to be understood grossly in a literal or naturalistic sense. The priest is not an actor on the stage, ‘made up’ to look like Christ.123https://www.blogger.com/profile/14514075641944568806noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9073400.post-32372491889042205542010-10-20T12:32:00.025-07:002010-10-20T12:32:00.025-07:00"The clergy wear vestments because they are s..."The clergy wear vestments because they are standing in the place of Christ,..."<br /> Where is the Biblical warrant for the priest/bishop to be "standing in the place of Christ"?<br /><br />An interesting note:<br /><br />antichrist come from two Greek words, the preposition "anti" and the noun "christos". The preposition "anti" may be translated into English as: against, opposed to, and in the place of, or in the stead of. Among the many titles that the bishop of Rome uses is "Vicar of Christ." A vicar is one who serves as a substitute or in the place of another.Joe Mahlerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11159602829251282904noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9073400.post-8846155108152648022010-10-19T14:25:11.168-07:002010-10-19T14:25:11.168-07:00Joe,
As for the theology of the Filioque itself i...Joe,<br /><br />As for the theology of the Filioque itself it seems to me you aren’t clear as to what exactly that doctrine is. That doctrine is not that the Son sends the Spirit in the history of salvation. Rather that doctrine is that the eternal person of the Spirit is generated from the Father and the Son as from one principle. It is a thesis about hypostatic origination, not specific temporal missions. Consequently, the Filioque is not conformable to scriptural language in any translation since no biblical text teaches that idea. <br /><br />This is why none of the texts you cite support the doctrine. Jn. 14, 15 and 16 all speak of a future sending, not an eternal generation of the person of the Spirit. If you wish to claim that these support a generation of the Spirit, then we would have to conclude that the Spirit came into existence, which is a species of Arianism.<br /><br />John 16:15 is speaking of teaching and not hypostatic origination so that doesn’t support the Filioque either.<br /><br />Romans 8 doesn’t teach the Filioque because the Spirit is also called the Spirit of truth, but we don’t think the divine attribute or property of truth generated the Spirit. Such a use of this passage uncritically assumes that “of” always and only means “from” in terms of hypostatic generation, it doesn’t as any decent lexigraphical analysis will show. <br /><br />Gal 4 doesn’t support the doctrine either since this is speaking of the economy and the same goes for Philippians 1.<br /><br /><br />As for Article 20, not all Anglicans interpret as you do. I’d recommend taking a look at Bp. Forbes’ commentary for example. That said though, given the way you wish to take article 20, it stands in the same position and is consequently fallible and can not ultimately bind my conscience nor that of any man, unless I agree that it is so first. But then, if it is only normative if I judge it to be so, then I have become the ultimate judge and authority, and not the article and that seems an entirely unbiblical posture.<br /><br />As for the title and standing of metropolitans and such, no one thinks that such things are de fide. And as your own articles indicate, traditions of the church are not under the private judgment of any man. (Article 34)<br /><br />Perhaps Christ never wore a bishops vestments, but Christ did institute high priestly vestments in the OT for example. Added to this fact is that Paul himself describes his role and function as a “priest” in Romans 15. Christ didn’t do lots of things that the Apostles did for example or vice versa, but that of itself doesn’t imply that the actions or practices are unbiblical.Acolyte4236https://www.blogger.com/profile/06247421363309732839noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9073400.post-22836655572660774892010-10-19T14:24:35.274-07:002010-10-19T14:24:35.274-07:00Joe,
Regardless of what you designated the Athana...Joe,<br /><br />Regardless of what you designated the Athanasian Creed as, I can’t see how it touches my point in the main. In so far as Anglicans claim to adhere to the Faith of the whole church, adherence to that statement is not adherence to the faith of the whole church. It is by its nature and content sectarian and not just because of the Filioque.<br /><br />It may be true that in the past adherence to the BCP and the articles and such characterized Anglicanism but as I noted, these on Anglican principles are not infallible judgments. Anglicanism at any point on the temporal line, like all forms of Protestantism is provisional and revisable. <br /><br />The synod of Toledo was a local synod and never amounted to ecumenical standing, even in the west. The Filioque clause didn’t become normative in the west until Rome finally accepted it. Prior to that, it was a Frankish theologoumenon of Augustinian impetus because Rome opposed it for a number of centuries prior.<br /><br />I’ll simply echo other commentors here with respect to images. It goes without saying that not only are the Anglican parishes who follow the Homilies on images few and far between, but the Homilies do not represent a teaching that is the same as that of the Continental Reformers. Consequently the latter would likewise accuse, and did so, Anglicans of not following the biblical injunction against images.<br /><br />More specifically, your remarks betray a lack of familiarity with images as none of them portray the divine essence, nor aim to and this I spelled out in the 2nd council of Nicea as well as her representative theologians (Damascene and the Studite.) This synod was accepted by the apostolic sees and was rejected for a time by the Franks. It is unfortunate that the Reformers picked up and used the Libiri Corolini and its arguments, a good many of them based on a corrupted text of the council in Latin, for their opposition to the theology of images.<br /><br />Surely the Orthodox think Jesus is fully divine and Jesus is a divine and only a divine person who assumed human nature (body, soul, intellect and will). But icons do not attempt to portray the divine essence but only the person denoted, in much the same way that biblical portrayals use figurative and representational imagery to depict divine persons as in say the book of Revelation or Daniel. <br /><br />But of course, I think the Christological confusion is on the Reformation foot and not the Orthodox one. Reformation Christology is generally defective, not only in that its predestinarianism implies monothelitism but in so far as the persona mediatoris is a product of the union of the two natures, signaling a Nestorianizing Christology. This is quite apparent in Calvin (Inst. 2..5.14) and other Reformed thinkers. (See Muller, Christ and the Decree: Predestination and Christology in Reformed Theology from Calvin to Perkins.)Acolyte4236https://www.blogger.com/profile/06247421363309732839noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9073400.post-24496847626045894972010-10-19T14:17:45.459-07:002010-10-19T14:17:45.459-07:00On the offchance your questions weren't simply...On the offchance your questions weren't simply rhetorical:<br /><br />'Bishop' is certainly found in Scripture as the leader of a given church. In Orthodox ecclesiology, 'Archbishops' and 'Metropolitans' are simply bishops of more senior churches; they are honored as something like elder brothers and have been accorded certain rights and honors by custom according to their seniority, just as is the case in many traditional cultures.<br /><br /><i>Look at the sheer beauty of the vestments of the metropolitan / archbishop / bishop at the head of this article. Did Christ ever wear such?</i><br /><br />Christ did not need to wear such because He Himself is Christ, the God-Man. The Bridegroom is not the same as his groomsmen, as the guests. <br /><br />The clergy wear vestments because they are standing in the place of Christ, they are visions of Christ, liturgically. The divine services are the breaking through of the worship of heaven (as seen in Revelation, Daniel, Isaiah and Ezekiel) into this world, they are our participation in that eternal, timeless worship. Vestments are merely a way in which heavenly realities are poorly incarnate in this mundane, terrestrial world - similar to the way in which three dimensional realities are 'falsely' created on two dimensional surfaces. St. John Chrysostom said something to the effect of, "Christ cannot appear until the priest disappears".<br /><br />For all the glory of Moscow and Hagia Sophia, most Orthodox for most of their history have worshiped in poverty and simplicity.<br /><br /><i>The Apostles themselves behaved more humbly that what I find in historically hierarchical ecclesiastical organizations.</i><br /><br />I can't speak to your personal experience of hierarchs, but I would suggest reading the lives of St. John of Shanghai and San Francisco, St Innocent of Alaska, St. Benjamin of Petrograd, and the late Patriarch Pavle of Serbia for examples of apostolic humility in the Orthodox Church.<br /><br /><i>It is much more to be in union with Christ... For all Christians are priests and there is only one High Priest, Jesus Christ.</i><br /><br />Yes, the Orthodox agree.<br /><br /><i>...other contrivances of man made up tradition</i><br /><br />Yes, we agree and only hold to those traditions of the Body of Christ Himself, the Church, guided and led by the Holy Spirit. Given the experience of many Anglicans and Roman Catholics, I can understand your distrust of this statement. But, I assure you, it is true.123https://www.blogger.com/profile/14514075641944568806noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9073400.post-26248789127469347422010-10-19T13:56:08.100-07:002010-10-19T13:56:08.100-07:00melxiopp,
Don't let me stop you from dialogui...melxiopp,<br /><br />Don't let me stop you from dialoguing on corporate union with Anglicanism, if you have such official authority. It is much more to be in union with Christ and in obedience with him. For all Christians are priests and there is only one High Priest, Jesus Christ. Where in the Scriptures do you find such things as archbishops and metropolitans????? and other contrivances of man made up tradition. The Apostles themselves behaved more humbly that what I find in historically hierarchical ecclesiastical organizations. Look at the sheer beauty of the vestments of the metropolitan/archbishop/bishop at the head of this article. Did Christ ever wear such?Joe Mahlerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11159602829251282904noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9073400.post-50279772085493055112010-10-19T12:03:23.186-07:002010-10-19T12:03:23.186-07:00Jim, I think you, me, St. Raphael and many Orthodo...Jim, I think you, me, St. Raphael and many Orthodox agree that union talks are a waste of time, especially on the corporate level. You highlight the dramatic differences within the various Anglican communities themselves; each of those communities has a very different view of theology vis a vis the Orthodox Church.<br /><br />From what I've heard, there are really just a handful of ACNA parishes or clergy that are truly interested in Orthodoxy as Orthodoxy. That isn't corporate conversion or the fruit of ecumenical talks beyond simply sharing what we believe and why. Most of the ACNA and most Anglicanism in general does not believe as the Orthodox do, and that is the prerequisite for unity.<br /><br />This is the time in the conversation where the final response of Patriarch Jeremias II to the Lutherans is quoted.123https://www.blogger.com/profile/14514075641944568806noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9073400.post-63572237376306317962010-10-19T11:25:55.433-07:002010-10-19T11:25:55.433-07:00Jim,
Along with women ordinations, gay ordinations...Jim,<br />Along with women ordinations, gay ordinations, liberal theology, divorce and remarriage, No Christian would any any doings with this. 95% American Anglicans who are not in schismatic groups? Are these what you would call Episcopalians in the TEC? I'm sorry, if there is any Christian in that group should have fled long ago. He would have been unequally hitched to the unbeliever, to the rebel against God's righteousness.Joe Mahlerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11159602829251282904noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9073400.post-69577065949257309312010-10-19T11:13:06.900-07:002010-10-19T11:13:06.900-07:00Personal to Joe with Robin's permission: TEC ...Personal to Joe with Robin's permission: TEC usage matters to me and the roughly 95% of American Anglicans who are not in the schismatic groups.<br /><br />FWIW<br />jimBJimBhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17312606954135884910noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9073400.post-22482969081776107622010-10-19T11:09:08.351-07:002010-10-19T11:09:08.351-07:00melxiopp,
Actually we low church Anglicans would ...melxiopp,<br /><br />Actually we low church Anglicans would spend our time better in the process of converting the eastern orthodox to a Biblical Evangelical Christianity rather than senselessly arguing over what came out of the General Councils. <br />(Article XXI. Of the Authority of General Councils from the Articles of Religion):<br />"General Councils...And when they be gathered together, (forasmuch as they be an assembly of men, whereof all be not governed with the Spirit and Word of God,) they may err, and sometimes have erred, even in the things pertaining unto God. wherefore things ordained by them as necessary to salvation have neither strength nor authority, unless it may be declared that they be taken out of holy Scripture."Joe Mahlerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11159602829251282904noreply@blogger.com