Probably one of the biggest objections to Anglicanism from the Orthodox POV is the Anglican position on the Eucharist food, which is either unclear and debated among Anglicans, or tended to be a kind of Virtualism or Receptionism in the era of Cranmer and the approval of the Articles.
It sounds like you are saying that England was under an excommunicated bishop in 1052 as Stigand was excommunicated? But it is not clear when exactly Stigand was excommunicated, and secondly even if he is excommunicated it isn't clear that his whole church territory is excommunicated. Wikipedia says: On one hand, I would tend to think that in 1054-1066 the effects of excommunicating Stigand and the Patriarch of Constantinople had not severed relations between the churches themselves or all their members collectively at that point. Harold II is canonized as a saint in the calendar of ROCOR, a canonical EO church. The idea is that he was defending England against the anti-EO Pope. There are theories by some Orthodox about Harold II being the last Anglo Saxon Orthodox king of England: http://heavyangloorthodox.blogspot.com/2013/10/orthodox-englands-last-stand.html http://pemptousia.com/2013/04/harold-ii-the-last-orthodox-king-of-england/ http://www.romanitas.ru/eng/THE FALL OF ORTHODOX ENGLAND 5X8.htm
The position does seem to be somewhat vague, mysterious. It is taught to be the real Blood and Body of Christ and a memorial even going so far as saying it contains Christ's presence only by those who have faith(St.Augustine). I personally God is every where present, even more so in the wine and bread of Holy Communion esp. after the epiclisis/Prayer of Consecration. Exactly how this is, is truely a mystery. Our Lord did say,"...this is My Body...this is My Blood.."
"Philip Barrington likes this." Another interesting thing is that Harold II's descendants and a huge number of his Anglo Saxon supporters went to live in Russia as refugees, where they formed whole cities with English names like "New Anglia", particularly in the area of what is now East Ukraine. Harold II's daughter Gytha married the famous Grand Prince of Kiev, Vladimir Monomakh, below: It is natural that they felt more comfortable in the Eastern lands than those under the Pope. The refugees also served as Varangian Guards under the Emperor of Constantinople. At that time (mid-11th century), As I understand it, the Schism was only between the Pope and the Patriarch himself, rather than between the Churches as a whole. The Vikings commonly saw the disagreement between Rome and the East as basically political. I rather agree. The main problem that the RC Church presents for the East is their teaching of Papal Supremacy, especially when connected with the the teaching Papal Infallibility. The problem is political. If you teach Papal infallibility and supremacy, it means that the East must obey the Pope.
That's interesting. Can you put your finger on what didn't seem quite right? I would be very interested to know.
Th Articles are not clear and allow for variations in interpretation and they are, indeed, interpreted in different ways by different parts of the Anglican communion and by different Anglicans. My difficulty with Anglicanism is that you don't get a consistent message across all Churches - there are, for instance, differences in belief between evangelical Anglicanism and Anglo Catholicism and quite a bit of variety in between. There appears to be a more consistent message and set of beliefs set out within EO. But my view is that the nature of the Eucharist food and how it is received is a Holy Mystery - I think that the Orthodox Church would agree with that.
Well said. Perhaps oddly one of the reasons for my attraction to Anglican faith is the somewhat vague way their formularies describe the Eucharist. I think most people would like to know exactly how Christ is present in the bread and wine....but the fact that He is present is enough for me. The Sacraments are indeed mysterious
The EO position is that it is a Holy Mystery, which is a term it uses for the sacraments. (https://orthodoxwiki.org/Holy_Mysteries) There is a lot of variety among EO theologians on whether they accept the Lutheran (spirit mode of Jesus' body in the bread for the worthy and unworthy) or RC position (Transubstantiation regardless of the communicant's worthiness). Personally I find that the Church fathers were divided between these two views. Theodoret and the Roman Pope Gelasius took the Lutheran view (IMO) while St Cyril of Alexandria took the RC view. One modern scholar (whom I forget, unfortunately) read the Articles as teaching the real presence in the bread (Art 28), but not for the unworthy (Art 29). Stalwart, an Anglican writer on this forum, happened to take that same interpretation of the Articles, and cited St. Cyprian of Carthage to that effect. Maybe he is right about St Cyprian. See our discussion here on that: http://forums.anglican.net/threads/...e-or-have-christs-body.1614/page-2#post-22003
Christina, It is nice to hear from you. What do you mean in your profile that you are Anglican and Eastern Orthodox? There is an Anglican-Orthodox organization dedicated to ecumenical relations between our churches called: Fellowship of St Alban & St Sergius www.sobornost.org
From my experience, Orthodox church being exalted instead of Christ, mindless ritual over thoughtful worship,(countless signs of the cross Lord's Prayers,etc)no outreach to sinners for Christ, closed communion, superiority attitude, closed ethnic issues, people trying to be a culture that they are not, heavy burden of added traditions presenting obstacles to people wantingto come to know The Lord,or to join EO,etc...I love my Orthodox brethen, but these are some of the issues I've encountered inEO, tends to be an unnessary "heavy yoke"...
I dont get what all your vid stuff is suppossed to be nor do I care. I was asked a question and answered it from my own personal experience. And I am not alone in these opinions. I have known people who have been in Orthodoxy 20+ years who have left for similar reasons. There are other ex-Orthodox on this forum who would absolutely agree.
That is not charitable at all, is it? Jay was pointing out what didn't feel right to him in the Orthodox Church, as he said, in an honest answer to a question.
Dear Jay and CWJ, The Orthodox Church doesn't say "We exalt the Orthodox Church". But it does respect and emphasize its own community because it considers it to have the correct understanding of theology. That is probably true for the Anglican, Lutheran, and Catholic Churches, as well as the mainstream Christian community of 30-200 AD, who distinguished themselves from heretical sects like the Christian Docetists, gnostics, Montanists, the deniers of the real presence in the Eucharist, and others. The EO Church does have ecumenical relations with other churches though as with the St. Albans Anglican - Orthodox Fellowship I mentioned above. And it is incorrect to add to this "instead of Christ". That's kind of like saying religious Catholics don't read the Bible, another claim I've heard. Anyone who is familiar with Orthodox art and ikons and with Catholic Bible verse calendars for reading and Sunday Catholic sermons on Bible verses knows that these are wrong statements. So why would you, Jay, be making a statement against the Orthodox Christian Church that you know is incorrect and is transparently so? These statements don't actually tell us much about the Orthodox Church or about your objections to it because they are such incorrect statements. It's kind of like hearing that a student says that normal public schools don't feel right because schools supposedly teach loyalty to themselves "instead of" teaching loyalty to America. Or like reading a Jack Chick tract on Catholicism, which is actually a more reliable resource on anti-ecumenical Reformed than on Catholicism. Here some Anglicans discuss Jack Chick style Reformed perceptions of Anglicanism and Catholicism: http://www.christianforums.com/threads/anglican-perception.1239400/
My Dear Rakovsky, I get that you are defending the EO, and I understand that you may well feel compelled to do so, however you will not achieve very much by invalidating Jay's own felt experience of the EO. In point of honesty to speak of EO as a single unit is really a bit misleading, as it encompasses a seemingly diverse group of autocephalous Churches. Look at how many Patriarchs of Antioch there are! You would be more helpful if you said, 'I am sorry that has been your experience, my own experience has been ....' and less helpful when you say "making a statement against the Orthodox Christian Church that you know is incorrect and is transparently so" which appears to challenge either his integrity or his right to have an opinion. One of the most chilling and inspiring moments in the last few of years is the vision of the 21 coptic martyrs on the beach in Libya uttering the name of Jesus. I believe we have much to learn from Orthodox Christians, and I imagine that this is not a one way street. The word Orthodox comes from the Greek Language where it means at its root 'right glory' which is something we all seek to give unto God. Pax Dominus Vobiscum.
Thanks for this reply Jay. What type of Orthodox Church did you attend? There is a Church in the UK - unfortunately not anywhere near where I live so I couldn't attend - that seems to be different from how you describe. http://www.aidanorthodox.co.uk/info.html The Priest is English and they appear to have a strong outreach mission and they offer a course called Orthodox Christianity for Absolute Beginners, It's in the Antiochian Archdiocese of the British Isles and Ireland. Perhaps this Orthodox Church is not the norm. By "this Orthodox Church" I meant the one in Manchester in the UK, rather than the one you attended.
Hi Rakovsky Jay was answering a question I posed of him asking what, in his experience, didn't seem right about the Orthodox Church he attended. He answered honestly according to his experience and according to how he felt. It is sad that this was his experience, but it was his experience.
Thanks for your question. I am an Anglican because I was Baptised and Confirmed in an Anglican Church and currently attend an Anglo-Catholic Church. However, having studied Church history and Orthodox belief, I find that I am drawn to Orthodoxy and am in agreement with what Orthodoxy teaches. I am, however, not a member of the Orthodox Church. There are not so many Orthodox Churches in the UK - particularly Churches with services in English - and no Orthodox Church near to where I live, so, at present, it is not easy for me to attend an Orthodox Church. I do, however, listen to weekly sermons from St Aidan's Church in Manchester (through Ancient Faith Radio) and have worked through the Orthodox Christianity for Absolute Beginners course - there are some links to some great Orthodox resources within the Course. The nearest Orthodox Church to me holds all its services in Romanian, not English - not exactly reaching out to the local population. By the way, my father was Greek (my mother English) but I was never taught anything about Orthodoxy when growing up.
odd statement, he just expressed his impressions of the EO community and they happen to match my own. How can what one saw with one's own eyes be wrong? At best only someone else's impressions can match up against that