www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Episcopalians and Apostolic Succession

Correcting my own grammar:

And if these Anglicans convert Rome reordains them anyway.

As it does the many Anglicans who claim the Dutch touch (Old Catholic lines of succession got legitimately as the Old Catholics and Anglicans are in communion).

Ouch!


Mercy!


I'm a Roman Catholic, but I play an Eastern Christian on Sundays Don't get all upset over your perceived misogyny of Eastern Christians.

I happen to think that motherhood is a ministry, one ennobled by the Theotokos. I realize in these times, it's not a popular thing to say. Nevertheless, I think it unfortunate that children and family have had to suffer because some men think women only have dignity when they work full time jobs and compete with them. (One only need to look at the West, where singles now outnumber married people. Marriage is moribund.) Children aren't *that* bad for pity's sake. Some women have even been known to really, really like them, although recent research shows that this number is much slimmer than was previously believed. Some Christian mothers have even been known to foster vocations by their example of sacrifice, love and personal holiness.

I would add to Fr. Serge's insightful post, that the Church has been blessed with a number of lay women theologians. Janet Smith and Alice von Hildebrand are two theologians proper, but you can also find others working in areas on biblical commentary like Mary Douglas. I've used resources from some lady graduates of conservative Catholic colleges in my studies and they've been helpful.

Agreed - my point was the same - only making an effort to point out that there is somewhat more leeway than the most super-cyprianistic apologists would allow their to be. The demarkation points aren't quite where some would claim. By the same token, we agree on the vagante issue as well where I point out that the charges of some sort of "super-augustinian" approach are mostly baseless as they just don't play out:


Anyone who thinks that merely pulling out a pedigree chart to demonstrate that you have valid AS in your consecration... well it doesn't really play out in that fashion...

as to:


Yes, TAC = The Anglican Communion

Serge:

I think what I am saying is that in my mind: I am addressing the presumption on the part of Eastern and Latin conservative or traditional Christians that our Christianity trumps all others. I see this constant in-fighting among people of the "true Faith." And one would think that if one had the "true Faith" of Jesus one would do what Jesus did. And Jesus did not spend his time repudiating the ministry of women or even talk about whether women could be Apostles or his disciples.

I am undergoing a theological struggle with my own male narrative of what the movement of Jesus is--as an Eastern Christian. I have parts of me that is not ready for women presbyters and other parts that struggle with the literalistic iconic opitions of male theologians that think you have to have male parts to be a "valid" or Grace-filled presbyter. I just want one person, when addressing women or non-Apostolic ministries to look at the good they do, verses this constant apologetic about what is wrong with other traditions. I mean most of this rhetoric makes Eastern and Latin Christians look like ignorant back-water fundamentalists. Why can't Eastern Christians have a dialectic with modern theology--must we all be die in the wool crypto-fundamentalists. Why can't an Eastern Christian have a difference of opinion--do we always have to assert the superiority of our Church? That is what so frustrates me. I am willing to allow for other people to struggle with these issues, because I do--but why is it when an Eastern Christian wants to discuss women's contributions to Church--that he has to be blasted by armchair theo-historians or theologians that do not think dialogically with issues of modern significance? Must we always be relics on the curios shelf of the Catholic Church? Does anyone else struggle like this?

We have Grace, priesthood, culture, liturgies, and the pleroma of the Faith--but why does the Church feel that the simplicity of the teachings and example of Jesus is too far away to appropriate. I would rather be a heretic, like Jesus was thought of in his day, then be in the company of people who think a narrow vision of Church History and tradition, is totality of the Church. Cite Magisterium, Cite Fathers, Cite theologians--but, have we not so far removed ourselves from the healthy ambiguity of the Gospel message, contained in the Christian scriptures, that we can't see past our theological egos?

Now Serge, you know what I was talking about when I was dealing with women ministry. I was referring to the contemporary context--not traditional roles or monasticism. But, Eastern Christians can't talk about modern roles for women without being shut down by the ORTHODOX and True Believers. Why can't we talk about the dignity of women and the dignity of other Christians in their movement to God. I'll tell you why--because fundies have hijacked my Church.

My first rememberances of parish life were traditionalist Latins complaining the priest wanted to remove the statues and stations from the Church. Eastern Catholic Churches in America are refuges for the worst sort of fundamentalists. We can't even talk about inclusive language without people shutting down the conversation in the Church. When I was chrismated in the OCA I did it as a point of necessity, but I am still a baptized member of the Ruthenian Church and I am appalled at the stifling of opinion and quest for truth--outside of manuals of canon law or dogmatic theology--by honest Christians.

Orthodoxy was always a dynamic movement of the Holy Spirit. Any historian of the Church knows dogmas and doctrines developed--as well as customs and rites. The 'deposit of faith' does not mean all dogmas and doctrines where fully developed by the time of the last Apostles. Orthodoxy is not a synonym for theological stagnation. As Orthodox and Eastern Christians we don't have all the answers about the "Mystery" of ordination or baptism. And we can't issue dogmatic statements about members of other Christian groups who are sincerely living the Gospel in their own way--because if we claim to be Orthodox we are still becoming what God would have us be in history--we are often worse than the people we criticize.

Robert

Sorry to but in here , but I'm puzzled /confused

Robert , you said


Surely when you were Chrismated into Orthodoxy you officially left the Catholic Church ? if this is so you are no longer a member of the Ruthenian Church

Side bar: No, in the old country there was alot of inter-change between Orthodox and Eastern Catholics or sharing of mysteries. Priests wives, Eastern Catholic and Orthodox, would often go to the other priest in town for confession. The lines was not clearly drawn. And in Christ this nonsense about canonicity is grevious to the Holy Spirit. To say Eastern Catholics are not Orthodox and Orthodox are not really Catholic is ignorant. When I moved to Ketchikan there was no Ruthenian Church and after a few years I talk about this to the OCA presbyter there and I was received. But, I NEVER repudiated my Eastern Catholic baptism and chrismation or the faith of that I received from St. Nicholas in Anchorage. I am an Eastern Christian in both jurisdictions. May not work out according to canons or whatever, but it was out of pastoral necessity, Enough said.

Robert:

May I remind you that Father Archimandrite Serge Keleher must be accorded the respect due to his priestly office and be addressed at least as "Father Serge."

In Christ,

BOB
Moderator

The young fogey:

Fortunately, the people who are still pushing for this impossibility are aging and mostly confined to the academy where we can hope they fizzle out over time. Young people seem to have a much better grasp of the Faith than these people and usually are much more conservative in their faith and practice than their elders. Fr. John Corapi (sp?) one evening on EWTN made the remark that even the young priests give him much more hope for the future than their professors in the seminaries.

In Christ,

BOB

I noticed the use of the words "liberal" and "conservative" in a number of the postings, and this usually throws up red flags for me. It seems to signify more a socio-political perspective than a Christian one (grace inspired) or a theological one (system coherent theory).

Theology is not a unified endeavor - there are hosts of theologies, some of which are in a unified framework, others of which are free-standing framework/systems. Harmonizing theologies is like herding cats. Snippets of this correlate with snippets of that but it involves rejecting core elements of both "this" and "that" and then the roof caves in. Both conservatives (who try to integrate everything from the past) and liberals (who try to innovate AND integrate from the past) are doomed to failure. The calculus doesn't work because the variables are ill-defined and too immutable for integration.

It seems to me that this is the reason that Our Lord promised us the Holy Spirit - to guide us on our path home to the Father. When the cloth came down to Peter and he was told to "eat" and Peter said: "Uh-UHHAA! No way, it's unclean" and the Spirit came to him and said 'listen to me; it's OK', it gave us the signal to stop quoting Torah and start meditating and praying on the Gospel message. (St. Paul notes: Oh, the freedom of the children of God.)

It's a scary endeavor. The responsiblity of being true to Jesus, His Gospel, and to the Father/Creator of All requires us to think and to pray both alone and with each other. The weak race back to the Torah law (or the Canons) - it provides 'salvation' as well as justification for one's actions. As I understand the Scripture, we are to be "on fire" for Love of God and Love of Neighbor as inspired by the Holy Spirit, and not database quoters of scripture and law.

As for other Christian groups, of whatever ilk, their orders may not be valid (Pope Leo XIII was pretty clear on this) and sometimes their 'ministries' are greed-oriented self-service ('Jaysus wants you to have money! So send a donation for our miracle water'). But it's not up to us to judge them - God WILL get them in His own due time. But inasmuch as some outside the pale of the 5 ancient patriarchates do accomplish good, we must respect that and even work with them on programs that serve the poor and the disenfranchised. (We had a huge apartment building fire here in DC last week - and a neighboring homeless women's shelter run by Catholics housed in the Meridian Hill Baptist Church - had to be evacuated because the roof caught fire. Who knew that such Christian love existed on Mt. Pleasant Street? This is the "good stuff". And I'm sure that the spirit of Mother Teresa was there yelling at those women: Get out now!)

So, perhaps we shouldn't get too caught up in Torah law and Canons, and just withdraw to our chambers to pray and ask the Lord to send the Holy Spirit to butt-kick us to do the loving thing. If a woman runs the shelter - so be it. If it's run by those heretical Protestants, then OK. It's all 'ministry' to the poor and underprivileged. Your ecclesiastial passport isn't really important, just your baptism. AND your commitment to the Gospel of Christ.

My participation in communion and the other sacraments brings me "to my own". By not going elsewhere, I'm not judging the other baptized folks, I'm just going where I believe grace is to be found for me. And I pray for "them" and ask God's blessing on their endeavors to Love God/Love One's Neighbor. And if they need a helping hand, then I'll be there.

"God is LOVE; he who abides in love, abides in God and God in him." - regardless of gender or age or body-mass index, or language or cultural persuasion.

Blessings to All! (=All!)

Dr John

I can offer only "Amen" to the wise words of my brother, Dr John

Many years,

Neil

I'm not sure how this got thrown into the conversation. No one is saying that ministry to the poor is NOT valuable, regardless of the giver. No one can set themselves up as God, deciding who will or will not be counted among the sheep at the end of time.

What I've argued here however is that there is an incumbent duty upon all those who hold the Faith that comes to us from the Apostles to clearly and precisely state our positions.

Set aside for a moment the question of priestesses.

What should the Church's response to be to an ecclesial community that showed up one day at the Vatican urging unity, but asking that they be allowed to continue the use water instead of wine at their version of the Lord's Supper? They might say, "Look, we accept the Catholic understanding of Eucharist, but we wish to preserve the water because we don't like wine. That's our sacramental theology and our custom. We think that a Eucharist with water is just as valid."

The Church would be well within her obligations to Christ to say, "No, we've received the use of wine at the Eucharist from Christ himself. We cannot change it." This in fact the basic answer she gives to the Anglicans. This isn't about, as Dr. J implies, "judging" other people. It is about the duty, born of love, to preserve the Master's examples. Newman called this the "preservation of types." We are not at liberty to change them, only enter into dialog for the purpose of explaining what we believe while listening to others. Ecumnism that accepts as a given that the apostolic tradition must change is false.

Many years ago, I wrote an article which criticized the interior art work of a certain church edifice. A priest unconnected with that parish asked why I had done this. Since my article includes photographs of the offending art work, I simply called these photographs to his attention. His response was "but that parish does excellent social work", or words to that effect.

I had criticized - and would still criticize - the art work, not the social work. On the same false principle that my friend invoked, no one should criticize Catherine Doherty, of holy memory, for her cooking, even though everyone who knew her was only too well aware of her culinary atrocities. She was a great saint, and may she pray for us - but may she leave the cooking to someone who knows how to cook!

By the same token, I would be the first to acknowledge - gladly - that High Church Anglican ministers organized magnificent social works in the nineteenth century, and did exemplary work for the poor in England. There is not the slightest reason to doubt that God blessed this work. This still has nothing to do with the controversy over Anglican Orders, or the ecclesiological claims of certain Anglicans, or the ordination of women.

Fr. Serge

I'm sorry Sultan, but I take offense at some of your statements above. Funny that you've been told that, because in my year and some months attending an Anglo-Catholic/Episcopal parish, it's never been brought up, or taught. Maybe the memo didn't make it by the rector's desk?

Blanketing Episcopalians by the words or actions of some of their church is no better than those who blanket Catholics based on the words or actions of some of their church. Week by week, the sermons I have heard preached, the theology taught, the music used, the liturgy served, at the parish I have been attending is every bit as Catholic, and in the case of some things, more so, than any number of Catholic churches that I can point you to in my area. OK, so Leo said they have no orders, that's fine and dandy, but the Gospel I hear and the Masses and other services I've attended, and the example I see from the clergy and the people, make God manifest in ways that I have never experienced in a Catholic church. So, as I attend services this week at parish where the priest's ministrations are utterly null and void, I'll pray for you and all here (as I do each week) and maybe God might be there and my prayer be heard.

John K

It's not in the place of me or anyone else to tell God how to dispense his grace. No one has done that here. Certainly, I'm the last person to ever claim that Catholics are more moral or spiritual than other Christians (I've seen too much evidence to the contrary.) Newman wished in his own day that Catholics could be more like Wesleyans in the way they lived out the Gospel.

But, the sense of God experienced in community, no matter how profound, can never make apostolic succession reappear where it has ceased to be. For most Protestants, they could care less. For Newman, it was worth being a part of, even if meant losing honors, esteem and the connection to family and friends.