|
0 members (),
409
guests, and
105
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums26
Topics35,535
Posts417,726
Members6,188
| |
Most Online4,112
Mar 25th, 2025
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 1,431
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 1,431 |
...personally I would never leave Catholicism for Orthodoxy (or Orthodoxy for Catholicism). Fine when it's rightly understood. Not indifferentism or two true churches (illogical: Anglican branch theory), BTW, I think Fr. (now Bishop) Roald Flemestad had a good comment about Branch Theory when interviewed by William Tighe ... Tighe: Does the Nordic Catholic Church entertain the �branch theory� of the Church that has been embraced by certain high-church Anglicans?
Flemestad: Well, if the �branch theory� means that all denominations are really equal but, by chance, historically different expressions of the same faith, then I do not accept it. Historically, there is but One Church, Catholic and Apostolic. Realizing that Christ did not leave behind a religious philosophy or a set of ideas that could comfort the soul, but that he sent out Twelve Apostles as the foundation of his Church, we could not in our predicament isolate ourselves from that historical mission and let ourselves be satisfied with some sort of pseudo-ecclesial arrangement as some sort of pet project.
Thus, we could resort to neither a nostalgic project of creating a �continuing church� based upon an idealized Lutheran past, nor an ahistorical utopianism in the form of some sort of new ecumenical arrangement for dissatisfied high-church Protestants. We had to look for a church! We had to find a given historical church institution that had the catholicity we needed and would show the pastoral generosity to support us as a group.
That said, there�s an Orthodox saying, �We know where the Church is, but not where it isn�t.� There are people of true faith that can be examples for us all in Protestant churches�I�m not for a minute doubting that�and if their lives are such, it must be the work of the Holy Spirit. So even if I am critical of the branch theory, I wouldn�t say that the �charismatic overflow� of the Holy Spirit does not exist in places other than the historic apostolic churches. Read more: http://www.touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=15-06-054-i#ixzz33COP5GYg
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,712 Likes: 1
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,712 Likes: 1 |
They have a version of the branch theory, only it doesn't include Anglicanism: themselves (the Union of Scranton), us, the non-Catholic Eastern churches, and maybe the faction of Utrecht Old Catholics in Eastern Europe who haven't turned completely liberal (basically, Catholic priests who switched to get married).
Sure, Protestants can receive gifts from God.
The church has estranged members (how we see the non-Catholic East) but there is only one church. None of the apostolic family except Scranton and the Assyrians/Nestorians believes in the branch theory.
We have a belief rather like it but not it: the notion of the great apostolic family, defined by valid orders: credal orthodoxy so basic the Nestorians pass, unbroken apostolic succession, and unbroken true teaching about the Eucharist. So for example the Orthodox have true bishops and thus are estranged Catholics; Anglican and Swedish Lutheran bishops aren't really bishops so Anglicans and Lutherans are Protestants.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 1,431
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 1,431 |
They have a version of the branch theory, only it doesn't include Anglicanism Not to get off on a tangent, but I myself am pretty suspicious of branch-theory-without-anglicanism. (If I weren't to begin with, I would probably become so just from all the times I've heard Orthodox speak against it.  )
|
|
|
|
|
