Truth! In fact, I'll go a step further. I think our Oriental Orthodox churches are wasting their time with the Anglicans when the Anglicans do not even have an inner unity within each other. If these theologians we had ecumenical discussions with are excited about the prospect of unity with us, they should renounce their own liberal standards and be a seperate voice from what Canterbury sadly brings.
I would rather have theological discussions with Muslims who do have a consistency in their beliefs among imams than a so-called church who veered away from essential Christianity and still pretends to be part of it.
Mina et all, I am a little concerned with your (plural) statement that the Oriental Orthodox Churches are wasting their time. I understand your apprehension, however, how do you define a church that does "not even have an inner unity with each other"? One can argue the Eastern Orthodox do not have unity in their view of the Oriental Churches. Was it a waste of time to have the dialogue with the Eastern Orthodox since the 1960's? We all know that there are multiple branches of Roman Catholicism. Was it a waste to declare our common faith in Christ?
Sure some churches practice and theologize one way and their superiors another way. But this is merely an obstacle to be addressed, not proof of the vanity of ecumenical discussions with the Anglican church.
I also have reservations to compare an Anglican-OO dialogue with Muslim-OO dialogue. Islam is not consistent in their beliefs either. But at least the Anglican Church is Trinitarian. And if you read the 5 page document, they actually have language that is more in tune with miaphysitism than most EO will accept, much less Islam.
Now I am not saying we are at the point of reunion. This was only a communication (15 years in the making) to send back to each family for more discussions. There is still plenty to do, but it is a good step in the right direction. We shouldn't be negative for any church who expresses a desire of fraternal love that follows the example of Trinity.
The Episocpagan "church"'s presiding Bishop. Take a look at the things this woman says. They are not Christian. Period. Closer to Atheism, really.
Ray
Hmmm. The only unequivocal statement we can make is that the Atheist is not a Christian. But to say the Episcopal Church is not Christian needs substantiation. And the claim that it is closer to Atheism than Christianity doesn't make sense. If it believes in the Trinity then it can't be anywhere near atheism.
I will agree with you that some of the Episcopal Church's practices are illogical at best (if not outright demonic), but they can't be atheistic.
But Rem, the document of the OO-Anglican agreement does not represent all Anglicans. As many people have shared, some Anglicans don't believe in God at all. Some Anglicans don't believe in the Ttrinity. Some Anglicans don't believe in the sacraments. There's "high church", there's "low church", there's everything in between. There are many Anglicans, even bishops, who are just culturally Anglican.
That's why I don't even buy into the idea they're "Trinitarian." Prove it. Cut out from your church those who are essentially not even close to Christian, and then we can have dialogues. His Eminence Metropolitan Hilarion of the Moscow Patriarchate says it best, that there is a concern what the future of dialogue holds if simple agreements like this are not even considered real when the essence of the agreement (i.e. the beliefs about the divinity of Christ) can be openly rejected to begin with.
But to say the Episcopal Church is not Christian needs substantiation.
Their beliefs are erroneous, thus not Christian. Case closed.
All of their beliefs are not Christian? Some of their beliefs? All of their beliefs held by their hierarchy are not Christians? Held by the grassroots faithful? I don't necessarily disagree that specific beliefs are not Christian. But you have to be specific. Simply providing what you consider an irrefutable judgement (by using the phrase "case closed") on every belief the Anglican Church holds (when we can't even define Anglican Church as minasoliman showed) is not logical.
"But Rem, the document of the OO-Anglican agreement does not represent all Anglicans."
Was it supposed to? I thought it was a meeting of theologians who can examine historical and theological arguments and come up with a recommendation to the hierarchy. They may have skipped some steps or assumed everyone in the agreement defines "Anglican" as we do. There is still work to be done. But I think you may be reading more into the agreement than it was supposed to be.
"As many people have shared, some Anglicans don't believe in God at all. "
Are we talking about Anglican hierarchy or Anglican faithful? There are Copts who don't believe in God either, yet associate themselves with the Coptic Church. If you're talking about Anglican hierarchy, then I would not argue but you'll have to provide a little evidence on specific hierarchy to substantiate this claim.
"There are many Anglicans, even bishops, who are just culturally Anglican."
How do you quantify this? Are there not Copts, even Coptic bishops, who are just culturally Egyptian. (I hope not. But I can't say for sure if we don't quantify and define what is "just cultural")
"His Eminence Metropolitan Hilarion of the Moscow Patriarchate says it best, that there is a concern what the future of dialogue holds if simple agreements like this are not even considered real when the essence of the agreement (i.e. the beliefs about the divinity of Christ) can be openly rejected to begin with."
So by this logic, all the dialogues between the Oriental Orthodox and the Eastern Orthodox are not real because the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople has a group, called Mt Athos, who vehemently reject the Oriental Orthodox Christology and the essence of the Christological agreement to begin with. Does this really make sense to you?
Think about this. RO mentioned the Episcopal Church. Their bishop Katherine Jeffers Schori is fighting dioceses within the Anglican community that are leaving the Episcopal Church over homosexuality and female ordinations. In responses, she has spent $22 million dollars suing these dioceses over real estate (The court has to decide if the church buildings belong to individual diocese or the Episcopal Church. I think the cases are still pending.) One can say it is not Christian to sue your brothers who disagree with you over a theological issue. This would be true. But Christianity is not defined by who sues you or not. So even in this scenerio, case is definitely (and literally) not closed.
Fine. But Arius was excommunicated for specific beliefs, not for being non-Christian in general. In addition, we still haven't defined who exactly holds these beliefs that are non-Christian.
Anyhow, I'm eagerly waiting to hear from Minasoliman (or anyone else) about the specifics of Anglican-OO dialogue.
I'm of the opinion that this is of benefit regardless of your opinion on the Episcopalian Church.
The Anglican Communion is a diverse body, holding a variety of opinion (just look to the High Church, Low Church camps), and they're currently engaged in a lot of inner dialog which is causing the greater Anglican Body to decide what it really believes. If the position it ultimately takes as a group is against the Apostolic Faith, than this agreement will stand as a witness against them, and will help encourage those who are leaving the Communion because of this to consider entering into relationships with the Oriental Orthodox Churches.
In the sad event that this happens, there is still the hope for mass conversions, which could lead to a blessed revitalization of Orthodoxy in the West.
On the other hand, it is possible that such small steps are all the room God needs to work on the hearts of the leaders of the Church and call them to return to Orthodoxy, at which point we'll be celebrating the ending of one branch of the Schism.
In either case, there will be rejoicing over lost sheep who are found. To God be the Glory.
One word: Spongology, which has become quite popular among many many many Anglicans, laity or clergy
Denial of the Resurrection of Christ (and outlines to you that a convert from Episcopalianism to Catholicism because the "bishops actually hold Christian doctrines)
The case of the almost elected bishop, and in this article, it also explains a priest's Buddhist-Christian concoction.
Now, that is not to say that the Anglican Church does not have small o orthodox clergy in it, but it does mean that the Anglican Church does not have a strict way of maintaining true Christian doctrine. Our dialogue may have been with certain conservative elements of the Church, but these elements are not doing anything really to end the de-Christianization of the Anglican "Church", which at one point in time was strongly considered a candidate for Orthodoxy.
Comments
I would rather have theological discussions with Muslims who do have a consistency in their beliefs among imams than a so-called church who veered away from essential Christianity and still pretends to be part of it.
That's why I don't even buy into the idea they're "Trinitarian." Prove it. Cut out from your church those who are essentially not even close to Christian, and then we can have dialogues. His Eminence Metropolitan Hilarion of the Moscow Patriarchate says it best, that there is a concern what the future of dialogue holds if simple agreements like this are not even considered real when the essence of the agreement (i.e. the beliefs about the divinity of Christ) can be openly rejected to begin with.
http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=9399
Yes only some of their beliefs are not Christian, not all of them. Just like Arius.
The Anglican Communion is a diverse body, holding a variety of opinion (just look to the High Church, Low Church camps), and they're currently engaged in a lot of inner dialog which is causing the greater Anglican Body to decide what it really believes. If the position it ultimately takes as a group is against the Apostolic Faith, than this agreement will stand as a witness against them, and will help encourage those who are leaving the Communion because of this to consider entering into relationships with the Oriental Orthodox Churches.
On the other hand, it is possible that such small steps are all the room God needs to work on the hearts of the leaders of the Church and call them to return to Orthodoxy, at which point we'll be celebrating the ending of one branch of the Schism.