What is truth? The modern deluge of information makes the ancient question more pertinent than ever. Here may be found those musings, lengthy and otherwise, which represent my pursuit of the answer.

 
It is currently 3:30 on a Sunday morning. I just finished a lengthy discussion with Daniel Silliman examining the issues dividing the Anglican Church and Orthodoxy. I post it below in its entirety. There are valuable points on both sides. I am very grateful for the opportunity to finally hash out the issue with Daniel, and even more grateful simply for the opportunity to talk with him for such a long time. I had forgotten how much I had missed him and everyone else at Hillsdale.

The conversation began when Daniel brought up his recent confirmation in the Anglican Church. Daniel is danielsilliman. I am arandirdunadan.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

dansilliman: I was really impressed with my bishop during the confirmation

dansilliman: great guy

ArandirDunadan: I believe it.

ArandirDunadan: Which is he again? I'm woefully uneducated about the Anglican bishops

dansilliman: he spent six hours with us, going over everythign and telling his life story and a lot of jokes

dansilliman: he's the Anglican Catholic Church of Canada primate, Bp. Peter in Victoria BC

ArandirDunadan: very cool.

dansilliman: I think it's the primate

ArandirDunadan: *nods*

dansilliman: no, Suffragan.

ArandirDunadan: Suffragan?

dansilliman: Suffragan Bishop

dansilliman: bishop distinctions still confuse me, I confess

ArandirDunadan: gotcha.

dansilliman: most of Anglicanism, btw, is in this document: http://members.shaw.ca/frdon/affirmation_of_st__louis.htm

ArandirDunadan: I don't think the Orthodox have such a thing as a suffragan bishop. If we do, we don't call it that.

dansilliman: sure

dansilliman: I also spent some time with the assistant curate, a 30ish English major working on his Phd, and that was a lot of fun.

dansilliman: good man

dansilliman: great sense of humor too. was telling stories about messed up masses, silly Anglicans etc.

ArandirDunadan: :-)

ArandirDunadan: those are always fun.

ArandirDunadan: changing the subject a bit, have you heard anything much about the reaction of conservatives within the Episcopal church to the new gay bishop?

dansilliman: only a little

dansilliman: my knowledge of Episcopals is lacking

ArandirDunadan: gotcha...so what are Anglicans saying, then?

dansilliman: Anglicans are divided, some (myself included) think this just the natural outcome of the 1970s apostasy that doctrine was not a thing of tradition/scripture, but could be voted upon. Others, those with deeper/longer ties, are pretty hurt.

ArandirDunadan: Hurt?

dansilliman: yeah, to see it go this far, ending ideas of reunion, etc

ArandirDunadan: I guess I should ask...what ties are there, if any, between continuing Anglicanism and the Episcopal church, and how strong are they?

dansilliman: I suspect some faithful exadous, but suspect most have already gone Anglican or Orthodox at this point.

dansilliman: very few current ties, more an issue of common history and experience

ArandirDunadan: Right.

ArandirDunadan: gotcha

dansilliman: we're not talking, if that's what ties one would look for

ArandirDunadan: right...not exactly what I meant.

ArandirDunadan: When you say you don't talk, do you mean you are completely different communions? Do you bar each other from communion?

ArandirDunadan: Probably not...y'all don't do that much. Sorry, silly question.

dansilliman: Actually we do, just not as straightforward as you guys

ArandirDunadan: Oh?

dansilliman: we have declared the ECUSA heretical/apostate

ArandirDunadan: That is, the people who just chose themselves a gay bishop?

ArandirDunadan: Good for you. :-)

ArandirDunadan: I didn't know that.

dansilliman: Well, we did it before that, but yeah. And we wouldn't serve a Episcopal priest communion, but a layperson asking for it would be stating by the act that he rejected ECUSA

ArandirDunadan: gotcha.

dansilliman: on the question of talks, btw, there may be some good discusssion/movement with the next RC pope

ArandirDunadan: Really?

ArandirDunadan: Fascinating. :-)

ArandirDunadan: To what degree do Anglican priests guard the chalice?

dansilliman: it varies by preist, of course

ArandirDunadan: right...what's the strictest/most careful you've seen, and the least careful or strict?

dansilliman: but what I've seen is a demand for an affirmation of the true presence of Christ and a baptism in the name of the Trinity

dansilliman: that's true of Willson and my priest here

dansilliman: can't tell with Beauchamp

ArandirDunadan: how do they go about it?

dansilliman: a comment and a notice

dansilliman: I've never seen it refused, but people don't normally come forward without knowing what's going on first

ArandirDunadan: *nods*

dansilliman: ie, most have asked first

ArandirDunadan: right.

dansilliman: how does a Greek Orthodox priest protect the table?

dansilliman: I've heard of some Anglican's that refuse communion to all but the confirmed Anglicans, but haven't seen that.

ArandirDunadan: That also depends. I didn't see this, but my priest about a month ago turned away a Lutheran professor who is interested in Orthodoxy but unwilling to convert for fear he'll lose his pension. He came forward to the chalice, with his arms crossed and his mouth open...Father asked him his name, and he gave something like Fred, so he asked him his Christian name, and he said soemthing like The Reverend Doctor Fred Bates or whatever his name was...then he asked him if he was Orthodox, and he said yes, (I guess saying that he held to the Orthodox faith), and he asked him again, and he said no, and Fr. Demetri said, "Then you want the blessed bread over there to the side."

ArandirDunadan: Which is probably the most graceful way to handle it. I've never seen or heard of something like that before. Most people know it's closed communion. Though I should note that the mission church in my hometown now has a sign at the entrance to the church outlining the requirements for receiving communion.

dansilliman: okay

dansilliman: that's pretty graceful

ArandirDunadan: Standard practice for a layman visiting another church is to go to the priest, introduce himself, and give his home parish, priest and bishop. That, especially the bishop part, lets the priest know that he's actually Orthodox.

ArandirDunadan: Yeah...I was impressed.

dansilliman: sure

dansilliman: we'd give that man communion, of course, granting baptism, his participation in the creeds and confessions, and belief in the real presence

ArandirDunadan: Right.

ArandirDunadan: And we can't, with what we believe about the nature of the Church, etc.

dansilliman: right, it's a question of the relationships to the other churches

dansilliman: def. of "orthodox" etc.

ArandirDunadan: in a certain sense, yes.

dansilliman: right, I would define you as orthodox, noting our differences, and you have to call me heterodox, at least

ArandirDunadan: I could call you orthodox in belief, for the most part, but not Orthodox fully, ontologically.

dansilliman: right

dansilliman: normally of course, you'd just be greek and swear at me and say something about western barbarism, but nevermind

dansilliman: :-)

ArandirDunadan: That ontological status flows from participation in the sacraments of the Church, exclusively, and in a submission to the authority of the Church and Tradition.

dansilliman: re: dansilliman: right, it's a question of the relationships to the other churches

dansilliman: def. of "orthodox" etc.

ArandirDunadan: Hmmm...I dislike that definition because it is negative, rather than positive.

dansilliman: less negative towards me, however

ArandirDunadan: To be Orthodox is to be a communing member of the Orthodox Church, not to not be a member of any number of other denominations.

dansilliman: obviously I think I'm participating in the scaraments, tradition, etc.

dansilliman: I understand this of course, and am not asking you to bend on it.

ArandirDunadan: Right...but they are not the sacraments and traditions within the Orthodox church...the rites are different, the historical connection is different, the doctrine is different, the life and goal is different, etc.

ArandirDunadan: Of course.

dansilliman: yeah, I have to disagree with that statement, but won't for the futility of it.

dansilliman: was wanting to ask though

ArandirDunadan: The difficulty is that all these definitions of Orthodoxy are quite idealized. The question of what an Orthodox church looks like where the rubber meets the road seems to be completely different.

ArandirDunadan: For consistency's sake, it cannot define itself as "not heterodox", that is, with regard to other communions. It must be a positive identity. That identity is usually stated as Christ's Body, the One, Holy, Apostolic Church, etc...but in practice it seems to involve the combination and interplay of clergy and laypeople, monks and marrieds, saints and sinners, living in such a manner that their primary identy is Orthodox, and that the word is synonymous with Christian for them.

dansilliman: I agree with that statement, thus find the refusal to "interplay" with the Anglican's by the Greeks a frustrating thing. For the decision to interplay ought to be based on some idealized definition, and it doesn't seem to be.

dansilliman: the things between, for instance, RC and GO are the Papal infallibility and the filioque. why the refusal to talk?

ArandirDunadan: Their occupation is climbing the Ladder of Divine Ascent, not seeking rapprochement (butchered, I'm sure) with others who call themselves Christians. The Ecumenical movement is, for the ORthodox, a distraction. Not a bad thing, but a distraction. Sure, we are willing to grant that, in some sense, these other communions may be called Christian, may participate in the grace of God, but, internally, there is no reason for us to do so other than Christian charity and brotherly love, since we are and have been living the Christian faith simply and fully for 2000 years.

dansilliman: what does "no reason for us to do so other than Christian charity and brotherly love," mean?

ArandirDunadan: It seems to me that this is the fundamental difficulty. The ORthodox have and have consistently had the heights of sainthood evident to them. They are not lacking anything necessary for salvation. The question of what it means for a church to be The Church is one that is asked of us, not one we ask ourselves, if you see what I mean. The Church simply is, we are in it, it is the Body of Christ and we here commune with Christ. Many Orthodox are extremely leery of such interplay, for fear that in so doing we might lose something fundamental of ourselves.

dansilliman: I agree that that statement is true, and question that it is good.

ArandirDunadan: I'm saying that the Orthodox have no consuming need to restore themselves to communion with other Christian communions. Their primary objective is their own sanctification, the working out of their own healing and reunion with their Maker God. This is why we have so many monastics. We hope and pray that those who call themselves Christians may be one day united...but we hope and pray that they be united with us within the Orthodox Church, not that our respective churches recognize one another. To our minds, that would accomplish nothing. Communion must be real and full, and is not found in papers signed.

ArandirDunadan: Here's another way to say it. Communion must be an act of submission, not of compromise. There is no room for compromise with the Faith once delivered to the Fathers.

dansilliman: agreed

dansilliman: I don't take communion as a compromise, and wouldn't be doing so to take it with you.

ArandirDunadan: I meant communion in the fuller sense of oneness, not the exact sense of the Eucharist. My bad.

dansilliman: changing the subject, what's the Orthodox opinion on sculptured icons?

ArandirDunadan: Hmmm...we don't use them. There may be theological reasons for that, but essentially, they developed only in the West, the East and the West were sundered, and there seemed no reason to begin using them.

dansilliman: I was hearing something about it coming as a compromise in the iconoclastic fights of Byzantine

dansilliman: and was wondering. I hadn't noticed until it was mentioned

ArandirDunadan: IT's not that we have any animosity towards other communions. It's just that the concept of changing what we do or say in order to be able to say that we are one with others who are clearly distinct from us is foreign to our way of thinking. It's not the point of the Christian life for us. For individuals to show love to those who are our brothers in that they and we both call on the name of Christ, of course. Christian charity could do no less. For the Church to work to establish a communion with another church (a communion which we believe cannot exist unless that church submits to the Church) is pointless and even destructive.

dansilliman: that's what I said the difference was, if you peel off the ortho-speak

ArandirDunadan: Sorry...was typing that before you mentioned the statues having come as a comromise during the iconoclastic period. That would really surprise me...mostly because it seems even more like the graven image that is warned against.

ArandirDunadan: Hmmm...is it?

dansilliman: how would that surprise you?

ArandirDunadan: An icon isn't graven. It's flat. It's not realistic. Statuary much more resembles the idols of my imagination.

ArandirDunadan: Not to say that it is...just that statuary as a compromise seems strange to me.

dansilliman: right, that's what the iconoclasts said

dansilliman: no no no

ArandirDunadan: obviously I misunderstood.

dansilliman: rule against statuaries as a compromise towards the iconclasts

dansilliman: not towards the iconodules

ArandirDunadan: Hmmm...I'd not heard that.

ArandirDunadan: Gotcha.

dansilliman: Just what they said. I'm not vouching for it.

dansilliman: back a bit, I think "For the Church to work to establish a communion with another church that we believe cannot exist unless that church submits to the Church is pointless and even destructive." illustrates my first point about def.s of church and def's of orthodox.

ArandirDunadan: remind me, wouldja?

ArandirDunadan: matter of the relationship to other churches, you said?

dansilliman: yeah

ArandirDunadan: Right.

ArandirDunadan: How's this for a statement of the Orthodox position? Might help clarify. At least in my own mind. I know you know this stuff already:

ArandirDunadan: For the Orthodox, there cannot be and are not any other "churches" so called. We use that term for the sake of communication. But there is only one Church, one Faith, one Baptism. Other "churches" are associations of wandering pilgrims who call on the name of Christ. Therefore, the Church can talk with individuals, but, in some fundamental sense, to actually talk with another "church" would be to recognize its validity as a "church" which we cannot do. For there is only ONE Church.

dansilliman: I agree with that statement, as it stands

ArandirDunadan: It was actually this claim of exclusivity that first made me sit up and realize that Orthodoxy demanded my attention. Not many other churches in American make that claim.

ArandirDunadan: *nods*

dansilliman: right

dansilliman: i understand this, and still disagree

ArandirDunadan: The difficulty comes when you read guys like Ignatius who identify the Church so very much with the Bishop.

ArandirDunadan: I know.

ArandirDunadan: I'm not really hoping that you will change your mind, though I wouldn't mind.

dansilliman: right

ArandirDunadan: Lemme see...the Anglican understanding of the Church as something which crosses denominational lines is itself a variance in doctrine significant enough to destroy any possibility of reconciliation with the Orthodox.

dansilliman: just don't think you're not trying hard enough, because I hear you, and still think I'm a member of the One Church and the Anglican Chuch. Saying the creeds and holding to the concils and living towards the tradition of the Christian faith as taught in England since 300 ad as given to us by the Holy Apostles.

dansilliman: to quote an Anglican affirmation: "We affirm that the Church of our fathers, sustained by the most Holy Trinity, lives yet, and that we, being moved by the Holy Spirit to walk only in that way, are determined to continue in the Catholic Faith, Apostolic Order, Orthodox Worship and Evangelical Witness of the traditional Anglican Church, doing all things necessary for the continuance of the same. We are upheld and strengthened in this determination by the knowledge that many provinces and dioceses of the Anglican Communion have continued steadfast in the same Faith, Order, Worship and Witness, and that they continue to confine ordination to the priesthood and the episcopate to males. We rejoice in these facts and we affirm our solidarity with these provinces and dioceses."

ArandirDunadan: I don't deny that the English tradition stretches back a long way. But it's not the same Tradition. I might even say that it was the same tradition until 1066, but after that you had Norman, Catholic bishops who accepted the authority of a heretical bishop in Rome and embraced heretical doctrines.

ArandirDunadan: Don't get me wrong...I like Anglicanism. I'm grateful for its presence in America, and very glad that you've found your way to it. But I can't say that it's the same Church.

dansilliman: I understand that. But there have always been heresies and reformations

ArandirDunadan: Have there?

dansilliman: didn't we speak of the iconoclasts a little while ago?

dansilliman: were all the creeds and councils reformations of heresies?

dansilliman: I appreciate your nod towards anglicanism and do the same to the Orthodox, but still am frustrated with it.

ArandirDunadan: Not that the Orthodox haven't had heresies. But they have always had Faithful, who fought the heretics and eventually won. When those who had been heretics sought to return to the Faith, they returned to the ranks of the Faithful. There has never been a case in which heretics reformed without requesting re-admission into the Church.

dansilliman: Agreed. And there has always been a Traditional Church in England.

ArandirDunadan: Not reformations of heresies. Measures taken against heresy. Heresy is outside the Church. Once a man, a parish or a diocese accepts heresy, they are outside the Church. They must be readmitted.

ArandirDunadan: Really?

dansilliman: I grant your correction there

ArandirDunadan: :-)

ArandirDunadan: I'd not know that there were continuing churches which retained the faith as it was in, say, 700 and had bishops who could accept repentant Roman heretics when Henry VIII left the Roman church.


ArandirDunadan: (that's not a jab...just what I think would need to have been the case for it to be legitimate, as it were)

dansilliman: to some extent too, I embrace your explanation of the Church seeking the Divine and ignoring ecumenicism in that it allows me to ignore Greek demands and focus on continuing the tradition of prayer, holy communion, and general devotion.

ArandirDunadan: :-)

ArandirDunadan: Touche.

ArandirDunadan: Probably the better course of action anyway.

ArandirDunadan: The point of life is not, after all, the pursuit of truth, but the pursuit of holiness.

ArandirDunadan: Incidentally, it should be stated that the Greeks don't ask demands until demands are made of them and they start trying to explain why those demands don't even translate.

ArandirDunadan: I would like to know more about the Anglican view of the Church, as it were. Seems the fundamental point of disagreement.

ArandirDunadan: I've talked a lot about the ORthodox perspective.

dansilliman: backing up.... The greeks actually have made demands, look at the history with the Russians

ArandirDunadan: ?

dansilliman: always fighting, whining and complaining, even among yourselves

ArandirDunadan: *sigh* I'm sure.

dansilliman: nicest points are when they say "we don't know how the Russians do it, but we do ....."

ArandirDunadan: who says this?

dansilliman: Patriarchs

ArandirDunadan: Constantinople, you mean?

dansilliman: and the Russians do it back to the Greeks, though the Russians are considered friendlier.

ArandirDunadan: Right...there's been a political tension between Constantinople and Moscow since Byzantium fell to the Moslems. Moscow saw itself as Constantinople's successor, as the third Rome, as the capital of the Orthodox world...and of course Constantinople resented it.

dansilliman: for the Anglican opinion, I'd refer you to Pope Gregory and his advice to St. Augustine of Canterbury.

ArandirDunadan: A very sad tension...generally ignored by the faithful.

ArandirDunadan: The advice regarding traditions, which to keep and which to discard?

ArandirDunadan: I know it.

dansilliman: That's pretty Anglican.

dansilliman: The faithful are good at disregarding things.

dansilliman: Anglican's also grant that there are ethnic variations of the Christian Tradition.

dansilliman: We all don't have to celebrate Greek independance day and everyone doesn't have to pray for the Queen of England.

ArandirDunadan: So long as it's not doctrinal...there is a resentment that filters down pretty far in the Greek churches against the Russians. They generally condemn the Greeks for precisely those ethnic variations and claim basically that the traditions, upper case and lowercase of 19th century Russia are the only ones that are completely Orthodox. Then the Greeks retaliate by accusing the Russians of adding things, and it's off to the races. Not really much of Christian charity in the whole thing.

ArandirDunadan: The devout are generally disgusted with the whole thing.

ArandirDunadan: I agree with you completely about the ethnic variations.

ArandirDunadan: Would that that were the only issue dividing us.

dansilliman: that's the terrible picture of Eastern Orthodoxy in general, I think.

ArandirDunadan: The infighting over ethnic traditions. This is true...people too often forget that there is room for these variances.

ArandirDunadan: It is far too easy to become proud and demand that anyone who calls himself Orthodox practice his faith precisely as you do, down to the way you tie your shoes.

ArandirDunadan: Though people will always fight, I guess. I still consider it a blessing that, when Orthodox fight, it is over such petty issues, not over the essentials of the Faith.

dansilliman: Honestly, I'll go to the wall over homosexuality or the validity of Tradition, and won't over being Greek.

dansilliman: thus I'm Anglican.

ArandirDunadan: Ah...I comprehend.

ArandirDunadan: *light dawns*

dansilliman: *chuckle*

ArandirDunadan: The issue is not being Greek. The issue is being Orthodox. However close Anglicanism may have come in its reformation, it remains, to my knowledge, still outside the communion of Orthodox bishops from which it was forced during the Norman Conquest.

dansilliman: and, as long as we can mention random Anglican history facts, don't forget Anglicans went to the wall of Constantinople with battle axes against the muslims and the Crusaders.

ArandirDunadan: And for that, we are more grateful than we can say.

dansilliman: never have said. ;-)

ArandirDunadan: Hum...probably would have if the last ditch defense the last time had been successful. ;-)

dansilliman: and besides converting to Greek, how would the Anglican's become part of the Church?

dansilliman: (using your Ortho-Speak here)

ArandirDunadan: Hum...good question.

ArandirDunadan: :-)

ArandirDunadan: of course.

ArandirDunadan: I suspect that whatever bishop they approached would ask that they switch to the Byzantine Liturgy as used by that bishop's diocese, at least provisionally until the Book of Common Prayer could be carefully examined and vetted for complete orthodoxy of doctrine. That would depend on which bishop was approached. Probably some compromise would be worked out in terms of priests. They would need to be ordained in the Church, and the bishop would probably ask that they pursue at least some Orthodox seminary education. Asking them to go to seminary again for four years would be very harsh, in my opinion. A wise bishop would probably ask the parishes to integrate, at least temporarily, with one of the churches under him in the area, in order for the people to have the opportunity to soak in something of the Orthodox mindset for a time, at least.

dansilliman: for instance, why would the Book of Common Prayer never be accepted?

dansilliman: as an English liturgy. why do the Greeks always oppose even the possibility of a Western rite?

dansilliman: I/we were happy about the Anglican rite EO churchs, but the bishops and the faithful are irrate in the insistance that it can only be temporary.

ArandirDunadan: That doesn't quite make sense to me, to be honest.

ArandirDunadan: There are differing opinions on this, of course.

dansilliman: yes, and that's pretty much the best of what I'd heard before.

ArandirDunadan: The reasoning is that the Byzantine Liturgy as we have it today grew up organically within Orthodox Churches. The Book of Common Prayer, however beautiful it may be, did not. Many people say that there is something important in being able to trace back your liturgy in an unbroken line to the liturgies of the early church. The Book of Common Prayer, even if it is (I don't know enough about it) descended from the original English liturgies established by St. Augustine, can not claim to be that. Supposedly.

ArandirDunadan: But I figure, the Byzantine Liturgy is not the only one the Orthodox Church uses, or even has used. And the thing that sanctifies the Byzantine Liturgy is the fact that it is used by communing Orthodox Christians.

ArandirDunadan: So I personally wouldn't have a problem with accepting the Book of Common Prayer in some manner or other.

dansilliman: thank you

dansilliman: you are now more ecumenical than the Orthodox.

ArandirDunadan: lol

ArandirDunadan: Theologically, there would have to be some revisions, some additions and perhaps subtractions. I don't know if your liturgy has an Epiclesis instead of Words of Institution, but it would need to have one.

dansilliman: sure

dansilliman: and or Nicean creed would have to lose it's "and the Son"

ArandirDunadan: Well, yes. That sort of goes without saying.

ArandirDunadan: I really don't know what would happen if your Bishop Rowan Williams were to approach an Orthodox Bishop and request acceptance of the entire Anglican communion into the Orthodox Church. I suspect that that bishop would not demand so much, simply because of the magnitude of the request.

dansilliman: and then the Mt. Athos Monks would riot.

dansilliman: lol

ArandirDunadan: With the understanding that the rejection of that does not entail a difference in doctrine (for we of course affirm that Christ sent the Holy Spirit) but a rejection of the Roman see's claims to supremacy which it attempted to enforce by means of that addition.

ArandirDunadan: Hum...perhaps.

dansilliman: interesting

dansilliman: I didn't know that was the focus of the filioque controversy

ArandirDunadan: Not many would deny that there is a fully Orthodox manner of understanding the filioque.

ArandirDunadan: But the term has so much baggage associated with it.

ArandirDunadan: I personally find it misleading, but I can understand what was meant by it.

ArandirDunadan: And respect it.

ArandirDunadan: For crying out loud, the stupid addition first showed up when the Arians in Spain BECAME Orthodox.

ArandirDunadan: It got to be problematic when first Charlemagne and then the Roman Pope made a political issue out of it.

dansilliman: That's fair, I suppose. Anglicans and Orthodox wouldn't disagree there then. We grant that it was an addition, but say it is correct in content and was just a measure to clarify the equality of the father and the son

dansilliman: see for example, Athanasius' creed

ArandirDunadan: Anyway...the difficulty would be in ensuring that, as the Anglican Communion entered Orthodoxy, those weeds which have grown up within the Anglican Communion since the Schism, and especially over the past century, would not enter along with it. That's where you'd get the demands for renunciations of things like the book of common prayer, even if I don't like those demands much.

ArandirDunadan: No...now some theologians have made the effort to show that the filioque is ontologically heretical...mostly Russians, to my knowledge...but that's not the prevailing nor, I think, the historical opinion.

ArandirDunadan: And the argument depends too much on how it's been used, as opposed to what it simply is.

dansilliman: and demands we get rid of our statues and change our chants and deny that England/the West has a legit Christian Tradition.

ArandirDunadan: Change your chants?

ArandirDunadan: I see no reason for that.

dansilliman: tunes aren't greek and thus must be post schism.

dansilliman: a few of them are, of course, but others aren't

ArandirDunadan: Hum...most tunes used in the Greek church were written in the 18th or 19th century.

ArandirDunadan: Here's the thing.

dansilliman: *chuckle*

ArandirDunadan: For the Orthodox, the Anglican church is NOT a Church. Therefore, what Christian tradition it has is tainted.

dansilliman: right

ArandirDunadan: I can see a bishop being willing to accept the writing of a new rite for a vast number of new converts to the faith.

ArandirDunadan: Accepting new ethnic practices, etc.

ArandirDunadan: But that bishop is also going to reject things that those converts want to bring in. The test, in his mind, will be whether those converts are willing to submit.

ArandirDunadan: The difficulty is that, historically, this has always happened gradually.

ArandirDunadan: The Russian version of the Divine LIturgy is different from the Greek, but it developed into something subtly different over many centuries. Trying to create something truly ethnically English at the snap of the finger is difficult, if not impossible.

dansilliman: and for the Anglicans that statement--the Anglican church is NOT a Church-- is a denial of the Holy Faith as it was handed to us by the Apostles and the Saints.

ArandirDunadan: How so?

dansilliman: We believe the Church (one church of the one faith and baptism) is divided and ought to be reunited but we do not and cannot say that the Faith of our Fathers and the Christian Tradtion as brought to the English speakers to today is fundamentally invalid because of a historic separation (mostly geographical?) with Greece.

ArandirDunadan: Hmmm...a few things. The Orthodox refuse to admit the possibility that the One Church could ever be divided. It is ontologically impossible. Second, the separation was one imposed in blood upon the English people during the Norman Conquest, not merely the result of a drifting apart due to geographical distance. The separation between the East and Rome was fundamentally doctrinal--when England was forced to submit to bishops supportive of the Pope's claims, the separation between England and the East became fundamentally doctrinal. Heresy, if you will, was imposed upon the English people.

ArandirDunadan: I may be inaccurate in this...but as I understand it from trustworthy professors at Hillsdale and trustworthy books, there was a fundamental change in English Christianity with the Norman Conquest. The Pope approved William's invasion as a holy war. Those English who fled the country for reasons of faith fled to Orthodox countries--Romania, Byzantium, etc.

dansilliman: don't know about the fleeing, but the conquest, yes

dansilliman: by geographical distance, I mean the fact that Rome stands between Canterbury and Constantinople. I posit no "ontological" devision, but still a historic one.

ArandirDunadan: Hmm....mind clarifying that last?

dansilliman: there is only One Baptism, you and I were both baptised into the one ontological/platonic form/whatever of that baptism. Still, we were not historically or geographically baptised together

dansilliman: the One Faith, Baptism, Euchrist, is beyond space/time/geography

ArandirDunadan: Hmmm...the Orthodox have to say that that One Faith, Baptism and Eucharist are nonexistent outside of Orthodoxy.

dansilliman: unless I'm missing what the Greek Orthodox mean by "ontological"

dansilliman: that's the arg. here, yeah

ArandirDunadan: ontological is my word. I mean by it what something is fundamentally, in its essence.

ArandirDunadan: I think that is the correct meaning. Correct me if I'm wrong.

dansilliman: All loaves of bread are, in essence, the same. Some are in England and others are in Greece. Thus they are divided while remaining, ontologically, the same.

dansilliman: the difference between the one bread and the one faith being that they ought to be historically/spacially together as well as ontologically together

ArandirDunadan: And I say that they are not ontologically the same. When England was subjected to Roman papacy and Roman heresy, it became ontologically something different, something apart. In order to become again ontologically the same, it must be readmitted to that Church which it left, however unwillingly it did so.


ArandirDunadan: The Church is one, wherever it is. It is united in one Cup, one Faith and one Baptism in Christ. It IS the Church. Not part of the Church, but The Church.

dansilliman: two points: 1) a thing does not change its essence (definitional of thing) and 2) the East has also had heresies.

ArandirDunadan: Yes it has, but they have never consumed the entire Church. There have always been faithful, and the heresies have either been died out, or the heretics eventually renounced the heresy and were accepted back into the fold.

dansilliman: the Church is the Church, I agree

dansilliman: I assert that statement about the Anglican church as well.

ArandirDunadan: When Rome fell into heresy, it ceased to be the Church. When England was subjugated to Rome, however much it was not its fault, it ceased to be the Church.

ArandirDunadan: For either to once again become the Church, they must be readmitted. But we've been over this before.

dansilliman: historical point here we'd both need more history to intelligently consider, however

ArandirDunadan: Which historical point is that again?

dansilliman: what if England maintianed the tradition while being subjugated to Rome?

ArandirDunadan: An underground Church?

ArandirDunadan: Then sure. No problem.

dansilliman: not as underground as one might think. There are still Irish Catholics who contest the authority of the Pope, for instance

dansilliman: and I understand the problem here is "maintaining the faith" means looking like/being identical to the Greeks.

ArandirDunadan: Hum...not really.

dansilliman: seriously, yes it is.

ArandirDunadan: the English Church in the 900's was very much not identical to the Greek Church, and yet it was fully Orthodox.

ArandirDunadan: There is not an Orthodox layman, theologian or Bishop who would deny that.

dansilliman: ask your priest how he knows Ash Wednesday wasn't practiced by the Apostles

dansilliman: "because it is western"

dansilliman: same explanation of the centeral crucifix vs. the incarnation icon in a church (both of which I am devoted to).

dansilliman: He then backtracks and attempts to pin a heresy on the difference between a western and eastern practice.

ArandirDunadan: The problem with things western is not that they are not Greek. It is that they all fell with the Pope into heresy. Hence are tainted. If the path to salvation is evident in one place, it seems like a rabbit trail to spend so much time trying to cleanse that which is tainted instead of pursuing that which is not with undivided attention.

dansilliman: you know this is true and can plead the ignorance of your priest, I suppose.

ArandirDunadan: To a degree I can. Though, as I say above, I think his point is fairly valid.

ArandirDunadan: Oh...one more thing to add to that last. That thing which is tainted, if it is indeed so close to one's heart, will remain with him as he pursues the path of salvation, and may well one day be fully cleansed as he himself is and thus it may be reintroduced into the Orthodox Tradition.

ArandirDunadan: Which is what I would personally like to see happen with, say, the Book of Common Prayer, or the Roman Liturgy, or any other liturgical traditions lost to Orthodoxy during the schism.

dansilliman: again we come to the impasse of "West had heresy and East was pure".

ArandirDunadan: The west was consumed by heresy. The east was not.

ArandirDunadan: Both had it. One succumbed, one did not.

ArandirDunadan: That's the difference.

ArandirDunadan: There always was heresy in the Eastern Church. But it never actually BECAME heresy.

dansilliman: right, and I don't know how any part of the west could prove that it hadn't succumbed.

dansilliman: this east-good/west-bad understanding seems to be presuppositional in that the east is the definition of good and the west isn't the east

ArandirDunadan: Hmmm...evidence of a continuing line of Bishops within England who, hierarch after hierarch, denied papal authority, purgatory and the other innovations of the Roman Church after 1056.

ArandirDunadan: Bishops who, when Henry VIII decided to leave the Catholic Church, emerged and offered re-entry into the One, Catholic and Apostolic Church to the Roman churches of England.

dansilliman: consider too that the "succumbed" we're talking about is having a crucifix in the center of the church rather than the incarnation icon

ArandirDunadan: That's not the succumbed we're talking about.

ArandirDunadan: We're talking about the fact that the crucifix in the center of the church existed only in those churches which submitted themselves to a heretical hierarch.

dansilliman: okay...

dansilliman: this is sort of dead ending and we need more historical content than either of us have

dansilliman: I'm also only up to putting up with Ortho-Speak for so long before I go nutso.

ArandirDunadan: What exactly do you mean by Ortho-Speak anyway?

dansilliman: basically,. a jargon combined with a prejudiced history

ArandirDunadan: Prejudiced history? Don't confuse my rhetoric with Fr. Demetri's.

dansilliman: and codes hidden by capital letters

ArandirDunadan: lol

dansilliman: I'd say Dr. D's is worse, but you speak it too.

ArandirDunadan: Hmmm...I don't intend to.

ArandirDunadan: And it's not intended to be a code, not in that sense. Just expressing differences in a way more subtle and less agressive than "Pseudo-fake-wannabe-churches". :)

dansilliman: I'm sure there are secret mystical words spelled out by the capitals that only the Ones and the FAithful and the Truly Holy Among the Orthodox can rEad.

dansilliman: :-)

ArandirDunadan: Believe me, if you can show me that the English Church truly retained a traditional and faithful remnant between 1054 and Henry VIII, and that the bishops of the English Church were reunited to that faithful remnant at that point, then all this argument is moot and I accept you as fully a brother.

dansilliman: fair enough

dansilliman: I doubt the actual ability for the Eastern Church to do that, given definitions they accept presuppositionally, but I appreciate your indicated gesture of good faith.

dansilliman: and we should be glad and depressed that we've gotten farther here than our leaders ever have.

ArandirDunadan: I have nothing against the West. I am a Westerner by birthright and upbringing. I would desire nothing more than for all that I love from my childhood to be cleansed and brought back into the Church. In my mind, it is a first step that I am seeking to cleanse myself, who am so fundamentally Western. It is my hope that, in my life and the lives of thousands like me, all that you and I both love will someday be again baptized and made Christian. Even this stupid America.

ArandirDunadan: Indeed...it is as you say.

ArandirDunadan: I suspect that those definitions which you say we accept presuppositionally are simply the truth of the matter...but I could well be wrong. I would love to be convinced of that.

dansilliman: I suspect it is a systematic arrogance, but anyways... Do not think I don't recognize many things that need to be cleansed from western Christianity, and know there are many more I don't recognize. Even my philosophy--the postmodernism I ignored so we could use the foil of ontological churches--is an attempt to extricate Western thought from some of our Western failures. I have been informed by the Orthodox, am ever thankful for the impact the Eastern Church has had on my on faith, thanks to you and Seraphim, and am saddened and frustrated that they refuse to do more in the effort to peel away the sins of the West.

ArandirDunadan: I am uncertain what more we could do without in some way destroying ourselves and the integrity of our faith.

dansilliman: I think those are decent closing statements.

dansilliman: gives this some sort of wrap that'll make it some how editable to a blog post

ArandirDunadan: As many theologians have said, the way to be cleansed from sin is baptism and genuine participation in the other sacraments of the Church. Which is all the Orthodox ask from those outside.

ArandirDunadan: And I think that's a pretty good closing statement for the Orthodox side of things as well.
posted by Fr. A at 4:42 AM 0 comments