Dearly beloved, Reading the blogosphere today, I see many recent ecumenical events concerning Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Anglican, and other communities. One of them is this: http://anglicanink.com/article/women-clergy-and-doctrine-dividing-acna-orthodox Note that ecumenism, in the view of Patriarch Jonah, is: abandon your beliefs and join us. Also note that he refuses to change or drop anything in Orthodoxy for unity's sake. Is that what Anglican ecumenism is? If so, why? If not, why not such a muscular way of viewing things? Is there any special ideal that Anglicanism has, historically and presently, for this movement? The Reformed laugh at the idea of abandoning what they think of as true Catholic theology (Calvinism), but might get rid of female clergy and the filioque. I'm willing to bet most Anglo-Catholics would be happy to drop Calvinism, some would drop female clergy, but none would abandon the ancient Filioque. Why not, in the interests of unity? May God bless you with joy and peace.
I'll just put in my tuppence worth. I have very little hope for real ecumeical progress from the major denominations. The eastern church defines itself, as Adam said, as the true unchanged church, the papal church considers itself infallible and the true church. Really there's no possibility of unity while they hold this view of themselves. Maybe we should just ignore the orthodox and catholic churches and press ahead True ecumenicalism will come from the grassroots I think I've discovered really true believers are pretty much the same no matter which denomination they come from. We all face the same day to day problems, all trying to grow and become more christlike. My girlfriend is catholic and yet she talks about God's wonderful grace and His providence with as much passion as the most ardent calvinist. I've had friends from a lot of different denominations and I think you can see despite the wide differences in background, the Holy Spirit can be seen guiding us to the same truth. And it is amazing how similar we are sometimes. I think for ecumenicalism to be successful, (and I'm talking about true biblical ecumenism , not wishy washy liberal ecumenism), it will take a certain amount of humbleness for all involved, to be willing to drop the things that make them anglican, or catholic, or presbyterian, not for the sake of unity, but for the sake of following Christ, if they prove to not be right. Ecumenism starts with ourselves, as we seek not to become more and more eg reformed or anglican, but more and more Christlike. Although my growth as a christian has moved me more and more into the reformed camp so far
Thank you for your tuppence, and a valuable tuppence it is. Can you give another tuppence about your move toward the reformed camp? ...Scottish Monk
I'd be glad to. I grew up in a Christian family but a few years ago I went through really a lot of doubt about my salvation. I also struggled with whether I had enough faith. In the end it was through reading and listening to reformed writers and speakers (especially Jack Glasses's sermons in the beginning) led me to realise I am totally helpless and need to trust Christ for my salvation. I found the reformed theology to be Christ centred and the doctrine of predestination I found liberating and freeing. It took a while to adjust, but I became convinced of the biblical basis for it I guess more recently I moved to a more sacramental understanding of the sacraments. I found the purely memorial view to be too simplistic, and gradually moved to a more classical protestant view which I found much more beautiful and edifying to my faith anyway, that's been my journey so far...but it's not over yeT
Scottish Knight... Thank you again for your comments. Yes, we do have nice journeys when we travel with the Lord. ...Scottish Monk
In 325 the Nicene Creed was 'finalised', though in 381 it was extended. It was later decided that the words of the Creed should never be altered again. The original Creed of 325 ends with "I believe in the Holy Ghost", but was added to in 381. Our pertinent section said: "I believe in [...] the Holy Ghost [...] Who proceeds from the Father". The Third Person of the blessed Trinity was said to proceed from the Father; as God the Son is eternally begotten by the God the Father. In Latin this is "qui ex Patre procedit". In the West, "Filioque" ("and the Son") was added at some point. It changes the statement about the Holy Ghost to: "qui ex Patre Filioque procedit", "Who from the Father and the Son proceeds". This was added to many Western versions of the Creed, though the Bishop of Rome Leo III, in 810, solemnly forbade its addition in the West in order to keep unity in the "Orthodox Faith", as he called it. In the 900s-1000s the Filioque became accepted. I don't recall which bishop of Rome made it obligatory, but by the time of the split of East and West in 1054 "Filioque" was part of our Creed. The Orthodox make it a very important pillar of why they remain separate from Rome, and thus from the other Western Christians. Having had many strong-willed Orthodox and traditionalist Catholic friends, I can say your tuppence is more like thrupence... multiplied by four thousand millions. "Holy Tradition" dominates the East, and anything outside that is called heresy. There is no compromise or setting doctrine aside for them. The same goes for the Magisterium, or teaching office, of Rome, which is claimed for the bishops and the Pope. I really like your suggestion.
This is a noble view sir, and I commend you for it; in the Farewell Discourse, the Lord told us we'd be known as His disciples only if we love one another, and that's hard to do in disunity, which always causes bitter hatred. In 1 John 4, it is revealed that God is Love, and no one has seen God at any time - immediately after that, we are told that God lives in us, and we show proof of His existence by our own lives. God is symbolically incarnate in our whole Christian witness, and disunity was a big hurdle to my leaving atheism for years. Now, the problem with and closing rifts is that new ideas are easy to stamp out early on, and even after a century or two, especially when you could just kill all the adherents back then. It took 3-4 generations, from Athanasius through Ambrose, to destroy mainstream Arianism, but it was done. After 500 or 1000 years, though, ideas are not seen just as theological positions, but become integral to the very notion of X church's vision of its own "Churchood", if I may invent a term. Orthodox define themselves in opposition to Roman episcopacy and Filioque. To get them to lay aside something they confess as absolute truth in the creed is like trying to get us to set aside something we confess as absolute truth in our own! How is this practically to be worked out? The One Lord is not at issue - though, a few Orthodox I've met argue that the idea of the Holy Ghost proceeding from the Son makes a new idea of the Lord Jesus Christ, and thus is just as bad as Arianism or Gnosticism. The One Baptism issue is settled. The One Faith is what is at issue, and that seems to vary quite widely, with strong wills on all sides.
Hope is essential, but we must define what we're hoping for, as Anglicans! What goal is to be achieved? Ecumenism isn't simply unity, but it's also the exact mechanical path that must be followed. By this fair assessment (thank you! ), I think it is impossible to have unity. By this same assessment, you think it is possible. We must discover where we are differing here. Perhaps you're an incurably romantic optimist, and I am an eternally cynical pessimist? What does this really come down to? How can we actually do this? It's my biggest "peeve" about the ecumenical movement. There is a lot of talk, but what do we actually do? The only way the ancient heresies were actually stamped out and Rome/the Orthodox kept unity was by killing, exiling, or proselytising everyone that disagreed. The famed "ancient Christian unity" was, I personally think, achieved more due to fear of being torn apart by church-state tyranny than through any charitable wish to remain One. Again, cynicism.