Anglican Church of North America

1246

Comments

  • RublevRublev Shipmate
    edited May 2019
    It's not really about Christ's human will submitting to His divine will. It is about His will submitting to God's will for His life as we see most clearly at Gethsemane. How else could He be our great example unless He lived a fully human life amongst us? 'I have set you an example that you should do as I have done for you' (John 13: 15).

    The incarnation expresses the full humanity of Christ and is intimately connected to our salvation because 'that which is unassumed is unhealed' (Gregory of Nazianzus). His argument is that the whole of humanity fell in Adam and so the whole of our humanity needs to be saved. If Christ had only taken on part of our humanity then only part of humanity could be saved. So if any aspect of our humanity was not assumed by Christ in the incarnation, then it couldn't be healed by Him in salvation. And so those who claimed that Jesus didn't have a human soul or a human mind and hadn't taken on our full humanity 'begrudge us our entire salvation.'
  • Rublev wrote: »
    It's not really about Christ's human will submitting to His divine will. It is about His will submitting to God's will for His life as we see most clearly at Gethsemane. (John 13: 15).

    Are you saying Christ only had a human will, and no divine will?
    The incarnation expresses the full humanity of Christ and is intimately connected to our salvation because 'that which is unassumed is unhealed' (Gregory of Nazianzus). His argument is that the whole of humanity fell in Adam and so the whole of our humanity needs to be saved. If Christ had only taken on part of our humanity then only part of humanity could be saved. So if any aspect of our humanity was not assumed by Christ in the incarnation, then it couldn't be healed by Him in salvation. And so those who claimed that Jesus didn't have a human soul or a human mind and hadn't taken on our full humanity 'begrudge us our entire salvation.'

    I agree with everything you wrote here, but I think we're talking past each other. Yes, I believe the Son of God assumed every aspect of human nature, including the human will. But he assumed this in a single person, fully divine and fully human. To say that Christ could act against the will of God, in his human will, is to split him into two persons, the human being and the Word. If there are two persons in Christ then the Son of God has really not assumed humanity, just adopted a man, who might give us a fine example but does not deify us.

  • RublevRublev Shipmate
    Are you denying the free will of Christ to willingly accept His Passion - just as Mary freely accepted the will of God at the Annunciation? Otherwise there would be no suffering involved for Christ at Gethsemane. His free choice to die caused Him great mental anguish (Luke 22: 42-44). If Christ was incapable of disobedience or sin then He would not have suffered and would not have been human. But He demonstrated a life of human obedience to the will of God. And both in the Temptations and at Gethsemane it took Him to His human limits and an angel appeared to strengthen Him. He would not have needed any aid if He were divinely impervious.
  • Rublev wrote: »
    Are you denying the free will of Christ to willingly accept His Passion - just as Mary freely accepted the will of God at the Annunciation?

    As I said above, free will- in the view of Sts Maximus, Augustine, and other fathers- is not defined by the ability to choose sin. A will clouded by sinful inclinations is in fact not free.
    Otherwise there would be no suffering involved for Christ at Gethsemane.

    I see no reason to accept this premise. His will being in perfect harmony with the divine will does not override his human fear of death, hunger, mental and physical anguish, etc. Every day people willingly sacrifice their desires or their very lives for a greater good but this does not eliminate their fear and anguish.
    His free choice to die caused Him great mental anguish (Luke 22: 42-44). If Christ was incapable of disobedience or sin then He would not have suffered and would not have been human. But He demonstrated a life of human obedience to the will of God. And both in the Temptations and at Gethsemane it took Him to His human limits and an angel appeared to strengthen Him. He would not have needed any aid if He were divinely impervious.

    God always has angels ministering to him and fulfilling various functions- does this imply that God needs their help?

    I asked you before- does Jesus Christ have a divine will, or only a human will? If he has both, how can the human will act against the divine will without him splitting into two persons?
  • RublevRublev Shipmate
    Doctrine has its limitations because it was originally designed as a fence against heresy. When doctrines become over rationalised then you end up with theologies like double predestination. Doctrine is based upon what we read in scripture, it's not the other way around.

    What we see in the NT is the human Jesus, inspired by the Holy Spirit, freely acting in accordance with God's will for His life. Which is how He is our role model as Christian disciples. And why Ireneus wrote that, 'The glory of God is a man full alive - and the life of a man is the contemplation of God.'

    The gospels portray Jesus speaking about doing God's will, praying for God's guidance before making all the major decisions in His life and finally asking God to spare Him from His terrible fate - yet still being willing to accept it. This free choice of obedience in the face of suffering was the price that Christ paid for the incarnation.
  • EnochEnoch Shipmate
    Rublev wrote: »
    Doctrine has its limitations because it was originally designed as a fence against heresy. When doctrines become over rationalised then you end up with theologies like double predestination. Doctrine is based upon what we read in scripture, it's not the other way around. ...
    I wish it was still possible on the new ship to have the moving emoticons that the old one had. That would have got three of the bowing accolades. This looks like the best I can do now. 😁👏👏👏

  • RublevRublev Shipmate
    edited May 2019
    Thank you kindly Sir.

    I have never considered the question of why God created angels. Martin54 would love this one.

    The traditional view is that creation was the result of the overflowing love of the Trinity Godhead. God does not 'need' angels, humans or the natural world because God is entirely sufficient of Himself.

    Irenaeus thought that humans were created so that Christ would have someone to save since it is His nature to redeem.

    According to Hebrews angels are ministering spirits sent to serve those who will inherit salvation (Heb 1: 14).

    'God made the angels to show Him splendour, as He made animals for innocence and plants for their simplicity. But man he made to serve Him wittily in the tangle of his mind' (Sir Thomas More, A Man for All Seasons by Robert Bolt).
  • Rublev wrote: »
    Doctrine has its limitations because it was originally designed as a fence against heresy. When doctrines become over rationalised then you end up with theologies like double predestination. Doctrine is based upon what we read in scripture, it's not the other way around.

    What we see in the NT is the human Jesus, inspired by the Holy Spirit, freely acting in accordance with God's will for His life. Which is how He is our role model as Christian disciples. And why Ireneus wrote that, 'The glory of God is a man full alive - and the life of a man is the contemplation of God.'

    The gospels portray Jesus speaking about doing God's will, praying for God's guidance before making all the major decisions in His life and finally asking God to spare Him from His terrible fate - yet still being willing to accept it. This free choice of obedience in the face of suffering was the price that Christ paid for the incarnation.

    But what incarnation? You are talking about Jesus Christ as if he is a separate person from the Son of God.

  • RublevRublev Shipmate
    Our great learning is probably about to drive us insane, but let us yet endeavour. The incarnated Christ divested Himself of His divine glory to live among us as a human (Phil 2: 5-7). We are told that in the human life of Jesus the Spirit had not yet been given because Jesus had not yet been glorified (John 7: 39). After the Ascension the Father and the Risen and glorified Son sent the Holy Spirit upon all the believers at Pentecost to empower them to witness to the gospel and follow the example of Christ (Acts 2: 1-21).

    Cue Mousethief to tell me that the Orthodox view is that only the God the Father sent the Holy Spirit at Pentecost.
  • Rublev wrote: »
    Our great learning is probably about to drive us insane, but let us yet endeavour. The incarnated Christ divested Himself of His divine glory to live among us as a human (Phil 2: 5-7). We are told that in the human life of Jesus the Spirit had not yet been given because Jesus had not yet been glorified (John 7: 39). After the Ascension the Father and the Risen and glorified Son sent the Holy Spirit upon all the believers at Pentecost to empower them to witness to the gospel and follow the example of Christ (Acts 2: 1-21).

    None of this contradicts what I've said above. Christ's divestment of divine glory was not a renunciation of divinity altogether. Self-emptying is not self-abolition. It is before, not after, his glorification that he says, "I and the Father are one" and "before Abraham was, I AM." Your theory requires either that Jesus is a separate, purely human individual, or that God the Son emptied himself so thoroughly that he entirely lost any awareness of or connection with his divinity, which is plainly contradicted in the Gospels.
  • Mark PinkertonMark Pinkerton Shipmate Posts: 13
    Pomona wrote: »
    Yes, I don't think Christ Church as a church dedication is necessarily indicative of churchmanship, though there is a conservative evangelical one near me. I've encountered RC Christ Churches and con evo dedications to All Souls (not just the famous one).

    Also con evo Anglican churches in evangelical dioceses tend to have a much stronger relationship with the church hierarchy. Evangelical bishops tend to have a close relationship with evangelical churches locally, certainly that's the case in my own evangelical diocese.

  • Mark PinkertonMark Pinkerton Shipmate Posts: 13
    I think where early medieval buildings are concerned, the name is associated with the Vikings eg Christ Church Cathedral, Dublin.
  • RublevRublev Shipmate
    @SirPalomides

    Even the child Jesus knew that God was His Father (Luke 2: 49). Yet He was still a normal human child who grew in wisdom and in years (Luke 2: 52).

    I think the Baptism of Jesus and the sending of the Holy Spirit marked the beginning of His mission which He fulfilled as a spirit filled human in full accordance with the will of the Father.

    We see the Trinity Godhead acting in collaboration at Creation, the incarnation, the baptism and life of Christ, the resurrection, Ascension and Pentecost. But human freewill is involved too.

    The question of what happens at the crucifixion is an interesting one. Jesus accepts it at Gethsemane. And He gives the cry of dereliction on the cross. Is that Christ demonstrating His solidarity with our human condition?

    Tis mystery all: the Immortal dies!
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    I'm with Enoch and Rublev on this. Sir Palomides - you say that:

    That said, the possibility of Christ's human will moving against the divine will- so that he could have eaten the tempter's bread in the desert, or rejected the cup in Gethsemane- is inadmissible because it divides him into two persons.

    Does that not necessarily lead to the conclusion that His divine will moves against the human? Where I'd part with what you set out is that it still assumes that He had 2 wills, 1 human and 1 divine. I'd say that He had but the 1 will and that, as He was, was indissolubly both human and divine.
  • kmannkmann Shipmate
    The 'Anglican' church in America seems almost as fissiparous as 19thC Nonconformity in the UK!
    There is no longer 'the Anglican Church,' just as there is no longer 'the Lutheran Church' or 'the old Catholic Church.'
  • kmannkmann Shipmate
    Someone I know described them as pimples on the bum of the Body of Christ.
    :flushed:
    Yes, posh self-importance make people say the darnest things.
  • kmannkmann Shipmate
    Pomona wrote: »
    Orthodox churches would not consider themselves Catholic.
    Then why do they call their Church the Orthodox Catholic Church?
  • RossweisseRossweisse Hell Host, 8th Day Host
    Apologies for my sloppiness, Rossweisse. I don't know why I allowed the third 'e' to slip in. Once it had, predictive text did the rest ... :(
    No worries.
    Citing the Orthodox position on the Papacy doesn't help the Anglican position though. They don't officially accept or recognise Anglican orders either and are just as exclusive on claims to be the One True Catholic and Apostolic Church as Rome is. ...
    As I noted above, though, there was a time not so very long ago when the Greek Orthodox (at least) were urged by their bishops to attend Episcopal churches. Orthodox churches were rare, and they certainly didn't want their folks attending Roman Catholic churches. They accepted us then; I think the subsequent non-acceptance is equal parts turf (there are more Orthodox churches here now. I know a Greek-American whose family became Episcopalian under that dispensation, and gets regularly hassled by the local Orthodox priest; interestingly, his daughter was recently ordained as an Episcopal priest) and Girls Have Cooties/We've Never Done It That Way.

    At any rate, I was citing them as an example of another denomination that has maintained the Apostolic Succession, etc., but rejects the authority of the Pope.

  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    Others would be the Oriental Orthodox. I'm not sure about the status of all of them. Those around the Eastern Mediterranean/ NE Africa used be in schism, but my poor recollection is that the words that led to the schism have either been slightly changed, or dropped and others, now acceptable at least to Rome if not Constantinople, used in their place. I don't know if those further east, including the Mar Thoma Syriacs, were even thought of at the time, and their position on the nature of Christ pronounced upon.
  • For a brief period in the 1930s, I'm told, the Greek Orthodox Church did ponder whether to recognise the Anglicans as a fellow Orthodox Church. This was after the publication if the 1928 Prayer Book which floundered through Parliament due - I'm told, to lobbying by Ulster Protestants.

    I'm sure it was more complicated than that.

    I'm also told that they quickly revised their opinion when they looked more closely.

    From what I can see, most Orthodox priests here in the UK have a very suspicious attitude towards the CofE, mainly because a lot of them are former Anglican clergy.

    I have heard of Orthodox priests from the UK holidaying in Crete or Cyprus who have been asked by incredulous locals whether they are 'Catholic Orthodox' or 'Protestant Orthodox'.

    More broadly, the main impression I get from the Orthodox, both cradle and convert, is that Anglicanism, certainly as it was back in the 1950s, is 'close but no cigar.'

  • EnochEnoch Shipmate
    @Gee D I think the Mar Thoma Church is the Reformed (in my sense, see above, rather than @Jengie Jon's) branch of the St Thomas Christians of Southern India. I think there are also Uniate branches of the St Thomas Christians in communion with Rome, and Oriental Orthodox branches that are not and are lined to various patriarchs in the Middle East. I'm fairly sure the Mar Thomas Church is in communion with the CofE but like the Church of Sweden is not part of the Anglican Communion.
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    Thanks for all that - I'm not so sure about the communion with the CoE. I understand that the Church of South India is.

  • From what I can see, most Orthodox priests here in the UK have a very suspicious attitude towards the CofE, mainly because a lot of them are former Anglican clergy.


    Hmmm. A quick skim through the clergy list indicates around 25 former Anglican clergy among around 300 Orthodox clergy in total in UK and Ireland. Perhaps another 30 or so are former Anglicans (but were not Anglican clergy).
  • Amanda B ReckondwythAmanda B Reckondwyth Mystery Worship Editor
    Enoch wrote: »
    I think the Mar Thoma Church is the Reformed (in my sense, see above, rather than @Jengie Jon's) branch of the St Thomas Christians of Southern India.
    I see there's a Mar Thoma church here in Phoenix. I'm not surprised, as there seems to be at least one of every church on earth in the melting pot that is Phoenix. But guess where Miss Amanda will be some Sunday soon, MW pad in hand?
  • Amanda B ReckondwythAmanda B Reckondwyth Mystery Worship Editor
    The history of the Mar Thomas church, as given on the website of the Phoenix Mar Thoma church, is fascinating. Here is a brief excerpt (I use "brief" relatively):
    It is believed that the Apostle St. Thomas, one of the 12 disciples of Jesus, landed in Cranganore (now Kodungalloor) on the coast of Malabar in southern India in the year 52 A.D. He . . . established seven churches. . . . He died a martyr's death. . . . The first Christians were called Nazarenes, or Mar Thoma (Saint Thomas) Christians. * * *

    In 345 A.D. The Catholicos of Jerusalem sent Bishop Joseph of Edessa, some priests, deacons, and about 400 people under the leadership of Thomas of Cana. * * * Nestorian missionary movements were very active during the 5th and 6th centuries. * * *

    In 1498 the Portuguese explorer/trader Vasco de Gama landed in Calicut, at the north end of the Malabar coast. In . . . 1599 . . . the Mar Thoma Christians were brought under the Roman Catholic Church and Papal supremacy. * * * In 1633 nearly 25,000 Christians and 633 clergy led by Archdeacon Thomas . . . took an oath rejecting the supremacy of the Roman Catholic Church over them. * * * Gradually the Mar Thoma Christians with their Metrans (Bishops) were brought under the influence of Antiochean Jacobite Church.

    In 1806 Claudius Buchanan of The Church of England . . . got the Gospels translated into Malayalam. In 1813 a seminary for the education of Syrian Christian clergy was founded in Kottayam. Many ecclesiastical irregularities such as failure to use the scriptures for instruction, praying for the dead, and keeping relics of the saints in churches started flourishing.

    Abraham Malpan then assumed leadership of a reform movement. . . . In 1852 Mathews Mar Athanasius was confirmed by Royal proclamation as the Metropolitan of the Malankara Church. He supported the reform movement of Abraham Malpan, and those who were with him restored the ancient faith of the Church. * * *

    Until the 4th century A.D., five ancient metropolises dominated the Christian world. . . . In the 11th century they became divided into two blocks -- the Eastern, and the Western Churches. The first four became classified as the East, and the last one as the West. . . . The Mar Thoma Church . . . is neither a Protestant Church of the Western type nor an Orthodox Church of the Eastern type. . . . The Church affirms its faith in one holy, catholic, and apostolic Church. It accepts the first three ecumenical councils as authoritative, i.e. Nicea (325 A.D.), Constantinople (381 A.D.), and Ephesus (431 A.D.) The Mar Thoma Church is an active member of the World Christian Council and the Council of Christian Churches in India. The church is in full communion with the Episcopal Churches in the United States and Canada, worldwide Anglican Church, the Church of South India and the Church of North India. . . .
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    Fascinating is barely adequate to describe such a history. Thanks for digging it out.
  • Enoch wrote: »
    @Gee D I think the Mar Thoma Church is the Reformed (in my sense, see above, rather than @Jengie Jon's) branch of the St Thomas Christians of Southern India. I think there are also Uniate branches of the St Thomas Christians in communion with Rome, and Oriental Orthodox branches that are not and are lined to various patriarchs in the Middle East. I'm fairly sure the Mar Thomas Church is in communion with the CofE but like the Church of Sweden is not part of the Anglican Communion.

    The priest at the Episcopal Church in my town is actually a Mar Thoma priest. They are basically a Protestant church using the West Syriac rite (with saint commemorations removed and other "corrections").

  • Gee D wrote: »
    I'm with Enoch and Rublev on this. Sir Palomides - you say that:

    That said, the possibility of Christ's human will moving against the divine will- so that he could have eaten the tempter's bread in the desert, or rejected the cup in Gethsemane- is inadmissible because it divides him into two persons.

    Does that not necessarily lead to the conclusion that His divine will moves against the human? Where I'd part with what you set out is that it still assumes that He had 2 wills, 1 human and 1 divine. I'd say that He had but the 1 will and that, as He was, was indissolubly both human and divine.

    I'm just repeating the theology of the sixth ecumenical council and St Maximus the Confessor. There are of course other ways to think about Christology- which of course is one of the great mysteries that can never be confined to our categories.

    To answer your question, no, the divine will does not move against the human will, nor vice versa- rather, the deified human will freely submits to the divine will.

    One will or two wills? It depends on how you think of will. In the terminology of the time, St Maximus and the 6th Ecumenical Council argued that will was a faculty belonging to nature- a complete nature, human or divine, necessarily included a natural will. So to say Christ only has one will, in this view, was to say one or the other nature was incomplete.

    Are two wills necessarily contradictory? This was actually the argument employed by the monotheletes (the proponents of one will in Christ, backed by the Emperor). Part of this may have been the dyotheletes and monotheletes talking past each other- the latter conceiving of will as object of will, so they could not admit Christ having more than one will.

    The Aristotelian and Platonic terminology employed by the fathers has limitations, as all philosophical language must. But whatever language we find useful, if we accept the basic premise that Jesus Christ is God incarnate, that his humanity and divinity are whole, distinct, and yet inseparably united in one person, then the possibility that he could sin is inadmissible.


  • From what I can see, most Orthodox priests here in the UK have a very suspicious attitude towards the CofE, mainly because a lot of them are former Anglican clergy.


    Hmmm. A quick skim through the clergy list indicates around 25 former Anglican clergy among around 300 Orthodox clergy in total in UK and Ireland. Perhaps another 30 or so are former Anglicans (but were not Anglican clergy).

    There is no Crockfordsky or easily accessible Orthodox clergy listing for North America, but years of some acquaintance (my graduate thesis is on Orthodox-Anglican dialogue) suggests that the Antiochians are perhaps half-convert in number (including former Lutherans etc, as well as Anglicans/Episcopalians-- I am told that in recent years there has been a respectable trickle from Wheaton and similarly intellectually serious evangelical institutions) and the OCA perhaps a third. The convert presence in other Orthodox churches is fairly minimal, with perhaps about 5% among the Constantinopolitans. In Canada, the Orthodox attitude is a combination of benign condescension, rooted in a phyletic understanding (i.e., that Anglicanism is the religion of the English ethnics as Orthodoxy is of the Greek ethnics). They have long been puzzled but friendly to a trickle of Anglican converts, with occasional blips in times of Anglican infighting with its attendant viciousness.

    For many years, Orthodox bishops tolerated attendance at Anglican churches, on the aforementioned grounds that at least they were not RC-- there's a long history of a strong presence of Byzantine Catholics here, with currently a metropolis and about 10 dioceses-- and Orthodox bishops faced challenges in serving small diasporic communities with limited resources. Many Anglicans have long held the fond and erroneous belief that they were in communion with the Orthodox. In the smelly mill town where I grew up, the Arabs all went to Trinity Anglican Church, and an Antiochian priest would turn up every year or so for weddings or baptisms and would use Trinity. This pattern was common to eastern Canada. Constantinopolitan churches, with a core Greek population and a stronger diocesan structure, have in recent years come to be pan-Orthodox in many centres (e.g., Brockville, Orillia, Guelph), so this older approach of attending Anglican churches is dying out. During the period of minimal presence, many Orthodox became Anglican or United Church, as well as to the JWs (who currently target immigrant groups with energy and some success). Joined with the cheerful Canadian practice of rampant intermarriage, this was the origin of the many Hellenic, Arabic, and Slavic names among UCC and Anglican clergy (there was also a period in the 1920s of Byzantine-rite Presbyterian and IIRC United Church missions to immigrant communities but that's another thread).
  • RublevRublev Shipmate
    Emperor Constans II issued a ban on all discussions of Christ's wills in 648AD. Which is only too understandable.

    Pope Agatha charged that the claim of a single personal will in Christ implied three personal wills in the Trinity. But each Triune Person possesses the same will as the other two Persons.

    It's all a bit mind bending but the Sixth Ecumenical Council gave a verdict in 681AD that Jesus possessed two wills since He is truly God and truly human.

    This was the consequence of the Council of Chalcedony that Jesus had two natures, human and divine, indivisible but distinct (The Hypostatic Union).

    This is usually resolved by saying that Jesus' two wills were in perfect harmony. His human will concurred with the divine will which is both His and the Fathers'. 'I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will, but the will of Him who sent me' (John 6: 38). And His prayer in Gethsemane 'Not my will, but yours be done' (Luke 22: 42).
  • SirPalomidesSirPalomides Shipmate
    edited May 2019
    Gee D wrote: »
    Others would be the Oriental Orthodox. I'm not sure about the status of all of them. Those around the Eastern Mediterranean/ NE Africa used be in schism, but my poor recollection is that the words that led to the schism have either been slightly changed, or dropped and others, now acceptable at least to Rome if not Constantinople, used in their place. I don't know if those further east, including the Mar Thoma Syriacs, were even thought of at the time, and their position on the nature of Christ pronounced upon.

    The Oriental Orthodox communion consists of the Coptic, Armenian, Syriac, Ethiopian, Eritrean, and Malankara and Syriac Jacobite Orthodox churches in India. The latter two have an acrimonious ongoing dispute which is entirely about ecclesial politics. The Malankara Orthodox church is autocephalous; the Syriac Jacobite Church is a dependency of the Syriac Patriarchate of Antioch.

    The Oriental Orthodox are not officially in communion with the Eastern Orthodox and it will likely be a long time before they are. However, in various locales the lines can be quite blurred and it not unusual for OO to commune at EO churches abroad if no OO church is available.

    The theological dispute between the parties centers on the reception of the council of Chalcedon and the language used to describe the incarnation of Christ. Some theologians on both sides, having re-examined the disputes and each other's theology, concluded that both parties were saying the same thing with different terms. Not everyone agrees with this and the sectarian impulse is still strong in some quarters, especially among the EO.

    The Mar Thoma church is not OO- they are a protestant church.
  • RublevRublev Shipmate
    edited May 2019
    Monothelitism is the view that Jesus Christ had two natures but only one will.

    Dyotheletism (orthodox Christology) is that Jesus Christ had two wills (human and divine) that correspond to His two natures.

    This raises the interesting theological questions:

    Do God the Father and the Holy Spirit have distinct wills?
    Could Jesus disagree with Himself?
    Did Jesus possess a real human will with the capacity of free choice?
    Was Jesus able to sin when He was tempted?

    And did the C7th church have nothing better to discuss?

  • The Mar Thoma church is not OO- they are a protestant church.

    Only if you use a very broad definition of protestant, I would suggest.
  • From their history, as given on their website:

    Palakkunnathu Abraham Malpan from Maramon and Kaithayil Geevarghese Malpan from Kottayam who spearheaded this movement, never wanted to start a separate Church. They wanted the reformation, staying within the Church. This group gradually became vocal and approached Col. Fraser, the British Resident, with a memorandum in 1836 . But since nothing came of it, Abraham Malpan decided to take action in his own parish of Maramon which was sympathetic towards his ideas of reform. He translated the liturgy of the Holy Qurbana into local language Malayalam from Syriac and also eliminated from it the prayers for the dead and invocation of saints etc. He celebrated Holy Qurbana in his church using the revised St.James liturgy on a Sunday in 1836. This was tantamount to firing the first shot of the reformation. He later on removed from the church the wooden image of a saint reputed to have miraculous powers, and in whose honor an annual festival was held that brought in huge income to the Parish. Both at Maramon and at the Syrian Seminary at Kottayam, and in the neighboring Parishes of Pallom and Kollad, Abraham Malpan popularized Bible teaching and preaching. Abraham Malpan and Geevarghese Malpan had to give up their service in the Seminary, in 1840. Since then Abraham Malpan concentrated his attention on the work of reform, holding Bible classes and prayer meetings and instructing the deacons who were loyal to him.

    Most prominent elements in the Reformation were:

    Return to the gospel message of salvation by faith in Jesus Christ;
    Cleansing of wrong ways of life, and
    Taking up responsibility to be witnesses of Jesus Christ to other;
    All importance be given to the primacy of the Word of God.
  • Ah, my apologies. I was confused about which group of Mar Thoma Christians you were referring to.
  • EnochEnoch Shipmate
    In this city (provincial England) there are at least three Orthodox communities, one of Russian background, which I suspect was original formed of exiles but at one time, I think, had become mainly convert. Since perestroika has developed much more of a sense of being a place for Russian expatriates. Some of its services are, though, in English. The other two are Greek and Romanian and are very much ethnic. The Russian background and Greek congregations have their own premises. The Roumanians use a CofE church that is in the custody of the Churches Conservation Trust.

    There may be others but I don't know of them.

    There is a Mar Thomas community which used to use a CofE church, but at different times from the parish. They have recently bought their own church which I think was previously Methodist.
  • Amanda B ReckondwythAmanda B Reckondwyth Mystery Worship Editor
    Enoch wrote: »
    In this city . . . there is a Mar Thomas community
    Can I persuade you to MW them? I definitely intend to drop in on the one here -- it would be interesting to compare the two.
    The Mar Thoma church is not OO- they are a protestant church.
    In the description I linked to above, they say they are neither Protestant nor Orthodox.
  • Rublev wrote: »
    Do God the Father and the Holy Spirit have distinct wills?

    No... since the Trinity has a single common nature, all three persons share one will.
    Could Jesus disagree with Himself?

    Not unless he is split into two persons.
    Did Jesus possess a real human will with the capacity of free choice?
    Was Jesus able to sin when He was tempted?

    In the view of St Maximus, the freedom of the will does not consist in the ability to choose evil, but the ability to pursue its natural, God-ordained inclination (logos) unhindered. (This of course raises a question about how the Fall of Man could occur and I don't know if it has been properly addressed by Maximus or anyone else.)
    And did the C7th church have nothing better to discuss?

    Reunion between the pro- and anti- Chalcedonian parties was felt to be a matter of great importance by churchmen and emperors alike. The monoenergist/ monothelete formula was put forward as a compromise to accomplish this. Of course when the Arab invasion gutted the Roman empire this concern was placed on a distant back burner.


  • The Mar Thoma church is not OO- they are a protestant church.
    In the description I linked to above, they say they are neither Protestant nor Orthodox.

    Okay, but there are a few Baptists out there who will strenuously deny they are Protestants.

    The Mar Thoma church denies invocation of the saints, prayers for the dead, veneration of icons, all on the basis of Protestant influence and reasoning. So if they are not Protestant, they are at the very least heavily Protestant-influenced.

  • RublevRublev Shipmate
    edited May 2019
    Yes, I'd agree that the Trinity are collaborative in nature and united in purpose. And it would not really make sense for Jesus to disagree with Himself. We know that Jesus was tempted (Matt 4: 1), but did not sin (1 Pet 2: 22). But he did have the free choice to resist the temptations and accept the crucifixion.

    I think the Chalcedon formula of the two natures of Christ made the conclusion of two wills inevitable. But I also think that this is where linear logic leads to an illogical conclusion and ends up creating more theological problems.

    On the Fall: when Adam and Eve sinned they became enslaved through the ruin of their wills, unable to know and desire the good as before. To them evil looked good, and true good no longer appeared to them as good. They now hid themselves from God and blamed others for their actions. Sin broke the wills natural harmony with God, twisting the will to desire what is against God's order. This is the condition that Luther called the bondage of the will.

    The temptations of Jesus paralleled the temptation of Adam and Eve. Even to the extent of a similar lure to gain godlike power. And had Jesus succumbed then He would have become enslaved to sin and disconnected from God's will. Instead He rejects the option of fulfilling His mission in a supernatural way. God's plan is to be fulfilled in an incarnated way and in the way of suffering. So the incarnation, crucifixion and resurrection are all complementary to each other.
  • EnochEnoch Shipmate
    ... Joined with the cheerful Canadian practice of rampant intermarriage, this was the origin of the many Hellenic, Arabic, and Slavic names among UCC and Anglican clergy (there was also a period in the 1920s of Byzantine-rite Presbyterian and IIRC United Church missions to immigrant communities but that's another thread).
    My imagination remains intrigued as to what a Byzantine-rite Presbyterian service looks like. Mind, I was intrigued a few years ago to discover that there's a Georgian Baptist Church that has a lot of features that to western eyes look Orthodox.

    I don't know if this link will work. If it does, you have to click on the page and then enter.
  • Enoch wrote: »
    My imagination remains intrigued as to what a Byzantine-rite Presbyterian service looks like. Mind, I was intrigued a few years ago to discover that there's a Georgian Baptist Church that has a lot of features that to western eyes look Orthodox.

    I don't know if this link will work. If it does, you have to click on the page and then enter.


    Some years ago I heard a talk by their Archbishop (yes - a Baptist Church with (married) bishops). The main Sunday service is the Eucharist, using a slightly modified version of the Liturgy of St John Chrysostom in modern Georgian (unlike the Georgian Orthodox who still use Old Georgian). He was of the opinion that most members were dissident Orthodox rather than Calvinists.
  • PomonaPomona Shipmate
    Most converts to Orthodoxy I know are former Pentecostals! I actually can see more connection in terms of service style there than between Anglicans and Orthodox.
  • I know a few neo-Pentecostals who have become Orthodox and have heard of some classic Penties who are now Orthodox too. I'm not sure it's that common, though but I can see how it can happen.
  • RossweisseRossweisse Hell Host, 8th Day Host
    ... More broadly, the main impression I get from the Orthodox, both cradle and convert, is that Anglicanism, certainly as it was back in the 1950s, is 'close but no cigar.'
    That may be, but for several decades in the American Midwest (I don't know if it was the case elsewhere), where they had no official presence themselves, they were sending their folks to Episcopal churches. That says something about us.

  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    Enoch wrote: »
    ... Joined with the cheerful Canadian practice of rampant intermarriage, this was the origin of the many Hellenic, Arabic, and Slavic names among UCC and Anglican clergy (there was also a period in the 1920s of Byzantine-rite Presbyterian and IIRC United Church missions to immigrant communities but that's another thread).
    My imagination remains intrigued as to what a Byzantine-rite Presbyterian service looks like. Mind, I was intrigued a few years ago to discover that there's a Georgian Baptist Church that has a lot of features that to western eyes look Orthodox.

    I don't know if this link will work. If it does, you have to click on the page and then enter.

    If you're lucky, you can find sites showing clerics in full regalia holding services outdoors in fantastic alpine locations. They look like the originals Tolkien used to imagine the Elves.
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    edited May 2019
    The history of Mar Thoma, and the discussions about mono- and dia- thelitism is fascinating and I'm grateful for all the posts. If I'm heretical in my mono stance, then I am; I find it difficult to see how the 2 natures could each have a will. To say that they do is hard to reconcile with their being completely intertwined
  • RublevRublev Shipmate
    Yes, it seems a bit eccentric for Christ to have two wills and God the Father only to have one will. But I shouldn't think the church is ever going to call another ecumenical council to revisit that question again. Fortunately it is not mentioned in the Creeds which were formulated earlier so it's not a very well known theology. And its not the sort of subject I would ever preach a sermon on. It's like bringing up the topic of divine election which can leave a congregation feeling thoroughly confused.
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    As a member of the congregation, I hope I'd never be subjected to a sermon on the topic! The 2 natures . is ok, but this is far too esoteric
  • RublevRublev Shipmate
    The other theology which arose at about this time was the iconoclast controversy and the debate over icons of Christ. This was finally settled in favour of material icons of Christ being good on the basis of the incarnation and Col 1: 15. But not icons of God the Father or the Holy Spirit who are both ineffable and considered not able to be portrayed.

    The Byzantine emperors were also highly involved in this dispute and its thought that they were influenced by the success of the Islamic conquests against them and anxiety that they enjoyed greater divine favour because they were more monotheistic in their worship. The best collection of early icons survives at St Catherine's monastery in Sinai because it was so remote.

    Iconoclasm didn't greatly impact the western church until the Reformation and triggered a great destruction of church art. Not a single example of a medieval rood screen survived in any English parish church.
Sign In or Register to comment.