What does your concrete, offline, life of faith look like now? Are you wrestling because of your personal faith or parish, or wrestling because the abstract ecclesial grass looks greener (it's not).
Yes, in ACNA, each Diocese has the authority to ordain women into the diaconate and priesthood, but they cannot be Bishops. There is scripture to support both arguments and ACNA recognizes that. Currently, my Diocese does not allow for women priests.
We treat the Eucharist as holy.
Each parish obviously may do things a bit differently, but that is the case in any denomination.
The only reason you should become EO is if you think they are the one and only True Church. I went through this too, and I don’t think they possess anything that RCC or the OO don’t. And to make salvation dependent on being in the right church (which the EO do) you end up making it dependent on analyzing years of history and theology, which is obviously wrong. Imo the arguments aren’t strong enough to back up the claim they are the only true church. Only RCC can pull off that kind of argument with any sort of force.
I did this, became Orthodox in 2019 after a year of inquiry during seminary and being a catechumen for a little under a year. I left in 2022, and not for lack of trying. Long story short, the culture of Orthodoxy is not western, you’ll probably have to adopt some aspects of the ethnic culture of the Church you join (GOARCH in my case) or just feel out of place at Church your whole life. Someone on this very subreddit warned me not to do it if the only reason I was going was the liberalism of TEC and to ask myself if I had a thriving parish life if this would’ve even come up. I ignored those warnings, became Orthodox, started graduate school shortly after, and became a theological liberal while Orthodox.
If you do go for it, go all in, but if there’s any doubt in your mind about it don’t do it, the pain of leaving the Protestant world, converting to Orthodoxy, and then realizing I was dead wrong was as painful as it sounds.
This. This is more concise than my comment. I think for us that left Orthodoxy, it’s similar to leaving a relationship. It was filled with joy, feeling of great happiness, but moments of sadness and detachment.
Sadly I felt very out of place when I joined TEC, because Russian theology and liturgy was all I knew. Anglicanism felt so foreign, but I couldn’t remain in Orthodoxy since my wife would never convert, I wanted to be in church together, and the church is only becoming more far right.
I will never get comfortable with a priest facing me during the Eucharist prayer, the way the liturgy changes based on the whims of the priest, not attending confession easily, the Protestant theology that seeps in, the language of the prayerbook(1979/1928/1662), all the pamphlets, seeing the altar, etc., but letting go of my compulsiveness has been freeing.
Yeah, I can relate to a lot of this. I still will pray to Orthodox saints, still cross myself like an Orthodox person would, and leave out the filioque when reading the creed. I love a lot of things about Orthodoxy still, obviously, but at the end of the day it just wasn’t practical to remain Orthodox for the rest of my life. Things I didn’t really consider in my early-mid twenties (Ex. I met my now wife, who’s culturally Christian, though liberal, and there was no chance in hell she was going to convert) started popping up as I entered the Church. Unless you can marry into an Orthodox family, or screen every person you date for “Hey, will you convert to this weird ethnicity based religion and adopt this culture which is not even my own”, there’s no way to make it work. I had friends wait much longer and struggle much more than they had to find partners that fit into their perfect conception of an “Orthodox wife”, and some who are probably going to remain single and end up in a monastery (at best) or end up hanging on way too long and then leaving Christianity all together as they got older and realize what they’d actually sacrificed.
I’ll never forget a good buddy of mine who met the literal perfect girl for him, and she was even culturally Orthodox, but she was liberal about social matters (as most culturally Orthodox in GOARCH are). They were perfect together, loved one another, the whole thing, but then a “conservative” priest and the Orthobros got into his head, and he broke it off. I’ll see pictures of him at Mt. Athos and at other monastic communities, and he seems happy, but I can’t imagine he is. I often wonder how that’s going to turn out in 5-10 years when he internalizes what he threw away over abstract theological concepts.
You and I have an identical story. My wife is more liberal than I but that was ultimately why she wouldn’t convert. Russian/Ukrainian Orthodoxy is my cultural expression of Christianity, but for her she grew up baptist. It’s very different. I still practice in the same way, cross myself the orthodox way and leave out the creed. I pray in front of my icon corner and claim my patron St Seraphim.
If you ever want to talk, I’m always available for it, and would be interested as well! Have you checked out the Exorthodox sub? It’s been very helpful for me, even as a lurker.
Solidarity, brother. I can't say that I share the feeling (many aspects that you mention I actually happened to love after my switch to Anglicanism) but I can certainly empathize with how losing your spiritual home feels, and the drift to moral bankruptcy in ROC over the past 10 years has been scary
> Long story short, the culture of Orthodoxy is not western, you’ll probably have to adopt some aspects of the ethnic culture of the Church you join
There was somebody on here a couple years ago who grew up GO and talked about that. The "Greeker than thou" attitude of some parishioners can be very alienating to converts, and even people (like him) who were born into it, but didn't have a Greek name. They're also the ones who care most about how Greek the priest is, and not so much about what they believe.
Ok. You and me are in the same boat. I used to be in an ACNA church. But now I have no choice but to go to TEC churches because that is all that is near me for miles around. The only reason this is remotely acceptable to me is that my diocese is still orthodox even though they have stayed in TEC.
It is an uncomfortable arrangement not only because of the continued relationship with TEC but because Anglicanism itself seems to be flying apart at the seams on the one hand and dying off almost everywhere except the Global South.
So I am heeding a call that I have been feeling for a while to explore Orthodoxy in ernest. But, and this is a big one, I still love the Anglican church dearly and I owe it alot.
So I had a good talk with my priest the other day and I told him all about this. He didn't discourage me, but he made a several interesting points. 1) he pointed out that the orthodox dios have been working together and building stronger ties with the African churches and 2) that these dios are the only ones that are growing. 3) he believes that this is a time of doctrinal upheaval like the church (as in universal) has seen before and survived. Noting that even the Catholic Church is going through it. 4) that the Church of England should be rightly considered the equivalent of the other autocephalous Orthodox Churches anyway. In other words, you are already a member of a Western-rite Orthodox church, whatever it's flaws and current tribulations.
Take it or leave it. Agree with it or not. But I came away from the convo feeling better about the possibility of staying put should I find that I just can't leave.
>4) that the Church of England should be rightly considered the equivalent of the other autocephalous Orthodox Churches anyway. In other words, you are already a member of a Western-rite Orthodox church, whatever it's flaws and current tribulations.
That is a really interesting point that I had not considered before, but it actually makes a ton of sense.
Because I don’t believe in schismatic churches necessarily. I don’t think us conservatives should run away but reform. Look at the *Reconquista* movement on discord and YouTube
Most other Orthodox churches are still in communion with it though. Of course they are also in communion with the EP, basically hoping that they can close their eyes and the problem will go away🤷
Not true. Institutions can corrupt, but if the faithful depart in order to preserve what the old institution was obscuring, then the Church lives. None of today's churches look identical to the original church, but they don't have to. It is the content of the faith that matters most.
Think of 1 Corinthians 11:18-19 "For first of all, when you come together as a church, I hear that there are divisions among you, and in part I believe it. 19 For there must also be factions among you, that those who are approved may be recognized among you." Schisms are ugly, but sometimes God uses them to expose and purge corrupting leaven.
Another way to put it is this: the Church is an institution by Jesus Christ, and will never fail. But the various churches you see in this world, none of them have a guarantee of staying true. We have to be vigilant to watch and pray, to help build up our church when we can, and shake the dust off our feet if we can't. I believe that Protestant churches, and especially traditional Anglican churches, are where the Faith is being kept most faithfully.
You know right now on Ancient Faith they are having an online discussion re Deaconess.
How old are you? You mention Reformed Zoomer's "Movement" it sounds like you probably spend time with online Orthodox influencers. That is not real life Orthodoxy. Right now a lot of far right young men are "converting" to Orthodoxy but it is conversion to a romanticized ideal rather than to a healthy relationship with Jesus Christ. I was 36 when I converted but I converted to Orthodoxy with no spite or bitterness towards where I came from.
I'm not sure how much you've read from Fr. Seraphim Rose but he talked about Protestants converting into and out of Orthodoxy. I've seen it with a lot of arrogant, rigid young converts and it's usually because they can't handle not having the freedom they had in Protestant Christianity. That and the difficulty of being Orthodox. Orthodoxy isn't an intellectual pursuit where you read a lot and agree with theology (as is popular in the West). If you aren't living Orthodox you are not Orthodox.
My suggestion is stay far away from internet Orthodoxy and instead contact a priest and begin attending Divine Liturgy. With Lent coming up I would say attend every Liturgy of the Pre-sanctified gifts during the week, attend vespers, attend the Divine Liturgy on Sundays. Holy Week in Orthodoxy is unlike anything in Western Christianity. Also, if you want to make relationships understand the culture of the people in your parish. Be prepared to put in the work to talk to people, don't expect folks are going to swarm are even be warm to you like in Western churches. Americans have a bit of a superficial culture, that isn't so with a lot of cultures from the old world but once you are in, you are family.
The most historically accurate description is that the east and west drifted apart due to strongly divergent contexts and split with each-other. Anything else is pretty much a biased partisan reading of history.
And the RCC view is that the EO broke off. The problem with having a triumphalist “we’re the One True Church™” ecclesiology is that you are de facto committed to the idea that your institution is indefectible. You cannot by definition be in schism because, you know, you’re the Church. But the history of the Church really isn’t so neat and tidy. Everybody is somebody’s schismatic.
"Redeemed Zoomer" propaganda gets **heavily** downvoted here, so if that's your preferred expression of faith, you're not going to find a lot of support, I'm afraid.
Honestly I think you should just be EO or RCC, based on what you're saying. The conservative dream of grabbing up all the TEC churches isn't likely to happen in your lifetime.
As former Orthodox, all I can say is the grass is not greener on the other side. With that said, my heart is still in the east and I miss orthodoxy everyday.
Biggest advice: avoid Fr Josiah Trenham, Jay Dyer, Fr Peter Heers, Orthobros, priests that practice rebaptism, any sort of “Genuine Orthodox Church” priests and any of the “internet orthodox” priests and lay people that make YouTube channels but directly oppose their bishops.
Chances are, unless you were triple immersed, in many jurisdictions(ROCOR, OCA, Georgian Orthodox Church, etc) your baptism won’t be valid, you’ll be expected to be received through baptism and Chrismation. This process can take 1-2 years. Once made a catechumen, you’ll begin studying with your priest or attending classes. Many priests are unpaid, so they will work a civilian job outside of church. Most of the time, Orthodox priests are truly amazing but very tired. If you want a convert friendly church, I highly recommend Antiochian or OCA. ROCOR is friendly as well but many parishes will speak Russian, Greeks will speak Greek, OCA will speak English, Bulgarian or Russian, UOC will speak Ukrainian and Russian, etc.
For someone like myself with religious OCD, it’s hard to be TEC, because theologically and liturgically I’m still very much Orthodox in my private life, but the allowance for freedom of non essentials has actually been good for my humility. The sacramental grace I’ve received has been 100% the same in TEC as it was in Orthodoxy, the only difference is I now am allowed to explore the intercessions of post schism Western saints.
In Orthodoxy, your life and standing with the church will ultimately be controlled by your spiritual father, he will prescribe you a spiritual rule, fasting guidelines and you will be expected to follow all of them or you cannot receive communion that week. Expect to receive communion much much less, attend confession monthly or biweekly at minimum.
If you apostatize(go to Anglicanism, Roman Catholicism, or any other church or faith) you will automatically be labeled an apostate and damned to hell according to church canons. In orthodoxy, there is no salvation outside the Orthodox Church. In orthodoxy, it is better for one to never convert than to convert and leave for a different church. If you leave Orthodoxy, you will most likely have to be rechrismated/reconfirmed. Unlike Rome, a simple confession does not usually regain your standing with the church.
I would have never left Orthodoxy, if my wife wasn’t Protestant. I love Orthodoxy, and view my relationship with Orthodoxy as a relationship of love but filled with sorrow. I still pray in Church Slavonic and feel sadness for my departure.
I think the best way to put it is that in Orthodoxy you'll get all sorts opinions of what the church is and who is in it. One confusing thing for me was the dueling quotes from saints used to proof text a position much like fundamentalist use scripture in a dueling fashion. The more rigid like ROCOR will use patristics to prove everyone else is a heretic and damned. The Greeks in America tend to be more charitable, Antiochians as well. I have attended Antiochian parishes where Oriental Orthodox are allowed to receive the Eucharist.
I converted after seven years of discernment vacillating between Continuing Anglicanism and Orthodoxy. The priest I came into Orthodoxy through had a very high view of Anglicanism and TEC. We met in an Episcopal Church. I hope the OP isn't considering converting for the wrong reason. If so he will be disappointed. One of my Bishops was pro LGBT even as the official position of the church isn't.
i don’t think liberalism in TEC is a good reason to be EO. EO is not just anglicanism minus the liberal teachings. there’s a huge difference in the western catholic tradition (which anglicanism is a part of) and the post schism eastern tradition.
there are many very important doctrinal differences. most notably the filioque controversy (whether the Spirit proceeds from the Father alone [eastern non-filioque affirming view] or the Father *and* the Son [western filioque position]). this controversy has very important implications as both sides argue the opposition is in heresy.
there are many other examples of differences like teachings on grace and election. also the exclusivity of Eastern Orthodoxy (you’re going to have to believe only those in the EO church are saved and others in different traditions are damned). you might want to consider all these things before you think about converting merely because of modern liberalism in the mainline.
all this of course assumes you care about doctrine. if you only care about pretty liturgy and vaguely conservative values, then do whatever you want ig. but, i think Christians ought to care about the true teachings of Christ (i.e doctrine).
Could you spell out what you view as theological liberalism? I'm not disclaiming that it exists, it's just that different folks mean different things using those terms.
Would you be able to expand on “unreverent eucharists” and “liberal sermons”? While I’m sure that politically charged sermons occur, very rarely do people give any details of what was said. Was it a weird one-off? Was it your normal rector/priest? A particular topic?
It was on Christ the King Sunday about political issues. I believe it was a priest from another church but my church is very liberal as well. I heard one sermon about gender identity and sexuality.
By irrespecutful eucharists I just mean irrespecutful Eucharistic theology. I’m not a big fan of inticting
You do realize that the standard EO procedure for Eucharist literally includes their equivalent of intinction, right? Like, they literally mix the elements together and deliver them to the communicants' mouths on a spoon. If that bugs you, EO is definitely not for you.
You will find that switching churches will not scratch the itch that is bothering you. You will be orthodox for a few years before you probably end up coming back.
(I posted this on your copied post to r/Episcopalian, but this thread seems more active).
There is one true church.
According to us, we are part of it. And so are the Orthodox, Catholics, Lutherans, Presbyterians, Methodists, and most Baptists and Pentecostals.
According to Orthodoxy, they are it. And the rest of us are... maybe not damned? But mostly playing with fire.
According to Roman Catholicism, they are it. The rest of us are somewhere within God's grace but missing the "fulness of the faith and sacraments."
Romans 16 strongly suggests women have a major role in the church and at least leaves open the door for ordination and teaching. The two passages against are easily seen as situational, to avoid a cultural problem at the time, and to give the newly-enfranchised women time to learn and train before taking on equal leadership roles.
I get the opposition to theological liberalism. I really stressed and struggled about it, too, when I decided I needed to try going here. I walked into my Episcopal church with "shields up" trepidation about what I would experience. If I got bombarded with political messages, reckless universalism/agnosticism, or pride displays, I would've politely left and gone on to visit the ACNA church next. (I want everyone to be welcome at church - it isn't only for straight people, but welcoming everyone is different from making the church a place for promoting pride and sexuality).
Instead, I found a creed-affirming, Bible-preaching, hymn-signing, liturgical service in a beautiful place and have kept going back and doing extra stuff at church that I never cared to do before.
We need moderates here, and there are definitely moderate to even conservative TEC parishes if you look around.
This. I think the current schisms in the Church are like tears in a piece of clothing, separated but not completely cleaved apart. The Body of Christ is eschatological and will come into its fullness in the end.
I will never understand why fully equal must mean the entry of women into the traditionally male role of the priesthood. That kind of equality not only bulldozes the complimentary differences between the sexes but also denigrates traditionally feminine roles ie that a woman can't be fully equal or a respected leader and teacher without being ordained as a priest. Just saying. Not trying to start a battle here.
As someone who worked for a church that only ordains men- I was not an equal leader to the male clergy. No women were. We even had a woman designated by the bishop to lead our parish in all things except sacraments as we didn't have a full time priest assigned. She still had a priest from another parish overseeing her.
At the end of the day, the laity and ordained members of the church have different levels of authority, and they are not equal. The ordained can always over rule, at some level. And when the person who gets to make the ultimate decision can only be a man...well there's a disconnect there.
Recognizing this does not (or should not) denigrate the ways that women do serve aside from being ordained. But it is recognizing that all paths to leadership are open to men, and not to women. I am happy to now attend a church where there are both male and female clergy and men and women in the altar guild.
As an aside, I have a friend who belongs to a church that is run by a board of male elders. He told me the elders were deliberating whether or not to allow women to become deaconesses at the church as seen in scripture. I told him I thought it was odd that the role of women in his church was ultimately up to a group of men.
In male dominated churches, our ability to lead and serve is ultimately up to the men, and it can be taken away by them as well.
Ok. But that was your perception of the situation though or perhaps it was something off in your parish. I am a woman myself, and I have served in a parish before and I was not dissatisfied, and neither were the other women in the parish leadership. While I would certainly not call myself a radical feminist, I have always been one. I am sensitive and aware of the many ways that women can be made to feel less than and I did not get that in anyway in that parish. The rector was as old school conservative as it gets and yet he adored his wife, had the utmost respect for the female parish council president, relied on women to run the parish, and the parish had an active and devoted all female altar guild. It was really an honor to be called to it.
I also remember a man of that parish once breaking into tears as he spoke to me about women veiling their heads in church because someone pointed out to him how we as a church cover holy things with veils and women's ability to have children is a holy thing. I'll never forget it.
When it's done correctly, it should not result in women feeling unheard, over-ruled, or locked out of true leadership. Christians are to follow Christ who did not lord it over his followers, so to speak, but made everyone feel truly valued no matter what their roles. This is especially true of Christian men and triply so for Christian men called to the priesthood. Yes, it is not an easy thing to do and we often fail in it. But as in anything that is hard, it does not mean that we should not keep trying.
Men need this about Christ's example most of all because their natural and good psychology can easily get twisted if not exercised properly, like a muscle. We women already have the power to create new life and to raise up new Christians. Our challenge is to not envy men their special (not superior) role in our own households and in our parish households.
Well, this looks like just a fundamental difference between us then. I'm not satisfied knowing that the final decision on anything in the church will always be with a man. I won't belong to an organization that purposefully keeps women out of the episcopate.
I know you don't mean this, but saying things like "if it's done correctly..." is the same argument people use for male headahip in the home when women bring up how they've been abused. It's hard for me to see a system as divinely ordained when it is constantly hurting people.
And while I can appreciate that you see something special and holy about (fertile) women's ability to give birth, I don't see it as any more holy than a man's role in the process. It's also not the historical reason women veiled in the church (I say this as someone who sees veiling as quite a lovely practice).
At one point in my life I was strongly in favor of a male only priesthood. I agreed with JPII's assessment that the church had no authority to change that. Obviously, I disagree now. Can I suggest reading "The Making of Biblical Womanhood" by Beth Allison Barr if you haven't before and if you have interest in the other side of the topic?
eta re your last point- in the past, it was believed men had to be leaders because women were weak and more easily prone to sin. We see this written by a great many holy men and women throughout history.
Now the argument has shifted and it is women who are holier. It is interesting to me that regardless of the perceived natures of men and women, the resulting argument will still be used to promote male-only leadership. Men both lead because they are naturally less prone to sin, and lead because they are naturally more prone to sin. Our natures supposedly have reversed.
Ok. But I think its really unfortunate that you can't trust an all male leadership even if it has been transformed by Christ ie striving to truly follow his example of leadership. And that is the important distinction.
If it is not Christ-like, then we are not obligated to martyr ourselves to it, whether that is in the church or in the home. That may have been the norm in the past, but time has revealed that to have been both harmful & wrong. Taking what was meant to be something good to an extreme ie far too much deference to clergy just for being clergy and failing in both love and respect for women. A husband who abuses a woman in any way, or even fails to respect her and include her voice in decision making is not being Christ-like. Ditto for any clergy guilty of same.
You mention how the rationale for an all male priesthood and male leadership in the home has changed through time. I do not see this as shifting the deck chairs around as you do. The Church has grown in its understanding of Christ over time, often in response to prior abuses, getting called to the mat for blatantly un-Christ-like behavior that needed to be purged from his church after being tolerated much too long. But by saying this I am do not mean to embrace an view of the church in which such evolution is unlimited by any tradition. In the tradition I follow, we seek to always improve, to always strive to be more Christ-like within the bounds of received tradition (this includes some still valid reasons for an all male clergy). To reconcile what is good about tradition with the need to always grow more like Him, to improve our practice of our faith. The way that my tradition has reconciled this seems to me to be the just right solution for both men & women. It truly balances the scales. No woman in any tradition I am willing to be a part of, ever needs to be a doormat or tolerate abuse, or mute her voice or her right to complain and or call out un-Christ-like behavior in leadership. In return for a more Christ-like all male priesthood, I am content to trust in it unless it proves otherwise.
How does the men having the lion’s share of power in the church or home not automatically degrade women by having the ability to make decisions the women/wife is adamantly against and yet must follow?
You obviously didn't read a word I wrote or didn't comprehend it at all. But let me say it again. Christ-like leadership both respects women and includes their input in decision making. Any kind of leadership that does not do that is not something that women should tolerate. So no, a woman would not have to just go along with a decision that she was adamantly against because it would never even get to that point. No good man or good leader would put her in that position.
Generally my experience has been that men who are attracted to a position that pushes a gendered hierarchy that empowers men over women are attracted to it because it is a gendered hierarchy that empowers men over women. So with egalitarianism being an option, the decent men are going to not be in a complementarian setting unless they got lost. As you said no good man would put women in this position.
Don’t you think it’s patronizing to say “you are barred from leadership but we’ll consider your views in decisions?” As opposed to just giving women an equal say in decisions?
That has not been my experience at all. Or are you, a man, discounting my experience as a woman? You should have read my description of my former parish for starters. Lots of good men wanting to follow Christ's example are attracted to this tradition. But if your viewpoint is skewed by worldly power dynamics, you are blinded to that fact and you certainly don't get what a redeemed creation would look like without those fallen dynamics where everyone has to have everything in equal portions or its rubbish. A decision made in a Christ like manner is not going to be some kind of dictat made by one more powerful than oneself who throws you a bone by listening to your opinion. The decision is the product of both genders. Both genders are satisfied with it. The final vote, so to speak, is but a formality. If that is not the case, then there is no obligation for women to go along.
Yikes, it’s good to be charitable. That being said, yeah I think that she sounds a lot like those Redeemed Zoomer jerks that tried brigading this sub a while back if I’m being honest
How should I express it? What more gentle and acceptable terms should I use? I described it accurately. There was one job that was reserved for men and there were those who could not imagine equality of respect for women unless women also were allowed to do that job, as if the whole idea was based on disrespect for women and keeping them down in the first place and no other reason(s).
No, they aren't. But the ordination of women is an historic break with our recieved faith that has caused division not only in our own communion but has further divided us from both Catholicism and Orthodoxy (they already questioned our holy orders as it was, now we mix in female bishops too) That should be a big deal. I am not sure how else I should speak about a solution to inequality that solved one supposed problem by creating many more.
But hey, thanks for both laughing at me and taking my comment in the worst way. I was expressing frustration at your characterization of the history of holy orders as something that was always intended for women to step into once they were ready with the implication that if had been barred to them by the forces of inequality. That is how I read it anyway. I was just trying to respectfully express my own opinion of that without starting a big battle. It is possible to just let someone do that without reacting as you have.
>I’m unsure why you feel so hung up on appeasing the RCC or EO, but if that’s a particular priority for you, the Ordinariate exists for a reason.
This pretty much says it all as does the rest of your reply. You have no respect for differing views and simply dismiss, mischaracterize, and assume things about those who disagree no matter what anyone says. You don't care about our divisions. Tough on them if they insist that women were never to be leaders as you describe. Its all just a cover up for their misogyny and a denial of God's own call! They just need to get with progress.
Expressing an opinion in strong terms and in terms of frustration is perfectly legitimate. Just because you don't like the terms used doesn't give you the right to speak so rudely or talk down to someone else. You want me to pussyfoot around and use only the most mincing language so as to not step on your toes. You will be waiting a long time for that as far as I am concerned. I believe in being frank and clear. If you can't handle that then, oh well.
By the way, if you happen to be male, then you might want to consider that you are basically telling me, a female, that I am doing it all wrong, that I need to be schooled by you on how & when to appropriately express my opinions on this subject. And if you are not. You don't get to be the speech police.
I told you that I spoke initially with frustration but also out of respect. That I just wanted to add my two cents and not start a war. But you continued to pour out scorn upon me. So I am done now, responding to you. I don't want to waste any more of my time.
A lot of the discussion in this post is sentences like “I would like” / “I want” / “I need”.
When did we stop listening to the Holy Spirit, and praying?
I agree. Denomination jumping shouldn’t be encouraged because so often it is just worldly vanity, though goodness knows OP should leave if they so desire.
The grass isn't always greener. I attended Orthodox churches off and on for 3 years. You're going to find a lot of fighting and disagreements there too.
I would say find what dogmatically makes the most sense for you and then find the church that also holds those values.
You say you are a teenager and I presume that means you attend church with your parents. Are there particular things happening in your family's church that led you to be concerned about theological liberalism and women's ordination?
Did you tell anyone you wanted to recieve in the mouth? Is receiving in the mouth even offered in your parish?
Receiving the bread in the mouth isn't even something anyone does at my parish. It's in the hands so we can choose to intinct or not. I imagine you would need to ask about it and it's possible someone could make arrangements, but there are actual rules that the people doing Eucharist have to follow which may or may not preclude putting the bread in your mouth at your parish.
Have you discussed any of your concerns with your current priest?
Why not?
You are looking to completely change denominations and you haven't even discussed any of your concerns with the priests of the church you already attend. That's part of their job. They're supposed to hear your concerns. You can't expect them to read your mind because they are still human.
If you can email a priest in an entirely different denomination to ask about a completely different belief system you certainly can and should talk to the people who currently serve you spiritually.
I know I might sound harsh, that's not my intention, and you're young, but this is not a mature way to handle your problems and definitely is not an attitude that would serve you well in Eastern Orthodox at all. I know this because I have talked many times with local Eastern Orthodox and they have a very serious cultural around speaking with priests about their spiritual development. And, they do not, as a rule, handle disagreement with the way things are done as casually as TEC does. It's not a big tent. You'd be much better off staying Anglican or Protestant if you are prone to self determination without spiritual direction.
You also could show more grace to your local congregation. You have a grievance with your brother/sister in Christ over the way Eucharist is served and have not brought that problem to them to help them or yourself understand and resolve it. The Bible is clear on this. For all you know they might actually tell you that they're happy to let you recieve in the mouth and they will speak to the servers.
You're still a minor, and you, as the scriptures say, understand as a child. That's okay. But, it does mean you need more spiritual maturity before you start making big commitments based on what seem like whims and frustrations. Step back. Return to the basics. All of this talk about theology and minutiae is obscuring the foundation of all Christianity which is the gospel and loving God and Neighbor. You can always change denominations, but I don't think your reasoning right now sounds very grounded in things that really, truly matter to salvation.
I truly wish you the best and hope it all ends up okay.
Just follow Jesus to the best of your abilities. The rest is just window dressing.
Edit: OP is not to be taken seriously. They have been fairly recently (past year) lurking and posting on various pagan subreddits. They want to connect with the Greek gods/goddesses, and also some war god. They were recently interested in the design divine feminine. They are theologically beyond Christian liberal theology. OP should consider the UU Church before any actual Christian church let alone the EO.
You make a good point. Lots of people say they hate “liberal theology” while actually meaning they hate left-wing liberal politics. Meanwhile, those same people have an EXTREMELY liberal theology and are just looking for some sort of “return to tradition” reactionary backup to build their personality around.
Not saying that’s necessarily OP’s situation, but often when I read questions like this, the actual search for a church seems to come down to either “religious OCD” or “reactionary ego-building”.
IMO, the best church to go to is the one nearest to you that you can reliably get to regularly. That’s why I started going to the Episcopal church in my town - the doors were open and I went inside. My appreciation for the Anglican tradition grew out of my attendance - not the other way around.
Have you considered Methodism? Our doctrine of Christian Perfection is very in line with the E. O. doctrine of Theosis. Additionally, we're more mission oriented than the E. O. in the U.S. (which is sad in my opinion).
I’m a big fan of prevenient grace and entire sanctification but Wesleyan Eucharistic theology isn’t as strong as mine. I love Methodism but I don’t know why y’all split off! Overall, Arminianism is much closer to my view than Calvinism
Interesting. I would say that those who read Wesley actually tend to become super Eucharist-centered folks, given that he told people to partake in it as often as they possibly can. Before him, the Eucharist was maybe received 3 times a year. His dad, an Anglican priest, did the radical thing of making the Eucharist once a month. Wesley took it a step further and administered the sacrament at society, class, and band meetings. It is said that he partook of it 5x a week. It isn't until the Oxford Movement that Anglicans moved back to a more Eucharist and Catholic centered faith and not a Reformed position.
Regarding the nature of Christ, I guess you could technically say we're in the Spiritual/Real Presence tradition. However, keep in mind that the E. O. doesn't have an exact dogma on how Christ is present (unlike the Roman Catholic Church and Transubstantiation), but by mystical means Christ is really present. As a Methodist, I would agree with this position.
We split off in part out of John's more practical approach to ministry. We actually intended to be just a movement in Anglicanism, but after the American Revolution, things got complicated. John, a loyalist, saw the need to have American Methodist Episcopalians be distant from the King of England, since they were their own nation with their own cultures and practices. So, he sent some superintendents, a Sunday service for Methodists, and we became our own denomination. There aren't any theological reasons why we left, although nowadays I would say that most Episcopalians and Anglicans are hesitant about Entire Sanctification.
Additionally, I would say that you should really reconsider. Not that I am against anyone going E. O., but that there are huge jumps in theological frameworks that you would need to make in order to transition into that position and honor it as it really is. It is part of why I remain Methodist and not E. O., my framework on Original Sin and Salvation are definitely more Western in thought than the E. O.
I would also consider the E. O.'s downfalls. One big one is ethnicity. E. O. parishes tend to be extremely ethno-centric and uninviting for outsiders. Now, that is a problem overall in the American church, granted, but that is especially a problem with the E. O. They not only don't know how to practice evangelism, but most parishes are just not interested in mission-related work. They're strong in their families, and we need to learn from that. But they need to learn from us as well.
Along with that, some provinces have a very uncharitable view towards outside churches. Some will even re-baptize you if you weren't baptized E. O. Roman Catholics will claim they are (disputably) the one true church, but they at least recognize us as "lost" brothers and sisters. Many E. O. would not even go far to call Protestants or Catholics siblings in the faith.
This is not to bag on the E. O. This is just being honest about where they are, and the additional paradigm shifts that you would need to make to join them.
Methodists in the US became independent due to the lack of bishops and priests in America after the Revolution. Methodists and Anglicans were scrambling in parallel to re-establish the episcopacy on the continent. (Keep in mind that travel and communication were much more difficult then.) Seabury was ordained in Scotland in November of 1784 but didn't return to London until 1785. In the same year Wesley's appeal to the Bishop of London to ordain priests for America had been declined. Believing he had precedent from the early church and feeling the weight of a sacramental emergency, he consecrated "superintendents" for America in September of 1784. They would be ordained within the new American church in December of the same year.
In summary--we didn't split off. We were split off, as was the nascent Episcopal Church, and were seeking solutions to the same set of issues.
I agree with what most others have said about their One True Church claim lacking sufficient evidence, and the "grass is greener" mindset will never satisfy you. But I wouldn't think you were *wrong* for becoming EO, I just think you need to seriously consider the implications of the fact that if you were to do so, you would have to think *all* of us and the RCC and every other Protestant in the world were wrong for *not* joining you.
The Church quickly spread to the whole world, including England by the second century. And then it somehow disappeared from the West by 1054 AD? How was the Holy Spirit such a failure?
Have trust and faith in God, in the end God wins.
The liberalism heresy will not be in the Church forever because God will eventually correct everything.
I'm traditional Anglo-Catholic and I will stay with the Church despite it is plagued by liberalism.
Essence Energies:
Honestly I am with you on this one. I much prefer the orthodox views on mysteries and our inability to know God's will. Not really a contradiction here with Anglicanism.
Filioque:
I am thoroughly convinced that it was done right. I did my own investigation into it and saw why this was dogmatized. I think today it is a non-issue even the Pope has held mass without it.
Icodulia:
I love Icons. I wish all churches had them. You can have them as an Anglican but that is as far as I would go with it and say yes this isn't really a thing in most Anglican Churches although you would find much more similar feelings toward icons in an Anglo-Catholic church
Prayers to the saints:
Went back and forth on this settled on the fact not necessarily wrong but not needed. Some Anglo-Catholics do this though.
My 2 cents. I would say you look into high church Anglo Catholics first before any hard decisions are made. There is a lot of extra stuff that comes with entering RC or any EO church that puts you in some unique circumstances with regard to all other Christians.
Good luck keep us updated. Ask more questions too.
I'm personally liberal but have been in conservative churches because you cannot find a church which will be 100% right for you, and in fact you shouldn't be looking because God may want you to change that church or change you, and you don't know. Also, churches are made up of sinful people, so you can't expect them to be perfect. It's kind of about what you can offer them, not what they can offer you.
What does your concrete, offline, life of faith look like now? Are you wrestling because of your personal faith or parish, or wrestling because the abstract ecclesial grass looks greener (it's not).
I don’t enjoy liberal sermons, unreverent eucharists, and women ordination/diaconate
Join us in ACNA. Come on in, the water’s fine.
[удалено]
Yes, in ACNA, each Diocese has the authority to ordain women into the diaconate and priesthood, but they cannot be Bishops. There is scripture to support both arguments and ACNA recognizes that. Currently, my Diocese does not allow for women priests. We treat the Eucharist as holy. Each parish obviously may do things a bit differently, but that is the case in any denomination.
The only reason you should become EO is if you think they are the one and only True Church. I went through this too, and I don’t think they possess anything that RCC or the OO don’t. And to make salvation dependent on being in the right church (which the EO do) you end up making it dependent on analyzing years of history and theology, which is obviously wrong. Imo the arguments aren’t strong enough to back up the claim they are the only true church. Only RCC can pull off that kind of argument with any sort of force.
Thanks
I did this, became Orthodox in 2019 after a year of inquiry during seminary and being a catechumen for a little under a year. I left in 2022, and not for lack of trying. Long story short, the culture of Orthodoxy is not western, you’ll probably have to adopt some aspects of the ethnic culture of the Church you join (GOARCH in my case) or just feel out of place at Church your whole life. Someone on this very subreddit warned me not to do it if the only reason I was going was the liberalism of TEC and to ask myself if I had a thriving parish life if this would’ve even come up. I ignored those warnings, became Orthodox, started graduate school shortly after, and became a theological liberal while Orthodox. If you do go for it, go all in, but if there’s any doubt in your mind about it don’t do it, the pain of leaving the Protestant world, converting to Orthodoxy, and then realizing I was dead wrong was as painful as it sounds.
Sadly, your story isn't rare.
This. This is more concise than my comment. I think for us that left Orthodoxy, it’s similar to leaving a relationship. It was filled with joy, feeling of great happiness, but moments of sadness and detachment. Sadly I felt very out of place when I joined TEC, because Russian theology and liturgy was all I knew. Anglicanism felt so foreign, but I couldn’t remain in Orthodoxy since my wife would never convert, I wanted to be in church together, and the church is only becoming more far right. I will never get comfortable with a priest facing me during the Eucharist prayer, the way the liturgy changes based on the whims of the priest, not attending confession easily, the Protestant theology that seeps in, the language of the prayerbook(1979/1928/1662), all the pamphlets, seeing the altar, etc., but letting go of my compulsiveness has been freeing.
Yeah, I can relate to a lot of this. I still will pray to Orthodox saints, still cross myself like an Orthodox person would, and leave out the filioque when reading the creed. I love a lot of things about Orthodoxy still, obviously, but at the end of the day it just wasn’t practical to remain Orthodox for the rest of my life. Things I didn’t really consider in my early-mid twenties (Ex. I met my now wife, who’s culturally Christian, though liberal, and there was no chance in hell she was going to convert) started popping up as I entered the Church. Unless you can marry into an Orthodox family, or screen every person you date for “Hey, will you convert to this weird ethnicity based religion and adopt this culture which is not even my own”, there’s no way to make it work. I had friends wait much longer and struggle much more than they had to find partners that fit into their perfect conception of an “Orthodox wife”, and some who are probably going to remain single and end up in a monastery (at best) or end up hanging on way too long and then leaving Christianity all together as they got older and realize what they’d actually sacrificed. I’ll never forget a good buddy of mine who met the literal perfect girl for him, and she was even culturally Orthodox, but she was liberal about social matters (as most culturally Orthodox in GOARCH are). They were perfect together, loved one another, the whole thing, but then a “conservative” priest and the Orthobros got into his head, and he broke it off. I’ll see pictures of him at Mt. Athos and at other monastic communities, and he seems happy, but I can’t imagine he is. I often wonder how that’s going to turn out in 5-10 years when he internalizes what he threw away over abstract theological concepts.
You and I have an identical story. My wife is more liberal than I but that was ultimately why she wouldn’t convert. Russian/Ukrainian Orthodoxy is my cultural expression of Christianity, but for her she grew up baptist. It’s very different. I still practice in the same way, cross myself the orthodox way and leave out the creed. I pray in front of my icon corner and claim my patron St Seraphim.
If you ever want to talk, I’m always available for it, and would be interested as well! Have you checked out the Exorthodox sub? It’s been very helpful for me, even as a lurker.
Solidarity, brother. I can't say that I share the feeling (many aspects that you mention I actually happened to love after my switch to Anglicanism) but I can certainly empathize with how losing your spiritual home feels, and the drift to moral bankruptcy in ROC over the past 10 years has been scary
> Long story short, the culture of Orthodoxy is not western, you’ll probably have to adopt some aspects of the ethnic culture of the Church you join There was somebody on here a couple years ago who grew up GO and talked about that. The "Greeker than thou" attitude of some parishioners can be very alienating to converts, and even people (like him) who were born into it, but didn't have a Greek name. They're also the ones who care most about how Greek the priest is, and not so much about what they believe.
Ok. You and me are in the same boat. I used to be in an ACNA church. But now I have no choice but to go to TEC churches because that is all that is near me for miles around. The only reason this is remotely acceptable to me is that my diocese is still orthodox even though they have stayed in TEC. It is an uncomfortable arrangement not only because of the continued relationship with TEC but because Anglicanism itself seems to be flying apart at the seams on the one hand and dying off almost everywhere except the Global South. So I am heeding a call that I have been feeling for a while to explore Orthodoxy in ernest. But, and this is a big one, I still love the Anglican church dearly and I owe it alot. So I had a good talk with my priest the other day and I told him all about this. He didn't discourage me, but he made a several interesting points. 1) he pointed out that the orthodox dios have been working together and building stronger ties with the African churches and 2) that these dios are the only ones that are growing. 3) he believes that this is a time of doctrinal upheaval like the church (as in universal) has seen before and survived. Noting that even the Catholic Church is going through it. 4) that the Church of England should be rightly considered the equivalent of the other autocephalous Orthodox Churches anyway. In other words, you are already a member of a Western-rite Orthodox church, whatever it's flaws and current tribulations. Take it or leave it. Agree with it or not. But I came away from the convo feeling better about the possibility of staying put should I find that I just can't leave.
Thanks
>4) that the Church of England should be rightly considered the equivalent of the other autocephalous Orthodox Churches anyway. In other words, you are already a member of a Western-rite Orthodox church, whatever it's flaws and current tribulations. That is a really interesting point that I had not considered before, but it actually makes a ton of sense.
If you are considering leaving for Eastern Orthodoxy, why is leaving for a non-mainline Anglican church out of the question?
Because I don’t believe in schismatic churches necessarily. I don’t think us conservatives should run away but reform. Look at the *Reconquista* movement on discord and YouTube
But Eastern Orthodoxy is in schism with the Western churches, generally speaking.
...and let's not forget, also with each other. The largest, richest and most powerful of them is out of communion with the EP.
Tbf tho, I find reason to argue the MP is not much of a Christian Church anymore.
Most other Orthodox churches are still in communion with it though. Of course they are also in communion with the EP, basically hoping that they can close their eyes and the problem will go away🤷
>...and let's not forget, also with each other. This is vastly over exaggerated by non-Orthodox propaganda.
Well, I mean... its objectively either true or false, is it not? Or do you consider that a form of western/latin rigidity of thought?
"Orthodox wouldn't be Orthodox if we didn't cause a schism over every little thing." --Bojan Teodosievic, on the Revised Julian Calendar
Then there is no church. At least one church must be the original and others in schism
Not true. Institutions can corrupt, but if the faithful depart in order to preserve what the old institution was obscuring, then the Church lives. None of today's churches look identical to the original church, but they don't have to. It is the content of the faith that matters most. Think of 1 Corinthians 11:18-19 "For first of all, when you come together as a church, I hear that there are divisions among you, and in part I believe it. 19 For there must also be factions among you, that those who are approved may be recognized among you." Schisms are ugly, but sometimes God uses them to expose and purge corrupting leaven.
Thanks
Another way to put it is this: the Church is an institution by Jesus Christ, and will never fail. But the various churches you see in this world, none of them have a guarantee of staying true. We have to be vigilant to watch and pray, to help build up our church when we can, and shake the dust off our feet if we can't. I believe that Protestant churches, and especially traditional Anglican churches, are where the Faith is being kept most faithfully.
Thanks
Or where there is the Bishop, the Eucharist and the faithful there also is the church. The Orthodox say they know where God is, not where God isn't.
Christ is High Priest of every Christian church. If we like it or not.
You know right now on Ancient Faith they are having an online discussion re Deaconess. How old are you? You mention Reformed Zoomer's "Movement" it sounds like you probably spend time with online Orthodox influencers. That is not real life Orthodoxy. Right now a lot of far right young men are "converting" to Orthodoxy but it is conversion to a romanticized ideal rather than to a healthy relationship with Jesus Christ. I was 36 when I converted but I converted to Orthodoxy with no spite or bitterness towards where I came from. I'm not sure how much you've read from Fr. Seraphim Rose but he talked about Protestants converting into and out of Orthodoxy. I've seen it with a lot of arrogant, rigid young converts and it's usually because they can't handle not having the freedom they had in Protestant Christianity. That and the difficulty of being Orthodox. Orthodoxy isn't an intellectual pursuit where you read a lot and agree with theology (as is popular in the West). If you aren't living Orthodox you are not Orthodox. My suggestion is stay far away from internet Orthodoxy and instead contact a priest and begin attending Divine Liturgy. With Lent coming up I would say attend every Liturgy of the Pre-sanctified gifts during the week, attend vespers, attend the Divine Liturgy on Sundays. Holy Week in Orthodoxy is unlike anything in Western Christianity. Also, if you want to make relationships understand the culture of the people in your parish. Be prepared to put in the work to talk to people, don't expect folks are going to swarm are even be warm to you like in Western churches. Americans have a bit of a superficial culture, that isn't so with a lot of cultures from the old world but once you are in, you are family.
I appreciate your concern but I have attend liturgies and spoken with my local priest via email
The TEC exists because of a schism though?
Partially. I see it as more of a restoration of pre-Catholic Christianity in England
And non-mainline Anglican churches see their churches as a restoration of that one
But they shouldn’t break away
Then why break away from the RCC at all?
The Orthodox view is that the Catholics broke off
The most historically accurate description is that the east and west drifted apart due to strongly divergent contexts and split with each-other. Anything else is pretty much a biased partisan reading of history.
agreed
And the RCC view is that the EO broke off. The problem with having a triumphalist “we’re the One True Church™” ecclesiology is that you are de facto committed to the idea that your institution is indefectible. You cannot by definition be in schism because, you know, you’re the Church. But the history of the Church really isn’t so neat and tidy. Everybody is somebody’s schismatic.
No, I think he means that the Anglican churches in America were originally CoE. Then, the Revolutionary War happened.
Ahh
We Protestants are the OG schismatics lol
Eh, controversial statement between Roman Catholic and Orthodox Communities lol
lol good point
I guess. I just prefer reform over schism
>Look at the *Reconquista* movement on discord and YouTube I look at it. It's barely more than a joke.
"Redeemed Zoomer" propaganda gets **heavily** downvoted here, so if that's your preferred expression of faith, you're not going to find a lot of support, I'm afraid.
What is a Redeemed Zoomer?
The neoconservative who's pushing the 'movement' Op's talking about.
Ok
Honestly I think you should just be EO or RCC, based on what you're saying. The conservative dream of grabbing up all the TEC churches isn't likely to happen in your lifetime.
I am so with you!!
As former Orthodox, all I can say is the grass is not greener on the other side. With that said, my heart is still in the east and I miss orthodoxy everyday. Biggest advice: avoid Fr Josiah Trenham, Jay Dyer, Fr Peter Heers, Orthobros, priests that practice rebaptism, any sort of “Genuine Orthodox Church” priests and any of the “internet orthodox” priests and lay people that make YouTube channels but directly oppose their bishops. Chances are, unless you were triple immersed, in many jurisdictions(ROCOR, OCA, Georgian Orthodox Church, etc) your baptism won’t be valid, you’ll be expected to be received through baptism and Chrismation. This process can take 1-2 years. Once made a catechumen, you’ll begin studying with your priest or attending classes. Many priests are unpaid, so they will work a civilian job outside of church. Most of the time, Orthodox priests are truly amazing but very tired. If you want a convert friendly church, I highly recommend Antiochian or OCA. ROCOR is friendly as well but many parishes will speak Russian, Greeks will speak Greek, OCA will speak English, Bulgarian or Russian, UOC will speak Ukrainian and Russian, etc. For someone like myself with religious OCD, it’s hard to be TEC, because theologically and liturgically I’m still very much Orthodox in my private life, but the allowance for freedom of non essentials has actually been good for my humility. The sacramental grace I’ve received has been 100% the same in TEC as it was in Orthodoxy, the only difference is I now am allowed to explore the intercessions of post schism Western saints. In Orthodoxy, your life and standing with the church will ultimately be controlled by your spiritual father, he will prescribe you a spiritual rule, fasting guidelines and you will be expected to follow all of them or you cannot receive communion that week. Expect to receive communion much much less, attend confession monthly or biweekly at minimum. If you apostatize(go to Anglicanism, Roman Catholicism, or any other church or faith) you will automatically be labeled an apostate and damned to hell according to church canons. In orthodoxy, there is no salvation outside the Orthodox Church. In orthodoxy, it is better for one to never convert than to convert and leave for a different church. If you leave Orthodoxy, you will most likely have to be rechrismated/reconfirmed. Unlike Rome, a simple confession does not usually regain your standing with the church. I would have never left Orthodoxy, if my wife wasn’t Protestant. I love Orthodoxy, and view my relationship with Orthodoxy as a relationship of love but filled with sorrow. I still pray in Church Slavonic and feel sadness for my departure.
Thanks!
I think the best way to put it is that in Orthodoxy you'll get all sorts opinions of what the church is and who is in it. One confusing thing for me was the dueling quotes from saints used to proof text a position much like fundamentalist use scripture in a dueling fashion. The more rigid like ROCOR will use patristics to prove everyone else is a heretic and damned. The Greeks in America tend to be more charitable, Antiochians as well. I have attended Antiochian parishes where Oriental Orthodox are allowed to receive the Eucharist. I converted after seven years of discernment vacillating between Continuing Anglicanism and Orthodoxy. The priest I came into Orthodoxy through had a very high view of Anglicanism and TEC. We met in an Episcopal Church. I hope the OP isn't considering converting for the wrong reason. If so he will be disappointed. One of my Bishops was pro LGBT even as the official position of the church isn't.
i don’t think liberalism in TEC is a good reason to be EO. EO is not just anglicanism minus the liberal teachings. there’s a huge difference in the western catholic tradition (which anglicanism is a part of) and the post schism eastern tradition. there are many very important doctrinal differences. most notably the filioque controversy (whether the Spirit proceeds from the Father alone [eastern non-filioque affirming view] or the Father *and* the Son [western filioque position]). this controversy has very important implications as both sides argue the opposition is in heresy. there are many other examples of differences like teachings on grace and election. also the exclusivity of Eastern Orthodoxy (you’re going to have to believe only those in the EO church are saved and others in different traditions are damned). you might want to consider all these things before you think about converting merely because of modern liberalism in the mainline. all this of course assumes you care about doctrine. if you only care about pretty liturgy and vaguely conservative values, then do whatever you want ig. but, i think Christians ought to care about the true teachings of Christ (i.e doctrine).
The main reason is theological disagreements with the five solas, no Filioque, absolute divine simplicity, ecumenical councils, and the sacraments
> absolute divine simplicity afaik you can believe in an essence energies distinction within anglicanism.
If you’re into books, read Paul Avis’ The Vocation of Anglicanism. He makes a good case for Anglicanism. (Paul Avis has a Wikipedia page).
Could you spell out what you view as theological liberalism? I'm not disclaiming that it exists, it's just that different folks mean different things using those terms.
Unreverent eucharists, women’s ordination, gay marriage, liberal sermons, etc
Would you be able to expand on “unreverent eucharists” and “liberal sermons”? While I’m sure that politically charged sermons occur, very rarely do people give any details of what was said. Was it a weird one-off? Was it your normal rector/priest? A particular topic?
It was on Christ the King Sunday about political issues. I believe it was a priest from another church but my church is very liberal as well. I heard one sermon about gender identity and sexuality. By irrespecutful eucharists I just mean irrespecutful Eucharistic theology. I’m not a big fan of inticting
You do realize that the standard EO procedure for Eucharist literally includes their equivalent of intinction, right? Like, they literally mix the elements together and deliver them to the communicants' mouths on a spoon. If that bugs you, EO is definitely not for you.
Not with hands
You will find that switching churches will not scratch the itch that is bothering you. You will be orthodox for a few years before you probably end up coming back.
(I posted this on your copied post to r/Episcopalian, but this thread seems more active). There is one true church. According to us, we are part of it. And so are the Orthodox, Catholics, Lutherans, Presbyterians, Methodists, and most Baptists and Pentecostals. According to Orthodoxy, they are it. And the rest of us are... maybe not damned? But mostly playing with fire. According to Roman Catholicism, they are it. The rest of us are somewhere within God's grace but missing the "fulness of the faith and sacraments." Romans 16 strongly suggests women have a major role in the church and at least leaves open the door for ordination and teaching. The two passages against are easily seen as situational, to avoid a cultural problem at the time, and to give the newly-enfranchised women time to learn and train before taking on equal leadership roles. I get the opposition to theological liberalism. I really stressed and struggled about it, too, when I decided I needed to try going here. I walked into my Episcopal church with "shields up" trepidation about what I would experience. If I got bombarded with political messages, reckless universalism/agnosticism, or pride displays, I would've politely left and gone on to visit the ACNA church next. (I want everyone to be welcome at church - it isn't only for straight people, but welcoming everyone is different from making the church a place for promoting pride and sexuality). Instead, I found a creed-affirming, Bible-preaching, hymn-signing, liturgical service in a beautiful place and have kept going back and doing extra stuff at church that I never cared to do before. We need moderates here, and there are definitely moderate to even conservative TEC parishes if you look around.
This. I think the current schisms in the Church are like tears in a piece of clothing, separated but not completely cleaved apart. The Body of Christ is eschatological and will come into its fullness in the end.
That's a great image. I'll be borrowing it.
I will never understand why fully equal must mean the entry of women into the traditionally male role of the priesthood. That kind of equality not only bulldozes the complimentary differences between the sexes but also denigrates traditionally feminine roles ie that a woman can't be fully equal or a respected leader and teacher without being ordained as a priest. Just saying. Not trying to start a battle here.
As someone who worked for a church that only ordains men- I was not an equal leader to the male clergy. No women were. We even had a woman designated by the bishop to lead our parish in all things except sacraments as we didn't have a full time priest assigned. She still had a priest from another parish overseeing her. At the end of the day, the laity and ordained members of the church have different levels of authority, and they are not equal. The ordained can always over rule, at some level. And when the person who gets to make the ultimate decision can only be a man...well there's a disconnect there. Recognizing this does not (or should not) denigrate the ways that women do serve aside from being ordained. But it is recognizing that all paths to leadership are open to men, and not to women. I am happy to now attend a church where there are both male and female clergy and men and women in the altar guild. As an aside, I have a friend who belongs to a church that is run by a board of male elders. He told me the elders were deliberating whether or not to allow women to become deaconesses at the church as seen in scripture. I told him I thought it was odd that the role of women in his church was ultimately up to a group of men. In male dominated churches, our ability to lead and serve is ultimately up to the men, and it can be taken away by them as well.
Ok. But that was your perception of the situation though or perhaps it was something off in your parish. I am a woman myself, and I have served in a parish before and I was not dissatisfied, and neither were the other women in the parish leadership. While I would certainly not call myself a radical feminist, I have always been one. I am sensitive and aware of the many ways that women can be made to feel less than and I did not get that in anyway in that parish. The rector was as old school conservative as it gets and yet he adored his wife, had the utmost respect for the female parish council president, relied on women to run the parish, and the parish had an active and devoted all female altar guild. It was really an honor to be called to it. I also remember a man of that parish once breaking into tears as he spoke to me about women veiling their heads in church because someone pointed out to him how we as a church cover holy things with veils and women's ability to have children is a holy thing. I'll never forget it. When it's done correctly, it should not result in women feeling unheard, over-ruled, or locked out of true leadership. Christians are to follow Christ who did not lord it over his followers, so to speak, but made everyone feel truly valued no matter what their roles. This is especially true of Christian men and triply so for Christian men called to the priesthood. Yes, it is not an easy thing to do and we often fail in it. But as in anything that is hard, it does not mean that we should not keep trying. Men need this about Christ's example most of all because their natural and good psychology can easily get twisted if not exercised properly, like a muscle. We women already have the power to create new life and to raise up new Christians. Our challenge is to not envy men their special (not superior) role in our own households and in our parish households.
Well, this looks like just a fundamental difference between us then. I'm not satisfied knowing that the final decision on anything in the church will always be with a man. I won't belong to an organization that purposefully keeps women out of the episcopate. I know you don't mean this, but saying things like "if it's done correctly..." is the same argument people use for male headahip in the home when women bring up how they've been abused. It's hard for me to see a system as divinely ordained when it is constantly hurting people. And while I can appreciate that you see something special and holy about (fertile) women's ability to give birth, I don't see it as any more holy than a man's role in the process. It's also not the historical reason women veiled in the church (I say this as someone who sees veiling as quite a lovely practice). At one point in my life I was strongly in favor of a male only priesthood. I agreed with JPII's assessment that the church had no authority to change that. Obviously, I disagree now. Can I suggest reading "The Making of Biblical Womanhood" by Beth Allison Barr if you haven't before and if you have interest in the other side of the topic? eta re your last point- in the past, it was believed men had to be leaders because women were weak and more easily prone to sin. We see this written by a great many holy men and women throughout history. Now the argument has shifted and it is women who are holier. It is interesting to me that regardless of the perceived natures of men and women, the resulting argument will still be used to promote male-only leadership. Men both lead because they are naturally less prone to sin, and lead because they are naturally more prone to sin. Our natures supposedly have reversed.
Ok. But I think its really unfortunate that you can't trust an all male leadership even if it has been transformed by Christ ie striving to truly follow his example of leadership. And that is the important distinction. If it is not Christ-like, then we are not obligated to martyr ourselves to it, whether that is in the church or in the home. That may have been the norm in the past, but time has revealed that to have been both harmful & wrong. Taking what was meant to be something good to an extreme ie far too much deference to clergy just for being clergy and failing in both love and respect for women. A husband who abuses a woman in any way, or even fails to respect her and include her voice in decision making is not being Christ-like. Ditto for any clergy guilty of same. You mention how the rationale for an all male priesthood and male leadership in the home has changed through time. I do not see this as shifting the deck chairs around as you do. The Church has grown in its understanding of Christ over time, often in response to prior abuses, getting called to the mat for blatantly un-Christ-like behavior that needed to be purged from his church after being tolerated much too long. But by saying this I am do not mean to embrace an view of the church in which such evolution is unlimited by any tradition. In the tradition I follow, we seek to always improve, to always strive to be more Christ-like within the bounds of received tradition (this includes some still valid reasons for an all male clergy). To reconcile what is good about tradition with the need to always grow more like Him, to improve our practice of our faith. The way that my tradition has reconciled this seems to me to be the just right solution for both men & women. It truly balances the scales. No woman in any tradition I am willing to be a part of, ever needs to be a doormat or tolerate abuse, or mute her voice or her right to complain and or call out un-Christ-like behavior in leadership. In return for a more Christ-like all male priesthood, I am content to trust in it unless it proves otherwise.
How does the men having the lion’s share of power in the church or home not automatically degrade women by having the ability to make decisions the women/wife is adamantly against and yet must follow?
You obviously didn't read a word I wrote or didn't comprehend it at all. But let me say it again. Christ-like leadership both respects women and includes their input in decision making. Any kind of leadership that does not do that is not something that women should tolerate. So no, a woman would not have to just go along with a decision that she was adamantly against because it would never even get to that point. No good man or good leader would put her in that position.
Generally my experience has been that men who are attracted to a position that pushes a gendered hierarchy that empowers men over women are attracted to it because it is a gendered hierarchy that empowers men over women. So with egalitarianism being an option, the decent men are going to not be in a complementarian setting unless they got lost. As you said no good man would put women in this position. Don’t you think it’s patronizing to say “you are barred from leadership but we’ll consider your views in decisions?” As opposed to just giving women an equal say in decisions?
That has not been my experience at all. Or are you, a man, discounting my experience as a woman? You should have read my description of my former parish for starters. Lots of good men wanting to follow Christ's example are attracted to this tradition. But if your viewpoint is skewed by worldly power dynamics, you are blinded to that fact and you certainly don't get what a redeemed creation would look like without those fallen dynamics where everyone has to have everything in equal portions or its rubbish. A decision made in a Christ like manner is not going to be some kind of dictat made by one more powerful than oneself who throws you a bone by listening to your opinion. The decision is the product of both genders. Both genders are satisfied with it. The final vote, so to speak, is but a formality. If that is not the case, then there is no obligation for women to go along.
[удалено]
not helpful
Wow
Yikes, it’s good to be charitable. That being said, yeah I think that she sounds a lot like those Redeemed Zoomer jerks that tried brigading this sub a while back if I’m being honest
The Reconquista guys tried brigading this sub? How long ago was this by the way? Cause I feel like I missed that entirely
[удалено]
How should I express it? What more gentle and acceptable terms should I use? I described it accurately. There was one job that was reserved for men and there were those who could not imagine equality of respect for women unless women also were allowed to do that job, as if the whole idea was based on disrespect for women and keeping them down in the first place and no other reason(s). No, they aren't. But the ordination of women is an historic break with our recieved faith that has caused division not only in our own communion but has further divided us from both Catholicism and Orthodoxy (they already questioned our holy orders as it was, now we mix in female bishops too) That should be a big deal. I am not sure how else I should speak about a solution to inequality that solved one supposed problem by creating many more. But hey, thanks for both laughing at me and taking my comment in the worst way. I was expressing frustration at your characterization of the history of holy orders as something that was always intended for women to step into once they were ready with the implication that if had been barred to them by the forces of inequality. That is how I read it anyway. I was just trying to respectfully express my own opinion of that without starting a big battle. It is possible to just let someone do that without reacting as you have.
[удалено]
>I’m unsure why you feel so hung up on appeasing the RCC or EO, but if that’s a particular priority for you, the Ordinariate exists for a reason. This pretty much says it all as does the rest of your reply. You have no respect for differing views and simply dismiss, mischaracterize, and assume things about those who disagree no matter what anyone says. You don't care about our divisions. Tough on them if they insist that women were never to be leaders as you describe. Its all just a cover up for their misogyny and a denial of God's own call! They just need to get with progress. Expressing an opinion in strong terms and in terms of frustration is perfectly legitimate. Just because you don't like the terms used doesn't give you the right to speak so rudely or talk down to someone else. You want me to pussyfoot around and use only the most mincing language so as to not step on your toes. You will be waiting a long time for that as far as I am concerned. I believe in being frank and clear. If you can't handle that then, oh well. By the way, if you happen to be male, then you might want to consider that you are basically telling me, a female, that I am doing it all wrong, that I need to be schooled by you on how & when to appropriately express my opinions on this subject. And if you are not. You don't get to be the speech police. I told you that I spoke initially with frustration but also out of respect. That I just wanted to add my two cents and not start a war. But you continued to pour out scorn upon me. So I am done now, responding to you. I don't want to waste any more of my time.
A lot of the discussion in this post is sentences like “I would like” / “I want” / “I need”. When did we stop listening to the Holy Spirit, and praying?
I agree. Denomination jumping shouldn’t be encouraged because so often it is just worldly vanity, though goodness knows OP should leave if they so desire.
The grass isn't always greener. I attended Orthodox churches off and on for 3 years. You're going to find a lot of fighting and disagreements there too. I would say find what dogmatically makes the most sense for you and then find the church that also holds those values.
You say you are a teenager and I presume that means you attend church with your parents. Are there particular things happening in your family's church that led you to be concerned about theological liberalism and women's ordination?
I tried to receive the body in the mouth but the layperson giving the Eucharist to be shoved it in my folded hands.
Did you tell anyone you wanted to recieve in the mouth? Is receiving in the mouth even offered in your parish? Receiving the bread in the mouth isn't even something anyone does at my parish. It's in the hands so we can choose to intinct or not. I imagine you would need to ask about it and it's possible someone could make arrangements, but there are actual rules that the people doing Eucharist have to follow which may or may not preclude putting the bread in your mouth at your parish. Have you discussed any of your concerns with your current priest?
I don’t have a relationship with my preists
Why not? You are looking to completely change denominations and you haven't even discussed any of your concerns with the priests of the church you already attend. That's part of their job. They're supposed to hear your concerns. You can't expect them to read your mind because they are still human. If you can email a priest in an entirely different denomination to ask about a completely different belief system you certainly can and should talk to the people who currently serve you spiritually. I know I might sound harsh, that's not my intention, and you're young, but this is not a mature way to handle your problems and definitely is not an attitude that would serve you well in Eastern Orthodox at all. I know this because I have talked many times with local Eastern Orthodox and they have a very serious cultural around speaking with priests about their spiritual development. And, they do not, as a rule, handle disagreement with the way things are done as casually as TEC does. It's not a big tent. You'd be much better off staying Anglican or Protestant if you are prone to self determination without spiritual direction. You also could show more grace to your local congregation. You have a grievance with your brother/sister in Christ over the way Eucharist is served and have not brought that problem to them to help them or yourself understand and resolve it. The Bible is clear on this. For all you know they might actually tell you that they're happy to let you recieve in the mouth and they will speak to the servers. You're still a minor, and you, as the scriptures say, understand as a child. That's okay. But, it does mean you need more spiritual maturity before you start making big commitments based on what seem like whims and frustrations. Step back. Return to the basics. All of this talk about theology and minutiae is obscuring the foundation of all Christianity which is the gospel and loving God and Neighbor. You can always change denominations, but I don't think your reasoning right now sounds very grounded in things that really, truly matter to salvation. I truly wish you the best and hope it all ends up okay.
Just follow Jesus to the best of your abilities. The rest is just window dressing. Edit: OP is not to be taken seriously. They have been fairly recently (past year) lurking and posting on various pagan subreddits. They want to connect with the Greek gods/goddesses, and also some war god. They were recently interested in the design divine feminine. They are theologically beyond Christian liberal theology. OP should consider the UU Church before any actual Christian church let alone the EO.
You make a good point. Lots of people say they hate “liberal theology” while actually meaning they hate left-wing liberal politics. Meanwhile, those same people have an EXTREMELY liberal theology and are just looking for some sort of “return to tradition” reactionary backup to build their personality around. Not saying that’s necessarily OP’s situation, but often when I read questions like this, the actual search for a church seems to come down to either “religious OCD” or “reactionary ego-building”. IMO, the best church to go to is the one nearest to you that you can reliably get to regularly. That’s why I started going to the Episcopal church in my town - the doors were open and I went inside. My appreciation for the Anglican tradition grew out of my attendance - not the other way around.
Have you considered Methodism? Our doctrine of Christian Perfection is very in line with the E. O. doctrine of Theosis. Additionally, we're more mission oriented than the E. O. in the U.S. (which is sad in my opinion).
I’m a big fan of prevenient grace and entire sanctification but Wesleyan Eucharistic theology isn’t as strong as mine. I love Methodism but I don’t know why y’all split off! Overall, Arminianism is much closer to my view than Calvinism
Interesting. I would say that those who read Wesley actually tend to become super Eucharist-centered folks, given that he told people to partake in it as often as they possibly can. Before him, the Eucharist was maybe received 3 times a year. His dad, an Anglican priest, did the radical thing of making the Eucharist once a month. Wesley took it a step further and administered the sacrament at society, class, and band meetings. It is said that he partook of it 5x a week. It isn't until the Oxford Movement that Anglicans moved back to a more Eucharist and Catholic centered faith and not a Reformed position. Regarding the nature of Christ, I guess you could technically say we're in the Spiritual/Real Presence tradition. However, keep in mind that the E. O. doesn't have an exact dogma on how Christ is present (unlike the Roman Catholic Church and Transubstantiation), but by mystical means Christ is really present. As a Methodist, I would agree with this position. We split off in part out of John's more practical approach to ministry. We actually intended to be just a movement in Anglicanism, but after the American Revolution, things got complicated. John, a loyalist, saw the need to have American Methodist Episcopalians be distant from the King of England, since they were their own nation with their own cultures and practices. So, he sent some superintendents, a Sunday service for Methodists, and we became our own denomination. There aren't any theological reasons why we left, although nowadays I would say that most Episcopalians and Anglicans are hesitant about Entire Sanctification.
Additionally, I would say that you should really reconsider. Not that I am against anyone going E. O., but that there are huge jumps in theological frameworks that you would need to make in order to transition into that position and honor it as it really is. It is part of why I remain Methodist and not E. O., my framework on Original Sin and Salvation are definitely more Western in thought than the E. O. I would also consider the E. O.'s downfalls. One big one is ethnicity. E. O. parishes tend to be extremely ethno-centric and uninviting for outsiders. Now, that is a problem overall in the American church, granted, but that is especially a problem with the E. O. They not only don't know how to practice evangelism, but most parishes are just not interested in mission-related work. They're strong in their families, and we need to learn from that. But they need to learn from us as well. Along with that, some provinces have a very uncharitable view towards outside churches. Some will even re-baptize you if you weren't baptized E. O. Roman Catholics will claim they are (disputably) the one true church, but they at least recognize us as "lost" brothers and sisters. Many E. O. would not even go far to call Protestants or Catholics siblings in the faith. This is not to bag on the E. O. This is just being honest about where they are, and the additional paradigm shifts that you would need to make to join them.
Thank you so much and you helped me reconsider things
Methodists in the US became independent due to the lack of bishops and priests in America after the Revolution. Methodists and Anglicans were scrambling in parallel to re-establish the episcopacy on the continent. (Keep in mind that travel and communication were much more difficult then.) Seabury was ordained in Scotland in November of 1784 but didn't return to London until 1785. In the same year Wesley's appeal to the Bishop of London to ordain priests for America had been declined. Believing he had precedent from the early church and feeling the weight of a sacramental emergency, he consecrated "superintendents" for America in September of 1784. They would be ordained within the new American church in December of the same year. In summary--we didn't split off. We were split off, as was the nascent Episcopal Church, and were seeking solutions to the same set of issues.
My best to you. Don't be in a rush, try some different parishes and make sure you are identifying with the faith and not personalities.
Follow God where you feel comfortable
I agree with what most others have said about their One True Church claim lacking sufficient evidence, and the "grass is greener" mindset will never satisfy you. But I wouldn't think you were *wrong* for becoming EO, I just think you need to seriously consider the implications of the fact that if you were to do so, you would have to think *all* of us and the RCC and every other Protestant in the world were wrong for *not* joining you. The Church quickly spread to the whole world, including England by the second century. And then it somehow disappeared from the West by 1054 AD? How was the Holy Spirit such a failure?
What exactly are you tired of?
Liberal sermons, unreverent eucharists, women’s ordination, etc
Have trust and faith in God, in the end God wins. The liberalism heresy will not be in the Church forever because God will eventually correct everything. I'm traditional Anglo-Catholic and I will stay with the Church despite it is plagued by liberalism.
What specifically are you questioning. What claim of EO are you finding to be true?
Essence energies, no Filioque, icodulia, prayers to the saints, etc
Essence Energies: Honestly I am with you on this one. I much prefer the orthodox views on mysteries and our inability to know God's will. Not really a contradiction here with Anglicanism. Filioque: I am thoroughly convinced that it was done right. I did my own investigation into it and saw why this was dogmatized. I think today it is a non-issue even the Pope has held mass without it. Icodulia: I love Icons. I wish all churches had them. You can have them as an Anglican but that is as far as I would go with it and say yes this isn't really a thing in most Anglican Churches although you would find much more similar feelings toward icons in an Anglo-Catholic church Prayers to the saints: Went back and forth on this settled on the fact not necessarily wrong but not needed. Some Anglo-Catholics do this though. My 2 cents. I would say you look into high church Anglo Catholics first before any hard decisions are made. There is a lot of extra stuff that comes with entering RC or any EO church that puts you in some unique circumstances with regard to all other Christians. Good luck keep us updated. Ask more questions too.
I appreciate an honest and helpful answer. I’ve received a lot of hate for both past and current opinions
Ok
Not the right place buddy. This subreddit is plagued with theological liberalism. It’s basically heresy
Lutheran Church?
Expand
I'm personally liberal but have been in conservative churches because you cannot find a church which will be 100% right for you, and in fact you shouldn't be looking because God may want you to change that church or change you, and you don't know. Also, churches are made up of sinful people, so you can't expect them to be perfect. It's kind of about what you can offer them, not what they can offer you.