A second home for enlightened Russian thinker Novikov
British author, born If you have any texts, photos, links about Otto Rahn that are not yet at this site, or existing materials translations, please let us know. We are grateful for any help in filling the Otto Memorial website. Language Filter Filter content by language under No language option there are photos, documents, some videos. Otto Rahn im Wikipedia. English translator's foreword to Crusade Against the Grail. Facebook Like Google Plus One. Surely that must involve a consensus of the total Body. The Anglican Communion cannot settle this without bearing in mind its bonds with the wider communion of the Church — the Orthodox and the Roman Catholics.
Bookmarks for Andrey Gerzhov
And that is one thing, I think, that troubles us very much as Orthodox, as it troubles the Roman Catholics. We feel that the Anglican Church, on these matters which are of basic importance, has acted alone, without catholic consensus.
So I would have wished that the Windsor Report had put more emphasis upon communion meaning the total Body, not just the Anglican Communion. That I see as a limitation in its perspective. These are departures from Church order and from accepted moral teaching of major importance, and therefore there ought to be some consensus not just within the Anglican Communion but with the other Churches, especially those that preserve the historic apostolic faith and order, the Roman Catholics and the Orthodox.
That is one side of the matter, the need for consensus. But then we might also say, should there not also be the possibility for a prophetic action? Will you ever have change unless some people are willing to stand up and say, this is what we ought to be doing? And even if their testimony is highly controversial, who will nonetheless stand by their position. It could be argued that perhaps the Anglican Communion was guided by the Holy Spirit to lead other Christians into new paths.
Now I can see that as a valid argument and I want to balance that against the point that we need to act with catholic consensus. How can we do both these things together — preserve catholic consensus, and yet allow grace for freedom in the Holy Spirit? Christ did not tell us that nothing should never be done for the first time. The whole witness of the early Church points in a different direction. So how do you balance these two things — the need for consensus with the need for freedom in the Spirit, the need for loyalty to holy tradition, with the need to be open to new initiatives?
And I think this is at the heart of a great deal of what we are talking about here in Canterbury at this Lambeth Conference. GW — Some people have said that issues such as sexuality and the ordination of women, are distractions getting in the way of the Conference. Do you see these things as distractions from such things as the issues of social justice and mission? KW — This is certainly the way in which the outside world, or a large part of it, will view the Lambeth Conference. They will say that when so much of the human population is permanently hungry, ill-housed, suffering from disease which could be cured if we the rich nations would really set our minds to helping , when so much of the world is suffering in this way, is it not a loss of proportion to be concentrating on women priests, or even on homosexuality?
And one could strengthen this point by saying, the Church does not exist for herself. Mission means also helping them and ensuring that there is social, political and economic justice — that is all part of mission. Faith is not words, faith is how we relate to living persons, how we make their joys and sorrows our own, to use the image of St. Paul that I have already mentioned. So in that way I do say that those questions we are considering here at Lambeth are not all-important, and not all perhaps the first priority.
Join Kobo & start eReading today
On the other hand they do need to be discussed, because they do involve our understanding of the basic questions of human nature and of priesthood. And so as long as we do not lose sight of the wider agenda, we are right to try and get clear our minds clear on these issues.
GW — For anyone with even a moderate understanding of the Orthodox Church, one of the first things they think of is the liturgy of the Church and the rich worship. Do you think that the orthodox perspective of liturgy could hold some importance for Anglicans? KW — Liturgy is fundamental to the life of the church. He gave us an action, the operation of the Eucharist. And so the Church becomes truly herself when she celebrates the Eucharist. Therefore liturgy is fundamental. But there are different ways of approaching liturgy.
Sometimes discussions of liturgy become deeply archaeological. For example, when was this particular prayer introduced and in what places? Then liturgy seems very distant from the practical mission of the Church. There is the story told about the great Anglican dean of St.
The celebration of the Eucharist, communion in the holy sacrament of his body and blood, this is the life-giving source from which all our social witness, all our practical action, to relieve disease and poverty and injustice, has to proceed. This is the fountain from which all else springs.
And so liturgy in that sense is inseparable from mission and social action. Liturgy is the inspiration and the power that is given to us by God to change the world. It means, the liturgy is over and the liturgy after the liturgy is now about to begin. Do you have any suggestions as to how the Orthodox might offer any model for Anglicans who are trying to approach the question of unity? KW — We Orthodox bear in my view a marvellous theology, in principle, of conciliarity, of what the Russians call sobornost unanimity in freedom would be a good translation of sobornost.
But the problem is, while we affirm all this in theory, what happens in practice? And so, as an Orthodox I am deeply conscious of the gap between theory and practice, and am deeply hesitant about offering advice to other people. But in all humility, yes, what is our model for decision making in the Orthodox Church? We believe strongly in the principle of conciliarity.
If you speak of communion, koinonia, and ask through what instrument this communion in the Church is manifested, then we Orthodox would answer, through the council. It might be an ecumenical council, claiming to represent the whole Church. It might be through a local council, and we have had many such in later Orthodox history.
A local council would not claim to represent the whole Church, but its witness and decisions might be accepted by the other parts of the Church and thus would require an ecumenical authority. But for us, the instrument through which the Holy Spirit manifests himself in the Church is through people meeting together in synod.
And every true Church council is a continuation of Pentecost. The mystery of Pentecost was that people of many different nationalities, languages, races, met together in one room, and the Holy Spirit descended upon them all, and they all spoke and they all understood one another. And I pray that the present Lambeth Conference will share in this grace of the council. So this is the way in which the Church makes its decisions, not just by majority vote but by a process of convergence. Sometimes truth lies with a minority, and a council should always find a place for the conscientious views of minorities.
I think it is through the council that the Church on earth reaches a decision on crucial problems. Then there is the question of the reception of the council by the total Body of Christ, by the whole people of God. This has been discussed a good deal in ecumenical meetings recently, and there is an important section in the Report, The Church and the Triune God, section 9, on this question.
Leave a Reply Cancel reply Your email address will not be published. Johann Reuchlin and the Kabbalah — ebook. Meuwese King Arthur in the Netherlands — ebook. Download Free Chapters Download free e-book: