Archbishop Of Canterbury Has Only Met God In RO CHURCH

[CGW]

That explains why this prelate NEVER MET GOD in the anglican "church".

Again: you misrepresent what Rowan Williams said.

[CGW]

Please reread the post - we are in full agreement. The Anglicans of whom I was speaking were the Orthodox (Josephs form - our form). Notice the differentiation made in the last sentence between them and those of the Protestant confession.

I let a lot of nonsense pass here (for instance, I'm not even going to start on the 39 articles) but I can't let this one pass. Rowan Cantuar, as the head of the Anglican Communion, is a personification of the real Anglican. It is the churches that are in communion with him that define the real Anglicanism. You may wish to graft the Anglican branch on the Eastern rootstock, but intelectual and theological scions do not spring true. The bark may be Western, but the flower is Eastern, and the whole thing pretends to an Anglicanism it can never achieve.

[Kollyvas]

In a few words of clearer candor, Christianity originated in the East. The various institutions of the Church likewise. Why even the main language of the Church was Greek. Lex Orendi had Eastern origins. Mention need not be made made of the Fathers, the Councils, the Canons, monasticism. Indeed, even the missionaries to the West were either formed in or came from the East. It is easy to decipher then that an anti-Eastern bias is a rejection of Apostolic Christianity and the Church, for the Church has only thrived here. Moreover, sidestepping what one believes as the foundation of their denomination, viz. 39 Articles, is a quiet admission that that denomination has departed from apostolic Faith, has no real Apostolic Succession and represents a lost para-church which has no clear idea of Truth. More telling is the morass that denomination finds itself in today with the various syncretisms and relativisms searching for relevence, trying to build a foundation of liberalism under a sinking sectarian edifice. It is not surprising that the primate of this "church" fails to mention meeting God in it, but in the Church, for it is clear the spiritual emptiness he confronts in this graceless body. He is reminiscent of Conrad's character Kurtz, a true believer who learns the falsehood of his belief and on his deathbed mutters, "The horror, the horror..." Yes these people have come to us suffering a spiritual catastrophe, but it is impossible for the proud to find Faith. The cross they bear is heavy. Let us offer prayers as balsam to their wounded souls and beseech God that He convert their hard hearts, that they TOO may meet God in the Orthodox Church and bring their brethren to the waters, that they be washed and reborn in the God-man....
In the LOVE of Christ,
R M Malleev-Pokrovsky

[CGW]

In a few words of clearer candor, Christianity originated in the East.

But it originated neither in Byzantium, nor in Moscow. OK, maybe Antioch will do. All of which is really beside the point. What is done in those three cities today is rather different from what was done in, oh, AD 700 or so; a millenium and a half of differentiation and development has seen to that. Don't complain about syncretism in the same article in which you try to merge early Britain with modern Constantinople.

As for hardness of heart, I have pointed out several times that your original headline was patently wrong. If you are never going to admit your error, then don't waste your breath talking about someone else's hardness of heart.

[AndyHolland]

Dear CGW,

Well, it is an Orthodox website and again we have a right to argue our religion but not yours. However, I will argue my old one.

It seems to me, as least, the True Faith originated with God the Father on the first day when He said, let there be light. In "my" sinful opinion:

1. Homosexual Bishops are not of the light.

2. Ordination of women to the office of Bishop (including Priest who kisses the Antimens) is not of the light (A Bishop shall be a man with one wife).

3. Destruction of Churches, such as the one at Glastonbury by Henry VIII - the great destroyer of Churches, is not of the light.

4. Radical Protestantism that destroyed anyone and anything (Icons) that did not agree with them is not of the light.

5. Modern destruction of the Embryo and Fetus is not of the light.

God separated the light from the darkness, and declared the light as Good - of the darkness we have an open question that was closed with the Resurrection.

There is a really good Anglican hymn - "There comes to every man and nation a moment to decide..."

So, judging a tree by its fruits, "I" made a decision.

All "I" as a sinner can do is argue "my" religion. "I" cannot argue yours because "I" know my sins more than yours, and my religious failings more than yours. That is why "I" had to find the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Faith of "us".

This cannot be a condemnation of you or your religion - only an affirmation of "my" weakness and sinfulness that required a search of the true flock. With that flock, even "I" can declare, "we have found the true faith, worshipping the undivided Trinity who has saved us."

andy

[Ebor]

I think you must mean: "Once to Every Man and Nation" tune "Ebenezer" written by James R. Lowell protesting the US war with Mexico. How does it apply here? If humans had only ONE chance to repent or make the right decision, we would all have failed, I think.

http://www.cyberhymnal.org/htm/o/n/oncetoev.htm

Most Anglican Bishops are not homosexual. Thousands and thousands of Anglicans have done works for the love of God and their fellow humans. Abortion is not counted as a sacrament or a need in the Anglican Communion. Individuals say or do things.

If I were to post a list such as this against EO persons or deeds done by the EO churches, it would not be taken well, I'll wager. And would it then be that the answer given was "Those are individuals. You can't tar EO with the deed of some"?

And I think name of what came to Britain was "Christianity".

Ebor

[AndyHolland]

Dear Ebor,

I think you must mean: "Once to Every Man and Nation" tune "Ebenezer" written by James R. Lowell protesting the US war with Mexico. How does it apply here? If humans had only ONE chance to repent or make the right decision, we would all have failed, I think.

A failed artful attempt to emphasis a personal decision on my part.

Most Anglican Bishops are not homosexual.

No Orthodox Bishops are open, practicing homosexuals, nor are there any who would ever be. The laity would take them out (literally).

Thousands and thousands of Anglicans have done works for the love of God and their fellow humans. Abortion is not counted as a sacrament or a need in the Anglican Communion. Individuals say or do things.

That's right! Individuals also make decisions. Again, I cannot argue your religion.

If I were to post a list such as this against EO persons or deeds done by the EO churches, it would not be taken well, I'll wager. And would it then be that the answer given was "Those are individuals. You can't tar EO with the deed of some"?

Again, "I" am arguing "my" religion - not yours on an Orthodox website.

But here is where the essential disagreement comes. We (Orthodox) do not hold to sinful actions or deeds as being Orthodox or Orthodox ever. That is, if someone sins privately, those sins are confessed and dealt with.

If someone denies Christ openly, we deny them openly. Certain E.P. have been Anathema - certain Popes have been Anathema, certain Bishops Anathema.... There is no distinction of persons.

Ordination of an openly homosexual Bishop is an open denial of Christ. If people were not willing to stand up against that, they were not willing to stand up against anything. The only way "I" as a sinner could deal with it was to move. Again, "I" am arguing my religion, not yours.

andy