Archbishop Of Canterbury Has Only Met God In RO CHURCH

[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 is not my place in this forum to argue for Anglicanism; furthermore, since the very nature of the Anglican faith is being put to the test by the current crisis, there would surely (and quickly, were we to argue about homosexuality) come a point where I would have to fall back on arguing for what I believe Anglicanism so be or become. It is difficult enough to have that discussion in relatively friendly Anglican circles; in this hostile territory it is out of the question. Even some factual errors I let go by: American Episcopalians have not been required to subscribe to the 39 articles in my lifetime in the church, but for reasons of my own I do not care to pursue that issue.

It is utterly reasonable, however, to stand on the principle that members of a group should be taken as those who define its character, and not ex-members or those who aren't members at all.

And again, particularly in your personal case I am brought back to the contradiction between your statements and your actions. Your rejection of (I presume) the Episcopal Church is, by your own testimony, about as unrelated to anything experiential as it is possible to be. So when you said that

There is very little intellectually that separates the true Anglican from the Orthodox, but what does separate the two is experiential and truly vast.

my reaction is, "this is pious twaddle." In your condemnation of Anglicanism, you give a list of those intellectual differences, and I perceive that you imply still more. In fact, you come very close to saying that the one crucial difference between Anglicanism and Orthodoxy is that the intellectual life of Anglicanism has tolerated the expression of the moral judgements you abhor, but that the intellectual life of Orthodoxy will never do so. And I say "crucial" precisely in the sense that it appears, by your testimony, to be the crux of your conversion. Meanwhile, those food-loving, hard-drinking, story-telling, liturgical Orthodox are the perfect second home for the Anglican temprament-- at least, that's <i>my</i> experience of it.

[AndyHolland]

Dear CGW,

Glory to Jesus Christ,

Please read the Epistle according to St. Jude. Otherwise I am sorry I have disturbed your peace.

My elderly in-laws are attending the closest E.C. to them. The church has church GBLT meetings published in the bulletin (Gays Bisexuals Lesbians and Transvestites). I am not kidding.

If you don't believe the Gospels, how can you believe the one who was risen from the dead? Let Sodom condemn the E.C. - had they the Gospels and experienced the Orthodox Church, perhaps they would have repented in sackcloth and ashes.

andy

[Kollyvas]

It's strange that Antioch is mentioned, for the language of that community was Greek--a reading of St. Ignatios or Acts seems in order--likewise the language of the Gospels Greek. A brief reading of the Apostolic Constitutions gives us a clearcut example of ONE Faith in continuity....sadly, the Anglicans DON'T SHARE IT. It is appropriate to speak of Moscow, Constantinople & Orthodox Britain in the same breath for they shared THE SAME FAITH, which we have shown the Anglicans do not. Vincentian Canon anyone?! Syncretism has quite a definition in the Anglican Communion, why the "sophia eucharists" and the ideas of spong, women "tradtionalist" bishops," samesex "unions" in Canada and homosexual, sometimes pedophile, clergy mixed with the African communities only illustrate a syncretic, sectarian babel agreeing neither in doctrine, ritual, faith, nor having any link with the Church of the Fathers nor the EASTERN foundation of the Church of Britain. It's like arguing an ad hoc group of people looking for religion (not always) somehow created historicity, counciliarity and faithfulness to the Truth while rejecting it and trying to embrace secular humanism and new age lunacy. As has been presented, they are distant from Orthodoxy, the UNA SANCTA; moreover, the official basis--the 39 Articles--of this body is in disagreement with the Apostolic Church; therefore, this body is not a church; it is bereft of grace and not in any way legitimate. Hardened hearts still do not appreciate the FACT that their prelate MET GOD in the Russian Orthodox Church while failing to meet Him in his own, for why would he not mention it if he did?....No amount of obfuscation can lend Truth to this sectarian delusion. The only path for those ensnared in this established confusion and moral fugue is to enter Holy Orthodoxy, which is the saving enclosure of the Church, even their chief prelate admits meeting God there. One would think attempts at reconciling error and delusion after error and delusion would illustrate the falseness of this denomination to rational and thinking and faithful people...what value Truth?! Or are you the "church" of pontius pilate?
r

[Ebor]

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.

Yet, you seem to be saying that "Anglicans" as a group do hold to "sinful actions or deed" when most of the Anglican Communion have voiced objections to the things you say caused you to leave. And I've been reading EO on-line for nearly 15 years and have seen that there is not always agreement as to what is sinful amoung all EO. Smoking or birth control have been two subjects in that regard.

And what of EO persons who present false reports of others (such as the opener of this thread?) or who mock or sneer at other human beings who voice disagreement to something they have written or said? Or who will not admit having been mistaken? How is such behaviour a good example of what one who says that Christ is their master should do? Should I judge all EO by such persons? Should their behaviour and words 'tar" all EO churches and members thereof? No.

Even with those whom one may disagree with, the truth should be said.

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.

People were not willing? Perhaps you are unaware of the many objections to such things, in blogs, in articles, meetings with all of the Anglican prelates, of the many people around the world who have stood up against the things that you site as what made you decide to leave. That was one of the purposes of the meeting at which The Archbishop was interviewed, the misinterpretation of which and the continued errors written about it being one of the things that have driven this thread. There has not be "silence" but a great deal of speaking and writing.

Ebor

[Ebor]

Hardened hearts still do not appreciate the FACT that their prelate MET GOD in the Russian Orthodox Church while failing to meet Him in his own, for why would he not mention it if he did?..

Your "Fact" is no fact at all. You're "interpretation" of what the Archbishop of Canterbury said is in error. It has been explained repeatedly. Cantuar+ also said that he met God in a Baptist service listening to one who had been imprisoned and tortured for his faith in Eastern Europe. Perhaps you still have not read any farther down in the article to that portion. As to your "why", he was speaking of one part of his life and journey of Faith: his teen years. It was not a full biography. It was not a listing off all of the times he experienced God.

If someone were to be asked of where they've traveled in their lives and they spoke of the early trips to the beaches of, say, Rhode Island and Virginia. It would not follow that he had never been to New Jersey beaches or California ones or another other place. This is an "arguement from Silence" and is a logical fallacy
http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Ar ... om_silence

Is repeating mistakes really the way to support your Truth?

Or are you the "church" of pontius pilate?

No.

Ebor

[Kollyvas]

My points have been grounded in sourced information--make THEM retract the Truth if you can. If the Anglicans are not the "church" of pontius pilate, not the Church of the Apostles, not linked to the Orthodox Church of Britain, then how is your relativist, syncretic sectarianism in any way legitimate?! You acknowledge Truth but reject it at the same time--perhaps the "church" of judas iscariot then?! The Anglicans are outside the Church, have no Apostolic link and graceless by acceptecd standards and Patristic critiques put forward, which by quiet ommission have undone any strength to an Anglican defense--is it plausible then to deduce from certain attitudes that organized delusion is preferable to Truth, even sovereign in rejecting it?! Modern betrayal with a kiss or with a smirk?!
r

[Kollyvas]

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/religionandethi ... rowan.html

...Rowan's resonance with Eastern Orthodoxy is obvious and explicit. ...

...
Secondly I think that Rowan will encourage a wide intellectual debate, aided by many others, which will much more open up the Church itself and Church practice to considerations that have arisen in the wake of "postmodernism" and "postliberalism." Often these fail to reach the media level, which for some reason wallows in a totally discredited one-dimensional scientism and dogmatic Darwinism (especially in the U.K.). Rowan's presence, I think, will cause this to change -- the British press is already fascinated: "An intellectual Christian!" People are starting to realize that maybe Orthodox Christianity has unique resources for resistance to the hegemony of capitalism, bureaucracy and technology. Quickly the British press recognized that Rowan was no simple "liberal," but at once Orthodox and Radical. ...