There's only one baptism, and Anglicans are most definitely baptized in the name of the Holy Trinity. So, there is your "One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church".
Sorry Anglican Communion, I don't know you.
Perhaps we aren't perfectly united but i'm tired of hearing this knd of triumphalism as justification for anti-intellectualism.
Man invented anti-intellectualism and all the other isms you just spouted. You want to worship what was created by Man?
Simply saying you are apostolic and others are not, does not make it so. Its not a one way walking away from faith, the Anglican patrimony has tried to follow Christ and the Apostles as best they could... the same as the East. That the east chooses to see some issues as communion breaking does not necessarily reflect poorly on Anglicanism.
You know how the Anglican Church was founded; hence, I will not beat that dead horse. Let's just say that a whole bunch of isms resulted in the creation of the Anglican Church.
Mistrust, cultural issues. This doesn't necessarily mean that Anglicans are outside the Church. Anglicans have not always appreciated the benefit to try to be visibly united with the Christian East, either- its a comprehensve, non-confessional church and some schools of Anglicanism have their own triumphalist issues (more Evangelical anglicans often simply don't pay that much attenton to the "objective" issues of the Christian faith).
Lest you think Anglican theology is all garbage, you should read Archbishop Rowan Williams some time. I have both his books on praying with icons, he revealed things about certan icons i had not noticed wth all my readng and liturgical attendance in Orthodox churches. And yet Archbishop Williams is a man that is familiar wth the west and the issues of modernity and doesn't pretend to hide from it- he's an affirming catholic after all, he does not need a spiritual Disneyland to coddle him.
There were nice icons on display in Westminster Abbey during the Royal Wedding.
The most liberal elements in Archbishop Rowan Williams' Communion have written him off for straddling the fence between actively homosexual clergy and Hierarchy. Are you aware that some Roman Catholic groups are ordaining female Priests under penalty of excommunication from Rome?
Why is the focus in the wrong place? What is wrong with trying to be holy whether a Priest or a layperson?
Is holiness merely about following the right rules, or is it about bearing God's love in this world? And how would we know exactly who is and is not holy, through some kind of formula, a checklist perhaps? The Pharisees tried that 2,000 years ago and failed badly.
1. The Orthodox has a modern Saint, St. Nektarios, who lived in the early part of the 20th
Century. He was also persecuted for speaking the truth to those who didn't want to hear it. People knew that he was holy based on how he lived and the miracles that were performed before and after his death. To this day, people are healed due to intercessions to St. Nektarios and/or receiving Holy Unction from the oil at his convent in Greece. There are other Orthodox Saints whose remains are incorrupt to this very day.
2. There are still Pharisees today. You've seen disputes in this forum over Bishops and Churches arguing over less than $50,000 in financial commitment. Sometimes the Pharisees can be in the Hierarchy and most of the time, the Pharisees are among the laity especially with hypocrisy.
Show me where St. Seraphim of Sarov states that active homosexuality is an acceptable state for anyone, including an Orthodox Christian. What if your whole misunderstanding about sexuality/gender stems from your inability to understand St. Seraphim of Sarov?
You're trying to lower the conversation down to a yes/no type discussion,
This is a yes/no discussion. Apparently, you can't say with authority that St. Seraphim of Sarov approved of active homosexuality and/or glorified transgenderism. Since St. Seraphim of Sarov is an Orthodox Saint, it is safe to say that St. Seraphim of Sarov did not deviate from the practice of the Orthodox Church. Why do you interpret St. Seraphim of Sarov to suit your own agenda ... I have no clue.
I think what I'm drawing from St. Seraphim is that holiness is not merely conformity to rules or trying to be virtuous , it is acquiring the Holy Spirit. In ths respect even a prostitute can be a wonder-worker (read the book some time).
I hope to read the book one of these days. Meanwhile, let's remember that St. Seraphim of Sarov had the gift of clairvoyance - something that neither you or I possess.
Works and outward virtues do not save a person, only love does. In this respect it is posible to be religious and far from God, or to be irrelligious and very close to God. God doesn't save us to be religious, he saves us to be loving.
God wants us to love one another; however, the word love is a major tripping point. Does "love" mean having sex with my girlfriend or does "love" mean spending time with each other, getting to know each other, supporting each other, attending Church together without having sex before any Sacrament of Holy Matrimony.
Would a homosexual couple "love" each other in the latter manner I described without having sex PERIOD
someone is born transgender, that individual should have decided to live life as one gender or the other ... not flaunt both of them and demand special treatment. Sure, secular government will recognize transgenderism ... what about God who made them male and female ... not male, female and both.
Male and female are not cosmicly universal categories.
So you're saying that God created male and female as some kind of allegory?
There are plants and animals that defy male/female classification.
And that's why we can't put God in a box and make that statement for plants and animals. For humans, God created both male and female - no allegory there.
And God does apparrently create even human beings in that manner (Jesus talks about some being born eunuchs after all, what else is he referring to- in the ancient world eunuchs were often a third gender).
Eunuchs were persecuted and killed in ancient times. Eunuchs were also sinners even when being persecuted. However, man created the transgendered rights movement, which is fine in secular world because man has elevated himself to God.
I've met a few like that (intersexed individuals), why should they have to classify themselves according to simplistic ideas about male and female, why can't they be happy as God created them, and decide for themselves what to call themselves?
Man has to have a name for everything.
Sexual assignment of intersxed indivduals early in life can create alot of pain later, often times the child's gender identity wll not match what is assigned.
Man invented ways to deal with transgendered persons thanks to humanism and rationalism. A transgendered person remains a child of God; if the child (assuming that the child was baptized an Orthodox Christian) rejects the Orthodox faith because of persecution - who deserves the greater reward: the child, the community that rejected him/her or the community which embraced his/her transgendered nature?