Sure, because of the Soviet revolution which destroyed the previous government. If you read the wikipedia in 1916, the Wiki would say that the Czar is the highest level of authority.
Stalwart, From Biblediscovered.com: 《In the 1540s, Metropolitan Macarius codified Russian hagiography and convened a number of church synods, which culminated in the Hundred Chapter Synod of 1551. This assembly unified Church ceremonies and duties in the whole territory of Russia. At the demand of the Church hierarchy the government canceled the tsar’s jurisdiction over ecclesiastics. Reinforced by these reforms, the Church felt strong enough to challenge the policies of the tsar. Philip of Moscow, in particular, decried many abuses of Ivan the Terrible, who eventually engineered his defrocking and murder.》 The Russian church excommunicated Ivan the Terrible. My EO Priest is a former Anglican priest. He told me today that the king being the head of the church is one of the main differences and reasons why the Anglicans did not join with Orthodoxy. In my priest's view, Henry VIII wanted numerous divorces, which was not allowed in church law, nor would it be allowed in Orthodoxy. However under Henry VIII's version and implementation of making the king the head of the church, Henry was able to achieve his desire. While it's true that in Byzantium the emperor played a major practical role in church affairs and thus I think you can make some comparisons, it wasn't the same direct role or version that Henry implemented that allowed him to make his repeated marriages acceptable for his own church.
There are indeed many monastics, and even hermits, in the Anglican Communion: http://www.anglicancommunion.org/community/religious-communities.aspx As well as in some of the more conservative Continuing Anglicans, such as the ACC: http://www.anglicancatholic.org/the-benedictines?class=greenlink
I think you read that wrong. It's his critic that was defrocked. Ivan the Terrible actually defrocked a member of the clergy, that's how much power he had over the Russian Church. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metropolitan_Philip "Ivan eventually deposed Philip from office by raising incredible charges of sorcery and dissolute living. Philip was arrested during Liturgy at the Cathedral of Dormition and imprisoned in a dingy cell of the Theophany (Bogoiavlenskii) Monastery, fettered with chains, with a heavy collar around his neck, and was deprived of food for a few days in succession. Then he was transferred and immured at the Monastery of the Fathers (Otroch Monastery) at Tver. In November 1568, the tsar summoned the Holy Synod, which had Philip deposed. A year later, on December 23, 1569, he was strangled by the Tsar's minion" Ivan the Terrible was never excommunicated. He even composed an EO hymn, and died in full communion, as the head of the Russian church. Yes?... Surely you know that many people say many things. Mine says something very different from yours. Plus, don't you think that if your priest is ex-Anglican he may have an ax to grind, and thus is less credible than someone more impartial? For example Ivan the Terrible had 7 wives: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivan_the_Terrible#Personal_life
Henry VIII indeed left the RC Church because he wanted to divorce his RC wife and yes he did set himself up as Head of the Church of England. But the doctrines of the early Anglican Church remained essentially the same as the RC doctrines. Don't think any thought was given to joining with Orthodoxy! I have a British History degree and studied the Tudors and Stuarts.
This book says Tsar Ivan IV was excommunicated: https://books.google.com/books?id=I...ge&q=ivan the terrible excommunicated&f=false One tour guide said that he had to stand out in the vestibule for services.
One tour guide said that Ivan IV had to stand out in the vestibule for services. CHRISTINA, YOU SAID, "Don't think any thought was given to joining with Orthodoxy! I have a British History degree and studied the Tudors and Stuarts." Bp. Tunston and another bishop of his time wanted to join with what they called the Greek Church, and they also lobbied on behalf of belief in the real presence in the bread by pointing out that the Greek church taught this too. These were major parts of their debate with Cranmer, who was ultimately successful on both counts.
I quite agree with your assesment of Anglicanism nowadays.Being an Anglican ("english")does not necessarily make one a true follower of Christ. I am a Christian first,Anglican Christian second. There are a lot of unbiblical, sinful practices condoned by certain sects within Anglicanism, this is def. not true Christianity. There have been Anglican Christians long before the CofE was established by Henry VIII. We did the best we could with what we had, barring goverment oppresion, long distances from other Apostolic bishporics,etc. I believe all Anglican churches that follow and teach Traditional Christian morals, the Creeds, correct Church Traditions,The Holy Bible are true Christian churches(APA, Anglo Catholic, Orthodox Anglicans,etc) Def. not groups that approve and condone sin and sinful lifestyles(TEC,etc) With that being said there is many a blind eye turned to sinful ways that are being done in other Christian groups as well. Btw Checked out your church link. What a great church!We need more like them.
Okay, probably wrong to say "no thought", probably better to say no serious thought by King Henry VIII who basically wanted the Church to stay Roman Catholic in doctrine, but also wanted to divorce! There were some Bishops who were interested in the Greek Church - Bishop Tunstall being one - but there were other Bishops who held conferences with German reformers. Eventually traditional Roman Catholic doctrines were upheld in the Six Articles.
I don't generally reference wiki, but this does seem a reasonable summary of the 39 Articles and how/why they came to be written. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirty-nine_Articles Note the last paragraph - the only doctrinal documents agreed upon by the Anglican communion are the Apostles Creed, the Nicene Creed of 381 and the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral. The articles are not officially normative in all Anglican Churches. Also note "However what the Articles truly mean has been a matter of debate in the Church since before they were issued" - so I doubt we'll get to the bottom of their true meaning here.
Also, the difference in teaching about Confession in the presence of a Priest (or in EO a starets or Spiritual Father). For the EO this is an essential Sacrement, Anglicanism generally teaches "all may, some should, none must".
It's funny I've heard and read that description a lot, but does anyone know who originated it? I've always wondered about that... Personally, on private Confession, I would say: "All may, all should, some must" And, of course, I believe that in worship the entire congregation must Confess together in the Liturgy before partaking of the Sacraments.
I agree re private confession and would go further to say all must! The Anglican saying is in relation to confession in the presence of a Priest. Anglicanism says all may, some should, none must. EO tends towards all must.
Oh most definitely I agree. When I said private confession I was thinking of the sacramental Confession in the presence of a priest. Sorry sometimes I'm not very eloquent and have a hard time conveying my thoughts. I was wondering where the mainstream Anglican saying of "none must" originates. Fortunately my new parish believes Confession to be an actual Sacrament, a means of Grace.
So sorry, I misunderstood you - of course Private confession can mean confession in the presence of a priest. I don't know where the saying originates - hav tried looking it up, but can't find the answer.
Oh there's no need to be sorry my friend Yeah I've tried looking it up too and still have no idea who originated that saying. Do you know how often the Orthodox are supposed to Confess before a priest? In the Roman Catholic Church, isn't it only required twice per year? I think that's right but am not sure. I lean towards weekly Confession, if possible, and the church is not too far away.
Weekly confession sounds like it would be so good for mental and spiritual health. I would feel guilty about taking up so much of a priest's time, though. But how wonderful to have a spiritual advisor. I think maybe that's a bit of what we're doing here for each other.
The answer seems to be when they feel they need to and during times of spiritual preparation leading up to feasts - eg during Lent. http://www.goarch.org/ourfaith/ourfaith8476
With orthodox in practice frequency of confession depends on your parish . Same thing with frequency of communion. It can be from once a week to once every few years. In my parish in the oca it was generally requested that you go within 1 month of communion. It's a common rule in the oca. And there has been a common idea you should commune at least once in a three week period. So that could be 7 weeks or so for each confession.