There is no see of England. The highest see of the Church of England is the see of the Archbishop of Canterbury which is a city.
To put it simply: To be part of the “Anglican communion” proper a church needs to be in communion with the Church of England through the Archbishop of Canterbury. The ACNA is not in communion with the Church of England. However, there are many conservative Anglican churches, like those in Africa, that are in communion with the Church of England, and the majority of those churches are also in communion with the ACNA. These conservative churches have a conference which is called “GAFCON”. Most of the members are part of the Anglican communion, but not all.
I'm sorry for the odd responses you're getting here. To cut straight to the point, yes, the way you've modified the prayer actually is very similar to how Anglican prayer books have referenced saints for centuries, and I can't imagine any Anglican Church being hostile towards it. For some examples:
Saint Andrew:
"Almighty God, you gave such grace to your apostle Andrew that he readily obeyed the call of your Son Jesus Christ, and brought his brother with him: Give us, who are called by your holy Word, grace to follow him without delay, and to bring those near to us into his gracious presence; who lives and reigns with you and the Holy Spirit, one God, now and for ever. Amen."
Saint Thomas:
"Everliving God, you strengthened your apostle Thomas with firm and certain faith in your Son’s resurrection: Grant us so perfectly and without doubt to believe in Jesus Christ, our Lord and our God, that our faith may never be found wanting in your sight; through him who lives and reigns with you and the Holy Spirit, one God, now and for ever. Amen."
Here's more if you would like.
https://bcp2019.anglicanchurch.net/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/55-Collects-of-the-Christian-Year.pdf
I agree with you (also as a former high church Catholic) that asking for the intercession of saints is something that violates my conscience personally. I of course respect other peoples' consciences on this issue. It's odd to see this thread bashing you for what is the historic and normative Anglican position. I will say that in Anglican churches in real life, I rarely have ever encountered anyone who regularly prays to saints. You've also gotten harped on for "modifying the words of scripture," but I'm sure those people would be scandalized to hear that our liturgy paraphrases Scripture all the time.
Soapboxing on a street corner with a bullhorn about the lives of the saints isn't going to bring someone to liturgy.
Going door to door handing out copies of The Word magazine won't either.
Evangelism isn't beating the Lord over people's heads or tacking it to their front door.
To quote myself again from nearly a month ago:
"I can't really speculate on why this caricature is so common on this sub, but as someone who has lived in cities, the Bible Belt, and even not in the United States (hard to conceptualize on Reddit) I've never once in my life even encountered a street preacher. They have been even less prevalent in my life than quicksand."
I thank you for sharing your anecdotes about how your church has found some helpful ways to evangelize. Unfortunately, your church's success does not seem to mirror the state of most Orthodox Churches in America at least, nor the attitudes of most churches.
The OCA's membership declined by 12% from 2010-2020. Across all Orthodox Churches in America, the loss was 17% over the same period. Overall, it's a 9% decline since 2001. I think what worries me most is, and you can read the other comments on this thread, evangelism is not just something many Orthodox don't consider important, but actively argue against.
It's shining a light a little brighter and a little clearer than the rest of the others so that those seeking it really will "Come and see" what is the true faith.
Orthodoxy has had many missionary saints. "Come and see" was not their M.O.
Our ways of evangelism are not "an issue". They're a purposeful choice, and by many accounts, they're working.
I pray that you're correct, but I've yet to see the results to back that sentiment up.
Ah yes, I see this quote all of the time in Orthodoxy, often to justify not evangelizing (which I don't think is why you are quoting it!) The question is, what does St. Seraphim mean by "acquire the Spirit of Peace?" It certainly does not mean sit around and pray all day. Source; St Seraphim:
"Yes, father, but what about other good deeds done for Christ's sake in order to acquire the grace of the Holy Spirit? You have only been speaking of prayer."
"Acquire the grace of the Holy Spirit also by practicing all the other virtues for Christ's sake. Trade spiritually with them; trade with those which give you the greatest profit. Accumulate capital from the superabundance of God's grace, deposit it in God's eternal bank which will bring you immaterial interest, not four or six per cent, but one hundred per cent for one spiritual ruble, and even infinitely more than that. For example, if prayer and watching gives you more of God's grace, watch and pray; if fasting gives you much of the spirit of God, fast; if almsgiving gives you more, give alms. Weigh every virtue done for Christ's sake in this manner.
"Now I will tell you about myself, poor Seraphim. I come of a merchant family in Kursk. So when I was not yet in the monastery we used to trade with the goods which brought us the greatest profit. Act like that, my son. And just as in business the main point is not merely to trade, but to get as much profit as possible, so in the business of the Christian life the main point is not merely to pray or to do some other good deed. Though the apostle says: Pray without ceasing (1 Thess. 5:17), yet, as you remember, he adds: I would rather speak five words with my understanding than ten thousand words with a tongue (1 Cor. 14:19). And the Lord says: Not everyone who says to Me: Lord, Lord, shall be saved, but he who does the will of My Father (Mt. 7:21), that is he who does the work of God and, moreover, does it with reverence, for cursed is he who does the work of God negligently (Jer. 48:10). And the work of God is: believe in God and in Him Whom He has sent, Jesus Christ (John 14:1; 6:29). If we understand the commandments of Christ and of the Apostles aright, our business as Christians consists not in increasing the number of our good deeds which are only the means of furthering the purpose of our Christian life, but in deriving from them the utmost profit, that is in acquiring the most abundant gifts of the Holy Spirit.
https://www.sermonindex.net/modules/articles/index.php?view=article&aid=44125
Here is St. John Chrysostom on it:
https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1904.htm
And a short reading from that:
But perhaps you long to hear your husband's words, and enjoy the affection which you bestowed upon him, and you yearn for his society, and the glory which you had on his account, and the splendour, and honour, and security, and all these things being gone distress and darken your life. Well! The affection which you be stowed on him you can keep now just as you formerly did.
For such is the power of love, it embraces, and unites, and fastens together not only those who are present, and near, and visible but also those who are far distant; and neither length of time, nor separation in space, nor anything else of that kind can break up and sunder in pieces the affection of the soul. But if you wish to behold him face to face (for this I know is what you specially long for) keep your bed in his honour sacred from the touch of any other man, and do your best to manifest a life like his, and then assuredly you shall depart one day to join the same company with him, not to dwell with him for five years as you did here, nor for 20, or 100, nor for a thousand or twice that number but for infinite and endless ages...
Wherefore desisting from mourning and lamentation do thou hold on to the same way of life as his, yea even let it be more exact, that having speedily attained an equal standard of virtue with him, you may inhabit the same abode and be united to him again through the everlasting ages, not in this union of marriage but another far better. For this is only a bodily kind of intercourse, but then there will be a union of soul with soul more perfect, and of a far more delightful and far nobler kind.
I see what you're saying, but I think our difference of opinion has to do the Protestant understanding of prayer vs the Orthodox understanding of prayer. Growing up Baptist, prayer was usually making a series of requests to God and praying without ceasing was not taken seriously.
I don't take the Baptist view of prayer, yet I still don't think one can be categorized as more important than the other
I agree that a relationship with God is more important. And this is done through communication.
Ironically, this is a very evangelical view of what a "relation with God" is. Praying is one form of growing your relationship with God, sure, but so are the Sacraments, and so is loving others. And all of those things are commands: we are to pray, we are to be baptized and partake of the Eucharist, and we are to evangelize. Which is more important, to go to confession and take communion or to pray? These things cannot be categorized on such a spectrum, they are as inseparable as they are important.
If we make an analogy to a marriage, what's more important, talking to your spouse or having children with your spouse? Obviously, talking to your spouse is more important.
The analogy simply isn't analogous. A better analogy would be this:
Which is more important, talking to your spouse or taking care of your children? They can't be quantified so simply, both are important even if some are more or less immediate. The people we preach the Gospel to have been given grace to become children of God, and if we can't love those who we can see, how are we to love a God who we can't see? If we love God, we will care for His children.
If anyone says, “I love God,” and hates his brother, he is a liar; for he who does not love his brother whom he has seen cannot love God whom he has not seen. 21 And this commandment we have from him: whoever loves God must also love his brother.
1 John 4:20-21
One could pray all the day long and view himself as having gained knowledge of God, but if his heart is not broken for those who are lost, he has simply deluded himself. To love God one must love others, as the apostle John says: "Little children, let us not love in word or speech, but in deed and in truth"
As Christ said: "Go into all the world and proclaim the gospel to the whole creation."
We pray not for our own mere edification but that God would grant us grace to love and serve others. And yes, prayer is effective and powerful, but as St. James reminds us:
15 If a brother or sister is poorly clothed and lacking in daily food, 16 and one of you says to them, “Go in peace, be warmed and filled,” without giving them the things needed for the body, what good is that?
James 2:15-16
And we know through the lives of the saints that when some unite themselves to God to such a high degree, their works outshine anything they could possibly say.
St. Paul does not say this, but rather he says: "And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard?" Works demonstrate faith, but faith must also be articulated! Christ himself preached the Gospel, and his works outshined all of the Saints in Heaven and on Earth combined! Orthodoxy has had many missionary saints, and absolutely none of them were making such an argument. Sts. Cyril and Methodius literally invented an alphabet so that they could use language to communicate the Gospel verbally.
Indeed it is a fallacy in theory, but in practice the point remains.
No point remains because no point was made. One, your characterization is just blatantly incorrect. I've never once heard complaints that evangelicals are too secluded from the world. In fact, the complaint is that they are too involved, that they need to get out of government/education/church/whatever. Two, it's still a fallacy, even if your observation was correct. Even if we granted evangelicals are too secluded (which I don't, in fact I wish they were), it wouldn't make their accusations against Orthodoxy any less true.
While a wholly anecdotal case, I find that I talk about my faith with non-Christians far more since becoming Orthodox - and it always comes up naturally in conversation, initiated by others 99% of the time.
Yes, converts are more likely to be knowledgeable and desirous of talking about their faith than someone who was born into it. I'm sure you've encountered someone who had a quote unquote "born again experience" for example. But genuinely compare the rates at which "cradle" evangelicals and cradle Orthodox do any form of evangelism and you'll find that one group is much more involved.
Even as an evangelical I detested their idea of evangelism and I thought it counterproductive and cringe. Obviously I was wrong too in the sense that people joined, but the way I saw it many joined and then left because of starting with strange notions about Christianity that evangelicals don't really deal with.
To quote myself from a thread earlier on the same topic:
"So many Orthodox on this thread keep explaining that marketing is not evangelism. Ok, we agree. So then explain what evangelism is and where it is happening in the Orthodox Church. That is the harder issue, because Orthodoxy has had many missionary saints, and there are very few following their example in the modern era...
It's perfectly ok to admit that this is an issue that is being worked on if it is one. Or explain what we're missing. But these threads always turn into Protestant bash-fests, and bashing pretty shallow conceptions and caricatures of actually common Protestant evangelism regardless."
I quote it because it never seems to get a straight answer. Every Orthodox convert seems to hate evangelical forms of evangalism. Ok, I'll meet you there. So then, what is good evangelism and where is it happening in the Orthodox Church?
Prayer is more important than evangelism. In the sense that one should pray more than they evangelize(in the protestant understanding).
Frequency is not the same as importance. I blink more often than I eat food, that doesn't mean one is more important than the other. If I stopped blinking, I might go blind. If I stopped eating, I would die. Two things can be equally important and not as frequent as one or the other.
Most of the greatest evangelist saints were monks.
So doesn't that just prove evangelism is important, even if you're a monk? Regardless, most saints in general are monks, which is a symptom of a larger problem in my opinion.
The epistles also make it clear that people have different spiritual gifts, evangelism being one, specifically verbal. The Orthodox understanding of evangelism is not just confined to verbal proselytizing, but action is far more important to us.
Yes, I agree, living out the faith is as important as talking about it. But both must coexist. Christ and the apostles command us to talk about the Gospel, not merely live it. (Can you really live the Gospel without sharing it?)
Romans 10:14-17:
14 How then will they call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching? 15 And how are they to preach unless they are sent? As it is written, “How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the good news!” 16 But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Isaiah says, “Lord, who has believed what he has heard from us?” 17 So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ.
Matthew 28:19-20:
Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.”
Neither of these examples prove that prayer is more important, but that a relationship with God is more important. Someone could pray 24 hours a day, but if their heart is against the faith, what good is being accomplished? It's obvious that both prayer and evangelism are "symptoms" of the Christian walk that both grow the same faith from which they spring.
Think of these two examples:
- A Christian who sees a homeless person on the street and says, "Go in peace, be warmed and filled, I'll be praying for you" and drives away.
- A Christian who sees a homeless person on the street and tells them about Jesus and invites them to Church.
I don't think these examples prove anything just like your example does not prove anything. Both are equally important.
To quote myself in an above comment: Frequency is not the same as importance. I blink more often than I eat food, that doesn't mean one is more important than the other. If I stopped blinking, I might go blind. If I stopped eating, I would die. Two things can be equally important and not as frequent as one or the other.
Remind your Protestant friends that prayer is more important than evangelism. The Bible never says to "Evangelize without ceasing."
Prayer is not contrary to evangelization. Jesus himself commands us to go and make disciples, which is a continuous command as well. We are also continuously called to do good works. I don’t think it’s possible to class one over the other.
Defending is different than “defensive.” The apostles command us to provide a defense of our faith, and many of the saints are apologists. An apologia was literally a defense.
There is also a tu quoque argument here: Protestants, especially the evangelical variants, are very keen to create "Christian versions" of the worldly things they like (music being the most obvious, but not only, example), including physical spaces. If that is not seclusion and withdrawal from the world then I don't know what is.
Tu quoque is not an argument, it’s a fallacy. And as much as I like harping on evangelicals, it’s hard to flip this argument on them when they’re known for actually evangelizing, and Orthodoxy’s lack of evangelizing is a known, common problem, especially on this subreddit.
God is not a God of confusion. Whatever the truth is, it’s enough to satisfy all people
A conservative Anglican Church would probably be better than a Catholic Church in the mean time.
Even less fun: Some, likely small proportion of young Catholics attend Latin mass.
I'm having a hard time understanding your concern here. You seem to be unintentionally implying that the Church, more specifically, the dogmas that the Church teaches, do not even merely have no effect on a Christian, but actively harm a Christian by distracting them from what actually matters. I don't think this is what you're trying to say, but I'm not seeing another way to interpret it.
Why is it not beneficial?
I think the Seventh is incorrect on scripture and church history. I’ve also still yet to find an answer on how we know which councils are ecumenical.
How can the hat honor Christ’s name when people will instantly associate it with Nazism?
Apparently “pursue the greatest of all possible good.”
I’ve met many deacons who were great preachers and many priests who were terrible. Seems to be luck of the draw more than anything
I knew him personally. I would not be surprised.
Father Moses berry
OrthodoxChristianity