Is the Church of England actually the RCC covert western Orthodox Church ?

My title is put as a question only because of a article I read earlier that has me scratching my head . "RT’s Bank Accounts Closed – It’s Nothing to Do With Syria
journal-neo.org... "

So what does RT have to do with religion you ask .

NatWest, and the rest of the Royal Bank of Scotland group, are effectively owned by the British government, which acquired the majority share in 2008 to prevent it collapsing. As RT is also state-owned, it has been inferred that this is another form of sanction. British Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson denies this, but he also denies several of his chidren, several parts of his ancestry and practically everything else he has ever written or been recorded saying.\

It has also been suggested that this move, which came without warning, was connected with potential fines against the bank for holding money considered “dirty” by association with Russia – though the government fining itself to pay itself seems unlikely. It may therefore be simply a publicity stunt – the UK has to be seen to be acting against Russia as part of the sanctions regime, and may be perfectly happy for RT to take its business to a private UK bank, or even another publicly-owned one, having done its bit of public posturing. However the real reason for this move is not sanctions against the Russian state.

It is because a seemingly unimportant event has the potential to shake the foundations of the United Kingdom – and those in the corridors of power have just woken up to it. The closing of RT’s accounts, if it finally happens, may simply be a symbolic gesture, but it may be the precursor to a more serious crisis, which no one thought they would ever see again. journal-neo.org...

This piece is a good read and may connect some dot's that go as far back as the reformation .imo

a reply to: the2ofusr1

No. The Eastern Orthodox and Anglican Communions have good ecumenical relations and a good deal of doctrinal agreement, but they are not one and the same.

There is a reference to the holy Catholic Church in the Anglican communion, which I always found strange.

It's that bloody King James isn't it?

a reply to: Cobaltic1978

Why is it strange? The Anglican Church is a descendant of the Roman Catholic church , the principal difference between them being that Catholics are governed by a single authority -- the Pope -- and Anglicans are not.

The 'Catholic' (meaning universal) Church is the community of believers that recognises the Apostolic Succession) -- the ordination of priests by other priests in a line going all the way back to Jesus when he ordained the Apostles. The Eastern Orthodox churches are part of that succession, along with the Roman, Lutheran and Anglican churches. Other Protestant denominations are not.

In those other churches, anyone who wants to can go into the preaching business. Very free-entrepreneurial and democratic, but also the reason why American religion is full of fraudulent, crazy, mercenary and hatemongering 'pastors'.

To Anglicans, the RCC is just a particular sect of Christians that follows the leadership of the Bishop of Rome. It is the Orthodox churches which represent the original, pre-schismatic Church. The Anglican church represents a return to that tradition following the rejection of papal authority by Henry VIII. It is probably the most historically 'authentic' of all modern churches.

a reply to: Cobaltic1978

There is a reference to the holy Catholic Church in the Anglican communion, which I always found strange. It's that bloody King James isn't it?

Some eighty years ago I was taught the apostles creed. Anyway that is what we called it as Methodist's.

I won't print all of it but here is the ending of it.

I believe in the Holy Spirit,
the holy catholic Church,
the communion of saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and the life everlasting. Amen.

Never could figure why we had to memorize that when I wasn't even catholic.

a reply to: Seede

The answer to that is in my earlier post.

a reply to: the2ofusr1

No.

The Eastern Orthodox Catholic Church split off from the Catholic Church in 1054AD in a dispute over Papal authority.

The Anglican Church was the Catholic Church in England, until King Henry VIII ran afoul of said Papal authority in wanting to divorce his wife. In 1534AD. Henry decreed that all church property (along with the humans who ran and attended said churches) was now the Church of England, of which HE was the head.

Two completely separate organizations -- they overlap some, due to their common connection to the Catholic Church in their origins, but they aren't the same thing. One way to see that is to compare who is welcome to Catholic communion -- Orthodox, who pretty much stuck to the Catholic view of things, are, Anglicans, who swayed a bit too far into Protestant country, are not.

a reply to: adjensen

This is the Roman Catholic viewpoint. A more disinterested historical view of events is that the Roman Church tried to impose its authority over all the other churches, which rejected the Roman power play. Those churches later became the Eastern Orthodox Communion.

a reply to: Astyanax

Hiya friend

Yes, as for the Eastern Orthodox, that's a good way to put it. For the Anglicans, not so much -- they chose "The Middle Path" because they were, at their core, Catholic, but realized that the world, in northern Europe, was changing.

As a Catholic, I don't mind going to a Greek Orthodox church, it is largely the same Mass, it's just a matter of them not being particularly common in the Western Hemisphere.

a reply to: adjensen

Anglicans, who swayed a bit too far into Protestant country, are not.

Not strictly true, A.D. You may be aware that at the height of the Anglo-Catholic movement in the 1850s several Anglican clerics converted to Catholicism -- the most famous example being Newman, who eventually became a cardinal. Here's the thing: these converts were not re-ordained in the Roman Church. Their previous ordinations remained valid because they were in the Apostolic Succession. Similarly (though I admit I am not 100% certain of this both ways), Anglicans converting to Catholicism (and vice versa ) do not have to undergo a second baptism.

Anglicans converting to Catholicism (and vice versa ) do not have to undergo a second baptism.

Yes, that is the case with every Trinitarian Christian faith. As a Methodist, when I converted to Catholicism, I was not required to be re-baptized. It is only with faiths that the Catholic Church views as non-Trinitarian (Oneness Apostolics, Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, etc) that a Catholic baptism is required. Because, in their opinion, by avoiding the "I baptize you in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit" bit, it wasn't a valid baptism.

a reply to: adjensen

I forgetfully left Methodists off my earlier list. The reason is that I think of them -- quite unfairly -- as Dissenting Anglicans. Funny how hard these old habits die...

The KJV exists for one reason: To appease Rome after the release of the Geneva Bible (a superior work in every way, which just happens to peg Rome as the Mother of Harlot churches in its footnotes)

Avst with your sectarian ranting. This was a civilized thread until you turned up.