Founded on the apostles

• The church founded on the apostles. I think Catholicism and Orthodoxy agree that the literal church of Rome, the diocese, was founded by the apostles, whether you believe the apostles were bishops or something above bishops. I think Catholicism allows both views! Our difference isn't whether the Pope should exist; Timothy Ware/Metropolitan Kallistos is clear you do think he should - you venerate pre-schism Pope saints as "Popes of Rome." Rather, you object to what you think the papacy has become, a tyrant infringing on local churches' prerogatives. That the apostles were unique in the church, with a unique gift from Jesus and the Holy Spirit, sounds right. We agree that the deposit of faith ended when the last one died. We're not Mormons; we don't believe in progressive revelation. All of our doctrine is just commentary on that deposit of faith.
• Anglicanism: Sorry, but, if the true, violent history of the English "Reformation" weren't enough - orate pro nobis - Anglicanism's "developments" ("we hold these truths about sexuality to be self-evident" – not to be confused with our development of doctrine; we can't revoke teachings) prove that Cranmer's and Hooker's doctrine, while claiming to be a restoration to the church fathers (and I respect people who think that - the kind of convert to Orthodoxy I do; the Rev. Louis Tarsitano left the church but I respected him - he had integrity), is man-made and falls like a house of cards to modernity. That is, once you make the church fallible (as the Articles of Religion do), even while proclaiming the supremacy of scripture, anything goes, because it's you interpreting scripture, not the church anymore. Semi-congregationalism can work, but the doctrine's flawed.