But...but... it's on their intellectual level! Here, maybe this will help:
Posted on 07/29/2009 11:56:39 AM PDT by wagglebee
Correct. And Pike. And Spong. And Righter. And the list goes on.
The Episcopalians also welcomed Matthew Fox with open arms after then-Cardinal Ratzinger forbade him from continuing to publish and teach his heretical beliefs.
This trial ballon was floated by Archbishop Williams a long time ago. Originally, the plan was to have a formal Anglican Communion with a Covenant (thus providing doctrinal uniformity), and then to have “associated partners” that don’t agree to the Covenant but have a lot of Anglican heritage. These “partners” would be free to do largely as they wish because they won’t be bound by the Covenant. ECUSA would be a “partner”. Other groups such as the Methodists could also be partners as well. The conservatives were receptive to this but the liberals said heck no. The idea has since lain dormant.
Now it appears to be coming back. Instead of establishing a Covenant and then have those who don’t like it become “associate partners”, Williams looks like he’s trying to have the bonds on everyone loosened with those desiring a Covenant coming back together on their own volition. That appears to be what’s happening with the GAFCON declaration being the Covenant.
Will the Church of England sign up, or relegate itself to an “associate partner” in the Anglican Communion?
OK. Is the Archbisshop of Caterbury Christian, or not.
“Christian Doctrine is offensive to Muslims per this Archbishop:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1035420/Why-Christian-doctrine-offensive-Muslims-Archbishop.html
Rowan: "Well, you could have a two-track system, where the light track adhered to certain doctrinal standards, and the darkness track had a different vision of the Communion, without necessarily being cast into outer darkness, whereas ..."
But...but... it's on their intellectual level! Here, maybe this will help:
LOL!
That’s a start, but they need to be wearing little ribbons on their lapels because diseases are overcome through “awareness” and instead of overturning the moneychangers’ tables Jesus should have gone to “diversity training.”
That silly Savior of mankind! Why didn't He think of that?
Because libs always fight tooth and nail to become the definition of the mainstream.
Traditional Anglican ping, continued in memory of its founder Arlin Adams.
FReepmail Huber or sionnsar if you want on or off this low-volume ping list.
This list is pinged by Huber and sionnsar.
Resource for Traditional Anglicans: http://trad-anglican.faithweb.com
Humor: The Anglican Blue
Speak the truth in love. Eph 4:15
This is of course unfair. He was hobnobbing with the Welsh Eisteddfod, which is just a bunch of silly people dressing up in make-believe "Druidic" attire and pretending to be ancient Welsh bards. The whole thing was made up in the late 18th century by a fellow calling himself Iolo Morgannwg - his real name was Ed Williams, which just doesn't have the authentic Druidic ring to it . . .
Good grief!
OK, I sometimes do similar things, but laymen do things all the time that clergymen should avoid. Not because it’s anymore wrong for them, taken by itself. It’s because they are in a leadership and role-model position.
But nevr mind. I wasn’t really asking was he Christian. It was a rhetorical question. I already knew they answer, or at least my opinion. I leave final judgments to God.
I agree that there are things that laymen can do that clergy shouldn't. This is probably one of them!
(We have had the occasional priest doing Cowboy Action shooting. But the ones that I have seen are careful to stay in their priestly role -- in other words what a Catholic Priest would have worn in the 19th century West. Plus a gunbelt, a rifle, and two single action pistols of course.)
Another inspired compromise! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missouri_compromise (sarc)
As I have posted elsewhere:
Two styles of Anglicanism:
One which helps to seek forgiveness of sin and restoration
and
one which helps to seek condoning of sin and continuation
GG+
How about a “two-track” Anglican Communion...one believes in Christ and the other doesn’t?
It’s all very sad and I’m sure that many of the Vatican II loving Catholics would love to force us into the same mess.
I fully understand how much people value the “fellowship” aspect of their parish; however, this IS NOT the primary purpose of the Church and it NEVER has been.
Our Lord was very clear when He said, “Go and sin no more.”
You have that right!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.