To: Blurblogger
I understand your point, but my own take on it is different from the Archbishop of Canterbury's -- the church is at great risk if schism does not occur. And the longer the surgery is delayed, the worse the patient will be.
61 posted on
02/26/2005 1:54:56 PM PST by
sionnsar
(† trad-anglican.faithweb.com † || Iran Azadi || Where are we going, and why are we in a handbasket?)
To: sionnsar; NYer; Alouette; humblegunner; Liz; missyme; Goodgirlinred; PilloryHillary
the church is at great risk if schism does not occur. And the longer the surgery is delayed, the worse the patient will be.
We actually agree. The Church is morally at gunpoint and its assets are being extorted and and its voice of Truth is being silenced. The point I tried to make, is that to pretend there is not ALREADY a de facto "schism" is to be in ignorance of, or deny--or seek to mask--the deliberate infiltration and anti-Church that is posing as the Church, and I mean the Church of all who follow the one True God. Let the schism be exposed as such and as already in existence, rather then deny it or "study" it as the U.N. would study the problem...of course they are PART OF the problem, with the WCC etc....
63 posted on
02/26/2005 2:22:56 PM PST by
The Spirit Of Allegiance
(ATTN. MARXIST RED MSM: I RESENT your "RED STATE" switcheroo using our ELECTORAL MAP as PROPAGANDA!)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson