Posted on 04/09/2009 5:59:46 AM PDT by cartan
They are afraid to say they are right and the others wrong.
I think it is pretty clear. They have surrendered to immorality.
Yes, seems so.
The Church of England is truly sad. One could look at Africa and elsewhere and see the amazing things the Lord is accomplishing through Anglicans. One could look around England at all the empty churches and see what once was but is no more. A look at Alpha and one would see what could be.
King Henry created the CofE. He saw the people still paying priest in the church even after he took most of their money in taxes so, like governments today he create a new revenue vehicle for his government and created the church to get the rest of the poor peoples money. He ripped off most of the ideas of the catholic church of the time and forced subjects into his new revenue vehicle. The rest is pretty much history of generation after generation going to the governments church which, is why our founding father put in the 1st amendment of separating the church from government and ensuring, future governments could not create religion as a new taxing vehicle.
Anglican ping
The name "Anglican" means "of England", but the Anglican church exists worldwide. It began in the sixth century in England, when Pope Gregory the Great sent St. Augustine to Britain to bring a more disciplined Apostolic succession to the Celtic Christians. The Anglican Church evolved as part of the Roman church, but the Celtic influence was folded back into the Roman portion of the church in many ways, perhaps most notably by Charlemagne's tutor Aidan. The Anglican church was spread worldwide first by English colonization and then by English-speaking missionaries.
The Anglican church, although it has apostolic succession, is separate from the Roman church. The history of Christianity has produced numerous notable separations. In 1054 came the first major split from Roman administration of the church, when the Eastern Orthodox church and the Roman split apart.
The conflict of authority in England between church and state certainly dates back to the arrival of Augustine, and has simmered for many centuries. The murder of Thomas a Becket was one of the more famous episodes of this conflict. The Magna Carta, signed by King John in 1215, contains 63 points; the very first point is a declaration that the English church is independent of its government..
The beginning of the sixteenth century showed significant discontent with the Roman church. Martin Luther's famous 95 Theses were nailed to the door of the church in Wittenburg in 1517, and news of this challenge had certainly reached England when, 20 years later, the Anglican branch of the church formally challenged the authority of Rome. Henry VIII dissolved the monasteries and abbeys in 1536.
There is a public perception, especially in the United States, that Henry VIII created the Anglican church in anger over the Pope's refusal to grant his divorce, but the historical record indicates that Henry spent most of his reign challenging the authority of Rome, and that the divorce issue was just one of a series of acts that collectively split the English church from the Roman church in much the same way that the Orthodox church had split off five hundred years before.
...
Call it what you wish, either celebrate or don't, but don't condemn others for doing so. Do everything for the Glory of God.
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
“Do everything for the Glory of God.”
How is naming the day to celebrate Jesus’ resurrection after an abomination for the glory of God?
What you say is contradictory. You say “call it whatever you want”, but you say I can’t tell you what I call it? How is that for the glory of God?
People have been uneducated for 100s of years, and accepted this nonsense blindly. Now we have some education and educated people are saying that we don’t want to call this holiday “Ish Tar”. We’re saying we’ve read the Bible and we know how God feels about these abominations; these fake “gods”; to venerate one in this way is the height of hate towards God.
Look, I really don't have a dog in this hunt; my Church does not call the day "Easter." It's Pascha. And we don't even celebrate it this Sunday.
But you are just acting like a gloomy know-it-all. Give it up. Have some mercy and love. Jesus rose for everyone, not just those who are as smart as you. Let them have their festival.
1 Corinthians 10:31.
Utterly liberal attitude, accusing someone of not having “mercy and love”, because they disagree with your worldview. UTTERLY liberal. Not to mention the censorship mindset you have displayed.
And the way you have posted on here shows that “mercy and love” are things that are very far from you.
Good bye, Newby.
Hope you are happy in your hate.
“probably better than your narrow-blinkered interpretation”
By the way, what’s to interpret? Are you saying that they have not named the day of Jesus’ resurrection after Ish Tar, the Babyglonian abomination of fertility?
Have I “misinterpreted” that?
What do you know of my interpretation? You know NOTHING of my interpretation. You take a few sentences and construct it into a nice easy little box to be placed in the pathetic pigeon-hole of your mind.
You need to get saved.
I’m not even sure what you two are arguing about, but it’s pretty weird.
Just for the record, what cult are you affiliated with?
I think you need to display more of a Christian attitude towards others.
JMHO
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.