If the archbiship were filled with the spirit he would speak with authority.
That ability to speak with authority is not a function of his position, it is entirely a function of spirit. Once the spirit departs a church it is gone. If the spirit is not present, it doesn’t matter what your title is.
The way to reclaim a church is to first reclaim the spirit. The way to reclaim a country is to first reclaim the spirit.
Post-Christian Britain is a mission field. It has to be reclaimed for the faith. If you are catholic or evangelical, the answer is the same. It has to be reclaimed. Don’t be shy. Preach Christ and let the chips fall.
So so true. As a protestant, I don’t always agree 100% with everything the Pope says. BUT at least i never doubt that he is fighting on *our* side. I don’t always think that about the leaders in the church of England.
Modern popes, since at least 1980 have been good guys, on the right side of history.
Certainly that was the buzz here on FR. Will it or won't it?
So what is it, FReepers? Did the Pope's visit turn out to be a damp squib?
That and the "global authority" he keeps pushing.
So glad their papers print the truth.
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:
Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of general interest.
But -- by design -- the Archbishop has no power to do anything other than to talk and try to convince people within the Anglican Communion. There's no penalty for not listening to him.
Whereas Benedict has both the power of the pulpit, and the power to put his words into action.
I used to be an Anglican, and I’m pretty familiar with that Church, its various traditions, and the history behind it.
Regretably, Henry VIII declared that he was the “head” of the Church of England, not the Pope. Later monarchs dropped the use of the words “Head of the Church,” but they did not drop the power to name the bishops of that Church. The Anglican hierarchy might suggest names to the king or queen, but it was the monarch who made the appointments.
In modern times, the Queen still names who will be Archbishop or bishop. But the Prime Minister “advises” her whom to choose. So it was Tony Blair who chose the current Archbishop of Canterbury.
There was a conservative, traditional candidate also put forward. But Blair chose the liberal, who was also known to favor the appointment of gay bishops, and whose theology was frankly more liberal than Christian. I don’t know if Blair is gay himself (he is, of course, married), but he staked a good deal of his political reputation toward the advancement of gay power in the UK.
One of this Archbishop’s first acts was to appoint a gay bishop. There was a firestorm, the bishop was forced to resign, and the Archbishop then put the gay agenda on the back burner for the moment.
But that’s basically why the Archbishop is what he is. Because the British people voted for Tony Blair, and Blair put his political agenda ahead of any Christian faith he might have.
After leaving office, Blair became a Catholic. But frankly and factually, not to be judgmental, he appears to be a very dissident and liberal sort of Catholic. I’m not sure why he bothered to convert—perhaps a promise he made to his wife.