The Archbishop of Canterbury's 'Mea Culpa'

My job is too big for one man, said the Archbishop of Canterbury as he was packing his bags ready to leave Lambeth Palace. Earlier he told The Telegraph that he had "failed to crack it" ...

[Joe DeCaro]

from virtueonline"

"Things would have been different if the ABC had stood up and said that homosexual behavior is incompatible with Christian morality and teaching, and therefore, the church cannot endorse it, but homosexuals were of course welcome in the church as all sinners are. But he didn't, because in his very soul he does not believe that ..."

[MiddleWay]

"But he didn't, because in his very soul he does not believe that"

Along with so many others.

Then we have the bigots - like you.......

[Listen to the Word]

The best that those opposing the Scriptures can do is call those who believe the Scriptures names -- names like bigot, homophobe, and the like and call their biblical teachings baloney. I guess we are to tremble at their theological depth and biblical acumen. They can not come up with one cogent argument from the Bible yet. Therefore, they resort to condemning historical Christianity. Who would have thought that we would see the day when Christianity it condemned by those within and without and sin would be exalted to the point where even church leaders and members would call those who accept Christianity bigots?

[T McCabe]

“When the going gets tough the tough get going”

The Arch-Bishop of York is actual the Primate for the Church of ENgland. Has Lord Rowan forgotten that point?

Now this is classic English a classic understatement at its very finest.

From the article:

In his last major interview before stepping down later his year, he acknowledged that he had struggled to balance the growing demands of the job at home and abroad. He also admitted he had "disappointed" both liberals and conservatives.

Has Lord Rowan forgotten that the Arch-Bishop of York is actually the Primate for the Church of England? The Queen is the actual Head of the Church of England.

http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Ang...
The Archbishop of Canterbury, religious head of the Church of England, has no formal authority outside that jurisdiction, but is recognized as symbolic head of the worldwide communion. Among the other primates, he is primus inter pares, or "first among equals." However, he has no jurisdiction outside his own province. Nonetheless, churches are not considered to be in the Anglican Communion unless they are in full communion with him.[1]

Has Lord Rowan forgotten that the ACC is also only part of the four ‘Instruments of Union’ in the Communion and that it is the only one approved by all the other churches in the ‘Communion’?

http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Ang...

The Archbishop of Canterbury, religious head of the Church of England, has no formal authority outside that jurisdiction, but is recognized as symbolic head of the worldwide communion. Among the other primates, he is primus inter pares, or "first among equals." However, he has no jurisdiction outside his own province. Nonetheless, churches are not considered to be in the Anglican Communion unless they are in full communion with him.[1]

[Joe DeCaro]

MiddleWay wrote:

"But he didn't, because in his very soul he does not believe that"
Along with so many others.
Then we have the bigots ...

... and heretics like you?

[MiddleWay]

Joe DeCaro wrote:

<quoted text>
... and heretics like you?

Uh huh.

Sometimes I'm a 'gnostic', sometimes I'm a 'heretic'.

Jesus was both..........

[MiddleWay]

T McCabe wrote:

“When the going gets tough the tough get going”
The Arch-Bishop of York is actual the Primate for the Church of ENgland. Has Lord Rowan forgotten that point?
Now this is classic English a classic understatement at its very finest.
From the article:
In his last major interview before stepping down later his year, he acknowledged that he had struggled to balance the growing demands of the job at home and abroad. He also admitted he had "disappointed" both liberals and conservatives.
Has Lord Rowan forgotten that the Arch-Bishop of York is actually the Primate for the Church of England? The Queen is the actual Head of the Church of England.
http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Ang...
The Archbishop of Canterbury, religious head of the Church of England, has no formal authority outside that jurisdiction, but is recognized as symbolic head of the worldwide communion. Among the other primates, he is primus inter pares, or "first among equals." However, he has no jurisdiction outside his own province. Nonetheless, churches are not considered to be in the Anglican Communion unless they are in full communion with him.[1]
Has Lord Rowan forgotten that the ACC is also only part of the four ‘Instruments of Union’ in the Communion and that it is the only one approved by all the other churches in the ‘Communion’?
http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Ang...
The Archbishop of Canterbury, religious head of the Church of England, has no formal authority outside that jurisdiction, but is recognized as symbolic head of the worldwide communion. Among the other primates, he is primus inter pares, or "first among equals." However, he has no jurisdiction outside his own province. Nonetheless, churches are not considered to be in the Anglican Communion unless they are in full communion with him.[1]

Oh dear, you've presented facts and both our bigots have skipped right over it.

;-)

Great job......

[T McCabe]

MiddleWay wrote:

<quoted text>
Oh dear, you've presented facts and both our bigots have skipped right over it.
;-)
Great job......

I am shocked! LOL!!!!

[Joe DeCaro]

MiddleWay wrote:

... Sometimes I'm a 'gnostic', sometimes I'm a 'heretic'.
Jesus was both ...

No, Jesus was neither, but you are both.

[RevKen]

Joe DeCaro wrote:

<quoted text>
No, Jesus was neither, but you are both.

Hello!? Anybody there?

"Jesus was neither..."
Except that he was crucified for being both.

Thought you had read about that. Guess not.

[Victim18]

When will queers stop raping and molesting little kids?
Probably never.

[MiddleWay]

Joe DeCaro wrote:

<quoted text>
He was falsely convicted in a "Kangaroo court" session of the Sanhedrin.

Not to death he wasn't.........

[RevKen]

Joe DeCaro wrote:

<quoted text>
He was falsely convicted in a "Kangaroo court" session of the Sanhedrin.

Yes, well.... we all know about that "falsely convicted" business, don't we?

Convicted, nevertheless... of heresy, blasphemy and sacrelige. Then, the conviction was affirmed by Pilate, who authorized the Crucifixion.

Then, all of His followers were deemed heretics and many were chased down and slaughtered for their heresy.

Some guy named Saul.

You seem to think that being an heretic for Jesus is a bad thing. Might want to ask Jesus about that.

[T McCabe]

Victim18 wrote:

When will queers stop raping and molesting little kids?
Probably never.

When will your mind finish developing and become an actually functioning adult version of itself instead of the infantile ‘want to be’ stage it is presently stuck in?

[Joe DeCaro]

RevKen wrote:

<quoted text>
Yes, well.... we all know about that "falsely convicted" business, don't we?
Convicted, nevertheless... of heresy, blasphemy and sacrelige. Then, the conviction was affirmed by Pilate, who authorized the Crucifixion ...

... as he was the only authority who could, but if Jesus was The Son of God, then he was wrongly condemned, and according to John's Gosepl, even Pilate realized Jesus was innocent.

[MiddleWay]

Joe DeCaro wrote:

<quoted text>
... as he was the only authority who could, but if Jesus was The Son of God, then he was wrongly condemned, and according to John's Gosepl, even Pilate realized Jesus was innocent.

The Jews could have put him to death, they had authority but his crime was against ROME.

Just as it is today.
Interesting that the Greek John the only one to write about poor Pilate, decades after the fact........

[Joe DeCaro]

MiddleWay wrote:

<quoted text>
The Jews could have put him to death, they had authority ...

Then why did they have to take Jesus to Pilate?

Because Pilate was the only authority in Jersualem who could either condemn, or release any prisoner, and he did both that day.

[MiddleWay]

Joe DeCaro wrote:

<quoted text>
Then why did they have to take Jesus to Pilate?
Because Pilate was the only authority in Jersualem who could either condemn, or release any prisoner, and he did both that day.

That is for crimes against ROME, idiot.

Why would the Jews have their own council?

Why would the Jews stone people to death without the permission of Rome?

Where the hell did you learn Scripture?

Not by reading it, obviously..........

[Joe DeCaro]

MiddleWay wrote:

<quoted text>
That is for crimes against ROME ...

And what crime would that be, Einstein?
Even Roman Procurator Pilate said he found no fault in Jesus.

[T McCabe]

Of course the accounts were written after the Jewish rebellion (appoximately 70AD) and the destruction of the Temple and the Diporia had stared. Wonder why the 'authors' of the Gospels would walk gently around this topic of who killed Christ Jesus and why.