We have an Archbishop of Canterbury

mindlight · Thursday at 4:25 AM

RamiC said:
"Members of the STR forum should show civility and mutual respect towards one another irrespective of jurisdiction or churchmanship. Enter into all discussions and debates demonstrating your respect and courtesy towards other members through civil dialogue. Do not state or imply that another member who has identified himself or herself as Anglican is not, in reality, truly Anglican because of belief, practice, or their affiliation with any particular Anglican church body."

"All posts within this faith community must adhere to the site wide rules found here (Community Rules). In addition, if you are not a member of this faith group, you may not debate issues or teach against it's theology. You may post in fellowship. Active promotion of views contrary to the established teachings of this group will be considered off topic."

Statement of Purpose - Scripture, Tradition, Reason--Anglican & Old Catholic Statement of Purpose

I am a confirmant of the Anglican church. My opinions on the church are said as respectfully as they can be given the measure of the sins committed here. You are not in England here and the same censorship rules that promote Wokism there do not apply here.

Paidiske · Thursday at 4:32 AM

I do not believe that those opinions are within the Statement of Purpose for this forum, or indeed the CF rule about egregious inflammatory comment about a public figure.

mindlight · Thursday at 4:35 AM

Paidiske said:
The hyperventilating I'm seeing online about, there's the end of hope for unity (amongst ourselves, with Rome, with Orthodoxy, whatever) is seriously annoying me. None of those folks wanted unity anyway. This doesn't change that. It just says, we're not going to refuse to put our convictions into practice out of fear of other people's bad behaviour.

Given the lack of theological training Mullally has, and her focus on pastoral care as a nurse and a priest I wonder what you mean by convictions and at how deeply they are rooted in scripture. She violates at least three scriptural norms: on same-sex marriage, on being a bishop/archbishop that is a woman and by her views on abortion. But you are right there is no unity between a culture of lies and one of truth.

Paidiske · Thursday at 4:41 AM

mindlight said:
Given the lack of theological training Mullally has, and her focus on pastoral care as a nurse and a priest I wonder what you mean by convictions and at how deeply they are rooted in scripture.

I was referring to people upset by the appointment of a woman, and convictions about the validity of women's ordination, and indeed consecration as bishops. And those convictions are profoundly scriptural.

And, I would point out, again, that arguing that the ordination of women is not scriptural, in debate with an Anglican priest who is a woman, is probably not in keeping with the SOP of this forum.

mindlight · Thursday at 4:47 AM

Paidiske said:
I was referring to people upset by the appointment of a woman, and convictions about the validity of women's ordination, and indeed consecration as bishops. And those convictions are profoundly scriptural.

And, I would point out, again, that arguing that the ordination of women is not scriptural, in debate with an Anglican priest who is a woman, is probably not in keeping with the SOP of this forum.

Are you a bishop? I can accept that the bible would permit women vicars (priesthood of all believers and all that) but nothing higher. This is the standard global historic view of the church community and has been the position of the Anglican church for most of its history also (well not the woman vicar thing which is biblically warranted but not condoned by tradition).

If this debate is not allowed in this forum then all those words about diversity that Mullally has been spouting are just hot air. But like the Nigerian church with 17.5 million members has already decided maybe this short sighted, politically inept and utterly unbiblical decision has already split the church irreversibly. In which case let the feminists and the gays have the ruins of the church while Anglicans reform elsewhere e.g. maybe with GAFCON.

Paidiske · Thursday at 4:51 AM

mindlight said:
This is the standard global historic view of the church community and has been the position of the Anglican church for most of its history also

That's an astonishingly historically inaccurate take.

mindlight said:
If this debate is not allowed in this forum then all those words about diversity that Mullally has been spouting are just hot air.

Ironically, the Archbishop of Canterbury does not determine the forum rules on CF. I will let the moderators make of this what they will.

mindlight · Thursday at 4:58 AM

Paidiske said:
That's an astonishingly historically inaccurate take.

Ironically, the Archbishop of Canterbury does not determine the forum rules on CF. I will let the moderators make of this what they will.

Name a mainstream church with female bishops that is not woke or liberal and had ordained these before 1980.

This trigger happy approach to freedom of speech is what is wrong with England right now. You have weaponised language to exclude the truth in the name of offence.

Witnessing to some gay men last week I saw the same approach. They followed the same strategy.

1) Cherry pick the statements, and add a little blind prejudice
2) Do the Drama Queen thing about how offensive the words are to them
3) Come in with the ad hominem attack. In your case (lets misuse the CF rules to penalize free speech).

Paidiske · Thursday at 4:59 AM

mindlight said:
Name a mainstream church with female bishops that is not woke or liberal and had ordained these before 1980.

That is largely irrelevant to your claim about the "standard global historic view of the church community." As if there were any such thing.

mindlight · Thursday at 5:05 AM

Paidiske said:
That is largely irrelevant to your claim about the "standard global historic view of the church community." As if there were any such thing.

I guess that it is a, no I cannot, then.

Paidiske · Thursday at 5:07 AM

mindlight said:
I guess that it is a, no I cannot, then.

It's a, this is irrelevant to your claim. And I'm not really interested in debating at length in a thread I suspect is likely to be cleaned shortly.

RamiC · Thursday at 6:33 AM

mindlight said:
You are not in England here

Yes I am.

mindlight · 2025-10-24T00:31:28-0500

RamiC said:
Yes I am.

The point was that only those who actually are salt and light are paying for their freedom of speech and religious expression.

RamiC · 2025-10-24T03:52:31-0500

mindlight said:
The point was that only those who actually are salt and light are paying for their freedom of speech and religious expression.

I am in England, that was my only point.

We have an Archbishop of Canterbury

See in the dark

Clara bonam audax

See in the dark

Clara bonam audax

See in the dark

Clara bonam audax

See in the dark

Clara bonam audax

See in the dark

Clara bonam audax

Well-Known Member

See in the dark

Well-Known Member

Similar threads