I’m open for evidence from scripture, tradition or even reason but not personnel attacks. Got any?
Respectfully opinion only pondering on His spoken Word and Laws given as instructions to know right from wrong morally, spiritually also and aspire to becoming righteous and how to maintain such Holiness?
Pondering There were Priestly Laws known as The Code of Holiness for his Priest to be obeyed. Tthose who freely choose to make it their profession and what would be acceptable and not acceptable into his hands.
Stricter Laws of Holiness for his Priest to obey The Code of Holiness Priestly Laws and Priestly>> Ceremonial Laws>>telling his Priest>> how? when? to Worship him, right?
Question what would be a grave sin for the Priest? Is it not mentioned in their The Code of Holy Priestly Laws to be obeyed?
Then Our Heavenly Father, there is Laws given for his>>> Congregation, called The Royal Ten Commandments and his teaching on The Sermon on the Mount>> gives us instruction to know right from wrong and to be doers of his Laws and know in doing so, what is pleasing to him, right? What would be grave sin for the Congregation?>>The only sin that will never be forgiven >>is the one against the Holy Spirit?
If one reads Matthew Chapter 23 whom is Jesus rebuking strongly and boldly and why? He tells us does he not within His Spoken Word ? Woe to you scribes=teachers? priests? Written is it not? My Father’s House is not a den of thieves? But a House of Prayer? You know the letter of the Law but you yourselves do not obey the law?
Just pondering trying to understand His Spoken Word.
Asking…True>> Free Will was given to all>> we can chose what to disregard within His Spoken Word >> but in the end, judgement day, will our Heavenly Father also choose to disregard what and whom He wills also?
Of course it was approved by the queen. But what motivation would one have to involve him? He has no personal or spiritual ties to anyone. Inviting him just makes no sense to me.
Anglican ceremony; organisers keen that the bride’s American background should be reflected during the service; organisers keen that the African-American part of the bride’s background should be reflected during the service. Who will give the address?
You can’t see why a distinguished African-American Anglican Bishop noted for his address should come to mind? Really?
Sure, racism. If the bride had been Scottish and there had been pipers in the chapel, that would have been racism, too, no doubt.
Why is it racism?
Why is a decision of an Anglican archbishop and the royal family of another country required to make sense to you?
I understand that her father belongs to the Episcopal congregation and her mother is African American, so he seems to have been a good choice for this marriage.
Race is still an issue because racism still exists and people are still left by the wayside, even though Christ is for all races and nations and peoples. I think the wedding was beautifully done.
True. But didn’t they both have the right to the title “Lady” by birth?
The equivalence would be more like insisting on having a Scottish man give the sermon. It would be determining who would perform something based on his blood and not him being the person best suited for the job.
Who said it was? I didn’t. This is a discussion forum for you know, discussing things.
You seem offended by something that has nothing to do with you. That is what doesn’t make sense.
How do you figure? How do you come to the conclusion I am offended? I can maybe help you make sense of it if you explain.
I can’t remeber… is Sussex the one that everyone thought he was going to get, or the one he reportedly wanted?
Sussex was the one considered to be most likely. I don’t know which one he preferred, though.
So, Scottish bride; Primus of the Scottish Episcopal Church invited to give the address; racism?
Yes, if the reason was because the leader was Scottish, unjust discrimination. It is picking someone because of his blood.
Too late. Your contempt for Compline’s faith was quite clear.
I hesitate to use strong language like “piffle”, but … piffle.
Oh not at all. It is so obvious I can’t imagine how you don’t see it. It is like if I was White insisting that the sermon be given by a White man. You’d call that racism, right? I mean if I was White and refused to consider a Black man for a role or insisted on having a White man for a role that would obviously be racism.
I get it no evidence. I notice you didn’t post what that contempt might be.