´óÏó´«Ã½

Yeh, William. Tanks are fierce on petrol, seemingly. Not a very green example from the Bish.

Isn't self-defence and maintaining a deterrent a form of peacemaking?

Sorry, William, I couldn't help myself... ;-)

It's all very well saying sorry, William, but you are on the outside of the tank, and the Archbishop is inside!

At least he checks his smoke alarm.

Thumbs up!

That's all we need: bishops in tanks.

Unlike the Bishop, The Pope doesnt need a tank to terrify me.

How many divisions has the Archbishop?

Brian

Have to hand it to you, that's the best response so far.

:-)

W&T's "Person of the Year - 2008" - if I recollect aright.

I have not seen many more sickening, more fundamentally wrong pictures than this.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Parrhasios post # 9

I saw a better one. It was a few years ago on Songs of Praise. They were filming it from Faslane.

They actually showed the local congregation singing a good old traditional hymn while cutting intermittently to footage of a nuclear missile being launched from a submarine.

I was actually waiting for them to show the bomb exploding over a city while the congregation would burst into, "Shine Jesus shine."

It was nauseatingly bad. But hey, loads of other groups have hijacked Christianity, why not the ´óÏó´«Ã½?

Mr. Crawley,

You are forgiven....For the blessed Peacemakers picture.

=Dennis Junior=

I wonder what a sequestered Archbishop would be like in a different universe.


Maybe something like this

I note he's wearing his new funky pectoral cross - not the sort of cross that would scare anyone. If I were going to be crucified I think I would choose one just like it: I can see myself hanging there singing "Always look on the bright side of death".

I wonder if there's a chatroom somewhere for senior clerics with an unwholesome interest in liturgical vestments. I imagine Sentamu and Ratzinger would be there all the time comparing notes.

The relationship between the military and the church has always been highly suspect. Apologists for the present state of affairs have trotted out the same old argument that soldiers and their families have the same right as anyone else to be ministered to.

In my own church, the military are the only organisation who enjoy the status, protected by Canon Law, whereby a priest can inform his Bishop that he is joining up as a military chaplain and the Bishop cannot do anything about it.

The Bishop who is presently chief chaplain to the forces in England has recently complained bitterly and very publicly about how poor equipment has been a major factor in the amount of young British men we have seen being brought home in body bags.

He has never once questioned the legality of the war in Iraq, nor has he made any comment on the estimated 1.2 million Iraqi deaths, most of whom were innocent civilians.

Had he done so, well, he wouldnt be the chaplain in chief to the military any longer, would he?

Those aren't liturgical vestments - they're anglican abito piano or street clothing.

and since anglican orders aren't really valid and their liturgy isn't real then what they wear couldn't really be judged "liturgical vestments" so the Pope would have no desire to chat about it.

Did you ever hear of the liberation theology introduction to the preface of the Mass? "It is right to give Him tanks and planes".

What's with this new member moderation stuff? when did I become a new member?

Mcc post 16

You know some words of the Mass in English? Eheu!!

McCamley
You mean you're a new member too? We're all new members. Don't worry, it only takes half an hour for your posts to appear. You don't lose the thread of the discussion at all.

GV

Peter M
are you testing all the threads to see how long your posts are in premoderation? If so, why?

PeterM

Lol! I just knew you were. Lol!

RJB

No, I'm not timing the moderation process; however on the "John Rawls on Religion" thread, William wrote, "I've a solution to your pre-moderation woes. While you are waiting for your comment to pass moderation, why not go read another post and comment on that one too. Then, by the time you've joined that debate ... well, it might work." (it was post #43) so I just thought I'd act on what he said.

However, I'm also of the opinion that there is an unknown, yet still unexplained, reason for this new moderation policy and suspect it might end up being a temporary process based on certain factors. Of course I could be wrong, way wrong, but until someone who does know explains the actual reason for the change we can only speculate, or wait until things change back, as I think they will.

Peter

Let's face it - we all know why we are on pre-moderation.

Why did Malachi O'Docherty take down the Whitewell threads which I seem to recollect garnered him the greatest number of hits of any topic on his blog?

The Beeb are, to borrow Mrs Thatcher's eloquent term, frit and justifiably so!

Yo Jesus!

mccamley # 16

Surely Ratzinger is only an anti-pope who would be quite happy to discuss dresses with a fellow apostate - hasn't Peter's seat been vacant since the death of Gregory XVII?

Parrhasios
Re#23

You've hit the nail right on the head. Pull a couple of threads off this blog, and life can get back to what we call normal.
There's a personal accusation on the "Tabernacle Turmoil" thread, about some bloke who wouldn't shake some other bloke's hand at a Church meeting. Unless the pre-moderator was there, and can conform the story, I don't know how on earth that made it through pre-moderation.
I'm now assuming that they scan for cuss-words, wait half an hour and let the comments through.

And who on earth is "rainTheInvestigator"? A marvel super-hero or something? Does he really speak for the Spotlight programme?


GV

Ah, so the protestants are to blame for our woes!

I always know'ed it.

parrhasios - you can't have missed Peter II?

It's funny how these crazy schismatics all end up as bishops - like Buckley in Larne.