Schism Would Not Be A Disaster
#1
The primates of the 38 ecclesial communities of the Anglican Communion gathered in Canterbury at Archbishop Justin Welby’s invitation on January 11. The six-day meeting began with Evensong in Canterbury Cathedral. Likely agenda items include homosexuality, women’s ordination, the protection of minors, and the environment. Addressing concerns that some African primates may leave over the issue of homosexuality, Archbishop Welby told BBC that “a schism would not be a disaster.” “God is bigger than our failures, but it would be a failure,” he said. “Certainly I want reconciliation, but reconciliation doesn't always mean agreement-- in fact, it very seldom does. It means finding ways to disagree well, and that's what we've got to do this week.” Archbishop Welby added that “there's nothing I can do if people decide that they want to leave the room. It won't split the communion.”

- See more at: http://www.catholicculture.org/news/head...dVgPq.dpuf

This attitude toward schism is an example of the difference between the indifferentist Protestant mentality and the Catholic Church
Reply
#2
Isn't this a good attitude?  He's recognizing that he may not be able to change anyone's mind.  The effective result is the same in the traditional Catholic practice.  "We don't agree, you're excommunicated."  De facto schism.
Reply
#3
(01-13-2016, 01:14 PM)Melkite Wrote: Isn't this a good attitude?  He's recognizing that he may not be able to change anyone's mind.  The effective result is the same in the traditional Catholic practice.  "We don't agree, you're excommunicated."  De facto schism.

Then what's the point? Homosexuality is either moral, or not. Women can either be ordained as priests, or they can't. If the Church is who she says she is - established by Christ to teach the truth God revealed to us - then the Church's position on these issues is right and everyone who disagrees is wrong because they disagree with God. If the Church - or the Anglican Communion - can't teach authoritatively on these and other issues because people "agree to disagree", then what use is it?
Reply
#4
(01-13-2016, 03:04 PM)Paul Wrote: Then what's the point? Homosexuality is either moral, or not. Women can either be ordained as priests, or they can't. If the Church is who she says she is - established by Christ to teach the truth God revealed to us - then the Church's position on these issues is right and everyone who disagrees is wrong because they disagree with God. If the Church - or the Anglican Communion - can't teach authoritatively on these and other issues because people "agree to disagree", then what use is it?

So, when you tell someone they are wrong, and they refuse to believe it, are you really suggesting the truth should be forced down their throats?  You can never force someone to accept in their hearts what they don't want to believe.  If God himself will not force heaven down the throats of those who don't want it, who then is the Church to do so?  At some point, there is no option other than to agree to disagree.
Reply
#5
The moron doesn't realize he's in schism already and he's not a priest or Archbishop either.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)