Would a schism be a good thing for the Church?
#11
(02-11-2018, 01:12 AM)MeanGene Wrote: A formal schism can never be an intrinsically good thing. You could argue that certain results of a formal schism might be beneficial. After all the one benefit of a cancer diagnosis is that you now know you have cancer and can go about trying to beat it. That said the good results of a clear diagnosis can't ever justify the thing itself.

But to use a similar analogy, if someone had a cancerous sore, wouldn't you want to gouge that out, though, before it gets worse?
Reply
#12
(02-11-2018, 11:07 AM)AllSeasons Wrote:
(02-11-2018, 01:12 AM)MeanGene Wrote: A formal schism can never be an intrinsically good thing. You could argue that certain results of a formal schism might be beneficial. After all the one benefit of a cancer diagnosis is that you now know you have cancer and can go about trying to beat it. That said the good results of a clear diagnosis can't ever justify the thing itself.

But to use a similar analogy, if someone had a cancerous sore, wouldn't you want to gouge that out, though, before it gets worse?

Except using that same analogy, the entire body is suffering from a cancerous sore, and thus you cannot remove the cancer without removing the body. You would have to cleanse the body in order to remove the cancer.
Reply
#13
(02-11-2018, 11:46 AM)austenbosten Wrote:
(02-11-2018, 11:07 AM)AllSeasons Wrote:
(02-11-2018, 01:12 AM)MeanGene Wrote: A formal schism can never be an intrinsically good thing. You could argue that certain results of a formal schism might be beneficial. After all the one benefit of a cancer diagnosis is that you now know you have cancer and can go about trying to beat it. That said the good results of a clear diagnosis can't ever justify the thing itself.

But to use a similar analogy, if someone had a cancerous sore, wouldn't you want to gouge that out, though, before it gets worse?

Except using that same analogy, the entire body is suffering from a cancerous sore, and thus you cannot remove the cancer without removing the body.  You would have to cleanse the body in order to remove the cancer.

I think you would have to do both, no?  Yes, the cancer may have spread to the rest of the body, but you still have to remove the cancerous mass (no pun intended), before you can have the body undergo chemotherapy or cleansing; otherwise, what you cleanse will be made sick again by the cancerous mass.  You can't have cleansing of the body without first removing the source of the cancer.
Reply
#14
Unfortunatly much of the cancer in the human element of the church today exists in the head, that is to say the Pope and bishops. If it only existed in a small portion of her members one could reasonably amputate it. But sadly, one can't amputate the head without also killing the body.

Ssometimes we just have to wait it out and hope it kills itself off.
Surréxit Dóminus vere, Alleluia!
[-] The following 1 user Likes Dominicus's post:
  • austenbosten
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)