´óÏó´«Ã½

"Schism is not a Christian act"

Schism is only the separating of people who don't agree. The very existence of the denomination in the first place is the result of schism. To the contrary of this statement, schism can be very useful.

If schism is not a Christian act and all Christians only acted in a Christian way, you'd all belong to the Catholic Church. Guess all of you non Catholics belong to a religion that was created out of the original sin of schism. I knew it, you're all going to that other place.

I am convinced they secretly love all the schisms. It would be too boring for them if there was no in-house fighting.

As an American, and an Episcopalian, I am terribly disappointed Bishop Schori's statement on schism. As the presiding bishop of a church formed by a schism, the remark is as ignorant as it is arrogant. Both camps in the church, the liberals and the conservatives, are to blame for the whole mess. The Episcopal Church once was a place where people of different views could come together every Sunday for common worship. It doesn't appear to be that way anymore.

You'll know they've taken off their gloves and really mean it when they start referring to each other as "cults."

It seems to me with all of vast numbers of different Christian sects, Christianity suffers from schism-frenetica.

Um Marcus you are wanted in the kitchen.

No hiding here.

there is a schism in you marcus. How do you post on so many sites and say so little?
What is your issue with trying to hate the whole planet. Can't you stick to anything?Or are you too slimy.

what reason do you join this debate other than to promote hatred.

Good point that we should all be catholics but really We should all be people first.

Ahh no moderation that is why you came here.Sorry folks just that this character (marcus) has messed with enough and promoted enough hate to have him here would only lessen your worth.

Oh, I dunno - I frequently disagree with Markie, but I rather feel he enhances the place. It wouldn't be so much fun without him, wrapped in his wee stars & stripes & toting his Smith & Wesson from the top of his Hummer. I hope this blog doesn't schiz... :-)

Man, if Mark was like that I may agree with him more...

Who left the screen door open?

Marcus

If schism wasnt a christian act and all christians acted in a christian way, all christians wouldnt be catholic. Surely they'd be Jews.

rjb, you got me on that one. But if they were Jews, would they also be Christians? Jews don't generally believe Christ was the son of god. In fact I don't think they have any particular regard for him as a notable rabbi either. There is a sect called Jews for Jesus but ???? It seems to me to become a Christian, you had to break away from Judaism. But since Christians believe in the Old Testament, does that make all Christians Jews too? This is very confusing.

Since the muslims also believe in the O.T and N.T why not call them all chrisjewlams

on second thoughts that name would exculde the mormons, jehovahs witnesses, moonies etc and we all know that exclusion is not what god botherers are all about.

And so it seems that, contrary to the claim that "schism is not a Christian act", it is a definitively Christian act, without which Christianity would not exist at all! I wonder if Katherine is accustomed to getting things quite so backward.

There is a point of order that should be recognized before any charge of hypocrisy is implied with respect to the Primate of the Episcopal Church and her remarks. First, the various churches that compose the Anglican Communion are autocephalous. That the Episcopal Church is no longer an organic part of the Church of England is the result of historical forces that have much more to do with war, revolution and politics than any differences in doctrine. Are the Primates of the Church of Ireland or Scotland Episcopal Church then regarded either officially or practically as schismatics? That question is directed less to the blogger than the commentators above who seems to enganged in a reductio ad absurdum argument with respect to Christian history.

As to the juxtaposition of our Primate's statements to His Grace and the subject of his recommendations to other churches, while the Archbishop's recommendations are always prayerfully and respectfully considered by our portion of the Communion, utimately the responsibility for our actions and the instruments that legitimize them are determined by our own polity and through our understanding of the prophetic (and often mysterious) power of the Holy Spirit. Consequently, we do not understand the development of central issues of doctrine as purely human decisions, nor should our fellow communicants in foreign countries unless they assume that decisions made by Anglicans are simply that, made by Anglicans, but not by any higher source of Grace.

For the blogger, who is writing from a English paper, any head-shaking with respect to our Primate is a cheap shot indeed. State sponsorship of the Church of England makes any notion of English schism far more difficult to imagine. Therefore, finger-pointing directed at the current challenges that the American church faces in an attempt to be guided by the Spirit and our continuing search for unity and justice and dignity strikes me as very safely made and, therefore, a tad smug. Were York to contradict Canterbury over a set of key doctrinal issues that resulted in a schism within England, the notion that Britons would find it inappropriate for His Grace to urge caution to the American church on the subject of recognition seems utterly laughable to me.

Also, while it is true that schism has been the practical reality of the Christian church in any number of traditions and national demoninations, it is not desirable theoretically or theologically. Our Lord prayed that His Church might be One. Insinuitating that our Primate has overstepped the bounds of propriety or the authority of her office in lending her voice to a similar hope is not a fair cop. Our Presiding Bishop not only has the right to advise her peer in Britain, but she has the responsbility to do it. What she does not have is the authority to control the actions of either of the houses, nor the General Convention that decide doctrinal matters for the Church of which she is the sacramental head. That is the charge of the members of those bodies and the Spirit that guides them.

In this case, the blogger was not only wide of the mark, he was aiming at the wrong target altogether.

Traumafoxtrot

I got as far as the sentence, "As to the juxstaposition..." Its a sixty nine worder. What has any of this verbiage got to do with a man from Nazareth inviting us to love one another?

Is it any wonder there are schisms?

There can be no question that The Episcopal Church in the USA is the source of the schism in Anglicism. The Anglican Church in North America is trying to gather up the fragments from the shattered Church in North America and keep them within the Anglican communion. It is also learning how to minister in love effectively to the sexually broken and damaged. A group of people who are further damaged by the antics of TEC.

Oh, who cares? - that's what we need to be reading, girls.

-H

If the bishop is committed to unity among believers, why has TEC filed suit against so many of her former congregations?