Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: Kolokotronis
The problem with scenario #2 is that it requires direct or indirect communion with heretics. For three years or so I have been reading these threads and I still fail to understand the Anglican tolerance for heresy in its midst.

K, we've discussed this issue many times as you know. Things move much slower in the Anglican world than they do in the Orthodox... but I will be blunt and say that as an Anglican I too "oppose scenario #2" (and more). This proposal goes well beyond our inherent Entish nature and into accomodation -- and I am quite surprised, given the source.

I hope this is nothing more than a misstatement by Mr. White, but I confess to having a grave concern over this.

4 posted on 02/17/2007 6:57:33 PM PST by sionnsar (†trad-anglican.faithweb.com†|Iran Azadi| 5yst3m 0wn3d - it's N0t Y0ur5 (SONY) | UN: Useless Nations)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]


To: sionnsar

You misunderstood the import of my post. I accept, if I do not understand, the Entish ways of the Anglicans because you and others have told me that's just the way it is. What I do not understand after three years of honestly trying is the tolerance for heresy that scenario #2 bespeaks. Its one thing to never give up hope, as scenario #1 indicates, though to my mind that is both scripturally and patristically flawed. It is quite another to agree to accept ongoing aggressive heresy at the same altar table with you while you try to bring the heretics around.

The Latin Church and Orthodoxy, while pretty much having moved away from damning each other as heretics, are in deep and extensive dialog about reunion, but our hierarchs do not concelebrate the Eucharist, do not receive the sacraments from each others' hands (and we believe them to be equally efficacious)and we, the lower clergy, monastics and laity don't, at least de jure and in virtually all places, either. We don't because our hierarchs are in neither direct nor indirect communion and we are in that situation because we do not believe the exact same things as a matter of dgmatic truth. The day may come when we do believe the exact same things and that will be the day for reunion and communion but not until then. Communion is a symbol of unity of dogmatic faith. The AC is in a far more dire situation. Within the Communion people do not believe the exact same things as matters of dogmatic truth. There is some dialog, but mostly mini schisms and lawsuits. And yet what seems to be of paramount importance is not the preservation and advancement of the Truth, which is of necessity indivisible within a church or Communion, but rather the preservation of a symbol of a non existent unity. That, S, is what I don't understand.


5 posted on 02/17/2007 7:21:53 PM PST by Kolokotronis (Christ is Risen, and you, o death, are annihilated!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson