One means undivided. There is no division in the One, Catholic Church founded by Jesus Christ. Arrogant men that have cut themselves off through schism and heresy are divided, not the One Church. However, blame for certain schisms and heresies rests on both sides.
That one True Church is found among the congregation of saints, where the word is preached and sacraments administered. Our sad and sinful divisions do not change that.
Where does this definition come from? You? The Anglican community? Google?
steve-b:
That’s a triumphalist made-up definition.
schism
ˈs(k)izəm/Submit
noun
a split or division between strongly opposed sections or parties, caused by differences in opinion or belief.
synonyms: division, split, rift, breach, rupture, break, separation, severance; More
the formal separation of a church into two churches or the secession of a group owing to doctrinal and other differences.
Except that it is all from a Catholic bias.
But thanks, anyway, Steve
you’re welcome … Jon,
we’ve been over that subject before Here
I never insinuated anything of the sort.concretecamper1:
Are you anymore convinced the Catholic Church is right than an Orthodox Christian is that they are right?
Arguing? Who is arguing?concretecamper1:
Arguing who is right doesn’t lead to anything other than arguing.
Having a firm stance is honest.concretecamper1:
Claiming to be right because we are right is triumphalism.
Responsibilty is irrelevant to truth.concretecamper1:
One can be right, and still have responsibility.
It was a question.
It was a comment. Lots of people argue this very point.
Then the focus should be on reconciliation. Oftentimes apologetics is focused on accusations, “I’m right, you’re wrong”.
Is it wrong?
The Catholic Church to their credit has extended numerous apologies in recent years for the wrongs done. It is time to move on.
I don’t have any problem with most of this. In no way would I condone compromise for the sake of unity because it would be a shallow unity, and likely short lived.
I agree, JonNC esp as non-Catholic Christians are usually Sola Scriptura.Unnamed:
The bolded betrays a possible bait.
Well, what say you? Use the exact same question.
And Lutherans and Cstholics didn’t realize how much soteriology they had in common until they focused on it instead of lobbing insults at each other. Knowing where you agree is the baseline for moving forward
Jon, as exhibited throughout this thread and others, it seems to me you, and others, consistently profess that there is simply no way for a seeker of God to find His fullness truth in this world. Is that really what you believe? What do i have wrong? Do you actually preach to a non-believers that we Christians can’t know God’s fullness of truth?concretecamper1:
I don’t have any problem with most of this. In no way would I condone compromise for the sake of unity because it would be a shallow unity, and likely short lived.
However, I think the JDDJ is an example of how the Spirit can lead us to unity.
As an Anglican, I see our differences in soteriology to be surmountable. For me, the issue is ecclesiology
I think we can know enough of His truth sufficient for us to receive His grace. I think the role of the Church is to instruct us in that sufficient grace, and provide the means of grace thst are word and sacrament. On those things we disagree on, we should pray together for that continuing guidance into all truth which was promised to us, and pray for forgiveness, recognizing that, like the apostle, we “see through a glass in a dark manner; but then face to face.”
Each side knew exactly where each other stood/stand prior to and after the JDDJ. All this kind of stuff does is make those in error feel as if they are okconcretecamper1:
And Lutherans and Cstholics didn’t realize how much soteriology they had in common until they focused on it instead of lobbing insults at each other. Knowing where you agree is the baseline for moving forward
I don’t think your Church leadership agrees with you.