Replies

"This was excellent, sionnsar. It sounds as though Bishop Wright is falling prey to the multi-cultural PC movement. "We can't judge right and wrong..." Isn't that what Scripture and Tradition are there fore?"

I remember when Bishop Wright first made his comments I thought to myself that the Council of Nicea never held anything like what he was saying. But I looked it up anyway and then re read some history. And sure enough, the Nicene situation wasn't anything like what the AC is facing today and simply can't be compared to it. Bishop Wright's refusal to uphold the 2100 year old teaching of the Church that it is the role and function of a bishop to make precisely the distinctions which he refuses to make, namely to proclaim that which is what the Church always and everywhere has believed and that which is not, speaks volumes about the collapse of "orthodox" Christianity among the hierarchs of the Anglican Communion, even, apparently, the "conservative" ones.

Sionnsar, where does this idea that schism is worse than heresy come from? Is this an ancient idea? Is it uniquely Anglican? I do know that after 1453, The Church in the East proclaimed "Better the Sultan's turban than the Pope's mitre", or words to that effect, so it doesn't sound Orthodox to me, but as always I am ready to be corrected! :)

Kolokotronis, I don't know. I've heard it from the Anglican Left only recently, but a quick Googling of the phrase muddies the water. I found it in:

In Communion web site, which appears Orthodox (can you enlighten me?)

There there is this from Pontifications: "The argument boils down to this: Schism is worse than heresy. This view does have a long history in the Latin Church; but it presupposes the conviction that the Bishop of Rome is the divinely ordained office of ecclesial unity and that we can trust God to correct theological error in the churches that remain in communion with Peter. But if one does not believe that the bishop of Rome is the divinely ordained office of unity–as most Anglicans do not and as I’m sure the revisionists do not–then the “schism is worse than heresy” argument doesn’t work. Outside of its indigenous Roman context, the argument is simply a political ploy to maintain institutional unity at all costs, without regard for orthodox doctrine and practice, without regard for the integrity of the Church’s message and mission, and without regard for how the formal adoption of heresy violates the consciences of traditionalists. It’s equivalent to telling a woman that she must remain with her abusive husband because God hates divorce."

And on " phorum", I read: "WRONG! There is NO justifiable excuse for schism. St John Chrysostom says that schism is worse than heresy. The ROCOR is a scandal to the Orthodox world and as such we need to pray for our bretheren in the ROCOR who are no doubt faithful but pawns in the hands of their own hierarchs who have vested interests in keeping them separated. The ROCOR has recently undergone yet another sorry splintering... a sure sign that it is under the judgment of the Lord.."