Comments: opinion

The Paul Vallely article does not really live up to its title.

From the title I was expecting not a breaking-news-on-the-ecumenism-front report, which is what Vallely provides. I was expect more of a think piece on what unity with Rome might mean, and whether achieving it really matters.

Oh, well. I'll go back to not worrying about whether we rapproche with Rome.

Some people seem to think that the fact that the church is not one organisation around the world is a scandal.

I think it's human. It's only to be expected. And it's very New Testament, as our Orthodox friends often remind us.

The Roman Empire died 1500 years ago. There is no need to revive it. And frankly, Jesus would be astonished at any attempt to do so.

Posted by Jeremy at Monday, 30 June 2014 at 3:11am BST

The Roman Empire morphed into Europe and has morphed into The West. The Church has been a department of Empire since Constantine. The whole thing may now be expiring at last.

Posted by Murdoch at Tuesday, 1 July 2014 at 5:31am BST

There's another way in which the Vallely article failed to live up to its headline - it considered solely Anglican - RC ecumenism, a bit of a slap in the face for non-conformists. Probably not as much of a slap in the face, though, as the recent letters and articles in Church Times, which largely seemed to say that Episcopacy in the Apostolic Succession as interpreted by catholics is non-negotiable, so the sooner those pesky Methodists just accept that and agree to become Anglicans, the sooner we can have unity (the Anglican version of unity, that is).

Posted by John Swanson at Tuesday, 1 July 2014 at 9:21am BST

Does anyone have any concept of what a unified church would either look like or have as a creed? Also, what level of unification (which churches or denominations would have to be included) would it take for the "church" to largely be called 'unified'.

Wait! maybe the better question would be "What churches are now not part of the Bride of Christ?"

Posted by Andrew F. Pierce at Tuesday, 1 July 2014 at 12:41pm BST

Does it matter that Peter Forster is illiterate? I think it does, because, in someone of his background and status, it means that he can't think.

Posted by John at Wednesday, 2 July 2014 at 4:46pm BST
Post a comment









Remember personal info?






Please note that comments are limited to 400 words. Comments that are longer than 400 words will not be approved.

Cookies are used to remember your personal information between visits to the site. This information is stored on your computer and used to refill the text boxes on your next visit. Any cookie is deleted if you select 'No'. By ticking 'Yes' you agree to this use of a cookie by this site. No third-party cookies are used, and cookies are not used for analytical, advertising, or other purposes.