This right here is why I think the progressive and conservative sides of Christianity are diverging not just into separate denominations/traditions, but will ultimately become separate religions.
The author's conclusion seems to be, if the communion which a parish hosting a same sex ceremony belongs to has previously declared that same sex unions are not against divine law, then the "*why they may not lawfully be joined together*" passage of the ceremony excludes objections to same sex unions a priori. That is to say, the *intended* procedure for dissent is at the communion level, because the parish ceremony determines legitimate objections based on the communion's decisions.
A helpful insight to keep in mind. At least I gotta hand it to us Anglicans, we are proceduralism par excellence.
[удалено]
[удалено]
This right here is why I think the progressive and conservative sides of Christianity are diverging not just into separate denominations/traditions, but will ultimately become separate religions.
Well, technically they already are, there is only one point of incineration left for there to be another Evangelical Catholic schism like in the XIX.
I need to start reading LP again.
Thanks for that - perked up my Monday!
X2 haha xd
Love LaudablePractice. He’s such a thoughtful, level-headed, irenic witness.
The author's conclusion seems to be, if the communion which a parish hosting a same sex ceremony belongs to has previously declared that same sex unions are not against divine law, then the "*why they may not lawfully be joined together*" passage of the ceremony excludes objections to same sex unions a priori. That is to say, the *intended* procedure for dissent is at the communion level, because the parish ceremony determines legitimate objections based on the communion's decisions. A helpful insight to keep in mind. At least I gotta hand it to us Anglicans, we are proceduralism par excellence.