MetaFilter posts tagged with schism

Making it easier to swim the Tiber

Bulgaroktonos — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 09:52:47 -0800

The Vatican announced today that it would create a new structure that would allow former Anglicans to join the Roman Catholic Church while preserving elements of Anglican spirituality and liturgy. The decision has been met hostilty by some Anglicans. Archbishop of Cantebury Rowan Williams's reaction, however, was more circumspect.

"It is easy to take parts of any holy book and make it sound like the most inhuman book ever written"

Flackjack47 — Mon, 14 Apr 2008 07:04:27 -0800

A Saudi national has made a short film intended to illustrate how all religions can be depicted as preaching violence. The Daily Telegraph reports that "Schism" is Raed al-Saeed's answer to Geert Wilder's "Fitna".

Two popes, two

omegar — Thu, 31 Jan 2008 11:35:12 -0800

"Ratzinger is an Evolutionist, which by definition makes one an athiest", is one of the reasons that this website, in which the "true" catholic faith (different [?] from the other catholic faith) is promoted, gives as to claiming Benedict XVI isn't the true pope. And to make their point they have elected a "real" pope themselves: Pope Pius XIII His real name? Lucian Pulvermacher (wikipedia) (previously) But, How can they elect a pope when they have one in the Vatican? you ask? Well, according to the FAQ, which is a tad outdated: "John Paul II is NOT the Pope and never was. Neither were the 3 other imposters, John XXIII, Paul VI or John Paul I." Of course, having two popes isn't news at all for the catholic church. There have been antipopes (wikipedia), a second pope unrecognized by the Vatican, intermitently for almost 1900 years now. Once there were even three popes at the same time, couresy of the Western Schism (wikipedia). (via)

The Bus reaches the Cross-road.

orthogonality — Sat, 22 Dec 2007 10:32:33 -0800

They were polite to us. They were more than happy for us to come to the rallies and stand in lines for hours to cheer on the candidates.... But when they got elected, behind closed doors, they would laugh at us and speak with scorn and derision that we were, as one article I think once said "the easily led." So there's been almost this sort of, it's okay if you guys get a seat on the bus, but don't ever think about telling us where the bus is going to go.

Mike Huckabee asks, What's the Matter with ~~Kansas~~ Republican Zion? It's been said before by other evangelicals and people of faith, notably in the "Mayberry Machiavellis" letter. The Republican Establishment doesn't ♥ Huckabee. (Maybe Rich Lowry should recall what he wrote in 2004, when the evangelicals were more useful to his purposes.) But What if Huckabee Loses?

Republicans have won the votes of downscale evangelicals for years by arguing that Democrats condescend to them and sneer at them behind their backs. Well, how do you think they're going to respond if East-coast conservative elites start doing the same thing--but in full public view?

Will the evangelicals get to drive, or will wheels fall off the bus?

Can you take it with you?

humanfont — Sun, 21 Jan 2007 21:26:27 -0800

Who owns your church? A few congregations disagree with the direction their church heirarchy is going. They vote to leave. Who gets the buildings and the church property? If you are politically connected, you might try to change the law in your favor.

Fundamentalism v. Doubt

OmieWise — Fri, 29 Apr 2005 08:41:50 -0800

Conservatism of faith v. conservatism of doubt- Andrew Sullivan's take on how "fundamentalism is splitting the GOP." An interesting article that is, I think, worth reading for how it characterizes recent changes in the Republican party. He doesn't exaclty see a schism, but he isn't exactly sanguine about the future of the GOP either.