What is the point? I have been racking my brain lately asking myself\u201d\u201cand others\u201d\u201cthis question, desperately trying to find a sound answer. What is the point of remaining in communion with the Archbishop of Canterbury? Reading articles such as this one brings this question again to the forefront of my mind. What is the point?<\/p>\n
We should recognize as many Catholic bishops as possible (i.e., to \u201cbe in communion\u201d\u009d with them), but schism occurs when major differences arise (usually accompanied by sin on at least one side) such that the Church can no longer recognize \u201ccatholicity\u201d\u009d in the other. In the case of the Episcopal Church, \u201cimpaired\u201d\u009d or even broken communion exists between many of the orthodox bishops and the heterodox bishops, and from an ecclesiological perspective, many of the sees are vacant (hence the need for missionary efforts from the Global South). Of course, the heterodox have no concept of Catholic ecclesiology, so they view this as \u201cboundary crossing\u201d\u009d which is patently absurd, considering they have no concept of much of anything Catholic. But I digress. The question I have been pondering is, what is the point of being in communion with Canterbury?<\/p>\n