How long will it take for ECUSA to split?

[gtsecc]

Months?
Years?
How many Priest will leave despite losing their entire retirement fund if they do so?

[Aymn27]

I think it will be within a few weeks - formally probably not until Lambeth. I don't think they're will be that much clergy leaving...

[pmcleanj]

This is an official moderator post.

Please review the CF rules (http://www.christianforums.com/rules) and this (http://www.christianforums.com/t2946763)post.

Since ECUSA's convention is a contentious issue among Anglicans, non-Anglicans should avoid weighing in on either side, neither with debate of their own, nor with support for any contender. Such posts are violations of Christian Forums rule 1.4: they will be deleted and may lead to the poster being warned.

Whether you are Anglican or not, the Christian Forums rules against flaming, baiting and defamation; and all other Christian Forums rules; continue to be in force in threads relating to ECUSA's General Convention as in all other threads. The rule against flaming "groups of members" applies equally to disaffected or disappointed members of ECUSA who might be inclined to flame ECUSA; and to those who are satisfied with any outcomes who might be inclined to flame subgroups or lobbies within ECUSA.

In particular please note that, regardless of your position on the issues facing this convention, ECUSA identifies itself as a Christian group and you may not state or imply that they are non-Christian.

Flaming, baiting, defamation, or any other violations of Christian Forums rules will result in General Convention threads being closed until all violations have been removed; and may lead to the posters' being warned..

Regards,
Pamela Mclean,
Senior moderator, Scripture,Tradition,Reason-Anglican/Old Catholic

[Colabomb]

Months?
Years?
How many Priest will leave despite losing their entire retirement fund if they do so?
It has been happening for years. Instead of an eartquake spit, Ecusa has been Bleeding slowly and steadily for years.

A good example is the continuing groups.

[higgs2]

Frankly, "split" is a bit grand for a description of some people leaving and then suing for the property they used as ECUSA members. ANd that's what it's really all about, money.

[Colabomb]

Frankly, "split" is a bit grand for a description of some people leaving and then suing for the property they used as ECUSA members. ANd that's what it's really all about, money.

:confused:

[gtsecc]

Frankly, "split" is a bit grand for a description of some people leaving and then suing for the property they used as ECUSA members. ANd that's what it's really all about, money.
I am going to guess you don't personally know any Episcopal Priests who left ECUSA even though they lost their retirement package.
I do.
It really isn't about the money.

[Colabomb]

Frankly, "split" is a bit grand for a description of some people leaving and then suing for the property they used as ECUSA members. ANd that's what it's really all about, money.
Please expound on this.

[Aymn27]

Frankly, "split" is a bit grand for a description of some people leaving and then suing for the property they used as ECUSA members. ANd that's what it's really all about, money.
Now come on higgs...those who are leaving now have stuck it out a good while in the hopes things would change..they are the ones who work for/tithe/build up the church at the local level - I think each church should have a vote and the ones where majority want to leave - leave and if the majority want to stay, they stay - and the buildings go to the majority. I don't think ANY diocese should be fighting for the property of any church...no matter which side the church and diocese are on...everyone should just be fair about it and accept the fact that the "fracture" (imho a better descriptor) is happening - just make it as painless as possible..

[Aymn27]

I am going to guess you don't personally know any Episcopal Priests who left ECUSA even though they lost their retirement package.
I do.
It really isn't about the money.
see..that's not right either...why are they fighting about this??? talk about "social justice" eh? geesh...

[TomUK]

Are you talking about a split within the ECUSA itself a split from the larger Anglican Communion?

[gtsecc]

Are you talking about a split within the ECUSA itself a split from the larger Anglican Communion?
They are likely the same - if ECUSA splits, one of those parts will not be part of the AC.

[TomUK]

But the ECUSA can remain intact and still be ejected from the communion.

[Colabomb]

But the ECUSA can remain intact and still be ejected from the communion.
Other Anglican Churches may break communion, but unfortunately I doubt England will do anything. They are headed down the same path.

[TomUK]

Other Anglican Churches may break communion, but unfortunately I doubt England will do anything. They are headed down the same path.

To a certain extent i think that's true. I feel though that the CofE is a little more catholic (in the universal sense) in its outlook and would be less inclined to move forward quite so unilaterally.

[ContraMundum]

Frankly, "split" is a bit grand for a description of some people leaving and then suing for the property they used as ECUSA members. ANd that's what it's really all about, money.

Continuers have a saying- you keep the buildings, we'll keep the faith.

It's not about money, becuase hundreds of clergy and parishes leave knowing full well they will never keep their proterty or pensions.

[RadixLecti]

Other Anglican Churches may break communion, but unfortunately I doubt England will do anything. They are headed down the same path.

I've heard talk(just talk) of the idea of a more tradtionally minded communion run from Alexandria Egypt made up of provinces from the Global South.

[ContraMundum]

I've heard talk(just talk) of the idea of a more tradtionally minded communion run from Alexandria Egypt made up of provinces from the Global South.

Muslims in Egypt wouldn't allow it. No new churches, patriarchs or anything allowed.

[Colabomb]

Muslims in Egypt wouldn't allow it. No new churches, patriarchs or anything allowed.
The Romans didn't like it either.

[Colabomb]

Of course, I don't want them to face unnecessary persecution, so the head could just go somewhere else.

[Naomi4Christ]

Other Anglican Churches may break communion, but unfortunately I doubt England will do anything. They are headed down the same path.

The Church of England is able to cope with diversity, and has been coping with diversity for a very long time. The Church of England has a duty to minister to everyone who lives in England, and so is designed to be all things to all people.

There will be a re-jig of parishes in the next few years, but it will driven by money, where built heritage will be more equitably matched congregation size.

[Imasheep]

would the churches be able to take anything with them? bibles, prayer books, vestments, pianos, computers, stuff like that?

[Torah613]

Muslims in Egypt wouldn't allow it. No new churches, patriarchs or anything allowed.

reminds me of a story a few years ago when the Coptic Pope* and the Byzantine Pope of Alexandria were having talks about reunion it was blocked by the government because it would mean a complete realignment of diocese territories and new Bishops (not to mention making the Christian population a much more unified block as the western Christians in Egypt don't represent a significant portion of the population). Very sad indeed.

*For those who don't know both the ancient Patriarchates of Rome and of Alexandria have used the title "Pope" throughout their histories. As a matter of fact, the usage of that title in Alexandria is actually more ancient. Today there are four people who claim the title with some legitamacy, Benedict XVI, the Byzantine (EO) Pope of Alexandria, the Coptic Pope, and the RC patriarch of Alexandria.

Joe Zollars

[ContraMundum]

reminds me of a story a few years ago when the Coptic Pope* and the Byzantine Pope of Alexandria were having talks about reunion it was blocked by the government because it would mean a complete realignment of diocese territories and new Bishops (not to mention making the Christian population a much more unified block as the western Christians in Egypt don't represent a significant portion of the population). Very sad indeed.

*For those who don't know both the ancient Patriarchates of Rome and of Alexandria have used the title "Pope" throughout their histories. As a matter of fact, the usage of that title in Alexandria is actually more ancient. Today there are four people who claim the title with some legitamacy, Benedict XVI, the Byzantine (EO) Pope of Alexandria, the Coptic Pope, and the RC patriarch of Alexandria.

Joe Zollars

Interesting.

Incidentaly, I attended some "talks" by the Coptic Pope many years ago. Very holy and spiritual man indeed. Funny accent though. :)

[Torah613]

Interesting.

Incidentaly, I attended some "talks" by the Coptic Pope many years ago. Very holy and spiritual man indeed. Funny accent though. :)

Yes Shenounda is a holy man indeed. Of course this is the same man who according to every learned Greek Old Calandrist in the world is an arch-heretic who denies Christ. Having read his works, I have to say yeah right.

This always comes to mind when I hear someone say "So and so doesn't believe in Christ" or "Such and such church/denomination doesn't believe in Christ." I've noticed recently alot of claims about the Episcopal Church no longer believing in Christ. Yet when contrasted with the Episcopal Church I regularly attend, I hardly see their point. The whole parish, complete with lady vicar, genuflect at the incarnation clause of the Nicene Creed, etc. Seems to me someone who didn't believe in Christ would go to the trouble of kneeling on such uncomfortable kneelers for even a brief moment....

Incidentally, if you travel among the Eastern Churches for any length of time, you get used to dealing with accents and broken English. Its almost a requirement to be a cleric in the Eastern Church I think--right up there with getting rid of your razor.

Joe Zollars

[Simon_Templar]

Frankly, "split" is a bit grand for a description of some people leaving and then suing for the property they used as ECUSA members. ANd that's what it's really all about, money.

Actually money and property is one of the big reasons many 'conservatives' have stayed in the ECUSA. Its hard to face giving up a pension that you've worked for and counted on your entire life. Nor a church building that you payed the upkeep on, your ancestory built and payed for, and you've attended your whole life.

[Simon_Templar]

I'm no expert on the current politics in the CofE, BUT, there are two things to consider.

Bishop Wright in his letter to the ECUSA made it fairly clear that the CofE stood unified behind Windsor, and also made it clear that the response of the ECUSA to windsor was not satisfactory, and if satisfactory response was not made, then the ECUSA would be regarded as leaving the communion.

Secondly, I think the ABC is very well aware of the fact that if the CofE does not excommunicate the ECUSA it will break the entire AC. The conservative elements of the AC have made it clear to the ABC that if the ECUSA did not repent, they would settle for nothing less than the excommunication of the ECUSA.

Therefore, I believe it is likely that the CofE will stand with the rest of the AC and regard the ECUSA as out of fellowship.

I have been wrong before though :)

[higgs2]

Actually money and property is one of the big reasons many 'conservatives' have stayed in the ECUSA. Its hard to face giving up a pension that you've worked for and counted on your entire life. Nor a church building that you payed the upkeep on, your ancestory built and payed for, and you've attended your whole life.
That's my point. My understanding is that the AAC and the "network" are positioning themselves to be declared the valid anglican church in the communion, and will be doing everything they can do to take the property with them if that should happen. THey've been quite open about it.

[ContraMundum]

Yes Shenounda is a holy man indeed. Of course this is the same man who according to every learned Greek Old Calandrist in the world is an arch-heretic who denies Christ. Having read his works, I have to say yeah right.

Yep. I grew weary of the whole "The Copts are Monophysites" nonsense very early. I always put it to the naysayers that if the Copts merely held on to the definition of Christ their leader had passed down to them (St Cyril), then how could they be "heretics" and Cyril not?

Of course, the usual response is laden with "authority-speak", which always sends alarms bell up for me.

Incidentally, if you travel among the Eastern Churches for any length of time, you get used to dealing with accents and broken English. Its almost a requirement to be a cleric in the Eastern Church I think--right up there with getting rid of your razor.

Indeed...one of a few reasons I never considered Orthodoxy a valid option for me- too much inculturation.

[SirTimothy]

Shenouda is a truly holy man, IMO. Our mission and some we're affiliated with have worked closely with the Coptic Orthodox church in Egypt. However one or two of the bishops around him are more interested in playing politics than preaching the Gospel of Christ. :sigh:

[SirTimothy]

Muslims in Egypt wouldn't allow it. No new churches, patriarchs or anything allowed.

Yep, that's true

I find it an uproariously funny idea, as +Mounir would never hear of it in his diocese. +Mounir isn't even PB of this province, for goodness sake, although he may become so in about 6-8 months, we'll see. AFAIK he's more interested in saving people for Christ and saving their lives (he's a medical doctor amongst other things) than messing with the politics of the anglican communion.

A communion headed by +Akinola is entirely possible, but by +Mounir? Forget it.

Timothy

[Torah613]

Shenouda is a truly holy man, IMO. Our mission and some we're affiliated with have worked closely with the Coptic Orthodox church in Egypt. However one or two of the bishops around him are more interested in playing politics than preaching the Gospel of Christ. :sigh:

Fortunately that's not true of the Coptic Church in general. The Coptic church seems to be very mission oriented (the vast majority of Coptic Orthodox in the new world are in fact not copts), are the least culture oriented of the Eastern Churches, and the Eastern Church most open to unity and dialogue with other christians.

Joe Zollars

[kiwimac]

Why should the communion split over the election of a female PB? I remind you NZ and Canada have had Female priests and bishops (in NZ's case) for some time and the AC has not split.

[TomUK]

Continued rejection of the Windsor Report.

[kiwimac]

Heiferdust. The ECUSA has not rejected the Windsor Report. Perhaps you might read the documents coming out of the ECUSA's GC?

Kiwimac

[TomUK]

So you're telling me that the ECUSA is abiding by the recommendations of the Windsor Report?

[No Swansong]

Frankly, "split" is a bit grand for a description of some people leaving and then suing for the property they used as ECUSA members. ANd that's what it's really all about, money.


Higgs do you truly believe it is all about money?

[No Swansong]

Why should the communion split over the election of a female PB? I remind you NZ and Canada have had Female priests and bishops (in NZ's case) for some time and the AC has not split.

I think it would have more to do with the fact that she solidly supports the Consecration of Gene Robinson and that the GC has not, nor does it appear they will, uphold the requested moratorium on future consecrations of openly gay bishops.

[kiwimac]

From the ECUSA GC documents as reported by the Times.

Last night representatives of the Episcopal Church rejected suggestions that they broke with the worldwide Anglican Communion when they elected Bishop Robinson. In its first action, the 843-member House of Deputies rejected language expressing regret for “breaching the proper constraints of the bonds of affection” by his election. Instead, the deputies approved wording expressing regret merely for “straining” the bonds of affection with the Anglican Communion.

Given that the WR is solely a document of recommendations it is hard to see just how this is ignoring it. As for the PB-elect's support of Gene Robinson that is between her and God, I do believe.

Kiwimac

[TomUK]

Well if they are abiding by the Windsor Report then i look forward to Jefferts Schori not taking her seat in Washington, ensuring that any subsequent Bishops would be acceptable to the larger communion, providing alternative oversight to those parishes in the Catholic tradition, cease blessing same-sex unions and above all repent.

I trust all these things will be happening in the next few days.

[No Swansong]

From the ECUSA GC documents as reported by the Times.



Given that the WR is solely a document of recommendations it is hard to see just how this is ignoring it. As for the PB-elect's support of Gene Robinson that is between her and God, I do believe.

Kiwimac


I find it difficult to believe that you consider Windsor simply a bunch or recommendations. While technically the language of the report is stated as such it doesn't appear that refusal to honor these "recommendations" will result in anything less than many communions breaking communion with the ECUSA . I believe it will result in far more than that.

Concerning her support of Gene Robinson's consecration. Her personal support is a private matter however that she supports further such consecrations is not. At least as far as many of the other primates are concerned.

[ContraMundum]

Is it true that the GC voted that the Scriptures are "anti-semitic" and that any text deemed to express that should not be used liturgically?

[gtsecc]

Is it true that the GC voted that the Scriptures are "anti-semitic" and that any text deemed to express that should not be used liturgically?
Found this on the Bishop of Quincy's website:

Second, the House of Deputies voted to mandate a change in the Prayer Book Lectionary. By Advent 2007, the Prayer Book lectionary will be replaced with the Revised Common Lectionary, with no exceptions. The rationale for this was to highlight the role of women in the Old Testament.

This change followed a resolution which apologized to the Jews for the violence incited against them via our liturgy and "Christian scriptures." The main focus of the apology centered on the Good Friday liturgy in which