Another Episcopal Church leaving for cana

[Colabomb]

This time... its my parish....

http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/7783/


This is old news apparently, but i have been sadly disconnected from my parish for some time due to transportation issues. I will stand with my parish as i have in the past, but i am saddened to see another voice for Orthodoxy leaving ECUSA.

May God Lead us where He will. :crossrc:

[karen freeinchristman]

That is very sad to see. I'm sorry to hear this.

Lord help us all.

[Albion]

This time... its my parish....

http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/7783/


This is old news apparently, but i have been sadly disconnected from my parish for some time due to transportation issues. I will stand with my parish as i have in the past, but i am saddened to see another voice for Orthodoxy leaving ECUSA.

May God Lead us where He will. :crossrc:

I'm sorry for you, my friend. I'm sorry that you find yourself on the front lines of these events because I know from your posts of the affection you have for your parish. If it's any consolation, your parish held out as long as there remained any significant number of "voices for orthodoxy" left to be heard in ECUSA.

You might as well embrace the opportunity to take your place in the future, even with some saddness at leaving behind what once was but can be no longer.

Cheers

[Colabomb]

I'm sorry for you, my friend. I'm sorry that you find yourself on the front lines of these events because I know from your posts of the affection you have for your parish. If it's any consolation, your parish held out as long as there remained any significant number of "voices for orthodoxy" left to be heard in ECUSA.

You might as well embrace the opportunity to take your place in the future, even with some saddness at leaving behind what once was but can be no longer.

Cheers

Oh, i have no issues with cana. I just found hope in the fact that a church such as mine could exist in Ecusa. its getting more and more clear though, that its not possible....

[Colabomb]

i just learned from my pastor via email, that we worked out a deal concerning the property. We will be leaving the building to about 20% of the congregation who wanted to stay and reform "St. Matthew's Episcopal Church" and 80% will be building a new building and calling the church "St Matthew's Anglican Church".

[higgs2]

i just learned from my pastor via email, that we worked out a deal concerning the property. We will be leaving the building to about 20% of the congregation who wanted to stay and reform "St. Matthew's Episcopal Church" and 80% will be building a new building and calling the church "St Matthew's Anglican Church".

Good for you, I'm glad the breakaway leaders are behaving properly and according to TEC canons. :thumbsup:

[TomUK]

i just learned from my pastor via email, that we worked out a deal concerning the property. We will be leaving the building to about 20% of the congregation who wanted to stay and reform "St. Matthew's Episcopal Church" and 80% will be building a new building and calling the church "St Matthew's Anglican Church".

Doesn't really seem much of a deal.

[No Swansong]

Good for you, I'm glad the breakaway leaders are behaving properly and according to TEC canons. :thumbsup:
But the threat of legal action by the Diocese was not within Canon. If so then someone needs to pick up a Bible. (Here's a hint it's a Bishop)

[No Swansong]

Doesn't really seem much of a deal.
We don't know all of the details but one thing I am sure of is that the 80% of us leaving will be taking by far the majority of the income with us. (I am sure more than 80%) I'm not at all convinced that those who remain will be able to even keep the Church up, leave alone pay its bills etc. I will be praying for those who remain but I worry that they will be a very large expense to an already poor diocese.

I fully admit I am more of an outside observer who had nothing to do with this action or decision in any way. With that said I fully support it and will support the New St. Matthews Anglican Church. I am however very disappointed that this took place.

[higgs2]

But the threat of legal action by the Diocese was not within Canon. If so then someone needs to pick up a Bible. (Here's a hint it's a Bishop)

I disagree.

[higgs2]

Doesn't really seem much of a deal.

Those are the rules.

[TomUK]

Those are the rules.

Cut your nose to spite your face?

[No Swansong]

I disagree.
Please show me specifically the Canon that encourages threats of legal action and please show me in Scripture what is said about taking believers before secular authorities?

I am certainly not a Canon Lawyer and I may be wrong about that (would certainly appreciate a specific reference encouraging legal action) but there is no question that Scripture speaks very strongly against taking each other before secular courts.

[No Swansong]

I predict that the New St. Matthews will continue to grow and evangelize and continue to make a significant difference to the community. I also predict that the original St. Matthews will cost the diocese tons of money and eventually will be cut loose because it will become insignificant to the diocese and the community. I take joy in the first part, I mourn the second.

[karen freeinchristman]

.

[No Swansong]

.
Except that Sharia law would have the rule of law both civil and criminal. Additionally we are speaking about Christians coming to a reasonable agreement amongst themselves without the need for court action. Sharia law IS court action.

[No Swansong]

Wow I must have been responding as you were editing. Would you like me to remove my response?

[higgs2]

Cut your nose to spite your face?

No, the rule is that the property belongs to the diocese, not the parish --

[karen freeinchristman]

Wow I must have been responding as you were editing. Would you like me to remove my response?
^_^ No, that's OK. You can just reply in the other thread! :)

[higgs2]

Please show me specifically the Canon that encourages threats of legal action and please show me in Scripture what is said about taking believers before secular authorities?

I am certainly not a Canon Lawyer and I may be wrong about that (would certainly appreciate a specific reference encouraging legal action) but there is no question that Scripture speaks very strongly against taking each other before secular courts.

Please show me the Canon that forbids informing a parish that should they refuse to obey the constitution and canons the recourse is civil law? You said the "threat" of legal action is not within the canon, I took that to mean it was against the canons. If what you meant is the it is not specifically encouraged in the canons, then you could very well be correct. Neither is going to the doctor when you're sick, but it's not against the TEC rules and it's sensible.

[TomUK]

No, the rule is that the property belongs to the diocese, not the parish --

I understand that, but how does it benefit anyone to retain building for a congregation who has left? Are you sure there's not an element of "well, if you don't want to worship within the ECUSA then we're certainly not going to let you use our buildings"?

I just don't see how it is going to benefit the ECUSA to be lumbered with buildings which they can't afford to pay for. It seems to me that they just want to spite any leaving the body.

[higgs2]

I understand that, but how does it benefit anyone to retain building for a congregation who has left? Are you sure there's not an element of "well, if you don't want to worship within the ECUSA then we're certainly not going to let you use our buildings"?

I just don't see how it is going to benefit the ECUSA to be lumbered with buildings which they can't afford to pay for. It seems to me that they just want to spite any leaving the body.

If you're in the 20% left, an you've been a member of a TEC church in good faith that it is an Episcopal Church, and you want to remain episcopal, you might feel differently.

[No Swansong]

Please show me the Canon that forbids informing a parish that should they refuse to obey the constitution and canons the recourse is civil law? You said the "threat" of legal action is not within the canon, I took that to mean it was against the canons. If what you meant is the it is not specifically encouraged in the canons, then you could very well be correct. Neither is going to the doctor when you're sick, but it's not against the TEC rules and it's sensible.
My meaning was that it is not encouraged in the Canons nor should it be. Actually my opinion is that Scripture is clear that it should not occur at all.

Your analogy concerning going to the doctrine is not at all applicable here.

[TomUK]

If you're in the 20% left, an you've been a member of a TEC church in good faith that it is an Episcopal Church, and you want to remain episcopal, you might feel differently.

For the first month, until the bills become too much and you're left to find a place to worship elsewhere.

[No Swansong]

I understand that, but how does it benefit anyone to retain building for a congregation who has left? Are you sure there's not an element of "well, if you don't want to worship within the ECUSA then we're certainly not going to let you use our buildings"?

I just don't see how it is going to benefit the ECUSA to be lumbered with buildings which they can't afford to pay for. It seems to me that they just want to spite any leaving the body.
There is no question that this is the prevailing opinion. At least not as far as I am concerned.

[No Swansong]

If you're in the 20% left, an you've been a member of a TEC church in good faith that it is an Episcopal Church, and you want to remain episcopal, you might feel differently.
So hypothetically if the entire congregation without exception decided to leave you would have no issue with them retaining the property?

[TomUK]

So hypothetically if the entire congregation without exception decided to leave you would have no issue with them retaining the property?

Good question

[No Swansong]

For the first month, until the bills become too much and you're left to find a place to worship elsewhere.
I pray that this doesn't happen but I am almost certain that it will. What truly scares me is that nobody here has yet even bothered to inquire as to why 80% are leaving. More disturbing is that from what I understand it took the Bishop a while to even ask that question.

[higgs2]

My meaning was that it is not encouraged in the Canons nor should it be. Actually my opinion is that Scripture is clear that it should not occur at all.

Your analogy concerning going to the doctrine is not at all applicable here.

Well then I misunderstood you, and I apologize.

I do believe my analogy is applicable.

[higgs2]

So hypothetically if the entire congregation without exception decided to leave you would have no issue with them retaining the property?

I don't know. Is that likely to happen? l don't know what a diocese would do in that circumstance. It's not unheard of for a diocese and a breakaway parish to come to some sort of mutual agreement over property.

[higgs2]

For the first month, until the bills become too much and you're left to find a place to worship elsewhere.

It is not inevitable that that happen.

We have a parish in our diocese that had a split. The other parishes in the diocese took offerings to support the remaining tEC parish. They are now thriving and have new members and a large youth presence.

[No Swansong]

I don't know. Is that likely to happen? l don't know what a diocese would do in that circumstance. It's not unheard of for a diocese and a breakaway parish to come to some sort of mutual agreement over property.
Well we were 80% and we are pretty moderate. So would a conservative Parish have a 100% vote? Probably not likely but what is a reasonable number? 90% 95? Maybe one believer?

For what it is worth our diocese is a poor one and will only continue to get poorer taking over Churches that are all but abandoned.

[ChaliceThunder]

I predict that the New St. Matthews will continue to grow and evangelize and continue to make a significant difference to the community. I also predict that the original St. Matthews will cost the diocese tons of money and eventually will be cut loose because it will become insignificant to the diocese and the community. I take joy in the first part, I mourn the second.
I pray for God's blessing on BOTH congregations! :crossrc:

[No Swansong]

It is appreciated. Many hearts are broken over this.

[ChaliceThunder]

It is appreciated. Many hearts are broken over this.
One can only imagine, brother.

My heart goes out to you and the rest!

[TomUK]

It's just so sad that we've arrived at a situation that was so avoidable.

[Albion]

No, the rule is that the property belongs to the diocese, not the parish --

Then you'd agree, I take it, that when entire dioceses begin to leave, all the properties of all the parishes belong to the diocese and go with the diocese.

[ChaliceThunder]

It's just so sad that we've arrived at a situation that was so avoidable.
I'd be interested on your take as to how this was avoidable. :wave:

[higgs2]

Then you'd agree, I take it, that when entire dioceses begin to leave, all the properties of all the parishes belong to the diocese and go with the diocese.

Nope. There is no provision for a diocese to "leave". Therefore, San Joaquin the "Remain Episcopal" folks are the diocese, and the folks who "left" are not. I think it's immoral and unethical for those parishes to try to keep the churches, but it's possible they will get away with it.

I don't know what will happen with all of the properties. I guess the courts are going to have to sort that out.

[higgs2]

I'd be interested on your take as to how this was avoidable. :wave:

.

[Albion]

Nope. There is no provision for a diocese to "leave". Therefore, San Joaquin the "Remain Episcopal" folks are the diocese, and the folks who "left" are not. I think it's immoral and unethical for those parishes to try to keep the churches, but it's possible they will get away with it.

And I was hoping for consistency instead. (sigh)

I've seen too much of this stuff for years now. Whatever works as an argument. If the canon law says X, say that we have to respect it. If it says Y, and that's not helpful to the cause, speak of fairness and concern for the minority's feelings instead of rules and regulations. If the law is neutral or open to question, claim that it isn't. Whatever works.

The sooner that both sides separate, the sooner that each church can get on with the real reason for its existence.

Most of the property issues are a matter of power and greed anyway, and as others have noted, it usually doesn't work out well for those who waste hundreds of thousands of parishioners' dollars in court fighting to retain property on the grounds that it can never be parted with by them--only to list it for sale shortly after winning their case in court.

[higgs2]

And I was hoping for consistency instead. (sigh)

I've seen too much of this stuff for years now. Whatever works as an argument. If the canon law says X, say that we have to respect it. If it says Y, and that's not helpful to the cause, speak of fairness and concern for the minority's feelings instead of rules and regulations. If the law is neutral or open to question, claim that it isn't. Whatever works.

The sooner that both sides separate, the sooner that each church can get on with the real reason for its existence.

Most of the property issues are a matter of power and greed anyway, and as others have noted, it usually doesn't work out well for those who waste hundreds of thousands of parishioners' dollars in court fighting to retain property on the grounds that it can never be parted with by them--only to list it for sale shortly after winning their case in court.

I believe I am being consistent. The parishioners leaving are no longer in TEC and can't take the property. The diocese members leaving are no longer TEC and can't take the property. In each case there is a remaining parish, remaining diocese, who retain the property. I don't see how I am being inconsistent.

[Albion]

I believe I am being consistent. The parishioners leaving are no longer in TEC and can't take the property. The diocese members leaving are no longer TEC and can't take the property. In each case there is a remaining parish, remaining diocese, who retain the property. I don't see how I am being inconsistent.

The "parishioners" do not leave TEC as individuals.

The parish votes to leave TEC. There is, therefore, NO remaining parish.

Saying that there is one reveals the purposes of the speaker.

And to say that there is some imaginary "diocese" remaining after a TEC diocese secedes...how can that be explained?

You have also argued that if something is not in the canons, it is permissible...until you argued that if it is not in the canons, it is forbidden (and is immoral).

[higgs2]

The "parishioners" do not leave TEC as individuals.

The parish votes to leave TEC. There is, therefore, NO remaining parish.

Saying that there is one reveals the purposes of the speaker.

And to say that there is some imaginary "diocese" remaining after a TEC diocese secedes...how can that be explained?

You have also argued that if something is not in the canons, it is permissible...until you argued that if it is not in the canons, it is forbidden (and is immoral).

I don't see. A parish can't leave. Parisioners can. They can form a new church, but it is not TEC.

I don't see how a diocese can leave, either.

[Colabomb]

For the Record I will be attending st matt's Anglican, not st matt's Episcopal. I loved matt's because of its leadership. its leadership is going elsewhere, i'm following.

[ContraMundum]

Being abroad from all the happenings over there in the USA, I don't really get a picture of what's happening on the ground there. It sounds worse than I thought...I'm sorry to hear about the split but this is the way things are for now. Sometimes family have internal matters that can only be settled by temporary separation. Until things change, this is a sad but necessary situation. It is Biblical to separate, despite what some might presume. In any case, things will get better with consciences free to worship and believe as they always have.


Anyway, all I can say is:
Welcome to your very own expression of "Continuing" Anglicanism. :)

[No Swansong]

I don't see. A parish can't leave. Parisioners can. They can form a new church, but it is not TEC.

I don't see how a diocese can leave, either.
You know the irony of an Anglican saying that a diocese or parish can't leave is just... well it's just ironic especially when one uses the Canons to back up their argument.

[higgs2]

You know the irony of an Anglican saying that a diocese or parish can't leave is just... well it's just ironic especially when one uses the Canons to back up their argument.

I don't think so. Unless you're somehow comparing the "leavers" to Henry the VIII? ^_^ I really can't see your point of view. That's what's ironic I guess. I shall try harder.

[Colabomb]

I don't think so. Unless you're somehow comparing the "leavers" to Henry the VIII? ^_^ I really can't see your point of view. That's what's ironic I guess. I shall try harder.


Our entire Tradition owes its existence to faithful Christians shedding off of the shackles of a corrupted church.

Leaving Rome was Canonically "Illegal". But Frankly the Call of the Lord is Greater than canons.

[higgs2]

Our entire Tradition owes its existence to faithful Christians shedding off of the shackles of a corrupted church.

Leaving Rome was Canonically "Illegal". But Frankly the Call of the Lord is Greater than canons.

:confused: i'm sorry, I just can't see the parallel.

[No Swansong]

I don't think so. Unless you're somehow comparing the "leavers" to Henry the VIII? ^_^ I really can't see your point of view. That's what's ironic I guess. I shall try harder.
Close

What I am comparing is those you call the "leavers", to the English Bishops and clergy who took their Diocese' (and all of their properties) when the English Church (against long established Canon Law) separated itself from the Roman Catholic Church.

I am however sure that you knew that is what I was referring to. Would you like reference to the Canons violated?

The fact that the descendants of those who "left" (contrary to Canon Law) would tell other descendants that they can't do the same thing because it is contrary to Canon Law is what I find Ironic, many would say hypocritical.

[higgs2]

Close

What I am comparing is those you call the "leavers", to the English Bishops and clergy who took their Diocese' (and all of their properties) when the English Church (against long established Canon Law) separated itself from the Roman Catholic Church.

I am however sure that you knew that is what I was referring to. Would you like reference to the Canons violated?

The fact that the descendants of those who "left" (contrary to Canon Law) would tell other descendants that they can't do the same thing because it is contrary to Canon Law is what I find Ironic, many would say hypocritical.

If looking at it that way is empowering and helps justify the current situation in your mind, then go for it. I strongly disagree that what is happening currently is comparable.

I don't believe that I am being hypocritical (regardless of what "many" would say), nor was I acting like I didn't know what you meant when I really did in that last post, which is what you seem to imply. I would deeply appreciate it if would could all attempt to assume good rather than evil motivations on each others' parts. And thank you for your offer to cite Canons to me, I'm sure that would be very informative to some but I know nothing about C of E canon law at the time of Elizabeth (or any other time) and I fail to see how it matters anyhow.

[Polycarp1]

From one perspective, the one shared by traditional Anglicanism and the Old Catholics, what happened in 1533, and again for them in 1870, was an entire national church casting off its affiliation to a patriarchal figure whose claims to authority and income had become onerous.

There's a big difference between that and a local parish or diocese, which is likely to have been aided in its mission days and/or endowed by bequests and donations, all of which were in contemplation that it would be a constituent part of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America. (And, by the way, notice that there is always a faithful remnant who will not bow their knee in the house of Akinola.)

And you may think whatsoever you like about her leadership, their theology and moral qualities, but nevr forget that (1) you're the one seeking the divorce, not us -- in technical terms, you're in schism, and (2) your leaders are just as sinful as ours, merely different sins -- and, if the theology we still share is any guidance, those sins are forgiven in Christ. On both sides.

It does not please me to be polemic. But when some (not all) Continuers in STR take on the attitude that they and theirs have done no wrong, and it's all the fault of "Dem Ebil Lib'ruls what corrupted TEC and ran her apostate" -- well, then, it needs to be answered.

Cola and No Swansong, I grieve with you, and wish people would see their way to where all this heartache is not necessary.

[No Swansong]

If looking at it that way is empowering and helps justify the current situation in your mind, then go for it. I strongly disagree that what is happening currently is comparable.


I expect nothing less from you

I don't believe that I am being hypocritical (regardless of what "many" would say),
Who ever believes that they are being hypocritical?

nor was I acting like I didn't know what you meant when I really did in that last post, which is what you seem to imply.
That indeed was my implication and it is what I believe


I would deeply appreciate it if would could all attempt to assume good rather than evil motivations on each others' parts.
So would I but I only know of one person on this board who I believe does and that person is neither of us.

And thank you for your offer to cite Canons to me, I'm sure that would be very informative to some but I know nothing about C of E canon law at the time of Elizabeth (or any other time) and I fail to see how it matters anyhow.
At the time CofE Canon Law was Roman Catholic Canon Law.

[higgs2]

From one perspective, the one shared by traditional Anglicanism and the Old Catholics, what happened in 1533, and again for them in 1870, was an entire national church casting off its affiliation to a patriarchal figure whose claims to authority and income had become onerous.

There's a big difference between that and a local parish or diocese, which is likely to have been aided in its mission days and/or endowed by bequests and donations, all of which were in contemplation that it would be a constituent part of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America. (And, by the way, notice that there is always a faithful remnant who will not bow their knee in the house of Akinola.)

And you may think whatsoever you like about her leadership, their theology and moral qualities, but nevr forget that (1) you're the one seeking the divorce, not us -- in technical terms, you're in schism, and (2) your leaders are just as sinful as ours, merely different sins -- and, if the theology we still share is any guidance, those sins are forgiven in Christ. On both sides.

It does not please me to be polemic. But when some (not all) Continuers in STR take on the attitude that they and theirs have done no wrong, and it's all the fault of "Dem Ebil Lib'ruls what corrupted TEC and ran her apostate" -- well, then, it needs to be answered.

Cola and No Swansong, I grieve with you, and wish people would see their way to where all this heartache is not necessary.

Good post, Polycarp. :)

[higgs2]

plonk

[Albion]

(And, by the way, notice that there is always a faithful remnant who will not bow their knee in the house of Akinola.)

And you may think whatsoever you like about her leadership, their theology and moral qualities, but nevr forget that (1) you're the one seeking the divorce, not us -- in technical terms, you're in schism, and (2) your leaders are just as sinful as ours, merely different sins -- and, if the theology we still share is any guidance, those sins are forgiven in Christ. On both sides.

It does not please me to be polemic. But when some (not all) Continuers in STR take on the attitude that they and theirs have done no wrong, and it's all the fault of "Dem Ebil Lib'ruls what corrupted TEC and ran her apostate" -- well, then, it needs to be answered.

I was inclined to think that you've created a strawman for yourself there, but then I realized that you don't even know what 'Continuing Anglican' or 'Continuer' means!

Maybe we should discuss this further at some time. After all, you ought to know the people you love to villify so.

[No Swansong]

From one perspective, the one shared by traditional Anglicanism and the Old Catholics, what happened in 1533, and again for them in 1870, was an entire national church casting off its affiliation to a patriarchal figure whose claims to authority and income had become onerous.


That is indeed one way to look at it. I disagree of course for a number of reasons

There's a big difference between that and a local parish or diocese, which is likely to have been aided in its mission days and/or endowed by bequests and donations, all of which were in contemplation that it would be a constituent part of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America. But many would contend that there is a reasonable expectation that the body to which such has been bequeathed (in this case ECUSA, or PECUSA, or TEC or whatever they are calling themselves currently) will continue in the traditions and doctrine of the Church? If it takes it upon itself to "change" is it not the body which has been unfaithful to those who bequeathed properties etc?
As a comparison, if I bequeath money to Right to Life do I not have a reasonable expectation that they will not one day start using it to advocate free abortion on demand ?


(And, by the way, notice that there is always a faithful remnant who will not bow their knee in the house of Akinola.)Yeah us heathen who actually believe in orthodoxy. I'm sorry Poly but the accusation that we are bending our knees to the "house of Akinola" completely dismisses our very genuine Christian faith and the depth of hurt that these decisions cause.

However the most telling part of your sentence is when you mention "a remnant" for indeed that is all that is left in most cases. TEC is bleeding almost gushing membership and will soon not have to worry about conservatives as all of us will eventually be driven out. But the conservative presence in the Anglican Communion is growing which unfortunately means that while TEC may win the domestic battle their days in the Anglican Communion are numbered.

Before anyone gets the wrong idea by the way I do not take joy in anything about this situation.

And you may think whatsoever you like about her leadership, their theology and moral qualities, but nevr forget that (1) you're the one seeking the divorce, not us -- in technical terms, you're in schism, and If you would like to use the marriage analogy ok, but then that would make such a divorce acceptable in that TEC would be an adulterer. As for schism who is the schismatic the one who follows the truth or the one who abandons it? For that matter the Anglican Church is technically in Schism from the Roman Catholic Church which is technically in Schism from the Orthodox Church which is technically in Schism from the Roman Catholic Church etc. ad nauseum.



(2) your leaders are just as sinful as ours, merely different sins -- and, if the theology we still share is any guidance, those sins are forgiven in Christ. On both sides.I completely agree that all Christian leaders are fallible and sinful, I also agree that it is possible for all of those sins to be forgiven.



It does not please me to be polemic I believe you. But when some (not all) Continuers in STR take on the attitude that they and theirs have done no wrong, and it's all the fault of "Dem Ebil Lib'ruls what corrupted TEC and ran her apostate" -- well, then, it needs to be answered.Since you are responding to me I take it that it is my posts that need to be answered. In that case then I ask you to point out to me where I have taken an attitude that we have done no wrong.

Cola and No Swansong, I grieve with you, and wish people would see their way to where all this heartache is not necessary.I appreciate this and know you to be sincere both in your faith and in your concern, for what it is worth I do believe that St. Matts' departure and the departure of many other bodies could have been avoided but I am not sure you and I would agree on it. (I truly don't know where you stand on alternative Episcopal oversight)

[RedneckAnglican]

This time... its my parish....

http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/7783/


This is old news apparently, but i have been sadly disconnected from my parish for some time due to transportation issues. I will stand with my parish as i have in the past, but i am saddened to see another voice for Orthodoxy leaving ECUSA.

May God Lead us where He will. :crossrc:

KEWL...My Church went CANA a few months ago...remind me to send you the links for the cana t-shirts for whitsunday....

[IowaLutheran]

Hey Redneck - long time, no see!

[Colabomb]

haplonk

erha?

[RedneckAnglican]

Hey Redneck - long time, no see!

yeah...I don't get to hang out to often anymore...today is going to be off and on...sick baby...I thinks he's finally asleep though...

[Albion]

Isn't the biggest point here that everyone has to follow his conscience and be part of that Anglican communion which he feels has best kept the faith?

Hopefully, we all can agree to that, especially since STR is the forum for all Anglicans. Christ founded a church, we should remember, not a club.

[higgs2]

Isn't the biggest point here that everyone has to follow his conscience and be part of that Anglican communion which he feels has best kept the faith?

Hopefully, we all can agree to that, especially since STR is the forum for all Anglicans. Christ founded a church, we should remember, not a club.

Certainly. But attempting to take property and declare themselves the legitimate member of the AC in place of TEC is what is objectionable.

[Albion]

Let's not start, huh?

I am confident that each and every side can come up with its own "but not THAT!" reservation--if endless arguing is what we all want to do. And each one of 'em has a ready answer, too.

[higgs2]

Let's not start, huh?

I am confident that each and every side can come up with its own "but not THAT!" reservation--if endless arguing is what we all want to do. And each one of 'em has a ready answer, too.

Looks like we're in violent agreement with each other on that, my friend. :)

[Colabomb]

Looks like we're in violent agreement with each other on that, my friend. :)

I agree with albion too, but you can't go and be one of the most polemic posters on the thread and then play sunshine.

[higgs2]

I agree with albion too, but you can't go and be one of the most polemic posters on the thread and then play sunshine.

I think it is very unkind of you to accuse Albion of being polemic. He is giving his opinion, as are we all. I do not believe he has been polemic. I'm disappointed in this post of yours, cola.

[Colabomb]

I think it is very unkind of you to accuse Albion of being polemic. He is giving his opinion, as are we all. I do not believe he has been polemic. I'm disappointed in this post of yours, cola.

I thought it pretty obvious i was talking about you

[higgs2]

plonk

[karen freeinchristman]

hmm... I guess the word 'plonk' doesn't carry the same meaning in the USA as it does here in the UK. Suffice to say, it is not a word I would use.

[Albion]

Edited.

never mind.

[Colabomb]

i still don't know what she means

I assume it means, im criticising you but not going to say how...

[karen freeinchristman]

Can we get back to the topic, please?

[Polycarp1]

FYI, Cola, it means she has put you on "ignore", for a highly insulting remark that doesn't violate the forum rules, apparently.

As for me, I've been asked to continue posting in STR, despite the highly negative atmosphere of some members. And I would prefer not being polemic, but frankly I will answer accusations by schismatics that my church is apostate or heretical, in its own designated congregational forum, with the same degree of snark that is directed at it. I truly wish that level were far lower.

[Colabomb]

FYI, Cola, it means she has put you on "ignore", for a highly insulting remark that doesn't violate the forum rules, apparently.

As for me, I've been asked to continue posting in STR, despite the highly negative atmosphere of some members. And I would prefer not being polemic, but frankly I will answer accusations by schismatics that my church is apostate or heretical, in its own designated congregational forum, with the same degree of snark that is directed at it. I truly wish that level were far lower.

Firstly, i do aplogize for my tone, regardless of my frustration, i should not snap out like i did, and for that i am very sorry.

However my frustration is mounting. I and many others on this forum have been accused again and again of being schismatic and divisive. I am frustrated at the snide (sugar coated) comments by higgs and a few others that go unnoticed and seemingly never called out. It seems only one side of this forum is held responsible for snide and divisive speech.

Also, remember, that this forum belongs to all anglicans Poly. The Anglican Communion is not the whole of Anglicanism. Non Episcopalians (note for the record i wish that we had remained in the Episcopal Church), have the right to point out things they believe are wrong, and you have the right to defend. We are on equal ground. This is not the Episcopal Forum, this is the Anglican forum.


Lastly Polycarp, the word schismatic is used in a politically rhetorical sense. Anglicanism itself was born out of an illegal violation of canon law. Remember, Canon law was invented by man, not by God.

All Christians are responsible for schism, ALL CHRISTIANS. Shoving the blame onto someone else, is inappropriate and wrong.

And again, i reiterate..

Snark is flying both ways. A Ceasefire would be beautiful, but I find it difficult to be fired at without firing back. It is my sinful nature.

[Colabomb]

FYI, Cola, it means she has put you on "ignore", for a highly insulting remark that doesn't violate the forum rules, apparently.

As for me, I've been asked to continue posting in STR, despite the highly negative atmosphere of some members. And I would prefer not being polemic, but frankly I will answer accusations by schismatics that my church is apostate or heretical, in its own designated congregational forum, with the same degree of snark that is directed at it. I truly wish that level were far lower.

Calling people schismatic is a wonderful way to bring about peaceful dialogue. Little help with that splinter brother?

Firstly, i do aplogize for my tone, regardless of my frustration, i should not snap out like i did, and for that i am very sorry.

However my frustration is mounting. I and many others on this forum have been accused again and again of being schismatic and divisive. I am frustrated at the snide (sugar coated) comments by higgs and a few others that go unnoticed and seemingly never called out. It seems only one side of this forum is held responsible for divisive speech.

Also, remember, that this forum belongs to all anglicans Poly. The Anglican Communion is not the whole of Anglicanism. Non Episcopalians (note for the record i wish that we had remained in the Episcopal Church), have the right to point out things they believe are wrong, and you have the right to defend. We are on equal ground. This is not the Episcopal Forum, this is the Anglican forum.


Lastly Polycarp, the word schismatic is used in a politically rhetorical sense. Anglicanism itself was born out of an illegal violation of canon law. Remember, Canon law was invented by man, not by God.

All Christians are responsible for schism, ALL CHRISTIANS. Shoving the blame onto someone else, is inappropriate and wrong.

Snark is flying both ways. I find it difficult not to fire back, it is wrong, but it is my sinful nature.

I value differing opinion polycarp. One of my closest friends is "an ebil lib'rul" and an atheist to boot. But I hate hypocrisy. I have been rude, sarcastic and downright mean. But so have many of the people who are quick to call out my many faults.

[ContraMundum]

And you may think whatsoever you like about her leadership, their theology and moral qualities, but nevr forget that (1) you're the one seeking the divorce, not us -- in technical terms, you're in schism, and (2) your leaders are just as sinful as ours, merely different sins -- and, if the theology we still share is any guidance, those sins are forgiven in Christ. On both sides.

This is pretty annoying, polycarp. I have to tell you. It's offensive and unecessary and very pompous.

If I have to stomach one more comment about Continuers being in "schism" I'll vomit.

Simple fact about Continuers- they use the same definitions as our forefathers. One of the definitions of the foreathers is this: schism = departure from Catholic faith and Order.

Therefore, to the Continuer, we are not the schismatics. Only those who depart from the Catholic faith and order are. Notice: I'm not calling anyone a schismatic, because I have better manners. However, you are.

I'm just telling you the theological approach that we take.

It does not please me to be polemic.

Then don't be polemic.

But when some (not all) Continuers in STR take on the attitude that they and theirs have done no wrong, and it's all the fault of "Dem Ebil Lib'ruls what corrupted TEC and ran her apostate" -- well, then, it needs to be answered.

There's ways of approaching this without calling people schismatics simply for holding on to the theology of your own grandparents and every Anglican before them.

Cola and No Swansong, I grieve with you, and wish people would see their way to where all this heartache is not necessary.

Unecessary? Since when is all heartache unecessary? When St Paul told Christians to separate from persistant errorists and and heretics I'm sure he knew there would be heartache. If anything, it's a necessary surgery.

However, it seems that St Paul is not all that important to some people. Even the most progressive elements in Anglicanism should have been pushing to oust the Continuers if they were consistant with and obedient to the scriptures- and some are glad to see us go- surely they see us as the heretics and errorists, right?

Sometimes you gotta separate to settle the feud.

[Colabomb]

ERm, i sorta double posted when i meant to edit....

[Polycarp1]

You know, a couple of years ago, I used the word "schism" in a post, making clear that I meant the dictionary definition and was not calling names. Pam asked me to remove it, and I did.

Within a few days, a few of the people who have joined the Anglican Something-or-Other of America (coining a generic to avoid picking out particular members and their churches) was pontificating about how it was obvious that TEC was apostate, etc., etc. -- you know the drill -- complete with references to the Lambeth 1.10 resolution that made it sound like on a par with the Creeds in authority.

I don't think either side hears the pomposity or snideness in their side's comments, but as Cola notes is quick to pick up on the other side's manifold sins and wickedness. Back when the forum was started, I advocated a "big tent" that made sure to include the Continuers, the REC, and so on, as well as those in communion with Canterbury. I find that ironic, these days.

Maybe we need to do less arguing with each other and more praying for each other -- ideally not assuming that God will back us and show those poor sinners the errors of their ways, but rather in mutual support and compassion. That's one thing we used to be good at. I don't know why we changed.

[Colabomb]

I think we'd go along way if we admitted we ALL have done it. No one has clean hands here.

[karen freeinchristman]

Maybe we need to do less arguing with each other and more praying for each other.
:thumbsup: :amen: :clap: :thumbsup: :amen: :clap: :thumbsup: :amen: :ebil: :wave:

[higgs2]

This is pretty annoying, polycarp. I have to tell you. It's offensive and unecessary and very pompous.

If I have to stomach one more comment about Continuers being in "schism" I'll vomit.

Simple fact about Continuers- they use the same definitions as our forefathers. One of the definitions of the foreathers is this: schism = departure from Catholic faith and Order.

Therefore, to the Continuer, we are not the schismatics. Only those who depart from the Catholic faith and order are. Notice: I'm not calling anyone a schismatic, because I have better manners. However, you are.

I'm just telling you the theological approach that we take.



Then don't be polemic.



There's ways of approaching this without calling people schismatics simply for holding on to the theology of your own grandparents and every Anglican before them.



Unecessary? Since when is all heartache unecessary? When St Paul told Christians to separate from persistant errorists and and heretics I'm sure he knew there would be heartache. If anything, it's a necessary surgery.

However, it seems that St Paul is not all that important to some people. Even the most progressive elements in Anglicanism should have been pushing to oust the Continuers if they were consistant with and obedient to the scriptures- and some are glad to see us go- surely they see us as the heretics and errorists, right?

Sometimes you gotta separate to settle the feud.

Contra, I think maybe the "schism" thing is a reaction to what TEC views as an attempt to become the "official" Anglican Communion church in the US in place of TEC. I think it might be viewed differently that "continuing" Anglican churches like REC, who left TEC and moved on as their own entity. But the word "schism" is a volatile one, I do agree with that.

[higgs2]

:thumbsup: :amen: :clap: :thumbsup: :amen: :clap: :thumbsup: :amen: :ebil: :wave:

word. :thumbsup:

[Colabomb]

Perhaps we could lead by example....

[ContraMundum]

Perhaps we could lead by example....

Sure, we could be the bad example. :D

[higgs2]

Sure, we could be the bad example. :D

Our bishop preached on that verse from Ephesians a couple of years ago. I remember it because he said that what it really means is that we have to "put up with each other". :)

[Colabomb]

Our bishop preached on that verse from Ephesians a couple of years ago. I remember it because he said that what it really means is that we have to "put up with each other". :)

Seems you'd rather not put up with some.......

[ChaliceThunder]

Perhaps a solution would be to allow CANA and the other break off churches to ALSO be a part of the Anglican Communion. So what if there are 2 or more branches in one country?

The bishops who have made incursions in TEC dioceses certainly haven't seen anything wrong with it. (I'm not trying to be flippant here - maybe they actually have something!)

[Colabomb]

Perhaps a solution would be to allow CANA and the other break off churches to ALSO be a part of the Anglican Communion. So what if there are 2 or more branches in one country?

The bishops who have made incursions in TEC dioceses certainly haven't seen anything wrong with it. (I'm not trying to be flippant here - maybe they actually have something!)

Its an issueof pride and territory.

Nuh uh, WE are the real Anglicans! See we have the seal of approval...

[higgs2]

Perhaps a solution would be to allow CANA and the other break off churches to ALSO be a part of the Anglican Communion. So what if there are 2 or more branches in one country?

The bishops who have made incursions in TEC dioceses certainly haven't seen anything wrong with it. (I'm not trying to be flippant here - maybe they actually have something!)

Are they not members? I don't know for sure. It seems that the Church of Nigeria is a member so what they are saying is that they are members through Nigeria.

[Polycarp1]

Are they not members? I don't know for sure. It seems that the Church of Nigeria is a member so what they are saying is that they are members through Nigeria.

Well, there's an interesting issue there. While most of the groups that have withdrawn from ECUSA and sought episcopacy have simply elected a priest of their number and besought his consecration by sympathetic overseas bishops acting extraterritorially -- i.e., as bishops in the church of god, they are consecrating a bishop for another church bereft of one, so that while the guy from the S.C. island traces his succession throught Rwanda and Singapore, he is a bishop of his own, American church, not of their provinces.

CANA is different. Canonically, Martin Mimms is a bishop of the Church of Nigeria for the mission work in and around D.C., U.S.A.

Canterbury is not in a relationship with the other continuers (other than of dialogue), but arguably is with CANA through the (ecclesiastical) Province of Nigeria.

Now, this is a Lambeth year, and the bishops of the national churches in communion with Canterbury have been invited to Lambeth Palace for the decennial conference. Except two bishops from America: Gene Robinson and Martin Mimms.

You may put whatever construction on that fact you choose. Out of sheer courtesy to Rowan++ and to my opposite numbers in these debates, I refrain from drawing any conclusions myself.

BTW, I believe my view on alternative oversight, which was asked for earlier, is best given by noting my enthusiastic praise for Gene Robinson's offering his dissident conservative parishes the right to visitation by Dan Herzog, the one bishop (now retired and converted to Rome) I have ever counted as a close personal friend, and a leader in the group that sought to maintain a conservative presence in ECUSA through one of the numerous groups acronymed ACC. In sum, the chosen diocesan should be the one to offer it on request, and a bishop acceptable both to him and to the dissident parishes should be the alternative oversight prelate. With a modicum of good will on both sides, this can be made to work.

[Albion]

Well, there's an interesting issue there. While most of the groups

They're called dioceses, churches, congregations, or parishes, as the case may be.

, that have withdrawn from ECUSA and sought episcopacy have simply elected a priest of their number and besought his consecration by sympathetic overseas bishops acting extraterritorially

In fact, this is not the usual situation. More often, a bishop is sought who will produce a priest for them or to license a priest already ordained who has agreed to serve them. They don't "elect" a man and ask that he be priested.

i.e., as bishops in the church of god, they are consecrating a bishop for another church bereft of one, so that while the guy from the S.C. island traces his succession throught Rwanda and Singapore, he is a bishop of his own, American church, not of their provinces.

Not so. "the guy" is a bishop of an Anglican Communion province and was not a bishop until consecrated for a province of the Anglican Communion by bishops of the Anglican Communion.

CANA is different. Canonically, Martin Mimms

That's Minns.

is a bishop of the Church of Nigeria for the mission work in and around D.C., U.S.A.

For the whole of CANA.

Canterbury is not in a relationship with the other continuers (other than of dialogue), but arguably is with CANA through the (ecclesiastical) Province of Nigeria.

Now, this is a Lambeth year, and the bishops of the national churches in communion with Canterbury have been invited to Lambeth Palace for the decennial conference. Except two bishops from America: Gene Robinson and Martin Mimms.

BTW, I believe my view on alternative oversight, which was asked for earlier, is best given by noting my enthusiastic praise for Gene Robinson's offering his dissident conservative parishes the right to visitation by Dan Herzog, the one bishop (now retired and converted to Rome) I have ever counted as a close personal friend, and a leader in the group that sought to maintain a conservative presence in ECUSA through one of the numerous groups acronymed ACC. In sum, the chosen diocesan should be the one to offer it on request, and a bishop acceptable both to him and to the dissident parishes should be the alternative oversight prelate. With a modicum of good will on both sides, this can be made to work.

If only TEC would take that approach. It is similar to what was asked for by the "dissidents," but they were refused. By now, they have the idea that there never will be such an accomodation and that they're being invited to clear out. So in increasing numbers, expect to see them doing just that, although it clearly is not what they had wanted.

[No Swansong]

Hmmmm........

93 posts and yet still no one. It seems the reason(s) aren't important.

[higgs2]

Well, there's an interesting issue there. While most of the groups that have withdrawn from ECUSA and sought episcopacy have simply elected a priest of their number and besought his consecration by sympathetic overseas bishops acting extraterritorially -- i.e., as bishops in the church of god, they are consecrating a bishop for another church bereft of one, so that while the guy from the S.C. island traces his succession throught Rwanda and Singapore, he is a bishop of his own, American church, not of their provinces.

CANA is different. Canonically, Martin Mimms is a bishop of the Church of Nigeria for the mission work in and around D.C., U.S.A.

Canterbury is not in a relationship with the other continuers (other than of dialogue), but arguably is with CANA through the (ecclesiastical) Province of Nigeria.

Now, this is a Lambeth year, and the bishops of the national churches in communion with Canterbury have been invited to Lambeth Palace for the decennial conference. Except two bishops from America: Gene Robinson and Martin Mimms.

You may put whatever construction on that fact you choose. Out of sheer courtesy to Rowan++ and to my opposite numbers in these debates, I refrain from drawing any conclusions myself.

BTW, I believe my view on alternative oversight, which was asked for earlier, is best given by noting my enthusiastic praise for Gene Robinson's offering his dissident conservative parishes the right to visitation by Dan Herzog, the one bishop (now retired and converted to Rome) I have ever counted as a close personal friend, and a leader in the group that sought to maintain a conservative presence in ECUSA through one of the numerous groups acronymed ACC. In sum, the chosen diocesan should be the one to offer it on request, and a bishop acceptable both to him and to the dissident parishes should be the alternative oversight prelate. With a modicum of good will on both sides, this can be made to work.

Yes, perhaps not inviting Minns gives us the ABC's idea of whether he is in the Anglican communion. I wonder though, what the reason would be for not inviting Robinson.

I believe that a TEC bishop going to Nigeria and ordaining a local Anglican priest there as bishop and then claiming the local church was now a TEC church would be frowned upon. But is that any different? It's strange to imagine the recent events with different players in different roles.

[No Swansong]

Yes, perhaps not inviting Minns gives us the ABC's idea of whether he is in the Anglican communion. I wonder though, what the reason would be for not inviting Robinson.

I believe that a TEC bishop going to Nigeria and ordaining a local Anglican priest there as bishop and then claiming the local church was now a TEC church would be frowned upon. But is that any different? It's strange to imagine the recent events with different players in different roles.
In a statement, Bishop Robinson called the refusal to include him “among all other duly elected and consecrated bishops of the church an affront to the entire Episcopal Church.” He added, “At a time when the Anglican Communion is calling for a ‘listening process’ on the issue of homosexuality, how does it make sense to exclude gay and lesbian people from the discussion? Isn’t it time that the bishops of the church stop talking about us and start talking with us?”

In his letter of invitation, Archbishop Williams said, “with the recommendations of the Windsor Report particularly in mind, I have to reserve the right to withhold or withdraw invitations from bishops whose appointment, actions or manner of life have caused exceptionally serious division or scandal within the Communion.”


http://www.anglicanjournal.com/issues/2007/133/junejuly/06/article/lambeth-invitations-exclude-american-gay-bishop-1/

[Albion]

Hmmmm........

93 posts and yet still no one. It seems the reason(s) aren't important.

If you are saying, "93 posts and no one...has thought of a reason for another parish to have left TEC," I confess that I am not following what you mean.

[Polycarp1]

They're called dioceses, churches, congregations, or parishes, as the case may be.

What I intended by "groups" was to not draw distinctions between the various "ecclesial communities" (to borrow John Paul II's euphemism) on the basis of whether they're organized as provinces, dioceses, standalone parishes, etc. It was an attempt at courtesy, not sneering.

In fact, this is not the usual situation. More often, a bishop is sought who will produce a priest for them or to license a priest already ordained who has agreed to serve them. They don't "elect" a man and ask that he be priested.

I was talking about the process of obtaining a new bishop for the group of unified parishes that withdrew together and are a diocese-in-formation. Given that, am I wrong about the process? I'm going largely on the basis of news reports, and we both know how unreliable they can be.

Not so. "the guy" is a bishop of an Anglican Communion province and was not a bishop until consecrated for a province of the Anglican Communion by bishops of the Anglican Communion.

Oh? I trust you know whom I'm speaking of -- I don't remember his name, or it would not have been "that guy". And seriously, of what province within the Anglican Communion is he a bishop? Not sarcasm, I thought the Apb. of Singapore and the two bishops from Rwanda consecrated him for the Anglican Church/Mission/something in America (amend this to whichever is right, please), not as a suffragan of either of their provinces.

That's Minns.

Mispelled from memory, no insult intended.

For the whole of CANA.

And the terms on which the Abp. of Nigeria has authority in the United States of America, by the interprovincial agreement, IIRC. is that he has oversight of missions serving Nigerians in and around the national capital, of which there were a large number. So please clarify what "the whole of CANA" constitutes.

If only TEC would take that approach. It is similar to what was asked for by the "dissidents," but they were refused. By now, they have the idea that there never will be such an accomodation and that they're being invited to clear out. So in increasing numbers, expect to see them doing just that, although it clearly is not what they had wanted.

Refused by whom? Seeking alternative oversight from whom? Under what circumstances? Given that +Robinson is at the center of this firestorm, and he agreed to have +Herzog exercise alternative oversight, it sounds to me like the dissidents weren't satisfied with a victory that kept the church together. Your view of course may be different.

[No Swansong]

If you are saying, "93 posts and no one...has thought of a reason for another parish to have left TEC," I confess that I am not following what you mean.
No what I am referring to is that there have been 93 posts and no-one has asked why.

[Polycarp1]

I'd sort of figured that if you had wanted us to know why, you would have volunteered the information in your OP. But given the question, why did most of St. Matthew's up and leave TEC?

[Colabomb]

The OP was mine, and i did not originally think it a big issue, as i was simply informing, rather than fostering debate.

However, dad has noticed what i missed. Everyone jumps to the political conclusion (with the exception of Chalice, who offered up a wise solution) that fits their particular political/religious views.

And yes, i mean BOTH "Sides".

[Albion]

What I intended by "groups" was to not draw distinctions between the various "ecclesial communities" (to borrow John Paul II's euphemism) on the basis of whether they're organized as provinces, dioceses, standalone parishes, etc. It was an attempt at courtesy, not sneering.



I was talking about the process of obtaining a new bishop for the group of unified parishes that withdrew together and are a diocese-in-formation. Given that, am I wrong about the process? I'm going largely on the basis of news reports, and we both know how unreliable they can be.



Oh? I trust you know whom I'm speaking of -- I don't remember his name, or it would not have been "that guy". And seriously, of what province within the Anglican Communion is he a bishop? Not sarcasm, I thought the Apb. of Singapore and the two bishops from Rwanda consecrated him for the Anglican Church/Mission/something in America (amend this to whichever is right, please), not as a suffragan of either of their provinces.



Mispelled from memory, no insult intended.



And the terms on which the Abp. of Nigeria has authority in the United States of America, by the interprovincial agreement, IIRC. is that he has oversight of missions serving Nigerians in and around the national capital, of which there were a large number. So please clarify what "the whole of CANA" constitutes.



Refused by whom? Seeking alternative oversight from whom? Under what circumstances? Given that +Robinson is at the center of this firestorm, and he agreed to have +Herzog exercise alternative oversight, it sounds to me like the dissidents weren't satisfied with a victory that kept the church together. Your view of course may be different.

Mainly what I am saying is that if we are saying we should tone down the accusatory language, we ought not to speak of the other side as "what's his name," "the guy" (knowing him to be a bishop), or various churches as "The Anglican/mission/something in America."

From my observation of these threads, TEC is virtually always called TEC (or ECUSA) by those who have lost respect for her, the presiding bishop is not called "Whatsername," and the supporters of the other side are not ever lampooned as speaking like this: "Dem Ebil Lib'ruls."


I do understand that sometimes we forget a spelling, a name, or the exact term, but I also know that there are a dozen more respectful ways of covering that than what I've been reading. One could, for example, say "one of the continuing churches" instead of "The Anglican...something," and "the bishop in SC whose name escapes me now" in stead of "guy."
IF toning down our posts is indeed something we want, we need to stop using the little back-door methods of patronizing and attacking the other side by a careful choice of dismissive words.

BTW, the bishop you were speaking of is, I believe, a full member of the house of bishops of the Church of Rwanda, and his parishes in the USA are considered to be in the same relationship with that province as are CANA's by the Church of Nigeria. At least I am quite certain that this was explained as the case by the PB of Rwanda.

And as for Bp. Robinson, he may have done exactly as you say here and been generous about alternative oversight, but what I was speaking to was the stance of the TEC House of Bishops speaking about the policy that the church as a whole would adopt. The HOB refused to commit to anything like that, to any fixed and predictable system, and this forced the hand of those recent emigres (most of whom are not residents of New Hampshire, Bp. Robinson's diocese) who had hoped that it would not be necessary for them to leave TEC.

[higgs2]

Mainly what I am saying is that if we are saying we should tone down the accusatory language, we ought not to speak of the other side as "what's his name," "the guy" (knowing him to be a bishop), or various churches as "The Anglican/mission/something in America."

From my observation of these threads, TEC is virtually always called TEC (or ECUSA) by those who have lost respect for her, the presiding bishop is not called "Whatsername," and the supporters of the other side are not ever lampooned as speaking like this: "Dem Ebil Lib'ruls."


I do understand that sometimes we forget a spelling, a name, or the exact term, but I also know that there are a dozen more respectful ways of covering that than what I've been reading. One could, for example, say "one of the continuing churches" instead of "The Anglican...something," and "the bishop in SC whose name escapes me now" in stead of "guy."
IF toning down our posts is indeed something we want, we need to stop using the little back-door methods of patronizing and attacking the other side by a careful choice of dismissive words.

BTW, the bishop you were speaking of is, I believe, a full member of the house of bishops of the Church of Rwanda, and his parishes in the USA are considered to be in the same relationship with that province as are CANA's by the Church of Nigeria. At least I am quite certain that this was explained as the case by the PB of Rwanda.

And as for Bp. Robinson, he may have done exactly as you say here and been generous about alternative oversight, but what I was speaking to was the stance of the TEC House of Bishops speaking about the policy that the church as a whole would adopt. The HOB refused to commit to anything like that, to any fixed and predictable system, and this forced the hand of those recent emigres (most of whom are not residents of New Hampshire, Bp. Robinson's diocese) who had hoped that it would not be necessary for them to leave TEC.

I don't really get it. The bishop from our diocese (who is conservative) is one of the bishops who would provide "Alternative Oversite" to a parish who requested it. My understanding is that there are quite a few bishops committed to doing this.

[gtsecc]

I don't really get it. The bishop from our diocese (who is conservative) is one of the bishops who would provide "Alternative Oversite" to a parish who requested it. My understanding is that there are quite a few bishops committed to doing this.
But, there has been no provision for this from TEC.

[higgs2]

But, there has been no provision for this from TEC.

REally? I got the impression that this was official, either the house of bishops or PB has designated these bishops as such.

[Albion]

I don't really get it. The bishop from our diocese (who is conservative) is one of the bishops who would provide "Alternative Oversite" to a parish who requested it. My understanding is that there are quite a few bishops committed to doing this.

Note carefully what I actually wrote.

Yes, there was a general agreement to there being some kind of alternate oversight...but no commitment to it being permanent, predictable, or anything else about who or when or where it would operate. And of course it would always and only be at the whim of the bishop ordinary at that particular moment.

Now, if you think that such a policy constitutes agreeing to allow alternative oversight, those who were hoping for it, did not.

Possibly this reminded them of a similar agreement a generation ago to allow the use of the 1928 Book of Common Prayer, which promptly was made inoperable because all the bishops who agreed to allow it--but not with any specifics--didn't actually get around to allowing it to be used when asked except for very occasional events and then only on a time by time basis so that no one could ever have any way of knowing when or under what conditions as well as whether.

In any case, the meeting of the House of Bishops which returned this "we'll think about how to implement alternate oversight, but trust us" finding was the meeting that everyone had been waiting for for half a year because it was supposed to decide 'yes or no' in definite terms.

When the HOB decided "yes, but" instead, I can well imagine that all those who were hoping for an affirmative decision so that the church could be kept united saw the handwriting on the wall. They certainly cannot be accused of jumping the gun, acting in haste, or anything else like that.

[higgs2]

Note carefully what I actually wrote.

Yes, there was a general agreement to there being some kind of alternate oversight...but no commitment to it being permanent, predictable, or anything else about who or when or where it would operate. And of course it would always and only be at the whim of the bishop ordinary at that particular moment.

Now, if you think that such a policy constitutes agreeing to allow alternative oversight, those who were hoping for it, did not.

Possibly this reminded them of a similar agreement a generation ago to allow the use of the 1928 Book of Common Prayer, which promptly was made inoperable because all the bishops who agreed to allow it--but not with any specifics--didn't actually get around to allowing it to be used when asked except for very occasional events and then only on a time by time basis so that no one could ever have any way of knowing when or under what conditions as well as whether.

In any case, the meeting of the House of Bishops which returned this "we'll think about how to implement alternate oversight, but trust us" finding was the meeting that everyone had been waiting for for half a year because it was supposed to decide 'yes or no' in definite terms.

When the HOB decided "yes, but" instead, I can well imagine that all those who were hoping for an affirmative decision so that the church could be kept united saw the handwriting on the wall. They certainly cannot be accused of jumping the gun, acting in haste, or anything else like that.

So if a parish were to ask for alternative oversite from one of the bishops designated to provide it, they would be denied?

[higgs2]

Okay, found an article. PB asked them to be what is called "episcopal visitors". http://www.episcopalchurch.org/79901_90174_ENG_HTM.htm

[Albion]

So if a parish were to ask for alternative oversite from one of the bishops designated to provide it, they would be denied?

No one knows...according to what the House of Bishops adopted.

The bishop COULD respond favorably--he is authorized to do so--but he wouldn't have to.

And who would be sent to conduct that oversight isn't guaranteed to the parish in advance, either. It could be a bishop who actually does not represent anything theologically "alternate" except for being a different bishop. Nor are any of the details, such as how long this particular exercise in oversight might be good for, or whether an identical request next time would receive the opposite answer from the bishop ordinary.

So that is the situation facing the parish that is described by TEC's leaders as amounting to an approval of alternate oversight.

No parish can function without knowing if its clergy are going to show up on Sunday, so by the same token, how realistic is it to say that alternate oversight has been approved...except that the parish doesn't know when it will be allowed, when it will have its request answered, who will be that bishop doing the oversight, and for how long?

One thing is fairly clear, though, which is that the parishes hoping for such an arrangement were asking for ongoing oversight, since being part of any episcopal system is to be in a continuous arrangement. It's not as though you call the bishop and ask for alternate "oversight" only when you need someone to conduct a service of confirmation.

[Albion]

Okay, found an article. PB asked them to be what is called "episcopal visitors". http://www.episcopalchurch.org/79901_90174_ENG_HTM.htm

I found this line to be particularly relevant: "...Jefferts Schori is "comfortable letting the details be worked out by the bishops involved."

[higgs2]

Thank you for explaining your concerns about this, Albion.

[higgs2]

I hope that the episcopal visitor system will be used and that the details will be worked out. I would like for parishes to have this be an alternative for them to leaving TEC.

[Polycarp1]

You know, I do understand better now. Thanks, Albion. And I accept the criticism of my style -- it was more flip than I'd intended, for reasons involving my opinion about bishops of other provinces doing those ordinations that I'd as soon not get into here -- I see the topic as likely to produce much more heat than light, to borrow an old cliche.

There's a delicate balance between the authority of the ordinary over his diocese and the pastoral needs of parishes to whom his views are uncongenial or worse. I'd hardly use "whim" to describe an ordinary's right to decide who will perform episcopal functions in his diocese and under what criteria. Jack +Spong, for all of that, formally sought permission from Michael +Curry before officially committing to lead a teaching weekend that Bp. Curry had been kept in the loop on the planning of. If a given parish is canonically part of a given diocese, they owe obedience, in the religious sense, to their ordinary -- even if his theology is not something they are comfortable with. Now, as their chief pastor, he should be sensitive to that discomfort and agree to oversight by a mutually acceptable bishop. But to oblige him to commit to whoever they want as their alternative oversight bishop under whatever terms they define is an abdication of his role as bishop of the diocese theyr'e in. There needs to be a happy medium there, an acceptable compromise.

And, one wonders, what would be the state of a liberal parish in a largely-conservative diocese with a conservative bishop? Would he welcome Gene Robinson or Jack Spong to effectively replace him as far as that parish is concerned? Or would he expect certain agreements and limits and a bishop who is mutually acceptable? (This is nut purely hypothetical -- I know a Pittsburgh church whose stance is antithetical to Bp. Duncan, and which has retained a lawyer to assure they remain in ECUSA if Duncan and the diocese bolt.

[Polycarp1]

Oh, just in passing... the former Church of the Redeemer, Watertown, NY, had full authorization from quite liberal Bp. Ned Cole Jr. to continue use of the 1928 prayer book until finally a dwindling congregation and fraying-shoestring finances forced them to close their doors and sell the church property to the Korean Presbyterians. There was at least one other instance in Central New York where continued use of the 28 book was fully authorized; I no longer recall what parish, but Redeemer was special to Barb and me for family/sentimental reasons, so that stuck.

[ChaliceThunder]

Its an issueof pride and territory.

Nuh uh, WE are the real Anglicans! See we have the seal of approval...
Maybe we all need to get over that...

:wave:

[ChaliceThunder]

Are they not members? I don't know for sure. It seems that the Church of Nigeria is a member so what they are saying is that they are members through Nigeria.
I was referring to the American break-off groups...I don't exactly know their status; so I was offering a fairly simple solution.

[ChaliceThunder]

But, there has been no provision for this from TEC.
I'm sorry. That is simply not true.

[Colabomb]

Maybe we all need to get over that...

:wave:

I agree. I have always seen anglicanism as a tradition rather than a body anyway.

[ChaliceThunder]

I agree. I have always seen anglicanism as a tradition rather than a body anyway.
Indeed, brother Cola. Well said!

We are all part of the Body of Christ.

[longhair75]

I didn't jump to any conclusions as to why this is happening. I assumed the details would eventually be discussed

[Colabomb]

I apologize peter if i generalized too much.

MANY have jumped to conclusions.

[No Swansong]

So if a parish were to ask for alternative oversite from one of the bishops designated to provide it, they would be denied?
Two problems;

1. No, there is no guarantee. For example the Bishop of our Diocese has commented that there would be no alternative oversight so don't even ask.


2. Why do those who we feel we need an alternative to get to decide who the alternate is? Isn't that like trading cats to watch the mice?

[Albion]

And, one wonders, what would be the state of a liberal parish in a largely-conservative diocese with a conservative bishop? Would he welcome Gene Robinson or Jack Spong to effectively replace him as far as that parish is concerned? Or would he expect certain agreements and limits and a bishop who is mutually acceptable? (This is nut purely hypothetical -- I know a Pittsburgh church whose stance is antithetical to Bp. Duncan, and which has retained a lawyer to assure they remain in ECUSA if Duncan and the diocese bolt.

Well, that Pittsburgh situation is a little different, isn't it? I mean, here we have a parish that would, in effect, be asking to change jurisdictions rather than have alternate oversight while remaining with the diocese. Nevertheless, I appreciate the point. It's more than a hypothetical, and I would suppose that by staying in TEC a conservative bishop would have to reciprocate the kind of alternative oversight that the conservative bishops were hoping to get for themselves.

I'd also like to make several other points in view of my participation in this thread.

First, I have no horse in this race. I am a Continuing Anglican, which means that I would not belong to either TEC or to CANA or one of the others like CANA in preference to one of the Continuing Churches.

Second, my main interest here has been to say that the claim, often voiced, that TEC agreed to alternative oversight, therefore "What are the conservatives griping about anyway? They got what they wanted, so they must be dedicated schismatics or totally unreasonable, etc. etc." is not in step with what actually happened.

I will also say that I don't believe that TEC has or had any obligation to establish alternative oversight. If she had come back with a resounding "No" last September or whenever that was, she would have been acting in a way that would have been both understandable and her right to do. It just should not be said now by her defenders that she did something other than she did.

Finally, ChaliceThunder's idea makes sense to me if TEC can get over the loss of exclusivity--which I doubt can be done. We grew up thinking of one Anglican church per country, as though we had to do what the Roman Catholics do, but the Orthodox function quite well and, presumably, as a Catholic and Apostolic communion despite there being several recognized Eastern Orthodox jurisdictions functioning on the same soil here in North America. I'd cite the case of the Lutherans also, except that someone would probably say that they do not have the same polity as we, and that it's an invalid comparison for that reason. Anyway, if the Anglican Communion were to tolerate more than one province per country, I feel that the change would shortly be something all sides would take for granted as normal.

[higgs2]

Here is some information about the "Communion Partners Plan", http://anglicancommunioninstitute.com/content/view/130/1/. It's interesting that we were just talking about the "episcopal visitors" and whether there was any system or agreement for how to implement that, and this story breaks. I don't know if it's a good or a bad idea, but I do know I'm glad that discussion is moving forward on this.

:)

[Colabomb]

Here is some information about the "Communion Partners Plan", http://anglicancommunioninstitute.com/content/view/130/1/. It's interesting that we were just talking about the "episcopal visitors" and whether there was any system or agreement for how to implement that, and this story breaks. I don't know if it's a good or a bad idea, but I do know I'm glad that discussion is moving forward on this.

:)

i figured you were done with our kind.....

or were you simply dropping pennies in the wishing well?

[Colabomb]

you really hurt me higgs.....