What is going on?

[Iron Sun 254]

and the diocese of south carolia, the diocese of fort worth, the diocese of san joaqin, etc. are not justified in leaving the episcopal church for its presiding bishop and many of the bishops being heretics?

Perhaps they are. Isn't that exactly why the don't want to consent to his consecration? Why would TEC approve someone who could cause the church to fall apart?

 

[gtsecc]

Perhaps they are. Isn't that exactly why the don't want to consent to his consecration? Why would TEC approve someone who could cause the church to fall apart?

You are suggesting consecration of Lawrence+ would cause the church to fall apart, but you don't see the problem with KJS or VGR? Where was thsi stance when the liberals consecrated woemn priests, or Bishops? That is infinately more scismatic. We were on the verge of reunion with the EO, and that blew it out of the water. If liberals are as worried about schism as they pretend, we should expect them to actively be working on reunion with Rome.

 

[Iron Sun 254]

Sigh... I'm not suggesting that his consecration will cause the church to fall apart. I'm suggesting that the people voting for his consecration believe it will cause the church to fall apart. Actually having a diocese leave TEC is more scismatic than anything else because it involves an actual scism.

 

[Torah613]

actually, no. I can agree to that part. There is no way to translate it all that well as there are problems with both.

However my objections to the Creed in the BCP stem from the stark adding of words (ie et Filioque or "and from the son") which were specifically rejected by every Bishop of the Christian Church (save Arius) at Nicea and Constantinople. They were also rejected by a Roman Pope who issued an automatic excommunication for anyone who dared say it when Spain first introduced it. Hmm methinks I smell a logical conundrum for current roman practice. oh well not my concern.

Not that I would ever want to be PB (Lord who would want that responsibility), but I do take objection to saying that because I choose to follow the original I am somehow to blame for all of TEC's problems. Especially since several Priests have told me they have no problem with me reciting the more Orthodox version.

Jo Zollars

 

[gtsecc]

Sigh... I'm not suggesting that his consecration will cause the church to fall apart. I'm suggesting that the people voting for his consecration believe it will cause the church to fall apart. Actually having a diocese leave TEC is more scismatic than anything else because it involves an actual scism.

???
You are saying you beleive that the peopel voting for him, are voting for him becasue they want the diocese to scism?

That simply is not true.
Elis Brust was also a candidate, and he left TEC to head AMiA after the election. He and the other cadidate were clearly the most scismatic of the 3 candidates.

 

[gtsecc]

Sigh... I'm not suggesting that his consecration will cause the church to fall apart. I'm suggesting that the people voting for his consecration believe it will cause the church to fall apart. Actually having a diocese leave TEC is more scismatic than anything else because it involves an actual scism.

And, you do know that we are in schism from Rome. You can't really preach against schism at all costs, without going back to Rome can you?

 

[Torah613]

And Rome is in Schism from who? come on 4 Patriarchs against 1. Not to mention historical continuity of doctrine, praxis and liturgics (all missing from Rome). If your going to preach that game, why not go all the way?

Or maybe there is another more adult way to look at this issue? mayhaps?

Jo Zollars

 

[higgs2]

And, you do know that we are in schism from Rome. You can't really preach against schism at all costs, without going back to Rome can you?

I prefer to say they are in schism from us

 

[gtsecc]

I prefer to say they are in schism from us

Sure, but I am saying those who object to schism can't have it both ways. They can't honestly make a case against consecration of Lawrence+, because schism is so so horrible, and yet simultaneously do things which the larger church has ask them not to do.

 

[higgs2]

Sure, but I am saying those who object to schism can't have it both ways. They can't honestly make a case against consecration of Lawrence+, because schism is so so horrible, and yet simultaneously do things which the larger church has ask them not to do.

I do understand, Glenn. I was joking around and for that I apologize as I know this is a very serious and important topic for you.

 

[Torah613]

And would that be the same "Larger Church" which more than a hundred years ago said they had doupts as to whether or not our baptisms were valid? Please.

Jo Zollars

 

[Torah613]

"Hey this is your dad. I've disowned you and never want to see you again, but do you really have to wear that?!"

Jo Zollars

 

[Iron Sun 254]

???
You are saying you beleive that the peopel voting for him, are voting for him becasue they want the diocese to scism?

No, the people who are voting for his consecration probably don't believe he'll cause it to scism (though some may and may want it). People vote for things based on the outcome they expect. Just because people (back in the Cold War days) voted against Ronald Reagan because they believed his policies would lead to nuclear war doesn't mean the people who voted for him wanted nuclear war.

 

[gtsecc]

And would that be the same "Larger Church" which more than a hundred years ago said they had doupts as to whether or not our baptisms were valid? Please.

Jo Zollars

No, merely the Anglican Communion.

 

[gtsecc]

"Hey this is your dad. I've disowned you and never want to see you again, but do you really have to wear that?!"

Jo Zollars

I don't think you get it.
I am not saying anyone should seek reunification with Rome.

I am saying it is inconsistent for Liberals to do things which push us towards schism, and then object to Lawrence+ suggesting he is schismatic. If the liberals really held schism as such a sacrosanct idea, as they are in the Lawrence debate, they would not consecrate women, or gay Bishops, and would push for reunion with Rome.

 

[Torah613]

Glenn,

I must disagree respectfully. We are dealing with two different definitions of Schism here. TEC is and has been since Seabury's consecration an independent church voluntarily affiliated with the Anglican Communion through shared faith and occasionally shared resources.

To use a contemporary Eastern Orthodox approach, TEC going into schism from the rest of the AC would be like when ROCOR was techinically in "schism." A single Diocese flagrantly breaking all canonical law and precedent to go behind their own Church's back to another would be like when metropolitan Vitaly set up his own version of ROCOR called ROCiE.

Frankly, now that I see what your saying, your comparing apples and oranges. Yes they may be the same word, but they don't have the same meaning. Just like love has more than one meaning.

Jo Zollars