What is going on?

[gtsecc]

The Episcopal Church has allowed the consecration of Bishops who deny things such as the divinity of Christ and the resurrection. It has not even disciplined them.

Our own Presiding Bishop has publicly said that Christ is merely “a” vehicle of the divine – which means she questions His uniqueness as the sole vehicle, and substance being divine.

Adherence to the Nicene Creed, as translated in the BCP, is certainly not a bar to being Bishop, nor even presiding Bishop in TEC.

What is a bar to consent in TEC?
Conforming to the "doctrine, discipline, and worship of The Episcopal Church."

How is bishop elect Mark Lawrence not conforming to the, "doctrine, discipline, and worship of The Episcopal Church?"
The objectors sight thing such as this quote, for example, “I shall commit myself to work at least as hard at keeping the Diocese of South Carolina in the Episcopal church as my sister and brother bishops work at keeping the Episcopal church in covenanted relationship with the worldwide Anglican Communion.”

Bishop elect Mark Lawrence is 10 votes shy of the 56 votes he needs for consent.

The deadline for voting is March 9, 2007.

About 20 Standing committees have not yet voted.
Half of them need to vote yes in order for consent.
Not voting counts as a no.

 

[Iron Sun 254]

Well, whether or not what is happening is right, I can definately see why a quote like that would make people nervous. It's practically saying "If TEC leaves the communion, then the Diocese of South Carolina would feel justified in leaving TEC."

 

[gtsecc]

Well, whether or not what is happening is right, I can definately see why a quote like that would make people nervous. It's practically saying "If TEC leaves the communion, then the Diocese of South Carolina would feel justified in leaving TEC."

And that is worse than not believing the Nicene Creed?

I would think at worst, those denying consent should then go a head formally press charges against non-creedal Bishops. Communion and Unity only means something if Christ is indeed who He says He is.

 

[gtsecc]

So, if the property or retirement fund comes in to the slightest bit of question, it is ok to take a pre-emptive strike?

But, if the divinity of Christi is attacked, do nothing?

That is what TEC is confessing currently.

 

[higgs2]

And that is worse than not believing the Nicene Creed?

I would think at worst, those denying consent should then go a head formally press charges against non-creedal Bishops. Communion and Unity only means something if Christ is indeed who He says He is.

If you are saying the PB does not believe in the Nicene Creed, 1. I don't agree and 2. even if it were true it is irrelevant to your case.

 

[gtsecc]

It is relevant because those denying concent are saying hinting at schism is worse than denying the divinity of Christ. If Christ is not who he says he is, unity is pointless.

 

[gtsecc]

She has said statments contrary to Christ being of one substance with the Father.

 

[Iron Sun 254]

So they should do something they believe is wrong because the PB is doing something more wrong?

 

[Simon_Templar]

What is going on? In a word ... Apostasy

 

[RadixLecti]

It is relevant because those denying concent are saying hinting at schism is worse than denying the divinity of Christ. If Christ is not who he says he is, unity is pointless.

Sounds like you've had a change of heart. I agree with you though, and truly hope that things work out for SC.

 

[gtsecc]

Sounds like you've had a change of heart. I agree with you though, and truly hope that things work out for SC.

Not that I know of. I am not sure what you are talking about.

 

[Tetzel]

 

[karen freeinchristman]

I feel for ya, Glen. I can't imagine how frustrating this must all be for you.

 

[gtsecc]

It should be frustrating for everyone.
More and more TEC is revealing itself to not be the Church.
This should alarm even the ultra liberals, because whatever one’s ideal goals are, they become meaningless if they are backed by an institution fewer and fewer people recognize as having any authority or moral ground.

I think they want folks to recognize their actions as a new movement of the Holy Spirit. I too would like to see the Holy Spirit move us in a more liberal direction.

However, moving in that direction, at this time, with no unanimity, no singularity of voice, doesn’t reveal new doctrine – it simply reveals to the world that TEC does whatever it wants solely guided by a revisionist agenda, without regard to dissenting voices on world, national, or diocese levels.

Further more, if you do descent, you are branded as the schismatic. I haven’t seen this level of dishonesty and arrogance since the Clintons were in office.

The general strategy is to put the pressure on until enough folks leave the parish, diocese, or national church, then they run the play again once the other side has fewer and fewer supporters.

 

[plaid_pixie]

Well, whether or not what is happening is right, I can definately see why a quote like that would make people nervous. It's practically saying "If TEC leaves the communion, then the Diocese of South Carolina would feel justified in leaving TEC."

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?

 

[plaid_pixie]

So, if the property or retirement fund comes in to the slightest bit of question, it is ok to take a pre-emptive strike?

But, if the divinity of Christi is attacked, do nothing?

That is what TEC is confessing currently.

tec is made of classic liberals. they attack what they do not like, but they then act hurt when they are attacked.

 

[plaid_pixie]

She has said statments contrary to Christ being of one substance with the Father.

therefore, she is a heritic, denying the nicene creed, as well as professing arianism. anyone who says that she is not does not know their herisies.

 

[ebia]

therefore, she is a heritic, denying the nicene creed, as well as professing arianism. anyone who says that she is not does not know their herisies.

Exactly what heresy she is committing (if any) would depend on what she actually said and believes, not on someones reported interpretation.

tec is made of classic liberals. they attack what they do not like, but they then act hurt when they are attacked.

This kind of offensive generalisation is hardly going to endear any liberals reading this thread to thoughtfully consider the conservative position. What it is likely to do is provoke someone to retalliate in kind and this thread degenerates into another liberal-conservative name-calling match.

 

[Torah613]

Gtsecc:

I for one do not agree with the Nicene Creed as translated in the BCP--because it is not the Creed established at the Councils of Nicea and Constantinople. My lips clamp up tighter than my wallet (which is tighter than fort knox in turn) at a certain section of the portion on the Holy Spirit and will till the day I die--if you know what I mean.

Does this mean I am not welcome in TEC, just because I stand with history and the worlds Eastern Orthodox Communion--not to mention some Anglican notary's throughout history?

Jo Zollars

 

[gtsecc]

Gtsecc:

I for one do not agree with the Nicene Creed as translated in the BCP--because it is not the Creed established at the Councils of Nicea and Constantinople. My lips clamp up tighter than my wallet (which is tighter than fort knox in turn) at a certain section of the portion on the Holy Spirit and will till the day I die--if you know what I mean.

Does this mean I am not welcome in TEC, just because I stand with history and the worlds Eastern Orthodox Communion--not to mention some Anglican notary's throughout history?

Jo Zollars

Well, depending upon what you believe, you probably wouldn't make a good PB.

however, I suspect you are talking about "of one being" as a poor translation of "of one substance."