THE MCJ

More evidence that one noble national religion, which settled into life as an American denomination, has now devolved into a sect group and working on become a cult.

Unfortunately I would agree that on occasion one can find conservative Anglicans going a bit over the top with their rhetoric. Perhaps it is a lame excuse to note (a) it is less than 50% of the time and (b) when it does get out of hand at least some conservative bloggers call for greater civility (Kendall Harmon being a prime example - the Elves require even conservative commenters to use proper titles, and so on).

But the stuff - yea the majority of stuff - I find at Fr Jake's (not just him but his, uh, fans) is at least as bad and usually worse. Conservative Anglicans are not wrong. They are "Psychopaths". (I am not making that up. Go look. Or not.) Criminals. Murderers. Misoginists(sic - get a dictionary). Hateful. Corrupt. Liars. Ugly. Smelly. Bad dressers. (Okay, a little hyperbole there.) I was genuinely surprised by the palpable - oh what's that word? - *hate* that TEC liberals have for the opposition. Perhaps I should not be. But I am one of those silly people who think you can disagree with someone and still show some respect.

The anger I see in Episcopalian conservatives can readily be explained by the grief they feel at the destruction of their beloved church, both TEC and the larger Anglican Communion. I agree that sometimes the rhetoric is fairly hot, but is anger a sin? Well, I'm Catholic and we don't really do "Nice", so maybe my viewpoint doesn't count, eh. :-)

On the other hand, the more power the revisionists gain, the more rage they exhibit. That's symtomatic of a disordered personality. I used the term "narcissistic rage" above, and that's not just rhetorical. It's more complicated, I guess, but really, not that much.

To a degree I understand. I was (is?) part of the "losing side" in the Southern Baptist Civil War. Anger is not a sin per se. But we still need to watch our rhetoric. If only not to donate ammunition to the opposition.

Then it could be pulled together into a nice (and big) flyer for people to distribute... because the next few months may well be the "last chance" for anyone to leave PEcUSA before it sinks entirely, dragging them down with.

pax,
LP

Go ahead and try your flyer idea. Just don't be surprised when people just shrug their shoulders and say something to the effect, "Oh, that's those people over there. It doesn't affect us!"

Since 2003, I have been truly amazed at most Episcopalian's ability to stick their head in the sand. If there bishop says "All is well," then they believe it. It is truly depressing just how uneducated and biblically illiterate these people have become.

All Is Well (tm)

The Path of the Episcopal Church

However, the fact remains that the latest round of depositions are not about abandonment of "faith" but of "communion".

abandons the communion of this Church (i) by an open renunciation of the Doctrine, Discipline, or Worship of this Church, or
(ii) by formal admission into any religious body not in communion with the same, or
(iii) by exercising episcopal acts in and for a religious body other than this Church or another Church in communion with this Church

Failing that, PEcUSA has to appeal to point (i). Now, they could do this by saying that such bishops -- by refusing to "marry" homosexual couples or refusing to "ordain" women -- have abandoned the "doctrine" or "worship" of the church. Again, this would require recognizing de jure what is already abundantly clear de facto -- that PEcUSA has abandoned the doctrine and worship of Christianity (never mind Anglicanism), and thus anyone who retains Christian belief and practice has, ipso facto abandoned the "doctrine" and "worship" which is definitive of PEcUSA. But, of course, however honeest such an admission would be, it would be bad P.R. Heck, another 2% of the "head in the sand" Episcopalians still in PEcUSA might actually briefly wonder if they should leave were they to hear their General Convention formally renounce Christianity. One or two of them might even do so!

So the only "hope" for the apostates and the institutinalists to depose such bishops for "abandoning the communion" is to resort to a claim that they have renounced the "Discipline" of PEcUSA. I.e. to claim that these bishops haven't obeyed the almighty canons.

The ironic thing is that many of the bishops they've deposed - or hope to depose - have actually been far more assiduous in obeying the canons than the Schoriates have. The diocese of S.J. went through all the requisite formal canonical procedures to reaffiliate... while the Schorites tossed out even any semblance of following them in deposing +Schofield and setting up the Third San Joaquin Reich.

If push could actually come to shove -- and if some rational and legal clarity be brought to bear on the situation -- PEcUSA would, in order to continue on its inevitable continued dive into apostasy, either to formally state that it has broken off communion (and doctrinal agreement) with much of the Anglican Communion, or to accept that its own leadership must be deposed for even greater abuses against the canons than those against whom they attempt to turn them.

Yeah, I know... fat chance.

pax,
LP

Description of Ad Hominem

Translated from Latin to English, "Ad Hominem" means "against the man" or "against the person." An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting). This type of "argument" has the following form: Person A makes claim X. Person B makes an attack on person A. Therefore A's claim is false. The reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the character, circumstances, or actions of a person do not (in most cases) have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or the quality of the argument being made). Example of Ad Hominem Bill: "I believe that abortion is morally wrong." Dave: "Of course you would say that, you're a priest." Bill: "What about the arguments I gave to support my position?" Dave: "Those don't count. Like I said, you're a priest, so you have to say that abortion is wrong. Further, you are just a lackey to the Pope, so I can't believe what you say."

It's just that, before the listening bit, the apostates get to decide (a) who gets to talk and (b) what they're allowed to say.

pax,
LP

1. You must tolerate the invective you will receive from his regulars as the price of admission. Don’t bother complaining, because nothing will be done about it. 2. If you respond in kind to his regulars, you will be banned. 3. If you use an argument he doesn’t like, you will be banned. 4. If you carry on an argument too long, you will be banned. 5. If you are winning the argument, you will be banned.

On a tangential note, I will remark that in some respects, SFIF is akin to Fr. Jake's in terms of banning people. Specifically, I'm referring to Dr. William Tighe. He fits #3, #4, and #5 on Carl's list when he was commenting on SFIF. His arguments against WO weren't liked by the powers that be on SF, he carried his arguments against WO longer than the SF powers liked, and he (and others) were winning the arguments that WO was and is a damaging aberration.

Thus like Fr. Jake, Sarah Hey and Greg Griffith of SinkFirm sinfully and wrongfully banned Dr. William Tighe.

A face that looks a lot more like the rest of humanity than that elderly men's club known as the Roman Catholic Church.

To which I responded:

was going to admonish you for a gratuitous swipe at the RCC, but then I got to thinking: "Most of humanity," about 2/3 in fact, isn't Christian. I think you may have spoken a greater truth than you realized, CL.

Jake pounced on me, but let the rank bigotry of CL stand unscolded. I would expect no less.

I believe the proper diagnosis is "Hypocrisy."

Indeed suggests: "It might be a fun experiment to post on Stand Firm the same comments they say Fr. Jake was wrong to ban, but edit them to reference women's ordination instead of same-sex blessings. Of course we already know what the result will be... a passive-aggressive comment by Sarah Hey followed by immediate banning."

Exactly.

David:

What's "Catholic, Inc."?

I love the post-ejection chest-thumping, especially. Southpaws are utterly irony-proof.

Here's Fr. Jakes' written policy: "Every effort is made for this to be a safe place where folks feel free to discuss topics of common interest as well as share their joys and frustrations. Conversations are allowed to naturally unfold. Being "off-topic" is never a problem. The occasional rant is also to be expected. Being passionate, opinionated, eccentric and even a bit heretical are considered positive attributes here at Jake's Place.

However, this is not an open forum. I discourage personal attacks, threats of violence, foul language and extremist propaganda. If you say something that would cause me to show you to the door in my home, I'll show you to the door here.

That is so extremely reasonable by Fr. Jake. Therefore Jeffersonian, just own up to your offense and realize that because of your offense, you fully deserved to be banned by Fr. Jake.

If you say something that would cause me to show you to the door in my home, I'll show you to the door here.

pax,
LP

"Since the question was asked, I thought it might be helpful to inform others that there are quite a few Episcopalians who grit their teeth when they hear the term "denomination" in reference to TEC.

For some of us, since being a Roman Catholic was not an option for any number of reasons, the only way to fullfill the prayer of Jesus "that they all may be one" was to become part of a tradition that at least claimed to be part of the one holy catholic and apostolic Church.

If we cease to be part of that tradition, then there are very serious implications. The validity of the sacraments would come into question, for one. And that's a big one, for me.

I'm just suggesting that if you want to understand the full picture of what is going on,do not dismiss the closet Anglo-Catholics. There are many more of us than you might imagine.