How does one *focus on relationship*? Reminds me of that *Theory of Movement* stuff of some years back. Every time I read this kind of stuff, I start craving a hot shower with naptha soap, or insulin, or both, or at least a chug of good strong Burgundy!

“[A] measured approach and a focus on reconciliation and relationship …” — my curmudgeonly a–. Just watch how quickly Bishop vonRosenberg becomes the lead party moving to intervene in the DSC’s lawsuit against ECUSA, or else files his own action as a plaintiff in the SC courts, against Bishop Lawrence and his diocesan trustees. The suit will contend that as the latter have left (“abandoned”) ECUSA, they can no longer qualify to administer assets and bank accounts that belog to his “continuing Episcopal diocese”, and that consequently the court must order that all be turned over to him.

All the rest is smokescreen.

Ding! Ding! Ding! We have a winner in the “Alleged Christian Not Mentioning Christ” by this here fellow.

Also, he is in the running for putting the most useless and meaningless words into English in one statement since Obama’s last State of the Union speech, e.g.:
-reconciliation
-diversity
-spirit of openness
-same-gender
-sensibility
-responsiveness

Amazin’! – as Casey Stengel would have said. Not one, even one, mention of Christ, the Church, God, any Saint, any writing of Church Fathers, the Blessed Virgin. Once again, amazin!

On the other hand, St. Ignatius of Antioch, one of the early Church Fathers who was not as enlightened and with and cool as the “Bishops” (Yeah, right!) of the episcopal gay cult could only come up with is gibberish:

“”We have also as a Physician the Lord our God Jesus the Christ the only-begotten Son and Word, before time began, but who afterwards became also man, of Mary the virgin. For ‘the Word was made flesh.’ Being incorporeal, He was in the body; being impassible, He was in a passible body; being immortal, He was in a mortal body; being life, He became subject to corruption, that He might free our souls from death and corruption, and heal them, and might restore them to health, when they were diseased with ungodliness and wicked lusts.” ( The ante-nicene Fathers, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, Vol. 1, p. 52)

Such quaint and antiquated writing. Ignatius doesn’t mention the word “diversity” even once! He would be guilty of “hate writing” in our sophisticated age.

I’m beginning to think that not only was I born and raised in the wrong century, I was born and raised in the wrong millenium.

Feel bad for the poor folks in South Carolina who choose to follow this clown. “Come out of here,” as Christ says in the Apocalypse of St. John.

“…to encourage ‘reasonable and holy conversations’ on same-gender relationships.”
The Episcopal Organization

“We had that conversation 2000 years ago. Nothing has changed in the intervening two millennium that would necessitate our having it again.”

The Orthodox Church

The Curmudgeon, above, is right. All this talk about “reconciliation” is nothing. Von Rosenburg will put his name on the lawsuits and reconcile himself to that by letting TEC Central pay the lawyers.

Whatever happened to preaching Christ and Him crucified? Epo gay cult is about right…

Don, why do you think my favourite century is the 13th?

As for the rest of it, “Bishop vonRosenberg” may be the signature on the lawsuits, but the parties moving such actions are not the locals.

I realise I’m going to sound very naïve and ignorant here, but how can Bishop vonRosenberg be nominated as bishop of any diocese (never mind South Carolina)?

How I thought it worked with you guys was that a vacancy for bishop came up, the Standing Committee of the diocese invited applications, they drew up a shortlist, there were local elections and the winner’s name was sent around for consent from a majority of the Standing Committees and bishops of TEC.

What I’m reading is that Bishop vonRosenberg has been nominated (by whom?) as provisional bishop, he’s going to be presented to the ‘diocesan convention’ for a vote (and seeing as how there are a grand total of ONE candidate running, this is even more rigged than a North Korean election) and there doesn’t appear to be any consideration that he may not get the majority consents – or even that they’re necessary; it looks like as soon as the ‘convention’ says “Yes, we vote for this candidate out of all the candidate presented”, he’s bishop and that’s it.

Okay, so he’s only filling in until a real election for a real bishop can be held, but still – who nominated him, and if he’s only overseeing the interregnum, why all the fol-de-rol about having a vote at a convention?

What’s pathetic to me is all the blather about “reconciliation.” This guy is called in to lead/front a group who simply couldn’t live with Episcopalians who didn’t agree with them.

Diversity? Inclusivity? They can bring in all the sweet ol’ grandpa bishops they want but the fact is, these are dysfunctional dorks who couldn’t handle the very values they now want to proclaim. Oh, except for symbolic ceremonies for a handful of LGBT people most of them will never even meet.

Just pathetic is it weren’t so much the devil’s work.

My advice to people in this diocese is run and run fast.Pay your tithe to a seperate bank account to pay your priest if he is orthodox(it is only fair).Worship in any place you can but don’t officially leave the parish just give it $1.00 a year.I think that will maintain your claim on your building.When legal things are settled you may just get your building back.But for the sake of our Lord and your souls do not give more than a dollar a year to the TEC(it’s works are evil – loaded with sin).

Speaking from experience: Rich is right. Maintain your membership and ability to vote in the parish. If things go badly in court you can keep up the fight. Good Luck.

Nevermind – I see how it works now. He was advising the Steering Committee who replaced the diocesan Standing Committee, which Steering Committee then nominated him as provisional bishop.

And the Steering Committee and their friends and allies will be the ones voting at the convention, so I don’t think there will be much chance of him not getting the nod.

Well, it’s all very neat – and apparently completely legal by the canons.

Or a “Bishop’s Committee on Leaving the Toilet Seat Up?”

It seems to me that TEC’s current leadership is doing a superior job of flushing what’s left of their dying denomination down the toilet.

I’m having trouble understanding how Chuck would have learned much at all about the homos “in our midst” while in his former see. Having spent my college years at the University of Tennessee in the first half of the 1980s (before DioETenn was formed out of DioTenn) there are only about two kinds of places where homos could be found:

1. Around UT Knoxville and maybe his own cathedral, and
2. Much higher up in the hills than the moonshiners.

So unless he frequented the TEc chapel at UT — what bishop ever does that — or went way up into the hills doing mission work, he didn’t see let alone know many homos. They would have existed only in a few closets and his imagination.

Must have been taking orders from 815 the whole time. So why shouldn’t he take orders from the PB***h now?

rich, if South Carolina law holds that the Diocese can’t take parish property (the Pawley’s Island ruling), then what’s the likelihood that it will allow an external body (TEC) to take Diocesan property?

Katherine:

There’s a certain perverse irony in the SC decision to not uphold the Denis Canon.

Assuming they do rule that the Diocese is free to go its own way, the dissenting parishes are now free to return to TEC with their property intact, which would not have the case if TEC’s own canon had been upheld!

When the (real) Diocese of SC presented the quit claims to each parish the parishes were, essentially, free do with the property as they like….including offering it to TEc. One thing that is a sure bet, any parish returning to TEc will end up having to hand the deed over to the 815 cabal; along with the parish endowments, vestments, patens, chalices and anything else of material value.

It’s interesting seeing the goodness and godliness of +Lawrence and +Iker contrasted to machinations of the faux dioceses pretenders in SC and Fort Worth.

Stock market is up this year.

The old goat must be thinking about padding his pension fund.

Not a word about how much he increased Membership of parishes in Dio of E.Tenn, TEC while he was Bishop there. Nothing about the number of baptisms, confirmations, ASA.
How strange !

decani, yes, although so far as I know Bishop Lawrence has made no effort to arm-twist parishes which choose to leave the Diocese.

If I understand DioSC’s history. It existed prior to TEC. In business it was not bought out and has an associate relationship with TEC.

It is not a franchise so naming rights should not come into play. Even franchises keep the real estate and inventory but cannot claim to be part of the parent organization (not that they would want to). The vote to disassociate accomplished that.

Bottom line, a whole bunch of real Christians trying to spread the Gospel without tripping over 815′s thugs and goons.

I think I’ve read that Bp. Lawrence is giving the property to those parishes in which a majority of people want to stay with TEC. I know Bp. Iker here did.

As a matter of fact, one of the gripes TEC has with +Lawrence is that he sent quit claim deeds to all the parishes, removing any diocesan claim to parish property.

Katherine:

Precisely, and there’s the irony.

Now here’s a question for the legal types (perhaps the A.C. could comment?):

If TEC accepts back those parishes with their property, are they giving tacit acknowledgement of the invalidity of the Dennis Canon?

OFF-TOPIC: I just saw this and was really happy.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/publiccatholic/2013/01/letter-supporting-marriage-and-religious-freedom-signed-by-1000-british-priests/

Not legal type, decani, but no. TEC assumes ALL the parishes are its property, and the diocesan property as well. Whether they accept the nineteen or so who are leaving the Diocese will have no legal effect on the status of the others, in South Carolina.

FW Ken,
“Maybe American priests need to do something similar.”
sounds like a good idea to me. I wonder what percentage of the total number of priests signed.

“I wonder what percentage of the total number of priests signed.”

25% — but according to Fr. Ray Blake’s blog there have been numerous puzzled complaints from Catholic clergy asking why they had not been approached to sign the letter, which they state they would eagerly have done. The answer appears to be that it was a “rush job” done right around Christmas.

Why on earth, Mr. Johnson, did you replace the correct word “quisling” with “bishop?”

WTF- I think CJ wanted to refrain from insulting quislings.

Ah…that makes sense!

BTW, who else sat on the Bishops Committee for Inclusivity? It appears to be isolated to the Diocese of Eastern Tennesee rather than a national committee. I’m not familiar with any of the cames. In that context I assume the product of the committee was controlled and a foregone conclusion. It’s not like their discussions where open and honest.

…names…not “cames”…

Katherine:

Oh, I understand what TEC claims, but I believe the Dennis Canon is very specific. It says that the parishes belong to the diocese, not the national church. If SC law says the diocese is free to go, and TEC believes in the Dennis Canon, that would seem to suggest the national church has no right to get dissenting parishes’ property back.

However, that probably became moot when Bishop Lawrence gave quit-claims to the parishes. So the very thing TEC complained about may turn out to be their salvation (although I hesitate to use that word when referring to these matters).

decani, the point which will be litigated in SC is whether the Diocese is free to disassociate from the General Convention. I suppose this is not really covered directly by the SC Supreme Court’s decision affirming that implied trusts do not apply to the parishes. It seems logical to me that if implied trusts do not tie parishes to the Diocese, then implied trusts do not tie the Diocese to TEC. We shall simply have to wait and see how the SC courts view this. But you’re right about the ironies. The Diocese at this point should be very grateful it lost the Pawley’s Island case — and in another irony, I think that parish is now refusing to follow Chuck Murphy in the AMiA any longer.

decani,
disclaimer I ain’t an attorney nor do I play one on TV.

It is my understanding that the USSC has left it up to the state to determine how they look at the issues involved with church splits. Supreme Courts may be convinced to change their point of view if an attorney presents a compelling argument. It appears at the present time that SC uses neutral principles which is the reason the quit claim deeds were issued (and hopefully registered).

As to your earlier post about redirecting funds that may be a prudent thing to do. The problem I would have with doing that is are we relying on God or on something else?

Shades of HVIII: I am the Supreme Governor!

What I don’t understand is why no one goes after Bp. Schori canonically. Everyone essays she is grossly violating canons, but then claim that it’s fruitless to fight her.

In my world, you do things. Your bosses may fight and overrule you, but until you do it, you don’t know what will happen. And (again, in my world) you do these things because they matter, so you do it again and again.

So why is no one filing presentiments?

They impeached Nixon, he is peach in comparison.

FW Ken,
“So why is no one filing presentiments?” Some like what she is doing, most don’t care, some are there to die and the rest are afraid…very afraid.

Can we be sure that no one has filed a presentment against “That Woman?”

Steve L.
Technically Nixon was not Impeached as he resigned before a Bill of Impeachment was voted on by the entire House of Representatives.

FW Ken, as complaints filed are kept under wraps until the “Intake Officer” either finds them frivolous or approves them and sends them up to the PB, it’s a little difficult to tell if any complaints have been filed. Or, it could be that potential complainants think the church system is broken and that filing presentments is useless. I agree with you that someone should do it publicly and be willing to suffer the consequences. I don’t know if a public process is now available.

I was thinking mostly about the”useless” argument, since I have to counter that one at work a fair amount. Yes, it would take someone willing to go public.

Both Shori and Obama are usurpers.

Those in power around them, the HOB/D, Congress and Senate, are either fellow ideologues, corrupt or cowards.

Voting and compromising over the decades to change major doctrines and allow exemptions and exceptions to Canon and Constitution and Commandments has proven disastrous.

It is called “Lawlessness.” This is what you get when ideologues seize the levers of power. This is why the Episcopal Church is undergoing a slow, but steady, death spiral.

The Holy Spirit has left the organization.

Meanwhile, on the other side of the pond, the French — that’s right, those socialist, secularist, libertine, “cheese eating surrender monkeys” — are speaking out in large numbers AGAINST legalizing gay marriage, and even some prominent gays are opposed to the idea (they’ve had civil unions available to them since the 1990s):

http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2013/01/7601/

Like the author of this article (who has himself written about his experience of being raised by two lesbians) I can’t imagine anyone in the U.S. or Britain getting away with saying some of the things these prominent French politicians, entertainers, etc. are saying, without being hounded into silence or ruining their career or livelihood.

In response to “Whiskey Tango Foxtrot”:

The committee on Inclusivity formed and worked for one purpose: to facilitate honest and reasonable conversation on the topic of same sex relationships. The committee did not meet in closed sessions and their work was open (in fact, it was publicized). There was no pre-set agenda, and the personal views of the committee members themselves were by no means of one accord. The committee’s work consisted of serving as facilitators (when invited by a parish) of 2 or 3 meetings where members of the congregation sat down in an environment where they were free to ask questions and discuss the topic as adult Christians. I am sure the outcome of the series of parish discussions resulted less in changed convictions on the subject as it did an increased level of understanding and respect for those on the “other side”. For many of the participants, that was the first time they were ever in an environment where they could discuss the issue without fear, or getting into an arguement, or being demonized (by one side or the other), or watching helplessly as the discussion deteriorated into petty name-calling and rock throwing (like so many internet discussions do).

As far as +vonRosenberg: his ministry in East TN was not one of advancing every gay cause that came down the pike. No manner of same-sex blessings were allowed, non-celibate gay people were not allowed ordination, and his voting record @ General Convention reflected his convictions. He valued the ministry of everybody (straight or gay), and he treated everybody (straight or gay) like human beings…so I suppose there are those who would find fault with that, but not me.

He was noted for how he treated those with whom he disagreed: with the highest level of respect and Christian love. He was willing to “go the extra mile” to make sure everybody had a place at the table. He did not stoop to demonizing people, making personal attacks, or trying to score points with one side or the other by making fun of those who disagreed. He was the Bishop for all, and he treated us all honorably and equally. He was (and still is) a highly respected Bishop. It was a sad day when he announced his retirement and move back home to the Carolinas.

You would be hard pressed to find many reasonable members in this diocese (on either side of the fence) who did not respect him and his ministry.