Yeah... no... I mean... I know it's The Episcopal Church we're talking about here, but what in God's Name were ANY of the bishops who voted YES even thinking? "This Budd's for you"???

Go, go, go, Genpo!

I am rooting for the Buddhapalian. It would be great to have a close vote and have him win.

It is close because TEC is full of flakes and they need a absurd and ridiculous situation to complete their tomfoolery.

Of the females voting, only one will say they voted yes, but we know how they will vote...just like their girl friend Vicky Gene.

Seriously, Folks... Who really cares about TEC anymore. If the folks in Upper Michigan want him as bishop, so what? If not him they will just find some other heretic. Why all the fuss? Why the journalistic space being wasted on this.

Let's see. Okay, he doesn't get consent. Does anyone expect that someone who actually believes the Bible and that Jesus Christ is THE Way, THE Truth, and THE Life will then be picked as the bishop?

I would much rather see David doing a story on why in the world Rick Warren rates being asked to speak at the ACNA upcoming kick-off convention instead of an orthodox Anglican.

It would be a further disgrace if this clown gets elected. Everytime it looks like TEc can't slide any futher into hell...somehow the manage to do just that!

Lord have mercy!

Bishop Mathes of San Diego votes no. he sent out an e-mail.

As much as I like the WORD "Buddhapalian", I don't like the concept. Siddhartha Gautama and Jesus of Nazareth tread very different paths - and I made the decision to follow one, not the other, and decidedly not both. (When you don't know what road to take, you'll never get anywhere. Just ask anyone that tried to follow a AAA "triptik".)

---L.

"I would much rather see David doing a story on why in the world Rick Warren rates being asked to speak at the ACNA upcoming kick-off convention instead of an orthodox Anglican."

Water finds its own level.

Yet more proof that TEC is running out of qualified first stringers. The only emotion this issue evokes is laughter. And I'm betting he's a homosexual.

So, is the tally going to be continuously updated as votes are made known? Hope so.

I suppose it's just an another example of backwardness and closemindedness that we expect a bishop to believe in God. Can anyone find a reference to God in Buddhist writings? Not any that I've seen.

If this bozo is turned down in the confirmation process, so what? Would anybody be so gullible as to suppose that there is a return to orthodoxy in ECUSA? I suspect that there would be, indeed; the "reasserter" crowd would be jubilant and T19 and Stand Wobbly would be crowing with delight. It would be better, in my view, for this man to be confirmed and "consecrated," to serve as further evidence of ECUSA's apostasy.

Quote: "If this bozo is turned down in the confirmation process, so what?"

Ikwells: Not only this, but I am still trying to understand why ACNA wants to be a part of the communion.....the only thing I can think of is that the ACNA wants a chance to boot TEC and ACofC out and make canterbury get rid of RW...if that is possible?

I believe I can explain ACNA's yearning to be part of the Canterbury Axis. Sometimes things are really very simple. Like attracts like. ACNA is simply revisionism-lite, a continuation of TEC as it was in the era after WO/79 bcp but before VGR/KJS. That era set much stock on being "in cmmunion with Canterbury," to distance itself from the despised lowly storefront Continuing Churches. Heaven forbid that ACNA should descend to that humiliated status! So it is very important for them to be recognized by Canterbury. Only time will tell how great a price they will pay.

Which is why I am having nothing to do with the ACNA either!

It would take far more than defeating this nomination for TEc to be on the path back to health. I still hope it gets defeated. Maybe this is a wake up call for some bishops and they are starting comprehend the full scope of Mrs. Schori's "plans" for TEc. She needs to be ousted for starters and a whole chain of events would need to take place before any real move back toward orthodoxy could take place. I don't see WO going away so it would be, as Fr. Inkwells has stated, a return to "revisionism-lite". Which would still be an improvement over the state of apostacy they have decended to at this juncture. Baby steps I suppose and that would take decades.

Just say NO to WO and Canterbury!

Actually Patulous, Geralyn Wolf of Rhode Island voted no. But as usual you along with others paint all the women with the same brush, even when there are women such as myself who don't buy what TEC is trying to sell, which is why I support the ACNA and +Duncan.

So it is very important for them to be recognized by Canterbury.

Schism is never a desirable outcome; we have the word of the Lord Himself that He prayed we "might all be one." So to that extent I can certainly understand wanting to remain in communion with the rest of the Church. But why Canterbury, then? For purely cultural reasons, or for substantive theological reasons? And if the latter, does Canterbury really stand for anything anymore?

It seems to me that if you really value communion with the broader Church above all else, it would be foolish to put so great a value on Canterbury and not even consider Rome or Constantinople. Or if you value an "Anglican cultural heritage," exactly why are the Continuing Churches any worse off in that regard than Canterbury?

This blog is about "global orthodox Anglicanism." I am not one to quibble about the difference between big-O and little-o orthodox and whether the word should be the exclusive property of the Orthodox Church, but I will argue about what the word ought to mean. The literal meaning is "true glory" or "true worship" - which implies that there must be such a thing as "false worship."

Considering that in the TEC essentially every kind of apostasy is permitted, exactly how could any little-o orthodox Christian tolerate her? (And although +VGR is often used as the poster boy for scandal within the TEC, he's by no means the worst: some of the bishops in the TEC even deny the Incarnation. Why they do not immediately renounce their orders is beyond me. But I digress). For that matter, the entire Anglican Communion has had little theological cohesion since the Elizabethan Settlement; after that event even the "39 Articles" could hardly be understood as a definitive statement of Anglican theology but rather as one position amongst many, and they have increasingly become an historical footnote that is now mostly ignored except by a handful of conservatives.

In that context, how is it even possible to talk about an "orthodox Anglicanism" except as a restorationist movement? Much of the Anglican Communion has long since reached a point where there is no possible point of view that could be considered either little-o orthodox or heterodox, since "all paths lead to God."

I am aware that many of the people on this blog value an "orthodox Anglicanism" very greatly, though their ideas of exactly what that might look like vary widely; however it appears to me that the very words "orthodox" and "heterodox" no longer have any meaning within the TEC or indeed to Canterbury. In such a situation it is probably not possible to have a productive discussion, because they are thinking in different epistemological categories - and NOT, as they will claim, simply because their opponents are "Bible-thumpers." Pilate asked "What is truth?", implying that there was no such thing as objective truth; and TEC asks along with him.

Please explain to me again exactly why there is any value in remaining in communion with Canterbury....

Thanks be to God!

A big yawn. When ACNA repudiates WO, the 79 bcp, and "Shine, Jesus Shine," I'll say "Thanks be to God." Who cares what happens in apostate TEC?

Interesting result. But...
methinks he is merely being sacrificed for the 'greater good' of the path TEC is taking.

It really strikes me that the "No" results were simply on a technicality. It really feels that the majority of bishops WANTED to vote "Yes", but...


---L.

It appears to me that those that are turned down or gotten rid of are the ones that have allowed another sect to infiltrate their ministries. This is in relation to Forrester and Ann Holmes Redding. I’m sure that there are more, but these stand out in my recent memory.

You may note that Jerry Lamb (Listed as: Provisional (San Joaquin)) voted YES. Just another basket of fruit at TEC.

Quote:

Fr. Wells,
We cam only pray that eventually they will see the error of their ways and repent. But I am afraid that the propaganda campaign against the Continuum has been very effective. Of course, the squabbles and schisms within the Continuum did not help matters much. We all have much to repent of.

Quote:

Well then, you will be glad to here about TEC's latest acquisition from Rome - Fr. Cutie! Maybe he can stand in Forrester+'s place!

LocoOwl, Be careful - you may be invoking Johnson's Law* here.



*Johnson's Law states that it is impossible to parody the Episcopal Church because every parody about TEC will eventually come true. Yesterday's satire is today's reality.

The Buddhist bishop-elect and Fr. Cutié prove Johnson's Law.

Here's my take on it. The ideological liberals are all for it, but there was a problem. You can mess with a lot of things, but when you start jacking around with the liturgy, the blue hairs might notice. As long as the right words are still used, they pay precious little attention to the fact that those saying them don't believe much of it at all. If the blue hairs started to stampede for the exits with their deep pockets, the rate of attrition might accelerate. So liberals entrenched in the bureaucracy had to step in. As long as there are no glaring changes in the services, the ruse will never be noticed by most of those in the pews. So +Forrester was allowed to die (organizationally speaking). The risk was just too high.

Just my take,

Grady