I would guess that any hope for ECUSA to avoid outright schism rests with just one candidate. To heck with what the "Network Dioceses" will think or do. Everyone seems to forget that most of the Anglican Primates (and Provinces) will refuse to have anything to do with a P.B. (and his/her Church) who has supported Vicki Gene's consecration.

Where World-wide Anglicanism is concerned, there is but one candidate who is untainted enough to even hint at an ECUSA effort to reconcile the matter at hand. Can you guess which one that would be?

No kidding!! Should I be shocked? Talk about a stacked deck!! What a show!!

Do you think for one minute that these four give a hoot ... They are ECUSA and nothing else matters ..

"No kidding!! Should I be shocked? Talk about a stacked deck!! What a show!!"

********

Well as the founder of the Anglican Church Henry VII used to say; "Off with their heads!"

What a bunch of revisionists!

BHTech

Yeah, Arthur, let me guess: His initials wouldn't be R D, would they?

BHTech, I'd say that "Feed 'em to the sharks" would be more appropriate! They're fish bait as far as I'm concerned!

Hey Look - -

Quote:

How do we get Robert Duncan's name in? (God only knows if he'll accept, but if there IS one person the Global South primates would smile upon, if there IS one bishop through whom God could work to save ECUSA from extinction, that's the man.)

I wonder how many joints the nominating committee would have to smoke to ease their nerves upon getting a flood of proposals for Duncan by April 1st!

Does he have a snowball's chance in hell of getting past committee? Who cares? I'd love to forward his name just to tick those jokers off, especially for giving us their version of the Fantastic Four!

Schori is the first woman nominated to be the church's presiding bishop.

If I were a betting man, I would take my life savings, hock my house, run up all my credit cards and take every last cent from relatives just to lay down a bet on her. ECUSA's God ordained dementia is so severe she is the natural choice.

Think about it for a moment....the CofE is already heading down the road to a female archbishop....so why shouldn't ECUSA once again lead the way in showing how "progressive" it is with the electing of what is in effect the "archbishop" of the American church.

Plus it just jabs another finger into the eye of the conservatives and the African primates....I mean....what's not an ECUSA-an to love about this nominee?

Quote:

Arthurdoxy,

I don't think schism can be avoided by electing Parsley. The schism is not a matter of administration but of belief. What really would be the point of even trying to hold together two mutually exclusive belief systems? That didn't even work in the "tolerant" fantasy-world of pluriform "truths".

For either traditionalists or revisionists to "win the day" there would have to either be mass conversions to the prevailing system or one group would have to clear out the other. I don't see an alternative to these. The two systems of belief are like oil and water.

The schism is "real" if not formal because the heresy is real.

Neal

Schori is the first woman nominated to be the church's presiding bishop.

If I were a betting man, I would take my life savings, hock my house, run up all my credit cards and take every last cent from relatives just to lay down a bet on her. ECUSA's God ordained dementia is so severe she is the natural choice

____________________

As if anything ECUSA does could still shock me...and yet:


Katharine Jefferts Schori is truly remarkable in her unqualifications. Barely 10 years ordained, never a rector, bishop of a small and insignificant diocese in a rather bizarre culture (Nevada), where there is absolutely huge growth in other churches, especially catholic and evangelical, and with no significant scholarship or leadership. Honestly, I've got to believe that she's a real long shot, and I wouldn't bet on her unless I got at least 10-1. My money's on Alexander; he's smoooooth and he'll say the right things about Lambeth and Windsor to get elected, but not mean them. I think Parsley's the most conservative choice, so he's got no chance, and I really don't know anything about Gulick. Who has some info on him??

Faithfully,
Gideon

Rootbranch,

Were I a betting person, I might take that bet. My bet would be that Schori is in the pool simply as a decoy, so that when she's not chosen, the choice will look less extreme. Would bet it won't be Parsley either. That leaves the other two.

I have predicted for the last year that GC2006 would affirm the homosexual agenda advanced in GC2003. Now add the radical feminist agenda and you have the future, such as it is, of the ECUSA - feminists and effeminate men as clergy willingly emasculating the laity they are sworn to support.

From the revisionist perspective, a woman as presiding bishop might more easily bring women into the church with their families. Of course, when the ignorant GC2003 homosexual decision was made it was made under the assumption that homosexuals and their supporters would beat down the doors of the church and, therefore, would increase people in the pews and money in the plate. An obvious complete miscalculation and misunderstanding of the nature of modern Christians and Christianity.

A woman as a Presiding Bishop is a "Heil Mary" pass - but that is all the ECUSA revisionists have left. Here is my prediction. Her election will precipitate a schism within the world Anglican communion; however, it will be a much needed distraction from the homosexual issue and will be lauded all over the place in the ECUSA. (This is the only gambit left for the revisionists to stabilize a rapidly unraveling situation.) Using the female Presiding Bishop as cover, the revisionists will try to shift the argument to women's rights and away from homosexuality. The two will be linked in all communication as a civil rights and social justice (socialist) issue, and the orthodox who remain in the church and condemn homosexuality will be called women haters. The tremendous damage of the homosexual agenda will be hidden under the cloak of advancement for the modern woman.

This tactic will work for some short period when her majesty is consecrated, but the underlying liberal revisionism will continue to do damage because nothing will be done to repent of what was done in GC2003. As a matter of fact, a woman as Presiding Bishop is likely to further advance the homosexual agenda within the church because the two have already been linked by the revisionist.

The church will continue its decline. Once again, per my analysis, the ECUSA will lose 500,000 members and 150,000 to 200,000 attendees by 2010. And, that is a best case and assumes that no schism occurs within the ECUSA itself.

The smart thing for the orthodox to do now is to leave before GC2006 so that this revisionist argument is not in play.
As Sherlock would say, the game is afoot and the answer is as clear. Soooooo - be prepared from what is next. But take action now.

warmac999,

My "bet" is with your analysis and my recommendations to take action are the same.

Thanks for laying it out so well,

Neal

In the spirit of honesty and fairness, this post, which previously commented on Schori's alleged involvement in the LDS Church, is rescinded in response to anglicanxn's post below.

Warmac - -

Quote:

Oh, I'm pretty sure the grand exodus (the major sudden move out by the majority of laity - - at least those who haven't been left in the dark) will commence some time before GC2006 but will probably continue in earnest and be more robust immediately AFTER the convention.

This overaged acolyte will wave good-bye to the faithful rushing out the door, then process down the aisle to extinguish the last candle before leaving.

Aspire, I think that you have Schori confused with her neighbor to the north, Carolyn Irish of Utah. She was of the Tanner family, one of the leaders of the Mormons when Salt Lake City was founded. I knew her in seminary; as a person, she is pleasant -- as a bishop, I have no idea -- but she is not at all a biblical believer.

"Here is my prediction. Her election will precipitate a schism within the world Anglican communion; however, it will be a much needed distraction from the homosexual issue and will be lauded all over the place in the ECUSA."

---

Yeah, warmac, certainly a possible (and likely) scenario.

She's given the position, and suddenly, every man in the church will be a 'misogynist' and a woman-hater, and so on. And if you mention abortion, or the wrongness of divorce, you'll be named as someone who wants to bring women back to the Stone Age!

One great way to delay the complete falling apart of the Communion over the issue of sodomy is to focus like a laser on something else.

At this point, we need to pray for those in ECUSA, and for those who have left.

In the meantime, it's almost become great entertainment - like going to the circus.

With Christian love,

Essodalori

In Ring One of ECUSircus:

Queen Lutibelle and his???? crotch perfume leatherettes! They will perform daring acts of sexual perversion, the likes of which your innocent brain never contemplated!

In Ring Two of ECUSircus:

Griswoldo the Great will hypnotize and confuse you... Whatever you believed two minutes ago, he will transform you into a bumbling, stumbling fool! Do you dare to listen to the great Griswoldo!?! Do you have the strength not to?!?

In Ring Three of ECUSircus:

The Clown Act!!! Bishops of ECUSA will don the greatest and most fantastico clown outfits known to mankind, as they perform great acts of hilarity and foolishness to make you laugh. They each will try to take the place of the great Griswoldo - but only one will be left standing. What will happen!?! The greatest hynoclown act in the world!!! Yaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay!!!

---

<<<The ECUSircus is a proud sponsor of sexual perversion, theft, idiocy and lies. Not responsible for any serious, long-lasting or eternal harm.>>>

ECUSIRCUS - Reaching Out to Touch Your Children... (TM)

---

With Christian love,

Essodalori

DnNeal,

We pretty much agree. I was the one who posted on another thread: "The things you do say more about what you believe, than what you say you believe."

I personally feel that schism is unavoidable, short of a colossal miracle. My point was that the election of anyone of the three Liberals would result in instant schism from the worldwide Anglican Communion. One, and only one, could possibly slip under the radar screen. The net result is the same. It is only the timing that changes. (Immediate vs. Deferred).

In my opinion, schism and cancer treatment are very similar in character. Treatment options include: 1) Cut it out 2) Burn it 3) Poison it. By the way, where the Church is concerned, items 2 & 3 are generally considered off the table. (Due to abuses which occured during the time of the Reformation).

The Great Griswoldo and his horny Homoclowns coming to a town near you...


RUN FOR YOUR LIVES!!!!!!!

The girlie men of the ECUSA have to hide behind something - so why not a feminist bishop. Sounds reasonable.

ArthurDoxy

Yep, we are on the same page and I agree on probably every point you raise. I'm sure the details would mostly line up too.

Thought so...

Neal

anglicanxn - -

Quote:

If this is the case, the confusion originated with someone else's post, purporting Schori to be a former Mormon. Can anyone on VOL verify the history of Schori's church membership?

To be fair and honest about it, anglicanxn, I will rescind the post to which you responded.

"the grand exodus (the major sudden move out by the majority of laity - - at least those who haven't been left in the dark) will commence some time before GC2006 but will probably continue in earnest and be more robust immediately AFTER the convention."

___

So many of you are predicting this, I am wondering whether I am "out of it." My sense is that people whose convictions dictate their departure have departed, and that the majority of those who remain will not make a stand on any remaining issues or added acts of heresy. Their heads have been burried in the sand so long, their eyes and ears are permanently clogged.

Aspire, comparing this slate to the Fantastic Four is an insult to superheroes, but note I say that with my tongue planted firmly in my cheek.

So, three who voted for Robinson and one who forbids his priests and parishes to join the Network--what does that tell you? For the latter, I suppose "Heil" would be a good salutation.

This sad multiple-choice question simply shows that ECUSA's priorities are heresy, irrelevance, and extinction, as opposed to Christian mission and evangelism--if they believe this election and GC '06's decisions are going to bring people into their churches, they're sorely wrong--I completely agree with Warmac and Neal.

In Christ,

Philippa

Stoneridge, your point is well-taken, but I believe there are still a lot of "holdouts" who have yet to engage in "Exodus".

Many are still hoping and praying for a turnaround at GC 2006. I think that's a pipe dream, but, for the moment, I'm willing to hang in there and see what happens. I admit I abhor the national church leadership and what it has done to this denomination. Locally, though, my church life is very satisfactory with an orthodox rector; he's great but will eventually no longer make up for what I believe is a path to heresy and corruption.

Yes, the Exodus has started and I have great respect for the people who have already voted with their feet for their Lord. However, once ECUSA puts even more nails in its coffin by refusing to repent or fully endorsing and complying with the Windsor Report(GC '06 will be either a blatant nose-thumbing or an attempt to baffle everyone with BS), the national news will take a greater hold of it, people will finally inform themselves, and many will see no other alternative but to walk out. It's sad and perverse how ECUSA has done such a slash-and-burn number on itself in the last 50 years--not exactly an example like Rick Warren and co.

In Christ,

Philippa

Stoneridge,

I think that it is fair to say that the people in the pew have generally been suffering from acute denial, as would regard “ECUSA Innovations.” However, you can expect a major change in that behavior in the not-too-distant future. Is seems that “denial ends when the 2 by 4 makes contact with the head of one who hasn’t been paying much attention.”

Should ECUSA either leave or be ejected from the worldwide Anglican Communion, a large number of the faithful are bound to demand answers immediately. And who will they expect to provide that explanation? Why, the Diocesan Bishop, of course.

Incidentally, by that time it may end up being presented as “a statement, in the form of a question.” I can hear it now: “Bishop! How in the hell could have let this happen? And what, if anything, are you going to do about this situation?

Ignoring innovations because “that sort of thing doesn’t go on in my parish,” is a whole lot different than, “Oh, by the way, we’re no longer Anglicans!” That’s the distinction, as I see it. I sure wouldn’t want to be a bishop in the year(s)ahead.

Ya know - as Joe of the Mountain would say, most people are sheople. They follow whatever they think is most 'in.' (Studies of teenagers show that most teens decide on moral issues based on what their friends think.)

For a while, there was this perception that ECUSA was 'hip' and 'with it,' and 'progressive,' and 'forward-leaning,' and so on. That led to the idolization of baby murder (a women's right to her body!) and homosexuality (there's nothing wrong with love!), and religious relativism, and so on.

Now, two things are happening. First, the 'progressive' wannabe sheople are realizing, some for the first time in their lives, that a whole lotta people not only don't agree with them, but think they're insane and also don't believe they are being Godly. That stings (which is why so many of these people are so shrill). Second, the allure of the freedom to do whatevehhh is wearing thin. Abortion is revealed to be ripping apart ones son or daughter into bloody dismembered parts; homosexuality is revealed to be a man's copulating with an anus - and something which is not nor ever has been inbred.

In short, the 'progressive' 'with-it' types are being scorned (and rightfully so) for abandoning God, and for promoting things which are really, really disgusting and horrible and depraved - and harmful to our youth.

And as the leaders of the sheep herd turn, a whole lotta sheep are going to suddently turn as well (though never admitting to, of course, what they blindly supported for so long).

There's a huge turning going on in American society today. People are beginning to realize that there were really, really good reasons for God's teaching us what He has. Many of the sheople will start to follow those people.

In short, alotta sheople followed the emperor. Now they's beginnin' to realize he ain't go no clothes (just two horns).

With Christian love,

Essodalori

In my former parish the traditionalists of every stripe departed fairly early on although some did hang around to see what would happen with the next priest. Soon after the hangers on left leaving the "true believers" in the reivisionist cause and those who were there for family reasons or the ambience.

Then those who began to feel that despite the "niceness" there was really no reason to be faithful anymore began to trickle out. They would say, "Oh, we decided to spend the day with our children." Or "We needed to have a real day of rest after a hard week." The latter really didn't understand why it was no longer important to attend it seems. Church simply had lost its relevance to them. Now St. John's is scrambling to stave off bankruptcy and sending out angry letters to those who no longer support her. Not even circus clowns and scintillating sexual content and the cause du joir can pack them in.

When the Church is no longer the "hospital of souls" for those who realize their need for the "medicine of immortality" from the Transcendent God who out of His loving-kindness became Incarnate to rescue us from ourselves by uniting Himself to us via Word and Sacrament then the Church becomes simply another social service organization or a neo-pagan cult. There are many organizations that do social work and cults who do paganism better...and without the shell of Christian trappings they really despise anyway.

It simply IS then irrelevant.

Neal

I know that I can speak for our family in saying that we are still officially Episcopalian because a) we have several parishes around here that are orthodox, b) we have a moderate bp., and c) we haven't figured out yet where to go, and finally d) we've been waiting around to see if something would get straighted out with/by the Network, the CofE, etc. BUT we have seriously curtailed our attendance and financial support and are looking at our church options. It is hard to find a church that meets the needs of our family, but we are trying. But, yes, all too often we, as Neal states, "skipped church because we need a Sunday off", etc. I haven't been to an ECUSA since before Xmas & may not return at all. We're in a wait/see mode while church shopping. I think that we will have our alternative church selected by summertime and will make our move shortly after convention. So, yes, there are plenty of people still in ECUSA who will probably leave but have not yet done so.

Anggrl,

God bless you and your family in your search but if you ever attend another ECUSA church, be sure to watch your spiritual backs.

Neal

Stoneridge and Philippa - -

Quote:

Well thank you for referring to sand rather than to a portion of my anatomy!

Quote:

Oh, I quite agree.

With all due respect, though, I don't think most people who post on VOL completely understand me yet. It's not that my head is buried in the sand, and I'm not living a pipe dream.

Being 50 years old, however, I started life in the nineteen fifties, with a black and white television set that was incapable of instant on/instant off. (Anybody remember those? Remember vacuum tubes?) When you turned off the television set, the picture would disappear, and would be replaced by a circle of light in the center of the picture tube, which gradually grew smaller and smaller until finally the light was completely gone.

I'm one of those kids that would always arrive late to the dinner table, because I always wanted to sit Indian style in front of the tube and watch the circle of light shrink and disappear. No matter WHEN I arrived at the dinner table, my family always fed me regardless.

Fast forward to the New Millenium, and I find myself doing the same thing. I'm sitting, watching, waiting... looking at the church and seeing the light steadily grow smaller and dimmer. I realize that y'all are urging me to come to the dinner table, but while there still is any light left, I wait for it. Once it's gone, watch me move.

The question is: When I finally join you at the dinner table, will you still treat me as family?

I think it's important to realize that, as top-heavy as ECUSA has become, there still remain a number of biblically orthodox clergy and laity within the denomination. It is not that we have no convictions, but rather that we have tremendous patience. We will stomach so much... until we can stomach no more, and that's not a uniform, lockstep proposition. The exodus is not a row of people, all stepping out at once, but a column of believers, some leaving ahead of others in the grand procession.

With all due respect, it's counterproductive for the believers toward the front of the procession to criticize those toward the rear. That's rather like the head saying to the foot, "I have no need of you", isn't it?

I confess that I've increasingly wondered if the "wait-and-see" approach is a sign not of the hope of the those who remain in the ECUSA but rather of their denial of reality and an evasion of their duty to take a stand once and for all.

There have been far too many "mileposts" or "points-of-no-return" over the last three years (i.e., "wait until ... and then we'll decide"). I waited until the Fall of 2003, and that was it for me.

What's going to happen will not happen until everyone makes it happen instead of saying "Let's see what happens ...."

ECUSA is dead. The only thing that prevents that reality from being obvious to everyone is the necrophiliacs who keep clinging to the corpse.

May they step back so all can see the fetid corpse. May they walk away. May they give it up. May they let the dead bury the dead.

This is sort of like changing Captains on the Titanic when the ship's already half submerged.

So who wants to be the last Captain of record?

HAMAS AND ECUSA WINNERS IN PALESTINE

January 26, 2006—Valley News Service—Jerusalem Bureau

Hamas, the terrorist organization which has publicly vowed to destroy the state of Israel, won elections today in the West Bank, and the election results were praised by the Episcopal Church USA (ECUSA), which has vowed to oppose every form of Judeo Christian ethical standard from the Ten Commandments to the Pauline epistles.

“We’re delighted that Hamas won,” said Stephen Grispike, spokesman for ECUSA.

“They’re a moderate voice among the Palestinians. And if you have trouble hearing what they’re saying, they’ll blow themselves up to get your attention. What an inspiration to repressed people all over the world!”

ECUSA has sided with Hamas in calling for a reshaping of the political landscape in the Middle East, removing the Old Testament from all churches, and replacing half of the New Testament with the holy Koran.

Aspire

I remember those TV sets. We are the same age. Hypnotic weren't they? And maddening.

I, for one, have no problem with what you're doing and understand some of the reasons why, even If I really don't exactly see the point i.e. the goal in mind. But that's none of my business.

Perhaps If I had been in ECUSA all my life it would have been harder to take my eyes off the set. Or if my children had been out of the house when the Lesbians began teaching my children's Sunday School classes I might have stayed longer. I enjoy a good debate (when I can get one).

Or perhaps if my own soul had not been so infected with the revisionist poison already I would not have needed to get out as soon as I did. I don't know, but I will not judge you and those of my Christian siblings who are doing what you are doing.

Your situation sounds very different than mine.

So don't worry there is more than enough at the Table wherever that Table is.

Neal

Dear aspire1983:

I was not speaking of you! Honestly! YOU are orthodox. You are posting on VOL! YOU are sentient, alert, awake, active, etc., etc.

I am thinking of all those who don't read anything about this in their local paper, who don't know VOL exists, who are clueless there will even be a convention in 2006, etc., etc., etc.

Only when they look up from their pew one Sunday to pass the peace and wonder, "What happened to Joe and Mary and their kids?" or "Where's Mr. MacGregor?" or "Has the Jones family moved?" will they finally come to see that something is seriously wrong.

This is one reason I am concerned that those who hang longer than is absolutely justified need to consider the consequences of the message doing so sends (or does not send). Many of those remaining will not realize the magnitude of this debacle until they notice how many have left.

Stoneridge - -

I appreciate the qualifying of your previous statement. I see from your further elaboration that you are referring to what I call the "clueless pewful".

Quote:

"Oh, they decided to skip town and go to Egypt for a while."

I formerly attended an EGAYSA church where the older group, when faced with what is going on, simply stated, "I've been episcopal all my life, this will blow over like all the other things."
In the meantime, the sunday school classes spent most of their time arguing over whether Mary was really a virgin and did Jesus really perform miracles.
Forget that. It ain't blowing over folks.
This is the OK corral now - time for the soldiers to be cocked, locked and ready to rock.
As my military unit always said, "Lead, follow, or get the hell out of the way".
I don't see the sense in staying on the old dying horse watching it gasp its last few breaths. Shoot it and put it out of its misery.
Let's get on those fresh new horses and lead the way into a brilliant new future for our Lord as the soldiers and witnesses we were called to be!

CathRomanG - -

Quote:

Our situations are quite different. You were, in your situation, quite right to hightail it when you did. Churches like Truro, the Falls Church, Apostles, my church and other bible-centered churches in the Northern Virginia area, however, remain reasonably healthy, biblically orthodox parishes. Its members don't doubt the central doctrines of the virginity of Mary and the sinlessness of Christ. Nor do they support the revisionism so popular among the bishops today. They don't echo Griswoldian heresies like, "The Bible is still being written!"

Did you get a load of the extremely well-written letter by the Falls Church vestry to Bishop Lee? There still ARE parishes with which it's safe to worship and with whom to join in the remaining ecclesiastic battles. If you think the horse should be shot to put it out of its misery, watch the motion picture "Hidalgo" one more time.

I think that there is a multiple step exodus process. We all have seen the first step where 75000 Episcopalians resigned their membership between 2003 and 2004. This was the immediate and appropriate response to the shocking behavior of the laity and clergy at GC2003. The next wave consists of people who are truly trying to return the church to its Christian roots and are now confronted with the fact that this is almost certainly not possible. The numbers here are yet to be seen but will appear in 2005 and 2006 statistics when published. Finally, the third wave will occur after GC2006 and before Lambeth2008 and GC2009. Each wave takes with it future generations of Episcopalians. The 75,000 becomes the loss of 175,000 to as much as 250,000 within a few decade or less. The second wave, having tried as hard as they can to bring sanity to the church, will clearly see that their efforts are being soundly rejected in the GC2006 convention. The deck is thoroughly stack The handwriting is on the wall with the candidates for the Presiding Bishop. The second wave will have no further reason to remain other than to continue to function in pain as hope of repentence and change will have been crushed. The third wave will look around at the empty pews and empty Sunday schools, and then realize that by doing nothing they have become equal partners with the revisionists in the destruction of the church. Some will then leave because there is no church to go to - the finances will be inadequate to support a minister or heat the buildings. Some will leave because they will finally see that Christian worship has been replaced by the entertainment of the day. Some will leave because the weight of embarrassment about going to a gay church with a radical feminist leader will be too much to bear. Eventually, there is a snowball effect in which the rate of loss accelerates overtime and the church dies.

The Anglican churches of the UK and the ACoC is increasingly losing membership and at an increasing rate of loss simply because they stand for anything and nothing at the same time. The ECUSA pattern is similar.

The orthodox churches of Northern Virginia are safe to worship in. However, what if you move or decide to go to church while on vacation or a trip of some kind. You have not idea what you are walking into. I have a good friend fairly high up in the diocese. He was asked to tour a number of smaller churches to see how they could be combined. After attending a variety of services, he came to the conclusion that the worship was so radically different that combination was not realistic and any attempts to force people together would simply result in fewer Episcoplians. The ECUSA now practices anything that someone can call worship and it all falls under the bogus heading of love and diversity - straight out of the hippie and socialist/secularist playbook.

The link for Parsley's statements doesn't work. You got another one that will?

Oh, Aspire, by no means was I criticizing you. I was merely trying to explain the fact that, like Warmac, I believe the Exodus is a process. Some of us have had enough and some of us have not, yet. I, too, will probably be towards the rear of the procession, but I still have great respect for those who have already left. People must do what they must do in their own time.

Like some other posters, though, I am losing patience with those whose heads are still in the sand, the bishops and clergy who don't honestly inform, and the complacent laities who refuse to educate themselves regarding what's really going on--people who do that are just delaying the inevitable, or prolonging the agony. I love when I voice an opinion in public, and what I hear is, "but that wasn't reported on ENS"!! When ENS is someone's sole source of news, that says a lot. I think that's a problem all over the country. My advice would be, if you can, read everything you can get your hands on or lay eyes on--blogs, ACN website, AAC, AMiA, Virtue; if you're in revisionist mode and want to check out the whitewash, try ENS or Episcopal Life. I agree with David when he says that "The Living Church" is desperately trying to be centrist in a church that has no center, but it can still be a source of news.

The bottom line, though, is that the writing is on the wall, regardless of what people want to deny: Look at that new PB slate--three Robinson-supporting revisionists and a Network-hater who allegedly is rude to visiting, traditional African bishops--how much worse does it get? If I get my way eventually, it's "Network, here I come"!!!

All blessings,

Philippa

Phillippa: I think that I am in the same situation as you and Anggri appear to be. My wife & I are blessed to be part of a totally Orthodox, Anglo Catholic parish in a Diocese which, at our Dioscean convention, voted to fully support the Windsor report recommendations at the recommendation of our Bishop.

We are comfortable in a spiritually supportive parish, ably led by an orthodox rector and see no reason to bail out at this time. In fact, we have decided that, if we bail, we are surrendering our right to try to bring ECUSA out of it's tail spin (whether we succeed is another matter) or, if the split comes, to hold on to the liturgy, tradition and fellowship we hold dear and, to be honest, the assets that we and others have given and worked to build.This holds especially for the Church property where so many of our friends' ashes are resting.

I guess that the best description of me today is a " Traditional Parish Anglican". I certainly cannot function as a "Progressive ECUSA Episcopalian"

God bless us every one.

Quote:

That was well put Cathromang!

J'ecusa is a bunch of old nags and mares that are terminally ill.

This is becoming silly ... frankly, BHTech, I do like off with their heads!

re Tanner: I understand she is a baptized Mormon and was never re-baptized - so it doesn't surprise me that she is not at all a biblical believer - What? they had no room for her in the Mormon church?

We in orthodox parishes of orthodox dioceses have no reason to leave now. I predict our departure will be after GC2006, and it will be by dioceses, not parishes, when there is a cohesive orthodox organization to depart to.

Grant
Diocese of Fort Worth

Aspire
We, Click here for "igregory2" 's post about that , remember those TV sets.

have a good friend fairly high up in the diocese. He was asked to tour a number of smaller churches to see how they could be combined. After attending a variety of services, he came to the conclusion that the worship was so radically different that combination was not realistic and any attempts to force people together would simply result in fewer Episcoplians. The ECUSA now practices anything that someone can call worship and it all falls under the bogus heading of love and diversity - straight out of the hippie and socialist/secularist playbook.

You have that right!! My last parish -- we're in between parishes right now & may not bother to transfer our membership -- had the youth group doing cart wheels down the aisles one Sunday. Literally. Another Sunday, the youth group did a skit which served as the children's sermon. Then there was the video clip that we had to endure on confirmation Sunday. The rector is officially orthodox but the parish never did get around to joining the AAC despite the strong sounds of protest from the vestry/rector about the last GC. (So much for taking a strong stand!) Anyway, things got more & more weird & wacky so we finally left. At any rate, they were orthodox theologically but anything BUT orthodox with regard to worship. There's another EC in a nearby town that has a wonderful priest but the worship is extremely modern, power-point presentations, modern music, etc. My dh went & said he felt like he was at a conference or Bible study--NOT Sunday morning worship. The liturgy was only very loosely followed in that church. There's another EC that's AngloCat & yet 2 more that are middle of the road worship, not too High, not too Low. There's yet another EC that's charismatic. The whole thing is insane. I'd never go to church while on vacation--its too risky!