RE: “. . . heartily make the vows concerning the “doctrine, discipline, and worship” of the Episcopal Church.”
What the difference is between “heartily” making those vows and just simply making those vows as he must do at his consecration none of us will ever know.
But I’m very happy that Kansas has made a nice face-saving explanation for making the correct decision this time.
I can understand the reasoning of the Diocese of Kansas and why, if SC fails to get the necessary consents, the diocese should remove itself from pecusa.
A year later, probably 2 new members on and two end-of-term members off since, and they finally made the decision they could have and should have made last year. Perhaps members of other Standing Committees from around TECusa will simply contact the Kansas folks, and then make the same decision.
By Kansas’ original (2006) reasoning at least half of the bishops over the last 10+ years should not have received consents, given the opwn willingness to flaunt the doctrine, discipline, and worship of TEC.
Including, Bill, the apparently clear statement by the new bishop-elect of Maine of his (push coming to shove) belief that the Anglican Communion is passe, despite the reference in the C & C’s.
I just saw a note on Stand Firm re: the consent majorities being reached for Fr. Lawrence.
Great news!
Kendall+ or Elves do you know the timeline for consents?
Let’s hope Lawrence is as true to his word as Schori and the others in ECUSA.
My understanding is that consents went out roughly around the beginning of September.
RE: “. . . heartily make the vows concerning the “doctrine, discipline, and worship” of the Episcopal Church.”
What the difference is between “heartily” making those vows and just simply making those vows as he must do at his consecration none of us will ever know.
But I’m very happy that Kansas has made a nice face-saving explanation for making the correct decision this time.
I can understand the reasoning of the Diocese of Kansas and why, if SC fails to get the necessary consents, the diocese should remove itself from pecusa.
It is obvious to anyone who has been following this ridiculous charade that this time South Carolina will get the necessary consents.
#6, why is it so obvious? I think it’s quite unlikely, myself, with revisionist paranoia running high right now.
A year later, probably 2 new members on and two end-of-term members off since, and they finally made the decision they could have and should have made last year. Perhaps members of other Standing Committees from around TECusa will simply contact the Kansas folks, and then make the same decision.
Otherwise, good work, Kansas.
RGEaton
By Kansas’ original (2006) reasoning at least half of the bishops over the last 10+ years should not have received consents, given the opwn willingness to flaunt the doctrine, discipline, and worship of TEC.
Including, Bill, the apparently clear statement by the new bishop-elect of Maine of his (push coming to shove) belief that the Anglican Communion is passe, despite the reference in the C & C’s.
I just saw a note on Stand Firm re: the consent majorities being reached for Fr. Lawrence.
RGEaton
there is a clergy day tomorrow in Charleston for the diocese. perhaps some news will come out of that.