As Episcopalians split, questions, decisions remain

South Carolina Episcopalians are headed for a painful split now that a majority of Lowcountry Episcopalians have sided with an emboldened Bishop Mark Lawrence in his standoff with ... an increasing liberal and theologically-wobbly national church ...

[Joe DeCaro]

from The State:

"Jefferts Schiori has said Lawrence cannot take the diocese out of the national church, as Lawrence asserted he did Saturday after the special convention.

"'While some leaders have expressed a desire to leave The Episcopal Church, the Diocese has not left,' Jefferts Schori said in a letter dated Nov. 15.'It cannot, by its own action. The alteration, dissolution, or departure of a diocese of The Episcopal Church requires the consent of General Convention, which has not been consulted.'

Lawrence has begged to differ, suggesting the Diocese was planted before the national church was formed, which gives him leverage to claim he is bishop over the now solitary diocese ...'"

Wasn't the SC diocese originally Anglican?

[RevKen]

Joe DeCaro wrote:

from The State:
"Jefferts Schiori has said Lawrence cannot take the diocese out of the national church, as Lawrence asserted he did Saturday after the special convention.
"'While some leaders have expressed a desire to leave The Episcopal Church, the Diocese has not left,' Jefferts Schori said in a letter dated Nov. 15.'It cannot, by its own action. The alteration, dissolution, or departure of a diocese of The Episcopal Church requires the consent of General Convention, which has not been consulted.'
Lawrence has begged to differ, suggesting the Diocese was planted before the national church was formed, which gives him leverage to claim he is bishop over the now solitary diocese ...'"
Wasn't the SC diocese originally Anglican?

Were you never an Episcopalian?

You have said you were. Haven't you said here that you served on the Vestry of an Episcopal Church? I think you did.

How is it that anyone can take such a position and not understand how this Church was founded? To do so is irresponsible.

In a "nutshell," this is the record:

The Church of England (The Anglican) was firmly established in the Colonies as the "Official" State-sponsored Church. This was so in Massachusets just as it was in Virginia and the Carolinas.

When the American Revolution came, the allegiance with the Church of England was broken - completely. No branch, diocese, individual Church or parish was allowed to remain in delegation, allegiance or hierarchy to the Church of England. All clergy were required to state their patriotism and allegiance to the United States of America and to The Protestant Episcopal Church of the U.S.A.(PECUSA). Period.

Any who chose not to do this were immediately and unceremoniously invited to depart to Canada or England or somewhere other than on these American shores.

No clergy and no Churches were allowed to remain Anglican, because such alignment automatically presupposes allegiance to the English Monarchy.

There is no such thing as a Diocese of The Episcopal Church that existed before the Episcopal Church.

What we are (again) winessing is an attempt by leadership of a renegade Church group led by a restricted Episcopalian Bishop to commandeer property and assets in order to bring such substance along with themselves as they depart from The Episcopal Church.

A horseapple may go by many different words. But, it is what it is.

Rev. Ken

[Joe DeCaro]

RevKen wrote:

The Church of England (The Anglican) was firmly established in the Colonies as the "Official" State-sponsored Church ...

Then the SC diocese was originally founded as Anglican, not Episcopal, so the so-called Dennis Canon may not legally apply.

[Fa-Foxy]

Doesn't matter. As everyone knows, to get to heaven, you have to be Lutheran to be saved. :)

[RevKen]

Joe DeCaro wrote:

<quoted text>
Then the SC diocese was originally founded as Anglican, not Episcopal, so the so-called Dennis Canon may not legally apply.

Please pardon my misspellings of 'Massachusetts' and 'witnessing' in the previous post.

You don't get it. But, that is YOUR choice. All of the information is a matter of previously established fact. Everything, the authority and hierarchy of the formerly Anglican priesthood and the Diaconate, the ownership of property, all of the names of the Church and its assets and appendages, etc., changed with the Declaration of Independence.

Whatever had been Anglican in the Colonies and Territories was no more. Period. Property, whether spiritual, intellectual, legally established or tangible that had been contracted, deeded and held under the King's rulership became severed and reestablished under the Declaration and subsequently the successive Constitutions.

You can't go back.

However, as you are suggesting, this "going back" may be what they will argue and it may even be supported by the highest court in South Carolina. But, everyone knows that PECUSA declared its independence from the King's Church. To now say differently is a foisting of a cruel joke on the individual Episcopalian AND, in principle, a renunciation of the citizenship that PECUSA declared.

It is no more than a ruse for these who are leaving to take adverse control of property and assets held in Trust for The Episcopal Church.

The Dennis Canon was not something "new." It was an affirmation of the previously established fact. It was brought up because of a realization that some people may try to do exactly what the Lawrence gang is now doing.

Pretty simple, really.

Rev. Ken

[Joe DeCaro]

RevKen wrote:

Whatever had been Anglican in the Colonies and Territories was no more. Period. Property, whether spiritual, intellectual, legally established or tangible that had been contracted, deeded and held under the King's rulership became severed and reestablished under the Declaration and subsequently the successive Constitutions.
You can't go back ...

They're not going back; they will just be going to litigation.

RevKen wrote:

The Dennis Canon was not something "new." It was an affirmation of the previously established fact. It was brought up because of a realization that some people may try to do exactly what the Lawrence gang is now doing ...

The same was successfully done in 2009 when the Dennis Canon was found not binding on the parish of All Saints, Pawley's Island after South Carolina's Supreme Court ruled in favor of the breakaway congregation.

[Fa-Foxy]

RevKen wrote:

<quoted text>
Please pardon my misspellings of 'Massachusetts' and 'witnessing' in the previous post.
You don't get it. But, that is YOUR choice. All of the information is a matter of previously established fact. Everything, the authority and hierarchy of the formerly Anglican priesthood and the Diaconate, the ownership of property, all of the names of the Church and its assets and appendages, etc., changed with the Declaration of Independence.
Whatever had been Anglican in the Colonies and Territories was no more. Period. Property, whether spiritual, intellectual, legally established or tangible that had been contracted, deeded and held under the King's rulership became severed and reestablished under the Declaration and subsequently the successive Constitutions.
You can't go back.
However, as you are suggesting, this "going back" may be what they will argue and it may even be supported by the highest court in South Carolina. But, everyone knows that PECUSA declared its independence from the King's Church. To now say differently is a foisting of a cruel joke on the individual Episcopalian AND, in principle, a renunciation of the citizenship that PECUSA declared.
It is no more than a ruse for these who are leaving to take adverse control of property and assets held in Trust for The Episcopal Church.
The Dennis Canon was not something "new." It was an affirmation of the previously established fact. It was brought up because of a realization that some people may try to do exactly what the Lawrence gang is now doing.
Pretty simple, really.
Rev. Ken

Turn to Martin Luther ! That's the ONLY way !

[Listen to the Word]

As long as KJ-S ends up with the money and the property, she could care less -- other than the public testimony to her failed theological and administrative leadership toward her own members -- while catering to those who are not.

[MiddleWay]

You shall not steal, even if someone thinks it's for a good reason.

It shows a great lack of faith in God....

[MiddleWay]

RevKen wrote:

<quoted text>
Please pardon my misspellings of 'Massachusetts' and 'witnessing' in the previous post.
You don't get it. But, that is YOUR choice. All of the information is a matter of previously established fact. Everything, the authority and hierarchy of the formerly Anglican priesthood and the Diaconate, the ownership of property, all of the names of the Church and its assets and appendages, etc., changed with the Declaration of Independence.
Whatever had been Anglican in the Colonies and Territories was no more. Period. Property, whether spiritual, intellectual, legally established or tangible that had been contracted, deeded and held under the King's rulership became severed and reestablished under the Declaration and subsequently the successive Constitutions.
You can't go back.
However, as you are suggesting, this "going back" may be what they will argue and it may even be supported by the highest court in South Carolina. But, everyone knows that PECUSA declared its independence from the King's Church. To now say differently is a foisting of a cruel joke on the individual Episcopalian AND, in principle, a renunciation of the citizenship that PECUSA declared.
It is no more than a ruse for these who are leaving to take adverse control of property and assets held in Trust for The Episcopal Church.
The Dennis Canon was not something "new." It was an affirmation of the previously established fact. It was brought up because of a realization that some people may try to do exactly what the Lawrence gang is now doing.
Pretty simple, really.
Rev. Ken

He gets it, he just doesn't like it.....

[Rainbow Kid]

Caleb wrote:

a number of individual parishes are de facto left, though often with their property stolen and now empty.

A good real-estate agent could negotiate a purchase deal

[RevKen]

Fa-Foxy wrote:

<quoted text>
Turn to Martin Luther ! That's the ONLY way !

LOL!!!...

Well,... We can certainly do that!

But, that would probably preclude any eventual invitation to the Romans. Of course, even though they greatly outnumber us, some would say that wouldn't be too much of a loss. Besides, right now they are FUBAR and in need of a significant adjustment in attitude, which they ARE getting, like it or not. So, better to leave thwem over there for a few more centuries until they can get their house in order.

In the meantime, keep a cold one in the fridge for me and keep the live bait fresh.

Rev. Ken

[RevKen]

Caleb wrote:

ECUSA would like be 25% of the size that it is if it's crazed leadership didn't hold property as hostage. One of three ECUSA diocese in Illinois has successfully left ECUSA with property in tact. A second just ignores the leadership and participates in Anglican groups that are still true to the Bible. In the third, a number of individual parishes are de facto left, though often with their property stolen and now empty.

LOL!!!....

Yeah. Bad leadership on the part of the defectors.

So, where does that leave you? Diocese of Quincy? Main Peoria Church is for sale. Not a happy ending, there. Probably not too good of a situation in Pekin or Manito, either.

A falsely Christian system of Traditional hypocrisy, discrimination and unrepentant bigotry has its trappings. But, eventually, everyone ends up pointing a finger at the other person and the spiritual entity continues to divide against itself until there are none left except the last two; You and your enemy who is calling you satan...

Not an enviable position. Hope you are enjoying it.

Rev. Ken

[MiddleWay]

Caleb wrote:

<quoted text>As a non-Christian, you just don't get it. It was crazed fanatics in ECUSA leadership that departed from the historical faith. Following God's Commands is always the right course and brings happiness.
I agree with you that there is horrible hate, intolerance, and dishonesty within the leadership of ECUSA. It is tragic.
Things are going well among the Orthodox Anglican parishes that left ECUSA. There never was an Episcopal church in Manito, and Pekin is an Orthodox Anglican parish within the Springfield Diocese. Like many parishes within that diocese and the diocese itself, they mostly ignore anti-Bible pronouncements from the hateful leadership of ECUSA.

Sorry, this is about TEC.

We've already offered Scriptural, moral, ethical, logical, reasonable to say you are full of the devil....
Next.....

[Fa-Foxy]

In my church, so many people found the word "Hell" so offensive that we voted to change it to "Democratic National Convention".

:)

[Rainbow Kid]

Fa-Foxy wrote:

<quoted text>
But as Americans we EACH have a GOD-GIVEN RIGHT to choose our own path to Hell, right ?:)

No
.
Hell is for straighties only
.
Gay people go to the Garden of Eden

[Rainbow Kid]

Caleb wrote:

<quoted text>That is not what God says:
Leviticus 18:22 - You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination.
Leviticus 20:13 - If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their blood guiltiness is upon them.
Romans 1:26-27 - For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.
I Corinthians 6:9 (NIV)- Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.
I Timothy 1:8-11 (NASB)- "But we know that the Law is good, if one uses it lawfully, realizing the fact that law is not made for a righteous person, but for those who are lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers and immoral men and homosexuals and kidnappers and liars and perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound teaching, according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, with which I have been entrusted."
Of what value is a 'church' that affirms and blesses what God condemns?

Try one and find out for yourself

[Fa-Foxy]

Rainbow Kid wrote:

<quoted text>
No
.
Hell is for straighties only
.
Gay people go to the Garden of Eden

You HAD to provoke the Pekin Troll, didn't you ???

[Rainbow Kid]

Fa-Foxy wrote:

<quoted text>
You HAD to provoke the Pekin Troll, didn't you ???

He comes here seeking the mystery of life
http://www.youtube.com/watch...