Thank you Dan for your comments which are “on point” with reference to Bishop Cox.  What is there to gain by such actions by the PB except to demonstrate that she has the power and her loyal minority must submit to her.

I think the big problem for the PB was the botched inhibition.  She’s well aware that only inhibited Bishops are subject to deposition per Title IV, Canon 9.  When she failed to get the consent of the three senior Bishops, that posed a big problem that she resolved by just elbowing them aside and proceeding with the deposition as if inhibition was optional.  Even then she bungled that with her fanciful interpretation of the votes required to depose.

This was a outcome foreordained by a tyrant.  Period.

Dan- I saw your blog earlier and was thrilled that at least one person in TEC can see beyond the propaganda that is on both sides of this heartbreaking issue.  Your honesty and candor are refreshing and generous.  Occasionaly I can see that there may be a future relationship for those engaged in this awful tug of war.  Peace brother.

Jeffersonian wrote: I think the big problem for the PB was the botched inhibition.  She’s well aware that only inhibited Bishops are subject to deposition per Title IV, Canon 9.  When she failed to get the consent of the three senior Bishops, that posed a big problem that she resolved by just elbowing them aside and proceeding with the deposition as if inhibition was optional.  Even then she bungled that with her fanciful interpretation of the votes required to depose.
This was a outcome foreordained by a tyrant.  Period.

There are more people to hold accountable for this injustice than just the PB. What about the Bishops who were in attendance at the vote? Although I would have to read the proceedings, wasn’t there just one Bishop who could have objected to proceeding with a deposition w/o inhibition first? (This of course is ignoring the fact that +Cox had resigned from the HOB in the first place.) This is to say that tyrants do not become tyrants by him/herself, but rather people allow them to become tyrants by turning a blind eye and/or playing the game to maintain their position of power (and their pension).

Br_er Rabbit - I do believe the quote uses “good men”, and I don’t see anything sexist in that language at all.  Kinda like Father, Son, and Holy Spirit…....I’m not threatened - I am woman and I expect to be called woman in any quote that refers to a woman…...so take back your “sorry”  lol

How did that happen - 5 & 6 mixed up….

What’s that quote again? “All it takes for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.” (Sorry for the sexist language; I’m trying to recall the exact quote.)
The Rabbit.

Dee - probably has to do with your computer having a different time stamp from Bre’r Rabbit’s computer’s.

Dan Ennis - Thanks for what you say here.  Not only is it helpful for the current issue, it also goes a long way towards ensuring that our conversations about the current “troubles” don’t become a completely polarized shouting match.  If our only apparent common ground is a concern for the canons, then I’ll take the canons as a gift from God, and ask Him to enable us all to see more clearly what ought to bind us together.

Laocoon #8 , Would that it were a shouting match - the Bishops seem to be performing a whispering match and we in the congregation are left to wonder what they believe and if they will ever act on their beliefs.

Betty See - True enough!  Our parish seems to be one of the only - or perhaps the only - parishes in the diocese with a priest who affirms historical Anglican Christianity.  I’ve lived here for three years and have never seen the bishop, who seems to avoid our congregation altogether, even though his home and the cathedral are only a few dozen city blocks away from our parish.

But however heavy the silence of the shepherds, the sheep shout quite a lot.  That was the match to which I referred.  ‘Course, we tend to shout about and at one another. Maybe, from the looks of things, we should shout at the bishops some more.

I’m not sure how to shout so they’ll hear, though.  When I write to my senators, they have someone acknowledge my letter; when I write to bishops or to the PB, what do I get?  Exactly what Betty See suggests: total silence. 

Of course, we can vote our senators out of office.  I wonder how many of us will have to leave TEC before the PB and the HOB see that we are voting - with our feet.

Apropos to this discussion, Chris Johnson has the first installment of MCJ TV. Chris definitely has the gift of word-smithery. He talks about the violations of canon law to depose +Schofield and +Cox and how KJS forced the diocese of Va to break off negotiations and begin litigation. Chris then continues…

“Add to this, the edifying spectacle of the house of bishops, with the honorable exception of Central Florida’s John Howe, rolling over and playing dead for all this, like the pusillanimous lap dogs that they are.

Now, I understand this two things:
One is that we worship a God and they pretend to worship a vague, infinitely malleable philosophical concept. And I also now that people come to this decision at different times and for different reasons…

Are they called by God to stay in that organization and witness to the truth or is God trying to tell them that it is time to move on?”

I would add by asking, what orthodox witness is it if one doesn’t even object to this? Where are the so-called Camp Allen bishops?

These are rough, hard words. But the above condemnation the HoB by the reappraiser, Dan Ennis, and silence by those who should be speaking out are sharper and harder still.

I was never impressed by the so called “Windsor Bishops” to start with.  I viewed them from the start as institutionalists who wantd to pretend to be orthodox.  Indeed they may be personaly orthodox, but their primary loyalty is to the institution.  Bishop Howard of the Diocese of Florida comes to mind.

#12, couldn’t have said it better!  They just couldn’t quite make the leap to “walk apart” from a regular paycheck.

Dee in Iowa wrote:

How did that happen - 5 & 6 mixed up….

We’ve been experiencing time stamp issues on T19 and SF for about a week.  Several attempts to solve it haven’t worked.  Greg is still on the case. 

It’s definitely making following some of the comment threads difficult because comment numbers and sequence have been unstable.

Until we find the fix, a suggestion in the meantime:
Clearly identify the post you are responding to by something OTHER than its number.

There are three primary possibilities: 
1. use a commenter’s name,
2. include a quote,
3. include the link of the comment (right click on the “comment link” tag to the right of the timestamp)

For instance, Dee’s comment to which I am replying has this link:
http://www.kendallharmon.net/t19/index.php/t19/article/11554/#206113

That way, even if your “reply” somehow ends up prior to the comment to which you’re responding, readers should be able to figure things out a bit more easily than would have been possible otherwise.

Sorry for the problems and confusion!

By the way, you might want to each check your account’s “localization settings” to make sure your settings are correct for your time zone and adjusted (as applicable, depending where you are) for daylight savings time.

You can do that here:
http://www.kendallharmon.net/t19/index.php/member/edit_localization/

Feel free to give us a shout if you have questions or problems.

—elfgirl

Elf girl, it would so help if the US was listed in the time zones along with the other major areas.

I’m on the East Coast (SC) of the US, so set the time to Eastern Daylight, would that be correct? 

Gloria

Grandmother -
What you are looking for is UTC-5.  Eastern Standard Time is five hours behind Greenwich Mean Time (or Universal Time).  Theory has it that the software “knows” how to correct for Daylight Savings Time.

Your Techie Nerdy friend!

Allen

As long as you’ve checked the Daylight Savings Time box, right!