Bishop Lamb,
How does a lawsuit further “reconciliation”?  You and your mistress continue in so many ways to deepen our understanding of Orwellian in the way you use language. Unfortunately, you expose with every word the intellectual and moral inanity you so tenaciously cling to.

Dan Crawford, to answer your question, google “bomric”.

More foolish citing of “ancient traditions.” Who did not expect this quid pro quo from the pretender Lamb? I am so glad they trampled canon law to put him on his false throne.

...a deposed bishop who tried to secede from the church last fall to protest the ordination of women and gays.

Will the secular media really never get it? The fact that they are so consistently wrong when reporting on issues about which I am informed terrifies me when they report on issues about which I am not informed.
And as if inaccuracy were not enough, there is scarcely even an attempt to disguise the bias in this story.

Whatever Lamb is, he is not the Episcopal Church bishop of San Joaquin - well according to TEC canons and polity anyway.  What is he? - well who knows, but one could try googling Quisling.

#3 I expect the secular media get their briefings from the ENS Goebbels machine.

More of the sort of OUTREACH that ECUSA’s revisionist rulers actually believe in.

“How does a lawsuit further ‘reconciliation’?”

The way a wolf promotes organic unity among hens.

Father Dan, I couldn’t agree with you more!  Seldom have I seen such ill-informed journalism…...or should I say…...deliberately twisted journalism allied with the revisionist heretics?

We shall overcome…
Thank you Lord for the honor of defending our faith against those whose only purpose is to persecute the Orthodox Christians. We shall gladly suffer for your honor Lord.
Your humble servant,

Intercessor
Member of St James Anglican Cathedral of the Anglican Diocese of San Joaquin Fresno, California

Amen, Intercessor.  Know that our prayers are with you.

I have a real probelm with the headline of this thread! The deposement of my bishop, John-David Schofield, was not done cannonically, nor was his resignation accepted. Thus, he is not deposed! Now if you were to say “allegedly deposed” that might state it more correctly! Jpournalists always twist things and thus this is why we have more chaos than what is needed of necesaary!

Re:

Episcopal Diocese sues deposed Fresno bishop

How about “Alleged Episcopal Diocese sues allegedly deposed Fresno bishop”?

Or maybe “Fake Episcopal Diocese sues Anglican Bishop.”

Or maybe “Episcopal Pretendor sues Bishop of San Joaquin.”

Those in the area who have a command of the pertinent facts should write the newspapers and correct/clarify things for them.  Hound them until they issue corrections.

Episcopal Diocese sues deposed Fresno bishop

The headline says it all. There is, of course only one Episcopal Diocese, the one doing the suing. In fact, there is no other entity that could be called a “diocese” involved here. The suing diocese is the only one which can be called by that noun. Since there is no other diocese to sue (and they must, of course sue somebody), they will have to settle for suing the ex-bishop who lives in Fresno. They certainly would not sue leaders or members of any diocese, since they themselves are the diocese. No, the only problem is getting rid of that pesky person in Fresno who still claims to be a bishop. Oh, and by the way, eliminating any property rights that he may claim. Simple.

I’m with most of the commenters above: the newsman blew it.
The Rabbit.

I find it incredibly ironic, given that Bp Lamb admitted to our vestry that the HoB had failed in its disciplinary responsilities for 40 years, that the HoB is now exercising a newfound zeal about discipline in support of the very aberrations that occurred as the result of 40 years lack of discipline.

It becomes clearer and clearer that TEC has adopted the William Tecumseh Sherman model of reconciliation. (I understand that Atlanta folks who want a steak well-done ask for it “Shermanized”.)

Yeah, Br_er Rabbit, the newsman blew it, alright!  But there is one slight correction needed here: 

You’re right in saying that there is only ONE Episcopal bishop here…..in the area calling itself the “Episcopal Diocese of San Joaquin,” but there IS another bishop; one who is widely known and respected throughout the Anglican Communion and beyond, and he is MY bishop, +John-David M. Schofield, SSC, the Bishop of the Anglican Diocese of San Joaquin AND A MEMBER IN GOOD STANDING of the House of Bishops of the Anglican Church in the Province of the Southern Cone of the Americas.

Comment deleted by elf.

Sorry, Cennydd, I guess my sarcasm was laid on a little too thickly.
The Rabbit.

My posting is meant for the reappraisers.  Yours was OK.

O elves, who shrank from allowing someone to call Bishop Schofield “Mr. Schofield,” will you now (post #17) allow the Presiding Bishop to be called a name?  Or is this different because it is only by implication?  Or because it is reasserter ‘humor’?  If so, ha ha!

Your sarcasm is not helpful. Often there is only one elf on duty.And occasionally we step away from the computer.

Comment deleted by elf.

Sorry, elves!  When I wrote it I didn’t realize it was as sarcastic as it sounds when I re-read it.  And thanks for cleaning up my post as well.

I prefer to refer to the head of TEC as “Dr Jefferts Schori,” since I do not recognize her as a priest or bishop.  Like my bishop, I believe that no woman can be a priest, and therefore, no bishop.

Now, having said that, I think that the Anglican Diocese of San Joaquin has a very good chance of prevailing in this case…...and I’m not an attorney.

Interesting, since when did a plain reading have to mean “interpret”.  ARen’t the people who read Scripture and then plug the words into an impossible meaning doing the “interpreting”?

If I say, “My, it’s cold outside” meaning that I find the temperature a bit low for my own comfort, shouldn’t the person who decided that what I really said was “I don’t like the attitude of the crowd outside” have the burden of proof as to what I have actually said?

Yet, it seems that with BeerKat, et. al. this logic has been turned upon it’s head, and we are compelled to justify and reinforce the obvious conclusions over and over again while they are under threat from, well, massive stretches of logic and intent.  And by the way, how did we get here?

I’m going to go with apathy.  (Note:  the following comment is NOT intended to compare the leadership of TEC with any member of the German National Socialist Party, living or dead. )

Much like Europe 1939, we’ve observed strength rise, and then head in a direction we are very uncomfortable with, and because we were unwilling to rock the boat too much, or disturb the status quo, or just because it would be bad for business, we’ve enabled our own current problems by not driving a stick into the sand 40 years ago. 

And who among us, when TEC finally turns to ashes in all of our mouths, will step up, as Churchill did, having correctly called the problem seven or eight years earlier, who will we turn to in order to lead us back to freedom and right thinking, to the path Jesus established for us correctly two millenia ago, and help this beleagured denomination put it’s feet back on that path?

Keep your eyes open.  I pray he’ll turn up soon.

KTF!....mrb

I’m sorry, I realize now that the first part of my post was not so clear, I was referring to the following quote in the AP article:

“His consecration has divided the nation’s 2.5 million Episcopalians between those who applaud the changes and others who interpret Scripture to bar gay relationships.”

I don’t understand why we are “interpreting”.  Isn’t the real interpreting being done by anyone who says Scripture DOESN’T bar gay relationships?

KTF!...mrb