The lawsuits in Virginia, the coming massive legal effort in San Joaquin, Fort Worth, etc., will drag on and on for years not months. Headline after headline will brand the Episcopal church irreversibly as 1) the gay church and 2) the church that sues ex-members. Basically, it will be perceived as a chaotic, hateful version of the Metropolitan church.

The public as well as the somnolent laity will be treated to other examples like the one currently available at Stand Firm, Katherine Jefferts-Schori “Yes, I ordered the lawsuits, it’s what we do.” This and the others will look really bad. People will flee like a burning theater, trampling others to get out the door.

Even the liberal ideologues like Gene Robinson (who called for his followers to risk “even the institution, itself” to advance his homosexual cause) should rethink the lawsuits. Other denominations are certainly watching at what the homosexualists have wrought upon the Episcopal church. Their cause is set back.

Now all we need is a few top-notch Wall Street public relations and advertising firms.
([/sarcasm])

Robroy, I agree, Jesus did not try to hold on to those who could not follow him.  If +VGR and what those in his camp are doing is of God, God will bless them. Why worry about what a few churchs and church members do ?

#2 Br_er: “Now all we need is a few top-notch Wall Street public relations and advertising firms.” Indeed. Like the “crisis management” and “damage control” firm that put out the erroneous contention that +J-DS is a member of the HOB of TEC and the HOB of Southern Cone.

#1 Robroy, “...what the homosexualists have wrought upon the Episcopal church.”
I do with reasserters would take a consistency pill. The “crisis” either goes back to Prayer Book revision (has anyone checked out the wrangling over the “revisionist” Book of Common Prayer of 1928?!?), to women’s ordination, to the 1982 Hymnal, or to GenCon resolutions opening the ordination process to gay men and Lesbians. No one among conservatives seems to agree where it all started—at least robroy has indicated his own theory.

Sorry: I do wish reasserters…
Early morning typing.
Need more coffee.

Blessings!

The lectionary change in the 40’s, the new BCP were merely preludes to the in-your-face actions of the homosexualists. How many times do we need to be reminded which action tore the fabric of the communion? The blame for the coming dissolution of the Episcopal church (if they pursue these lawsuits, that is) lies squarely in the lap of the homosexualists.

Hey, this is novel! I have heard any number of explanations of when things started to go wrong in TEC, and I didn’t expect ever to hear a new one. #6 qualifies: the changeover from the original 1928 Prayer Book Daily Office Lectionary to the 1944 revision. How so?

Yes, I’ve been wondering about the current lectionaries and wondered how far back certain changes go. For instance, the lectionaries gratuitously skip over the part about a woman having to go home and ask her husband questions rather than speaking up in church. Admittedly, these are tough passages to preach from, but still, how far back do these changes (I assume they’re changes) go? I have not found much in the way of comprehensive historical lectionary resources on the web, and I have seen zero analysis of the changes.

Here is a link to the books of the Bible and when they will be read in the lectionary.

How come, if the Diocese of Fort Worth is so conservative and anti-TEC, do THEY consider the 1979 prayer book the official prayer book of the diocese? See http://fwepiscopal.org/customary/Customary2005.html#prayerbook
Seems to me they are just as guilty as anyone at picking and choosing what is acceptable and not acceptable as much as anyone. I think they go for it ‘cause it allows them to be so crazily Anglo-Catholic. How will all this fly with the Southern Cone, anyway?

Corie,
What exactly do you know about the Diocese of Ft Worth re: choice of liturgical style?  I presume that’s what you meant, by the way, when you said ‘Anglo-Catholic.’

RGEaton

11. Rob Eaton+—I used to go to St Vincent’s (I live in Hurst, it is next door in Bedford outside Fort Worth). Still have family there, although now I attend Calvary Lutheran (ELCA) in nearby Richland Hills. I have been to St Vincent’s, St Mark’s, All Saints’, St Timothy (which wins the Anglo-Catholic prize), St Martin-in-the-Fields, St. Laurence. Trust me, while there are exceptions, most of these churches are very Angllo-Catholic.

I presume that’s what you meant, by the way, when you said ‘Anglo-Catholic.

Whatever happened to the terms “high church” and “low church”? Has that completely dropped out of the Anglican/Episcopal vocabulary? Those were the terms formerly applied to “liturgical style.” The term “Anglo-Catholic” (note the Capital Letters), seems to be used, at least here in the web logs, as a theological descriptive, however loosely applied. Do you have to be “Anglo-Catholic” in order to be “high church”; or conversely, “high church”, in order to be “Anglo-Catholic”?

My understanding of “high church” and “low church” has a lot more to do with things such as vestments and incense and ceremony. Indeed, I think a lot of Roman Catholic churches today would be “low church” in that sense. But when I say “Anglo-Catholic” I do not necessarily mean “high church”—many are, but the terms are not interchangable. By “Anglo-Catholic” in the context I used above, I’m talking about parishes who emphasize things such as the rosary, devotion of Mary or to the Blessed Sacrament (including Benediction ...), and many other things Catholic except the papacy. Although some do embrace the papacy as well (one parish in Arlington did leave years ago to cross the Tiber and became an Anglican Use parish, and one priest from St Vincent’s became Catholic a couple of years back, and former Bp Pope’s back there again now).

My understanding is that originally “high church” referred to the belief that the Church (CofE) is a divine institution, the Body of Christ, and not just an outpost of the “invisible church” which attitude roughly describes the “low church” belief.  This non-instrumental view of the church is of course often accompanied by catholic liturgical practices, which of course are consonant with that view of the Church, since they are part of the patrimony of Anglicanism.

Latitudinarians, Non-Conformists, Tractarians, Oxford Movement, Anglo-Catholicism, Evangelicals, Ritualists, High Church, Low Church, Broad Church….....
Confusing, isnt it?
None of these are synonymous, nor interchangeable, except in modern usage where the top of the brain history of such has been lost.
We could start a new thread….
I was just trying to give St Andrew’s some differentiation space.

RGEaton