The title should have read:  Anglican Demand for Change Is Rebuffed by Episcopal LIBERALS

We all know that the nails have been hammered into the coffin of The Episcopal Church, and now all it needs is the sealant to complete the job.  This could very well be that seal.

Bonnie Anderson, president of the church’s House of Deputies, composed of clergy and lay representatives, said: “The Episcopal Church has spoken quite clearly as to where we are on this.”

Bonnie, go back and study the game plan. Everybody needs to keep their stories straight.  Only General Convention, which meets next in 2009, can speak for The Episcopal Church.

Ah, but Ms Anderson doesn’t think so!  She’d dispute that fact!

All hail Convention hail
we owe our life to thee
No Christ and no gospel
but bless’ed polity!

#6- Well let’s see.  I believe the good people were of South Carolina were recently denied their choice for Bishop, from the people using the same “local choice” arguments a few years ago to get Robinson.
And, I guess the lawsuits can’t be seen as intimidating or harrassing either.  Pay no attention to the apostate church behind the curtain, all is well…

Yes, TPaine, all those things are facts of life.  In CT alone, we have had a revisionist bishop depose a priest for a slightly irregular sabbatical, after which he violated canon and probably state and federal law in forcibly taking over a parish over the objections of its duly elected vestry.  (Ecclesiastical charges dismissed out of hand, criminal charges never files, out of charity.)  Postulants have been denied access to the process, or coerced to attend liberal seminaries.  Parishes have been denied the priests of their calling (for no cause), or have had to submit to extraordinary conditions in order to get approval.  Priests and laity have been publically slandered in the course of the bishop’s diocesan address.  Parishes have gone without episcopal visits or any type of care for several years now (admittedly the parishes themselves have shared the blame for this, as their consciences would not allow it after a certain point.) 

So, “care” (in my opinion) is urgently needed, and would take the form of a Godly “father in Christ” providing support, pastoring, acountability, and vision for my priest primarily, and for my parish as well.  It would necessarily include sacramental duties, of course, but that’s not enough by itself (otherwise “DEPO” might have been workable.)

#8
I agree that ‘care’ is needed under these circumstances. But I also think you put your finger on something when you fair-heartedly say:
(admittedly the parishes themselves have shared the blame for this, as their consciences would not allow it after a certain point.) If both sides (I stress both sides) stopped bad-mouthing the other side, reasonable deals might be done (I still hope).

#8 Connecticutian gets the slam-dunk!  Exactly what is going on in MANY places around the country.  I’ve known of several folks who were not allowed to go to a seminary of their choosing and others who could not get ordained because their diocese got a new “bishop” who refused to ordain them because they went to the “wrong” seminary.  It just keeps getting nuttier and nuttier!

TPaine,
no, actually many of the standing committees stated that they would not vote for SC’s choice because he was orthodox and they were afraid (despite his assurances to the contrary) that he would take the diocese out of the Episcopal Church for an Anglican alliance.  They were quite straight forward about it.  But he DID eventually get the required number of votes, which is where the technicality claim comes in.

as for CT., we were all watching with horror the actions of the bishop there. It seemed like he’d totally lost it in his persecution of the six congregations that announced their intention to remain orthodox and not follow the actions of the General Convention.

#11, I could answer many of your specific queries, but I don’t want to go even further off-topic.  However, regarding Pittsburgh being the inverse case, my understanding (which may be wrong) is that Bp Duncan *has* either provided care or expressed a willingness to extend real workable DEPO, or even let the dissenting parishes go their own way without peril.  My understanding is that they responded by suing him.  There seems to be a pattern on the part of reasserting bishops to extend grace and let parishes follow their conscience, and there’s been a pattern on the part of reappraising (and even “moderate”) bishops to apply force of canon & law instead.