To: ahadams2
Good Monday morning....an excellent article, worthy of a thougthful read....Two questions, if I might..
First, are the terms "impaired" and/or "broken" communion interchangeable?, or does one signify a greater degree or separation..
Second..withi ECUSA, what are the provisions for removing a presiding bishop?..seems to me that there are several dioceses where the PB is out of touch with the majority of the members....maybe the way to attack this is not to leave ECUSA, but to throw the bums out..
4 posted on
06/28/2004 3:16:11 AM PDT by
ken5050
(We've looked for WMD in Iraq for LESS time than Hillary looked for the Rose Law firm billing records)
To: ken5050
First - "impaired" is less catastrophic than "broken", implying a merely damaged relationship. Many of the orthodox have continued to use this term, possibly with a hope of some sort of reconciliation. My personal take is that this is whistling past the graveyard. Unless the orthodox are willing to give up their beliefs, there will be no reconciliation.
Second - since ECUSA is a "top down" organization, there is no provision for removing a bish other than an ecclesiastical trial. And THAT has been a paper tiger ever since "bishop" Spong was NOT removed for what amounted to atheism.
If the orthodox made a strategic error, it was to allow the revisionist/heretics to get control of the administration of the church. But I'm not sure they could have done anything about it.
5 posted on
06/28/2004 5:24:00 AM PDT by
AnAmericanMother
(. . . Ministrix of Venery (recess appointment), TTGC Ladies' Auxiliary . . .)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson