Bloggers

Blog powered by Typepad

« Friday Cat Blogging | Main | India and Dancing »

Jul 19, 2005

Comments

William G. Witt

John,

In the midst of all this, thank you for bringing a smile to my day.

I would love to believe that Bishop Smith had done what he had done because he was driven to distraction by my long-winded theology.

I really don't think he even realized I attended the parish. When I confronted him outside the church building the day of its liberation, he had only the vaguest hint of recognition on his face. I'm sure his thoughts were, "Where have I seen this guy before?

John wilkins

It heartens me to know you have a sense of humor, sir. not my stereotype of a reasserter.

Blessings to you in your resistance to tyranny.

J. C. Fisher

Maybe +Andrew Smith had good reasons for what he did, and maybe he didn't.

Certainly, bringing in locksmiths looks bad (especially in light of all those "Harrowing of Hell" icons, w/ the broken locks at Christ's feet).

. . . but so does treating "Episcopal" as if it meant "and our congregation will bloody well choose which episkope' we want!" (As the CT Six, among a number of ECUSA parishes around the country, have been doing)

If "schism is the sin of failing to love", there seems to be plenty of this sin going around.

God forgive, and change ALL our hearts!

Bill Carroll

According to Chomsky, the purpose of the present order is to socialize the risks undergone by the ownership class. For everyone else, strict market discipline. Something to think about.

With regard to Bishop Smith, I do think the abandoning the communion canon was probably a stretch. I think there were other forms of canonical discipline that could have been applied. We are going to have to look at the canon, which is too vague at GC in 2006. I hope I'm wrong, but I have a feeling that it is going to be used a bit more in the years to come.

Peace,

Bill

The comments to this entry are closed.

Friends and Family