tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34346296.post4364719424220953295..comments2023-12-25T23:40:17.701-05:00Comments on Confessions of a Carioca: Setting the Record Straight (before it’s crooked)Daniel Martinshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15980949721733826978noreply@blogger.comBlogger12125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34346296.post-63688261333695279492008-08-16T08:21:00.000-04:002008-08-16T08:21:00.000-04:00RE: "They must be bad."Yep -- pretty bad. Beers, ...RE: "They must be bad."<BR/><BR/>Yep -- pretty bad. Beers, Schori, et al, violate the canons of the organization which they were once sworn to uphold and instead frantically use brute force a la mini-me Stalins to institute what they wish, rather than follow the canons.<BR/><BR/>Pretty bad. Now, if *all* revisionists behave that way when given the power, then I suppose all revisionists in TEC would be bad as well, rather than merely heretical, which is a different thing. It'd be interesting to give Ruidh the same sort of power and see if he behaved as bufoonishly and ham-handedly.<BR/><BR/>RE: "The loyal Episcopalians are attempting to reorganize while others who wish to see them fail take pot shots."<BR/><BR/>Nonsense. All they had to do was follow the canons. There are all sorts of canons about organizing dioceses . . . but Jefferts Schori did not wish to follow them.<BR/><BR/>Why?<BR/><BR/>Well, because doing so would have meant 1) slowing down and that's inconvenient, and 2) actually using the institutions already in place like, oh say, the Standing Committee made up of clergy who did not go with the Anglican Diocese of San Joaquin. But . . . oh yeh . . . . those were made up of conservative clergy, and we can't have that, of course. And then 3) actually going through the legal requirements to depose the existing bishop of San Joaquin -- not done yet -- rather than the farcically anti-canonical fraud that they created in the HOB, leaving TEC open to any sort of lawsuit, since it did not follow its own rules.<BR/><BR/>And all of that's just for starters. The Anglican Curmudgeon -- conservative, mind you -- has a far better grasp of the details and canons than I did and he himself did a great post on how Jefferts Schori and Beers might have followed the canons AND ended up with a reorganized diocese to boot.<BR/><BR/>But no . . . that would have meant, you know . . . following the canons of the organization which she is sworn to follow and uphold.<BR/><BR/>And we can't have that because . . . well, we don't need 'em when we have the power! All we need is force, huh?<BR/><BR/>Cruisin' for a massive secular lawsuit, which they will lose, all because Jefferts Schori thinks she may do as she pleases without bothering with small silly details like the rules of the organization.<BR/><BR/>The next decade will be interesting.<BR/><BR/><BR/>SarahAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34346296.post-15886618536813135302008-08-15T22:14:00.000-04:002008-08-15T22:14:00.000-04:00"Well . . . certain revisionist leaders of TE..."Well . . . certain revisionist leaders of TEC in positions of power "recognize" the clergy and congregations organized around Bp. Lamb as the EDSJ, in violation of TEC's canons."<BR/><BR/>Oooh! "Revisionist" They must be bad.<BR/><BR/>It is indisputable that majority of parishes attempted to leave TEC> The canons don;t provide for anhting to do in this situation, so people slogged on.<BR/><BR/>There's no canonical violation because there are no canons addressing it.<BR/><BR/>The loyal Episcopalians are attempting to reorganize while others who wish to see them fail take pot shots. <BR/><BR/>It's pretty disgusting, actually.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01005537995315440769noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34346296.post-11326879125527921192008-08-15T21:34:00.000-04:002008-08-15T21:34:00.000-04:00RE: "TEC recognizes the clergy and congregations o...RE: "TEC recognizes the clergy and congregations organized around Bp. Lamb as the EDSJ."<BR/><BR/>Well . . . certain revisionist leaders of TEC in positions of power "recognize" the clergy and congregations organized around Bp. Lamb as the EDSJ, in violation of TEC's canons.<BR/><BR/>Not certain how pointing out that that recognition only occurs through force and not through adherence to the canons is "snarky" . . . <BR/><BR/><BR/>SarahAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34346296.post-21631848147316339332008-08-15T21:31:00.000-04:002008-08-15T21:31:00.000-04:00RE: "Goodness, Denise, that kind of comment h...RE: "Goodness, Denise, that kind of comment hardly seems appropriate for general conversation much less a blog."<BR/><BR/>Well, she's clearly quite angry and she couldn't help it's coming out. And . . . rational arguments having failed her she had to say something. ; > ) <BR/><BR/>No offense taken on my part. I'd have to first care what Denise thinks about me in order to actually be insulted. And I don't have as high of standards of rhetoric for revisionists.<BR/><BR/>SarahAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34346296.post-34040774421512767652008-08-15T16:16:00.000-04:002008-08-15T16:16:00.000-04:00You speak as if the existence of the Episcopal Dio...You speak as if the existence of the Episcopal Diocese of San Joaquin had some kind of ontological or objective existence. It is a creation of man. It exists only as long as there are people who recognize its existence. <BR/><BR/>TEC recognizes the clergy and congregations organized around Bp. Lamb as the EDSJ. Snarky blog posts aren't going to change *that* reality.<BR/><BR/>I think it's more likely that the letters and the (lack of) response to them will confirm that there was a quorum rather than disprove one.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01005537995315440769noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34346296.post-40105845142437439612008-08-15T14:23:00.000-04:002008-08-15T14:23:00.000-04:00Goodness, Denise, that kind of comment hardly seem...Goodness, Denise, that kind of comment hardly seems appropriate for general conversation much less a blog. Comments are one thing...name calling is something else. If Denise wasn't offended, I most certainly was.<BR/><BR/>Lee+Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34346296.post-26438350152621502642008-08-15T12:02:00.000-04:002008-08-15T12:02:00.000-04:00Excuse me. A group of people left the diocese of ...Excuse me. A group of people left the diocese of San Joaquin. That doesn't make the diocese not exist. A few years ago, I left the Methodist Church. That doesn't make the Methodist Church not exist. You people are living in Alice's Wonderland.<BR/><BR/>Sarah. Smile away. I've seen enough of your posts to know you rhyme with "rich".<BR/><BR/>DeniseAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34346296.post-21929501489847857122008-08-15T01:10:00.000-04:002008-08-15T01:10:00.000-04:00Fr. Dan:Along with Francie, I was one of those who...Fr. Dan:<BR/><BR/>Along with Francie, I was one of those who received a letter addressed to "Dear Father Johnson." Of course as a vocationl deacon and a woman there is no way I could be consider "Fr." anyone.<BR/><BR/>It is obvious that "Bishop" Lamb has no clue as to who I am or who Francie is so how can he possibly depose us?!? Even he he was "legally" our Bishop one would think that you need to at least know who you are deposing.<BR/><BR/>Had I wanted to meet with him...which I most certainly did not want to...it would have been quite difficult as he left for England after sending the letter and didn't return until a few days before the deadline. That hardly qualified for making himself assessable to anyone!<BR/><BR/>Thank you for still caring about us and about your church. Knowing you (as I hope that I do)it must break your heart to see the church that you love treating those that you care about in such an uncaring way. Please keep us in your prayers!<BR/><BR/>Blessings,<BR/>Lee+Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34346296.post-31691060250774101832008-08-14T23:31:00.000-04:002008-08-14T23:31:00.000-04:00Denise,While I would use different language than F...Denise,<BR/>While I would use different language than Fr. Dan, the effect would be the same. A small dissident minority of the diocese [those who lost the democratically held vote of the legitimately & canonically called diocesan convention in December '07]gathered & held a meeting [not rising to the canonically requirements of a Special Convention] at the end of March '08 in Lodi. It was at that non canonically held meeting that Bishop Lamb [retired from Northern California] was designated by this dissident minority to be the bishop of something that TEC would then recognize as a diocese. <BR/><BR/>Bishop Lamb is held in the same regard as Bishop Chane or Bishop Andrus. Duly and canonically elected Bishops in Christ's One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church. Bp. Lamb as the retired bishop of Northern California, the others as diocesans of Washington DC & California. <BR/><BR/>However, none of these men were canonically and legally elected as Bishop of the Diocese of San Joaquin. And therefore, none of them have jurisdiction over clergy in the Diocese of San Joaquin [except of course over moral or criminal violations of law occuring within the diocesan boundaries of California or Washington DC.<BR/><BR/>So, just as Francie need not be concerned with actions taken by Andrus or Chane...she need not be concerned with any action purportedly taken by Lamb.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34346296.post-23627135054056156882008-08-14T23:25:00.000-04:002008-08-14T23:25:00.000-04:00RE: ""rogue and illicit Episcopal dioces...RE: ""rogue and illicit Episcopal diocese of San Joaquin"<BR/><BR/>Yep -- it's as serious a statement as the canons of the Episcopal Church which were grossly violated in the whole "construction" of the faux diocese and its faux bishop, Denise.<BR/><BR/>But . . . I am smiling over *your* comments. ; > )<BR/><BR/><BR/>SarahAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34346296.post-27311951908037526902008-08-14T20:29:00.000-04:002008-08-14T20:29:00.000-04:00"rogue and illicit Episcopal diocese of San Joaqui..."rogue and illicit Episcopal diocese of San Joaquin"<BR/><BR/>Are we supposed to take this statement with a straight face? You're not pulling our leg? You're really serious? <BR/><BR/>Francie -- he can depose you because you now say he is not your bishop.<BR/><BR/>DeniseAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34346296.post-64494595755554326362008-08-14T15:21:00.000-04:002008-08-14T15:21:00.000-04:00Fr. Dan:I received one of those letter addressed "...Fr. Dan:<BR/><BR/>I received one of those letter addressed "Dear Father Levy". As you well know, I am a Transitional Deacon, but since I am a woman, I will never be addressed as Fr. Levy!<BR/><BR/>The letter arrived via U.S. Mail without a request for a return receipt, so how will the office in Stockton even know that I received the letter? No one has ever called me to confirm that I received the letter, and I am listed in the telephone directory.<BR/><BR/>I expect to receive a letter soon telling me that I have been deposed. Since Bishop Jerry Lamb is not MY Bishop, how can he depose me? Inquiring minds want to know!<BR/><BR/>My best to you!<BR/><BR/>Francie+Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com