tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post6999504190211248613..comments2024-03-29T17:55:30.203+13:00Comments on Anglican Down Under: The narrowing of Anglican life. Thanks, TEC!Peter Carrellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-67032784339731568102012-10-25T22:18:50.858+13:002012-10-25T22:18:50.858+13:00Correct Paul.
There is no doubt that +Lawrence h...Correct Paul. <br /><br />There is no doubt that +Lawrence has always had the confidence of the vast majority of his diocese. <br /><br />He has also made every effort to keep his diocese within TEC. Unfortunately, the strange doctrinal positions adopted by that body have left him and his diocese with little choice but to mark their disagreement on fundamental christian values. <br /><br />It is these same issues that have led to most provinces in the Anglican Communion also marking their disapproval of TEC. The leaders of most provinces will not take communion with the leaders of TEC. Sad, but this is what happens when provincial leaders fail to keep their focus on the faith once delivered.MichaelAnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-52389161955161166022012-10-25T17:01:28.427+13:002012-10-25T17:01:28.427+13:00Fr. Ron, that isn't exactly correct. The first...Fr. Ron, that isn't exactly correct. The first time around, Bishop Lawrence was elected by the diocesan convention and received the necessary consents from the bishops with jurisdiction. He also received consents from a majority of the standing committees of the various dioceses. However, the Presiding Bishop determined that some of the standing committee ballots had to be invalidated because they didn't meet the canoncial requirements (e.g. some were not signed by all the members of the standing committee), which resulted in Bishop Lawrence not receiving sufficient consents. In due course, the diocese held another convention where Bishop Lawrence (the only candidate) was elected. This time, the standing committees were more careful with their ballots, so he received the necessary consents from the standing committees and from the bishops.<br /><br />By the way, I don't claim sufficient knowledge of TEC's canons to judge whether the Presiding Bishop was right in invalidating those ballots.Paul Powershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04833212693999583069noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-47612750219915510972012-10-24T23:34:11.564+13:002012-10-24T23:34:11.564+13:00"A lot has changed since +Mark took office in..."A lot has changed since +Mark took office in a Diocese of such strong conservatism that it resolved not once but twice to have him as their bishop." Peter Carrell -<br /><br />What has changed, Peter, is that this diocesan bishop has rneged on his promise to 'keep the diocese in TEC'. Whatever the reason. He has gone back on his word: he lied to the diocese and to The Episcopal Church.<br /><br />Regarding your suggestion that he must have been popular to have been twice elected bishop is not quite correct. He failed the first ballot, so there had to be another. That sounds like as last ditch effort to me. The suspicion is, that the other candidates were regarded as even less desirable to the electors than even Lawrence.Father Ron Smithhttp://kiwianglo.wordpress.com.noreply@blogger.com