+Bruce Tagged As Fundamentalist Bent On Leading Western Louisiana Out of The Episcopal Church

Read it all, to particularly understand the significance of what +Bruce says in the context of what many conservatives want in the Diocese. A snippit:

And there it is – he will, eventually, lead his diocese out of The Episcopal Church and into the new religion. He will not make the decision himself, but leave it to the diocese – but he states he will still be there leading the diocese.

Call me stupid, but I interpret that as “I will steer the diocese in the direction of ‘realignment’ with a Puritan Communion masquerading in Anglican clothing. But I shall do it in such a way that no one n say I’ve broken my ordination/consecration oaths or violated the canons.” It will be interesting to watch him pull this off.

7 Responses to “+Bruce Tagged As Fundamentalist Bent On Leading Western Louisiana Out of The Episcopal Church”


  1. 1 UndergroundPewster October 13, 2008 at 4:46 pm

    Someone please set the Three Legged Stool straight on the following sentences taken from the posting (yes, I read the whole thing).

    “This is another modern innovation of the Fundamentalists – that individual bishops are in communion with Canterbury. Historically, it is provinces that are in communion and individual bishops are connected to Canterbury though their province.”

    “I find it remarkable that the donatist fundamentalists can completely rewrite the history of the Anglican experience, make innovations contrary to our history, and then tell those who do not subscribe to the new religion that they are no longer Anglican.”

    Help me out with the first paragraph, but as far as the second goes,

    I think that picking the right man for the right job is not Donatism. Likewise, picking the wrong man for the wrong job is just plain stupid. Thinking the reference is to VGR, I do not agree with placing the label of donatist fundamentalist on those who disagree with his election to the bishopric.

  2. 2 robroy October 13, 2008 at 4:51 pm

    To be tagged as a “fundamentalist” by this revisionista is an honor. I have often wondered if they adiaphorists to fundamentalists. He questions bishops being in communion with the ABC. Does he not know of Rowan Williams letter to Bp Howe?

  3. 3 robroy October 13, 2008 at 4:54 pm

    Aack. Should read ” I have often wondered if they preferred adiaphorists to fundamentalists.” (My excuse is that I am blogging between OR cases.)

  4. 4 Rudy October 13, 2008 at 10:16 pm

    Has anyone told Three Legged Stool that there was no three-legged stool in Richard Hooker’s Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity? Scripture was primary for Hooker.

    To call Bishop MacPherson a fundamentalist or to refer to anybody in the current controversy as Donatists is equally misinformed.

    Rudy+

  5. 5 Timothy Fountain October 14, 2008 at 2:15 pm

    So now even working withing the Constitution and Canons, trying to stay in TEC as a dissenter, doing anything other than bowing down and declaring Schori a divinity is to
    be a Puritan
    form a “new religion”
    become unAnglican

  6. 6 Canon Gregg L. Riley October 14, 2008 at 6:20 pm

    If Bishop MacPherson is a fundamentalist – so am I.

    Canon G+


  1. 1 HEY, KIDS!! WHAT TIME IS IT?!! | Midwest Conservative Journal Trackback on October 14, 2008 at 1:35 am

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s





%d bloggers like this: