March 23, 2017

October 7, 2012

Episcopal Bishop of California Late to Cordileone Installation Service, Demands National Attention

Bishop Andrus was late to the interfaith procession for Archbishop Cordileone’s installation service, flounced out when he wasn’t seated immediately, and scuttled off to his diocesan webmaster to post a news release announcing the Vile Insult. Needless to say, outrage and squealing has ensued from leftist Episcopalians on various blogs.

When I first read Bishop Andrus’s breathless release about his Episcopal Martyrdom to the Fanged Papist, Salvatore Cordileone, the new and conservative and thus much-loathed Roman Catholic archbishop of San Francisco [the Andrus release included the words “detained” and “basement”—heh],my first thought was “goodness, are we sure Bishop Andrus was even invited?”  And further, should he be seated with the Christian leaders of other denominations, or with the Buddhists and Hindus?

And then I thought “why is Bishop Andrus so desperate for attention”?

Any sane person would know that Archbishop Cordileone has much larger fish to fry than to figure out how to offer some kind of pointed insult to one of the scads of interfaith guests at his installation service.

Once one recognizes that, then one has to ask why on earth Bishop Andrus had to point so loudly and publicly to his own perceived insult? Either it was deliberate by Archbishop Cordileone [hardly likely], or it was accidental and a product of poor logistics, or bad communication, or some other kerfluffly mix-up.

So I started to dig a little deeper.

Conservative Episcopalians were thrilled over Salvatore’s selection as the new archbishop; at StandFirm there was much rejoicing, for instance. He will do a lot to clean up the unholy mess left by his predecessor, not to mention being a great counterweight to the revisionists of all sorts in that region. Make no mistake, Archbishop Cordileone’s elevation represents a huge threat to the ruling order of that region, both politically and spiritually.

So—unsurprisingly—Bishop Andrus and the tiny number of Episcopalians in that state have engaged in plenty of territory marking, passive-agressive sniping, and outright hostility, well-noted by various Roman Catholics. No suprise there, and I’m confident that Archbishop Cordileone recognizes that he doesn’t share the same Gospel as Bishop Andrus.

But the thing is . . . the Episcopal Diocese of California is about the size of a mosquito and shrinking steadily smaller too. So it’s not as if Archbishop Cordileone actually needs to deal much with Bishop Andrus, who’s essentially the head of a tiny diocese in a tiny organization that is plummeting fast in terms of size, credibility, and influence.

There’s just not much that the Episcopal Diocese of California has to offer in terms of authority, power, credibility, intellect, spiritual health, pastoral care—not that much of anything at all.

Back to the immediate histrionics though.

The Archdiocese issued a statement pointing out that Bishop Andrus had arrived too late for the interfaith procession that seated religious leaders in the front rows of the service so the ushers had tried to figure out a way to get him into the service with minimal fuss and notice—rather like ushers do in Episcopal services every single Sunday. The Archdiocese apologized and was very sorry and assured everyone that they had intended no insult.

Then, Bishop Andrus made what I consider to have been a Largish Mistake.  He issued his timeline of events—and immediately the experienced Episcopalian recognizes a big problem.

Andrus states that he arrived in the correct place at the Cathedral at 1.40 p.m.—while implying that he had to make his way around hordes of protesters between 1.30 and 1.40 [turns out that press reports indicate the gay activists were only able to muster some three dozen protesters—pretty pathetic for San Francisco]. But 1.40 is rather late for a service in which he was to be seated processional style at the front of a massive building with more than 2000 attendees. Even a standard wedding service will seat the honored guests half an hour early. At the installation of an archbishop? Incredible to think that the honored guests were to be processed at 1.45.

I didn’t find an Order of Service for this installation, but a little googling turns up some other instances of processions for installations. Here’s a description of the pre-events of the installation service for Archbishop Timothy Dolan. In it we find this, for a service starting at 2 p.m.:

“At the April 15 Mass of Installation, a procession will begin at 1:30 p.m. with representatives of various groups, ministries and organizations of the archdiocese, as well as bishops, archbishops and cardinals. Cardinal Egan and Archbishop Dolan will be at the end of the procession.”

My guess is that the procession took place at 1.30, he arrived at 1.40, and the flustered ushers didn’t know what to do with him. They state that he was asked to stay in the “conference rooms below the Cathedral” [ie, “a basement room” according to Bishop Andrus’s news release and they “detained” him]. In the meantime, as one commenter points out, the Greek Orthodox clergy would be included in the procession with the Roman Catholic bishops, so the ushers weren’t “seating them” ahead of an outraged Bishop Andrus—they were lining them up for the procession with the rest of the bishops.

So the story of the day is this.

—Bishop Andrus arrived late for the interfaith procession. This may be his fault. It may be his assistant’s fault. It may be the event planners’ fault if they told the assistant the wrong time for him to show up.

—The RC procession—in which the Greek Orthodox bishops were included—was forming when he arrived in the conference rooms to which he was directed.

—At 2 p.m. the service started, Bishop Andrus took offense over not having been seated, and left, apparently to go sit with his webmaster and write up a release about the gross insult to which he had been subjected.

—When the ushers returned, he was already gone.

But the real question is this.

Why does Bishop Andrus feel the need to write a public statement announcing his insult?

I think, upon reflection, it’s pretty clear why.

Bishop Andrus is essentially irrelevant.

A significantly larger constellation exists in Archbishop Cordileone’s diocese and position. He will be a massive influence in that region, and all the accompanying prestige, authority, power, and influence that arrives with his diocese and position will be noted and remarked upon.

In contrast, Bishop Andrus has little influence at all. I think he recognizes that, without some kind of “story” he’ll basically be ignored.  He’s got to do something involving spectacle [like marching in Gay Pride parades featuring naked people, save for their chaps] and Jerry Springerish behavior in order to get attention.

Hence, his news release announcing his insult.

You know ... I’m guessing that Episcopal bishops are far more insecure and anxious than we can imagine.  This kind of infantile behavior, in which small bullies publicly announce perceived insults to their stature and make themselves ridiculous in the eyes of Episcopalians, Roman Catholics, and various other members of the pointing crowd, will only, I expect, get much worse.

So we can expect lots more hilarity from the Diocese of California, I think. This represents a promising start for all of our entertainment.

If I were called in to advise the new Archbishop on dealing with Bishop Andrus, I’d advise him to deal not at all. One of the games that revisionist activists play when they’re in a position of weakness is the “I’m a victim, throw me a bone and recognize me” game. They announce their victimhood—some perceived slight or insult—and decent people try to say “no insult intended” and then the “victim” demands some sort of redress or token of esteem.

The way to deal with such a manipulator is to simply x them out of one’s orbit. The “victim” will squeal much louder—like a child having a temper tantrum.  But your job is to simply shut the door, and offer the noise-maker no attention whatsoever.

I’d heartily advise that in the case of Archbishop Cordileone.  There is absolutely nothing that Bishop Andrus has that you need. But you have a lot of things that Bishop Andrus yearns after—size, influence, power, and a ready access to high-profile press. Don’t offer that to Bishop Andrus, even if it’s an attempt to address his “concerns.” Believe you me—take it from an Episcopalian—he’ll always have plenty of “concerns” every single day.  His “concerns” are never-ending, when he needs your attention and your notice.

Don’t give him those things. 

Share this story:

Recent Related Posts



If there are any Anglo-Catholics left in his Diocese, Bishop Andrus would use any excuse to paint Archbishop Cordileone in an ugly light.  Bishop Andrus’ earlier letter to the Archbishop welcoming anyone wishing to leave the Roman Catholic Church might be an example of projection of Andrus’s fears of a reverse migration.

[1] Posted by Undergroundpewster on 10-7-2012 at 12:49 PM · [top]

Oh, let’s not be too harsh!  The Episcopal Diocese of California has to reach out to someone these days.  Why not disaffected Roman Catholics?  Apparently, Bishop Andrus doesn’t believe that everybody who should be an Episcopalian already is one.  I say, good for him.

For instance, the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence are probably tired of being marginalized by a Church that’s clearly out of touch with their concerns.  There was no room for them at the new Archbishop’s installation, not even in the basement.  Don’t you think they’re tired of the sidewalk by now?

Bishop Andrus should get right to work on a reverse Ordinariate that would allow their entire order to swim San Francisco Bay while carefully preserving their own somewhat Catholic patrimony, or matrimony, or whatever they call it.  And, of course, they can be entirely self-governing once they‘ve landed safely on the opposite shore. 

But if that does happen, look for those crafty Romanists to try and “one up” the Episcopalians by immediately issuing quit claim deeds to the good Sisters for their convents, cosmetic labs, fashion salons, or anything other enterprises for which they’ve provided the stoop labor while beating their wimpled heads against the Vatican wall.  Or . . . did Rome somehow manage to keep its grubby mitts off their stuff in the first place?  I really don’t know.

Anyway, historic San Francisco parishes now struggling along with an average Sunday attendance of 100 or less should spring to life once the Sisters arrive and demonstrate just how welcoming the Episcopal Church can be.  That’ll be a great way to get even with Archbishop Cordileone. LOL

[2] Posted by episcopalienated on 10-7-2012 at 02:01 PM · [top]

I have very little to add to your excellent post, save that this is just one more proof that Catholicism is not an organised religion smile

Bishop Andrus says - and we should take his word on this - that his assistant was told by the Archdiocese he needed to be there for 1:45 p.m., so the Bishop was dropped off at the cathedral at 1:30 p.m.

Now, that’s a mess-up by the administrative staff of the cathedral or the archdiocese, and it possibly might be (this is pure speculation on my part and I have no inside knowledge) because Archbishop Cordileone’s previous diocese was the diocese of Oakland, where - if I am reading the maps correctly - there would be a large overlap with the area where Bishop Andrus’ diocese represents.  So possibly whoever was in the office thought that a bishop’s secretary ringing from an Oakland number was ringing on behalf of a Roman Catholic bishop and gave the wrong time because they presumed he would be in the entrance procession.

It makes sense to me that the ushers were expecting Bishop Andrus, if you take his account as what was said -“I identified myself to an assistant to the archbishop, who spoke to someone through a headset, saying, “Bishop Andrus is here.” -  if they expected him to be there to be seated with the other non-Catholic and non-Orthodox clergy, and there was no sign of him, and nobody had rung to say he wouldn’t be turning up, naturally I would expect the staff to be looking out to see if/when he would arrive.

Where I would take issue with the account in the “Pacific Church News” is here:  “He was with other ecumenical guests before the service, all of whom were seated while he waited.”

No, he wasn’t - he was in the lower room with the RC bishops and the Greek Orthodox, as he relates.  These were not all “the other ecumenical guests” but were the bishops who would process in before Archbishop Cordileone.  Now, unless Bishop Andrus thought he was the only Protestant invited, or he expected to process in with the RCs and Orthodox… but that is a speculation too far on my part.

The only other thing I would say is that, if you watch the recordings of the ceremony, the livestream was taped beginning at 2:06 p.m. and Archbishop Cordileone did not enter the sanctuary until about 2:10 p.m. - so by leaving at 2:00 p.m. Bishop Andrus did leave before they could discreetly escort him in after the Archbishop’s entrance.

I’m sorry, I know we’ve fallen a long day from the grandeur of global Jesuit conspiracies and Vatican world domination plots, but this time it really was only a mistake! red face

[3] Posted by Martha on 10-7-2012 at 02:45 PM · [top]

Just a comparison of figures - for the Episcopal diocese of California, according to their Wikipedia page, membership of 27,000.

For the Archdiocese of San Francisco, the 2010 numbers were 444,008 or, according to the press release, “half a million” - 500,000.

Now, I’d be pretty sure a lot of that membership is made up of notional Catholics (i.e., baptised and then never crossed the threshold of a church again except for weddings and funerals), liberal Catholics, etc. so the actual numbers turning up for Mass each Sunday would be a lot less than that - if we say half, we’re talking about 200,000 or so?

Still ten times the numbers of Bishop Andrus’ diocese.  Now, numbers on their own mean nothing, but yes - it is a bit like the mouse complaining the elephant deliberately stood on his toe!

[4] Posted by Martha on 10-7-2012 at 03:04 PM · [top]

And how many in Andrus’ diocese are episcopalian in name only?  Do you REALLY think there are 27k members?

[5] Posted by Jackie on 10-7-2012 at 04:06 PM · [top]

It is extremely gauche to complain in public of a perceived slight that arises from scheduling/planning issues of a large public event to which one is invited.  If one is truly a friend/supporter of the person of honor, one remains quiet as a favor to that person.  Perhaps later you will be thanked for quietly taking one for the team.

[6] Posted by Paul B on 10-7-2012 at 04:41 PM · [top]


And how many in Andrus’ diocese are episcopalian in name only?

Oh, come now!  Next you’ll be claiming that the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence are nuns in name only.

Where’s the love? LOL

Actually, I did a study a few months back of membership and average Sunday attendance figures for all of the parishes in San Francisco.  The results are really dismal, even worse than in Los Angeles.

The diehard cradle Episcopalians from Nob Hill are apparently making a last stand at Grace Cathedral.  They should be able to keep the doors open a while longer with an ASA of maybe 700 and enough money to shield them against some of the harsher realities outside the neighborhood.  It’s still a place where you can go to see and be seen.

But elsewhere, once flourishing parishes established in the 19th century are now hanging on by a thread.  It’s truly pitiful.  And each one is still trying harder than the next to demonstrate how “welcoming” and “inclusive” it is.

The Episcopal Church Welcomes You - and we can make that “in name only” if you’d prefer.  Just please do show up once in awhile. tongue wink

[7] Posted by episcopalienated on 10-7-2012 at 05:22 PM · [top]

I find it difficult to believe that all the other invitees were told the correct arrival time and only Andrus was given an incorrect time.

[8] Posted by Jeffersonian on 10-7-2012 at 07:15 PM · [top]


“Where I would take issue with the account in the “Pacific Church News” is here:  “He was with other ecumenical guests before the service, all of whom were seated while he waited.”

No, he wasn’t - he was in the lower room with the RC bishops and the Greek Orthodox, as he relates.  These were not all “the other ecumenical guests” but were the bishops who would process in before Archbishop Cordileone.  Now, unless Bishop Andrus thought he was the only Protestant invited, or he expected to process in with the RCs and Orthodox… but that is a speculation too far on my part.”


As was noted by another commenter at the TEC blog, the indignant Andrus was watching *the formation of the next procession* which included the EOs and the RCs—they processed together.  The “interfaith” group—of which Andrus was a part—processed at the beginning—the part of the pre-service that he missed.

RE: “Still ten times the numbers of Bishop Andrus’ diocese.”

Note that the Average Sunday Attendance for Andrus’s little diocese is around 8K.

So yeh . . . his diocese is the equivalent in size of a flea on a dog—and about as honorable too, considering the gospel that it preaches.

RE: “It is extremely gauche to complain in public of a perceived slight that arises from scheduling/planning issues of a large public event to which one is invited.  If one is truly a friend/supporter of the person of honor, one remains quiet as a favor to that person.”

So true. It’s like issuing a news release about one not being seated at the Bride’s table at the reception.  So tawdry—but then . . . as we all know, and as Andrus recognizes, Archbishop Cordileone is an *opponent* not a friend, Andrus does not “support” him, and is threatened by him.


[9] Posted by Sarah on 10-7-2012 at 07:42 PM · [top]

Well this certainly should make it easier to shop for Andrus for Christmas (they do still celebrate Christmas in Andrus’ diocese?).  One even has a choice.  A new watch or a Katie Kisses Crying Baby Doll.

[10] Posted by Jackie on 10-7-2012 at 08:11 PM · [top]

This story is too far in the past to have been picked up by our automagical “Recent Related Posts” code, but I’m always reminded of it whenever Marc Andrus shows his… ahem… behind. Lots of exposed-butt gay parade stuff at the link - so much so that the headline itself carried a content warning - but it’s essential for placing Andrus’ sense of moral outrage in the proper context.

[11] Posted by Greg Griffith on 10-7-2012 at 08:36 PM · [top]

If only he hadn’t taken 10 minutes to go around those 25 (35?) protesters.  Since it doesn’t take 10 minutes to go around 25 or so people, they obviously must have restrained him against his will, or otherwise interfered with his passage. I hope those protesters will be held responsible for their belligerence and their obstruction of a public way.  I look forward to the pictures emerging of Andrus heroically evading his captors in order to celebrate the installation of a homophobe. . .

Wait a sec. . .I’m confused.

[12] Posted by paradoxymoron on 10-7-2012 at 10:05 PM · [top]

I checked my phone; it was 1:50PM. I asked the employee standing with me if the service indeed started at 2, which she affirmed.

At 2PM, when the service was to begin, I said to the employee, “I think I understand, and feel I should leave.” Her response was, “Thank you for being understanding.” I quietly walked out the door. No one attempted to stop me. No attempt was ever made to explain the delay or any process for seating.

It would seem to me that the mistake was on the part of bishop Andrus.  Note that a)- he never ASKS anybody why there is a delay in seating him.  No doubt the Catholic officials assume, since he is a bishop, that he commonly attends events with hundreds of clergy in procession, and would know that if he arrived at too late to join the ecumenical procession, that he would be seated after the event started.  Just like his box seats at the opera.
He then announced his departure. Again, he did not ask anyone if he would be seated, or why there was a “delay.” And no one stopped him (Catholic Church employees give a certain deference to bishops, not seen in TEC since the days of Anglo-Catholicism).  At this point, he again makes the assumption that he is being snubbed, because there was no attempt to stop him on the way out the door.
++Cordileone had better watch out, because Andrus will now hold his breath until he turns blue, put a photo of a blue Andrus on the TEC Facebook page and write nasty things about the Archbishop on his Wall.

[13] Posted by tjmcmahon on 10-8-2012 at 07:01 AM · [top]

Sarah said: “the Episcopal Diocese of California is about the size of a mosquito and shrinking steadily smaller too”

About one half mile from my home in VA sits a large RC church.  They have over 15,000 baptized members.  This does put in perspective the Episcopal Diocese of California’s size at about 26,000 baptized members.

Bishop Andrus’ actions remind me of my son at age three who, without provocation, laid down in the middle of the floor and proceeded to throw a tantrum complete with screaming and flailing of arms and legs.  I asked him why he was behaving that way and he said “Cause no one was payin’ no ‘tention to me…”

[14] Posted by RalphM on 10-8-2012 at 09:41 AM · [top]

If you shrink smaller than “the size of a mosquito” you get what they call around here a “no-see-um”: blood sucking, biting, nasty little midges. It is hard to screen these from your cathedral, so I am glad to learn of this new method employed by the RCC.

[15] Posted by Undergroundpewster on 10-8-2012 at 09:59 AM · [top]

Ah, where is Greg’s whining baby graphic?

[16] Posted by Ralph on 10-8-2012 at 10:16 AM · [top]

Well you certainly have changed my perspective of what happened. Thank you for adding perspective.

[17] Posted by FrVan on 10-8-2012 at 10:18 AM · [top]

For several years now I have served as my Diocese’s (and my Bishop’s) Ecumenical Representative—it’s a job that I enjoy and find interesting—and it was in that capacity that, along with my Bishop, I attended the consecration of the Rev’d Msgr. Robert E. Guglielmone as the Roman Catholic Bishop of Charleston on 25 March 2009; the Rev’d Dow Sanderson, Ecumenical Officer for Bishop Mark Lawrence of South Carolina (who couldn’t attend) was there as well in addition to some Lutherans and other folks. We all got there on time, processed, worshiped (but did not partake of the Mass, obviously) and some of us (myself at least) enjoyed the reception. I know I’m not as smart, sophisticated, and erudite as Bishop Andrus, but it’s really not that difficult—be on time and don’t be whiny.

[18] Posted by Drew on 10-8-2012 at 12:25 PM · [top]

Ah, the self-satisfactions of victimhood claimed!  Perhaps self-immolation will make him feel all better?  It would certainly make him more nationally famous, especially if done in purple.  But I’m not holding my breath…......

[19] Posted by dwstroudmd+ on 10-8-2012 at 01:55 PM · [top]

I can never read stuff like this without thinking of Zed’s statement in Men in Black: “Gentlemen, congratulations. You’re everything we’ve come to expect from years of government training.”  (This is not meant as a compliment.)

Bishop Andrus is everything we’ve come to expect from years of ECUSA training.

[20] Posted by MTDave on 10-8-2012 at 03:28 PM · [top]

One thing that always amazes me is how angry a progressive gets when his/her “enlightenment” offered to the flock is rebuffed.  I mean, I get asked for advice 10 times a day.  I offer, but I understand that not everyone is going to agree with me nor take my advice (including my kids) so I’ve learned long ago not to sweat this detail.  All I can do is off and the due dilligence of an intelligent answer.

I think Bishop Andrus was just demonstrating the peevishness that seems to cloak the progressive clergy.  It’s not enough for them to be brilliantly enlightened, nor to share that brilliant enlightenment with the rest of us, IT MUST BE RECEIVED, ACKNOWLEDGED AND THE AUTHOR THANKED FOR THE ADVICE. In great gratitude and oblation.  Preferably kneeling at the time.

You would think, after 50% of the church faithful heading for the doors in the last few years in response to the progressive “new thang” that they would have figured out by now that (almost) nobody is interested in what they have to say.

Remind me again why WE are talking about it? smile


[21] Posted by Mike Bertaut on 10-8-2012 at 04:16 PM · [top]

As Monty Python would have said, this is a cruel article, but fair!

[22] Posted by MichaelA on 10-8-2012 at 09:32 PM · [top]

At ENS and E. Cafe one frequently runs into the anecdotal testimonies about how they or their parish are just reeling in the ‘Romans’ like it was a fishing derby or something.

(Note to self: ‘Roman’ is semi-offensive to serious Catholics; they don’t much like ‘Roman Catholic’ either, but that isn’t seen as a slur.)

I’m curious about the retention rate of flee-ers from Rome to TEc, and back to Rome. I suspect there is lots of discrete traffic back across the Tiber.

[23] Posted by jaybird in Springfield on 10-9-2012 at 09:47 AM · [top]

I use the term “Roman Catholic” not to insult my Roman Catholic friends but because “Catholic”  does not necessarily mean “Roman Catholic.”

[24] Posted by Drew on 10-9-2012 at 10:04 AM · [top]

Yeh—I’ve never believed all the tales about how parishes are flooded with RCs . . . I mean—it’s not as if our dioceses aren’t all almost universally *declining* so it’s not as if the flood is all that great, if any.

On the “Roman Catholic” thing—I use the word “Roman” as I do not grant that Rome church has exclusive access to refer to themselves as “Catholic” . . . ; > )

That *is* sometimes irritating to RCs since they fancy themselves the purveyor of that word . . . but we don’t share the same theology about who is and who is not “catholic” so there we are; Protestants add an adjectival definer for that word when referring to Rome. 

I’m just fine with whatever they call us, including the rather silly “separated ecclesial communities.” I don’t consider it offensives or a “slur”—just funny and a tribute to that church’s delusions.

But we are definitely all united on the tawdry, ill-informed, petulant narcissism of Bishop Andrus.  What a doofus of a bishop.

[25] Posted by Sarah on 10-9-2012 at 11:38 AM · [top]

@Drew: I am sure that if you really wished to insult your Catholic friends, you would have come up with something a lot stronger.

Catholics do not believe that “Catholic” necessarily means “Roman Catholic”, or even of the Latin Rite. Of course there are Greek Catholics, Ukrainian Catholics and so on. But we are all in full communion with the Holy See; and so we do not dwell on our differences, but I hope celebrate them. I am glad to hear of Greek Catholics and Ukrainian Catholics (and so on) who give emphasis to that fact, because they are indeed a small minority. May they grow and prosper! Likewise the Anglican Catholics of the new-founded ordinariates, who are proud now to be able to call themselves Catholic without qualification or reservation, even though please God they will cultivate and contribute a distinctively Anglican ethos to the great mix of mankind.

But when we speak of what Catholics believe, then we can drop these territorial and unimportant qualifications. Because it is what we believe that makes us Catholic, and which unites us.

As to what Sarah [25] says about calling the term “separated ecclesial communities” “silly”: well, if an ecclesial community categorically denies certain elements of doctrine (I say if, mind you) then it does seem reasonable to say that that ecclesial community is in some way separated, especially when it is the holding in common of certain core doctrine that is, in some way, constitutive of membership. Is that really “silly”? Isn’t it actually a case of holding that two contradictory propositions cannot both be true?

At the very least, it would be illogical to call it “silly” when it has no exclusive claim to the title “silly” - perhaps it should be correctly qualified as “Roman silly” or, perhaps, “Catholic silly” or “Christian silly” - draw the line where you will.

[26] Posted by CPKS on 10-9-2012 at 05:59 PM · [top]

RE: “But we are all in full communion with the Holy See . . . “

Which is, of course, precisely what “Roman Catholic” means when used by Protestants, so all the talk about the Ukrainians, etc, is merely red herring anyway.

RE: ““Is that really “silly”?

Oh, only to the Protestants who don’t recognize Rome as something we’re separated from.  ; > )

Naturally it’s not silly to Roman Catholics as they believe that they’re a part of the one true church, so naturally everybody not in full communion is “separated.”  For them, it’s Utterly Serious.

RE: “perhaps it should be correctly qualified as . . . “

Nah . . . it’s just silly in general for we Protestants—but blessedly entirely inoffensive.

At any rate, this thread isn’t about purported attempted insults to either the Roman Catholics or the Protestants. 

It’s about Andrus and Cordileone, and we won’t be traveling further off-topic on other matters.

[27] Posted by Sarah on 10-9-2012 at 07:00 PM · [top]

Registered members are welcome to leave comments. Log in here, or register here.

Comment Policy: We pride ourselves on having some of the most open, honest debate anywhere. However, we do have a few rules that we enforce strictly. They are: No over-the-top profanity, no racial or ethnic slurs, and no threats real or implied of physical violence. Please see this post for more explanation, and the posts here, here, and here for advice on becoming a valued commenter as opposed to an ex-commenter. Although we rarely do so, we reserve the right to remove or edit comments, as well as suspend users' accounts, solely at the discretion of site administrators. Since we try to err on the side of open debate, you may sometimes see comments which you believe strain the boundaries of our rules. Comments are the opinions of visitors, and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of Stand Firm site administrators or Gri5th Media, LLC.