Bishop Duncan echoed the insistence of the Primates that theirs was not a breakaway movement. “I’m a cradle Anglican. My grandfather was a boy chorister. . . My theological views haven’t changed. The problem is that folks who have become the leadership of the Episcopal Church in the United States have pulled the rug out from under me. The person who is our Presiding Bishop, she didn’t begin as an Anglican. I did. She represents something very different. I don’t think I’m a breakaway.
“I don’t believe I have divided the Church. I believe the innovators are the ones who are dividing the Church. I love them, and I want to behave in a godly way towards them, and I will do everything I can to convince them about the truth that’s been delivered; but my focus now has to be on those who don’t know Jesus.”
The problem is that folks who have become the leadership of the Episcopal Church in the United States have pulled the rug out from under me.
This is the rallying cry for all of the breakaway movements. Far from hapless victims, they just did not represent themselves well at elections, Conventions, etc. Now, looking back at the position that they have put their followers in, the leadership wants us to believe that what they forfeited has been stolen from them.
Bishop Duncan is no schismatic. Throughout the ages the Christian Church has recognized that the schismatic is the one whose actions cause the split, e.g. those who foisted GVR on the Anglican Communions.
“… as for those persons, on the other hand, who, on account of some heresy condemned by holy Councils, or Fathers, withdrawing themselves from communion with their president, who, that is to say, is preaching the heresy publicly, and teaching it bareheaded in church, such persons not only are not subject to any canonical penalty on account of their having walled themselves off from any and all communion with the one called a bishop before any conciliar verdict has been rendered, but, on the contrary, they shall be deemed worthy to enjoy the honor which befits them among orthodox Christians. For they have defied, not Bishops, but pseudo-bishops and pseudo-teachers; and they have not sundered the union of the Church with any schism, but, on the contrary, have been sedulous to rescue the Church from schisms and divisions.” – Canon XV of the First-Second Synod 879-880, otherwise called the 8th Ecumenical Council
Reply to #1.
Brian,
The rug ‘has’ been “…pulled out from under…” those who “…follow the Faith ocnce given….”
The process used to do this has been subversive and has co-opted many of the ‘visuals’ and ‘verbals’ of Anglicanism in order to give a sense of legitimacy and tradition to the co-optive process.
But, the pseudo-Anglicanism of the revisionists is not “…the Faith once given…,” even though to the inattentive and the ill informed/misinformed and the blissfully unaware, it appears to be the ‘same old Episcopal Church.’
It is not the ‘same old Episcopal Church.’ Its leaders hold and preach beliefs and practices that are opposed to “…the Faith once given…” and many of them can be considered heretical and even a few apostate.
That is a brilliantly concise and accurate analysis, AnglicanFirst- “The process used to do this has been subversive and has co-opted many of the ‘visuals’ and ‘verbals’ of Anglicanism in order to give a sense of legitimacy and tradition to the co-optive process.” Pseudo-bishops and pseudo-teachers need not be listened to, obeyed, or respected as church leaders.
Bishop Duncan is a dear and godly man, but logic is not his strong point.
The presiding bishop “began” as a Roman Catholic. I don’t think that has had much influence on her theology, except to encourage her to repudiate the Catholic faith more energetically. And did Bp. Duncan believe in the theology of the baptismal covenant, ordination of women, charismatic experiences, “blended” worship, etc., as a child in a traditional Anglo-Catholic parish? Was that what his be-surpliced chorister grandfather passed on? Seems unlikely.
Of course he is right, in general, that the forms and structures of TEC have been hollowed out and inhabited by a new, parasitic religion. But he went along with a good deal of that process and was disparaging about those who bailed out early on when they saw the writing on the wall.
It seems to me he is trying to save a brief period of compromise, c.1985, in the life of TEC as the fons et origo of Anglican orthodoxy. That is too slender a platform for a large-scale movement.
Is that right? I have done some Googling. Although I haven’t read it in any of the official biog’s, the Presiding Bishop attended the Roman Catholic [Benedictine] Mount Angel Seminary before she transferred for her final year at Church Divinity School of the Pacific around 1992/3.
http://oregonstate.edu/~schorir/mv_religion.html
The official biogs say that she moved from the Catholic Church in 1963 as a youngster with her parents, so does here Wikipedia entry:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katharine_Jefferts_Schori
Was she still regarded as a practicing Catholic when she attended Mount Angel? Presumably it was at CDSP that she met the other former Roman Catholic, Kevin Genpo They Forrester who had studied at the Catholic University of America under Charles Curran, subsequently purged by the Catholic Church and publicly criticised for his teaching by Cardinal Levada, specifically for leading his pupils astray.
So did the liberal Catholics come into and perhaps target the Episcopal Church when the Pope cleaned house? Is this the reason for the peculiar unorthodox theology they espouse? Anyone would think they saw it as a soft touch for a take-over.
It would be good to get to the bottom of this – it might explain a good deal.
+Duncan is an admirable person and I agree with 99% of this. But talking about where ++Schori “began” smacks of the Episco in crowd, club like attitude that has not proved healthy for our church (I write this also as cradle Episcopalian). And as +Duncan well knows, there are more than a few who “began as Anglican” who are are now ardent supporters of the PB, so let’s leave that out of the discussion please…
Hmm – I have no problem with converts, but am very not letting go of this, particularly when it contradicts the official information. There are a number of things which have been unhealthy for the state of the Church and the Communion and what we are told are its “two religions”.
Things do not add up and I am curious as to where the ‘second religion’ which is an increasing problem came from. I say this as a cradle Anglican.
Brian in #1 writes, “Far from hapless victims, they just did not represent themselves well at elections, Conventions, etc.” Fair enough; except, we’re supposed to be dealing with eternal Truths, not who can be clever enough to subvert and destroy The Man’s Institution. I guess I should be happy that Brian is honest about his side’s un-Christian worldview, but I’m not – just more disgusted at what their deconstructionism has achieved.
And there is this:
[blockquote] As well as being united, Bishop Duncan had told the Primates, his Church was “readyâ€, having prepared a constitution and canons “that look recognisably Anglican†[i] and which he had amended after consultation with the Archbishop of Canterbury[/i].[/blockquote]
If accurately reported, that should get the attention of TEC.
That is interesting. The other thing to note is that this is an earlier version of the Communique.
Brian, #1 – I would say that the orthodox in TEC have always been abominably bad at organizing, pressure grouping, and especially poor at the art of winning by negotiation, or as Susan Russell so aptly puts it, winning “an inch at a time”. Also, when the the conservatives/orthodox were in some kind of power they did not act with the requisite ruthlessness required to survive when doing battle with the revisionist party in TEC. This last point is the most important. Whatever you might say about Mrs Schori, she is certainly willing to take whatever measures she deems necessary, even if it means exercising oppressive measures, injustice, dissimulation, and extra-canonical authoritarian actions. Because she and her clique are absolutely and truly ruthless, they will win. I know that to be a fact. Any false hope held out by the orthodox which contradicts that fact is doomed to disappointment.
Sr. Priest,
It is a fact of life that the ruthless, be they the liberal wing of the Democrats or left-wing religious, will demonize and castigate their ‘opposite number’ if they act in kind, but at the same time, will not hesitate to metaphorically stab those same in the back to get their own way (while denying the action on their part). For examples look at the coverage the ‘Tea Parties’ received from the current administration and the lawsuits against reasserting Episcopalians/Anglicans in the US.
It is a clear example of a double standard at work. It is sad, and will be loudly decried by Brian and others, but it is reality, which goes back to “The serpent made me do it!”.
Jim Elliott
North Florida
The process used to do this has been subversive and has co-opted many of the ‘visuals’ and ‘verbals’ of Anglicanism in order to give a sense of legitimacy and tradition to the co-optive process
…
we’re supposed to be dealing with eternal Truths, not who can be clever enough to subvert and destroy The Man’s Institution.
I submit that there was no subversive action. As A Senior Priest says: “the orthodox in TEC have always been abominably bad at organizing, pressure grouping, and especially poor at the art of winning by negotiation”
Pseudo-bishops and pseudo-teachers need not be listened to, obeyed, or respected as church leaders.
Agreed. Which is why +Duncan, +Schofield, +Anderson, et al are a footnote in the history of the Anglican Communion.
It is not the ‘same old Episcopal Church.’ Its leaders hold and preach beliefs and practices that are opposed to “…the Faith once given…†and many of them can be considered heretical and even a few apostate.
Perhaps some of its leaders are heretical or apostate. But that remains a small percentage. Christianity is a creedal religion and the leadership and most of us in the pews are still creedal Christians. We say the Nicene Creed without alteration. We believe the Nicene Creed without alteration.
Things do not add up and I am curious as to where the ‘second religion’ which is an increasing problem came from.
…
I guess I should be happy that Brian is honest about his side’s un-Christian worldview
There are two understandings of the same religion. There indeed may be those heretics who deny the Trinity, but they do not represent TEC.
Whatever you might say about Mrs Schori, she is certainly willing to take whatever measures she deems necessary, even if it means exercising oppressive measures, injustice, dissimulation, and extra-canonical authoritarian actions. Because she and her clique are absolutely and truly ruthless, they will win. I know that to be a fact. Any false hope held out by the orthodox which contradicts that fact is doomed to disappointment.
Also agreed. I have been writing this exact same opinion on most threads relating to property. I think the orthodox would do well to understand how far she will go.
#1. If righteousness could be determined by plebiscite, you would be correct. I’m sure you might feel differently when the AC gives TEC the boot.
Palagious,
Nah, what you will see then is TEc suing the AC for breach of promise!
[blockquote]“You really have two religions. You have one that believes as Anglicans always have believed, that Jesus is the only way to salvation, and you have another led by our Presiding Bishop of TEC [the Episcopal Church], who says ‘That would be to put God into a small box.’ One is classic Christianity. One is actually not Christianity, at least not in the way that classic Protestantism, classic orthodoxy, or classic Catholicism would recognize it.[/blockquote]
Terse Clarity!
“The person who is our Presiding Bishop, she didn’t begin as an Anglican. I did.”
Misquotes abound …however, if Robert Duncan actually said what is printed … his comment is quite an eye opener. While technically true, the point made is rife with personal prejudice.
I would ask Bishop Duncan if he feels himself to be more an American than, for example, a naturalized citizen … or if, perhaps, he feels I am more American because I can date my heritage to someone born on this side of the Atlantic in 1613. I might also inquire as to whether or not the Anglican Church in North America intends to establish a birthright requirement for its Primates.
Given the thought process revealed by the comment, perhaps Bishop Duncan might wish to seek my opinion concerning ACNA … after all, my family was Anglican and here in North America beginning with Jamestown.
On a side note, Bishop Duncan’s comment helped encourage my selection of name for this web forum.