Greetings in the name of Jesus Christ. It was good to be with you at General Convention to get to know you a bit better and watch your thoughtful participation in the legislative process. Thank you for all you brought to the work of the House of Deputies.
I am writing to you regarding the five resolutions proposed for consideration at your upcoming Convention on October 24th. The resolutions have come to my attention and I wanted to be in touch with you about them. Several of them, especially Resolutions 3 and 4 speak of developing mission initiatives, partnership and relationships throughout the Episcopal Church, North America and the Anglican Communion. The Diocese has a strong commitment to mission. The continued commitment to mission is one we clearly share as evidenced by our work in that area at General Convention. Thank you for this continued commitment.
Looking at Resolutions 1 and 2 in particular and at Resolutions 1-4 as a whole, entitled “Guiding Principles for Engagement,” I am concerned that some in the Diocese are seeking through these resolutions to move the Diocese out of the full life of the Episcopal Church and perhaps even see the resolutions as steps preliminary in attempting to separate the Diocese from the Church. I fervently pray that is not what is intended. Several of these resolutions are similar to resolutions adopted by dioceses in which the bishop and some Church members have claimed that the diocese has left the Episcopal Church. While individuals have left the Episcopal Church, dioceses have not, and to do so would require the permission of General Convention.
I am concerned that several of the proposed resolutions contain misleading statements or assert positions that are in conflict with those of this Church. For example, in Resolution 1 in the third Whereas, the language referred to comes from the Preface to the Book of Common Prayer which states “This Church is far from intending to depart from the Church of England in any essential point of doctrine, discipline or worship; or further than local circumstances require.” The emphasized words were not included in the Whereas or in any part of the Resolution. Without the omitted language, someone reading the Resolution could come away with the idea that no departures from the doctrine, discipline and worship of the Church of England are permitted at all when the expectation has always been that alterations would be made. The Preface, set forth in October 1789, acknowledges our debt to the Church of England for this Church’s “first foundation and a long continuance of nursing care and protection” and goes on to quote from the Preface of the Book of Common Prayer of the Church of England at that time that “the Forms of Divine Worship are alterable and changes should be made according to the various exigency of times and occasions.”
The proposed addition of a statement of understanding of the meaning of the Constitution’s Article VIII Oath of Conformity is of concern for several reasons. The actual Oath in the Constitution is not included in the Resolution and it is unlikely many delegates or even clergy to your Convention will look it up. I encourage you to inform the Convention of the contents of the Oath so it can consider the proposed resolution in light of what the Constitution already requires. The Oath recited is:
I do believe the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments to be the Word of God, and to contain all things necessary to salvation; and I do solemnly engage to conform to the Doctrine, Discipline and Worship of the Episcopal Church.
The items referred to in the proposed understanding, or most of them, are set forth in the Book of Common Prayer in the section entitled “Historical Documents of the Church.” The Creed of Saint Athanasius, Preface to the Church of England First Book of Common Prayer of 1549, and the Thirty-Nine Articles are not part of the doctrine, discipline, or worship of The Episcopal Church. To the extent that “the Creeds” in the proposed resolution refer to the Apostles’ and Nicene Creeds, they are already recognized as part of the doctrine of this Church. The Episcopal Church’s Doctrine, according to the Canons, is to be found in the Canon of Holy Scripture as understood in the Apostles’ and Nicene Creeds and in the sacramental rites, the Ordinal and Catechism of the Book of Common Prayer.” The documents listed in the proposed understanding do not fall within this definition. The Church’s Discipline, according to our Canons, is “found in the Constitution, the Canons, and the Rubrics and the Ordinal of the Book of Common Prayer”. Again, the listed documents are not included in our definition of Discipline. The proposed understanding is inconsistent with the definitions we have of Doctrine and Discipline and attempt to add matters to the Church’s Doctrine and Discipline that are not a part of them. Adoption of this proposed resolution risks creating misunderstanding among both clergy and lay of the meaning of the Church’s Doctrine, Discipline and Worship; of suggesting that the Church holds as authoritative and binding things that it does not.
Regarding proposed Resolution 2, there certainly are different interpretations and understandings being given to resolutions D025 and C056. It is not uncommon for people to interpret actions of General Convention differently. On the issues addressed in the two resolutions, the Church has acknowledged that it is not of one mind. However, declaring actions of General Convention to be null and void and having no effect in a diocese is contrary to our polity and our Constitution and Canons. All dioceses must make an unqualified accession to the Constitution and Canons of The Episcopal Church. The General Convention is the governing body of the Church and the authority of all other entities and offices comes from General Convention. So, adoption of a resolution declaring an action of General Convention null and void is itself, a nullity. Actions of General Convention are binding on dioceses regardless of whether their bishops and deputies voted for or against them, agree with them or even participated in General Convention. The Executive Council considered this matter during the last triennium regarding dioceses that had adopted amendments to their Constitutions purporting to limit or lessen the unqualified accession of the Diocese to the Constitution and Canons of the Church. Resolution NAC 023 adopted June 14, 2007 states:
Resolved, That the Executive Council, meeting in Parsippany, New Jersey from June 11-14, 2007,
reminds the dioceses of The Episcopal Church that Article V, Section 1 of the Constitution of The
Episcopal Church requires each Diocese to have a Constitution which shall include “an unqualified
accession to the Constitution and Canons of this Church;” and be it further Resolved, That any amendment to a diocesan Constitution that purports in any way to limit or lessen an unqualified accession to the Constitution and Canons of The Episcopal Church is null and void; and be it further Resolved, That the amendments passed to the Constitutions of the Dioceses of Pittsburgh, Ft. Worth, Quincy, and San Joaquin, which purport to limit or lessen the unqualified accession to the Constitution and Canons of The Episcopal Church are accordingly null and void and the Constitutions of those dioceses shall be as they were as if such amendments had not been passed.
While what your Convention will consider is a resolution and not a constitutional amendment, the principle is the same. A diocese is, of course, free to express its disagreement with an action of General Convention and to work to change it but it may not declare it to be null and void and of no effect in the diocese.
The resolve in proposed Resolution 2 to begin withdrawing from bodies of the Church is likely counter-productive. The views and voices of the Diocese and Bishop will be absent from the Church’s continuing discussion and discernment of these and other issues. Withdrawing will decrease the opportunities for dialogues in which we discover that we are all committed to Christ’s mission and ministry. At ordinations of priests the bishop describes the work of a priest as including “to take your share in the councils of the Church.” Bishops at their ordinations promise to “share with your fellow bishops in the government of the whole Church.” Priests and Bishops are called to be part of the councils and government of the Church, not to withdraw from them. We believe that the Holy Spirit works through the councils and gatherings of the Church. I encourage the Diocese of South Carolina to stay involved, stay active, and participate in the full life of The Episcopal Church, including its governance structures, so that we may embody the unity we all share in Christ to the greatest extent possible.
It is my prayer that Resolutions 1-4 are not steps being proposed to move the Diocese away from The Episcopal Church and towards efforts by others to create an alternate Anglican structure in our midst. While affirming the call to mission partnerships across churches across North America and in the wider Communion, I hope that those will not be used as a substitute for living within The Episcopal Church or to undermine in any way the life of The Episcopal Church.
I am blessed to be a part of God’s Church with you. I hold you and the great Diocese of South Carolina in my daily thoughts and prayers. I pray your diocesan convention is one of joy and thanksgiving.
In Peace,
Bonnie Anderson, D.D.
I imagine this letter will draw unending criticism, but I liked it. It seems sincere and the lack of letter from ++Katharine is an indictment of her character. I am surprised that she ignored the intentionally derogatory language of Resolution 5, but that is probably the least of her concerns right now.
Methinks the good Doctor [sic] is worried a bit. And presumptuous – “dioceses have not left”. Oh really?
Transparent attempt to sway the fearful, it seems. And likely doomed to fail in that regard, I would imagine.
Fr. Darin Lovelace
St. David’s Anglican Church
Durant, Iowa
http://www.stdavidsdurant.info
It might have been simpler if she had just written that, “Excuse me, but we are going to ram our non-Christian innovations down your throat whether you like it or not. You may want to note that the letter of the law allows that. If you feel like you walked into a trap by trusting us all these years, you did. Now you do it my way.”
The Historical Documents section in the BCP are quite obviously part of the BCP, a Constitutional document which expresses our doctrine, discipline and worship. I know of no canonical language which excludes this section or gives it a lesser standing than any other part of the Prayer Book.
Does anyone know if this is a first? The President of the HoD writing a Diocese and warning it? I do sincerely hope that those with the skills in SC will write her back and defend the language they obviously purposefully adopted in writing these resolutions. To my mind it is good news when the effort is made by someone actually to argue principles, as against just making things up for a desired end (like the PB). Bonnie Anderson, D.D., presumes to instruct SC on matters of BCP, General Convention, etc. That is a slim rope to climb out on. I genuinely hope that she receives a prompt and clear reply to her pleadings. Much is at stake here, and I suspect this first letter is the start of a planned effort from Exec Council, still smarting from the SC legal decision.
I feel the steely grip of icy fingered propaganda closing slowly around their…
Wickedness.
“A diocese is, of course, free to express its disagreement with an action of General Convention and to work to change it but it may not declare it to be null and void and of no effect in the diocese.”
Did “of no effect in the diocese” jump out at anyone else? I read this as to say that effort will be made to erode within the diocese by the national church and convention. Not unlike those diocese that wished not to ordain women. It lasted for awhile, and then powers that be sent in the troops…Ask Bishop Iker
Has not SC had ample opportunity see how TEC is “committed to Christ’s mission and ministry”?
To my mind, the document has a slightly impotent ring to it. Once there are enough rebels, the authorities cease to be the authorities.
“I should remind the constitutional assembly that the 13 colonies are creatures of the British Crown. While individuals may leave the colonies, the colonies themselves may not leave the Empire.”
The Historical Documents section in the BCP are quite obviously part of the BCP, a Constitutional document which expresses our doctrine, discipline and worship. I know of no canonical language which excludes this section or gives it a lesser standing than any other part of the Prayer Book.
They are definitely a part of the BCP, but they are reference documents. We are not bound by the 39 Articles, as the CofE seems to be.
Are you kidding me Ms Anderson???? How can any of us in SC take you seriously after your complicity in the counter-Scriptural actions of TEC? And now you want to lecture us on Scripture, canon, doctrine and what would be counter-productive. Give me a break.
#10 – apparently the service for marriage is also merely a reference document. One wonders where the whole charade stops.
“Is itself, a nullity.” I smell a book title someday with that line!
Can one of you more Episcopal of the readership help me with the line “All dioceses must make an unqualified accession to the Constitution and Canons of The Episcopal Church.” Is it really that definitively put anywhere? And (not intending any sarcasm, i’m just curious) is the language, if it exists, echoed with a comparable assertion about “an unqualified accession” to the Nicean or Apostles Creed?
There is something about the phrase “an unqualified accession” that also has an intriguing ambivalence to it. Volume II of the aforementioned retrospective?
I am pleased that I will be able to vote for these resolutions, especially number 2, on Saturday. The Diocese of SC existed before general convention. In fact, the Diocese of SC helped to form the “National Church”. The Dioceses is the Episcopal Church in South Carolina. General Convention is trying to assume powers it never had. It is Bishop Lawrence’s contention that TEC has acted unlawfully by going against their own canons. I agree with him. The rantings of Ms Anderson are of little effect.
Accesssion language exists with a long history. What Bonnie Anderson means with her use of it is, irrevocable. But that is never what the term means in its history. Accession is in the nature of the case revocable. Unless, as one wag put it, we are talking about ‘accession’ to the Cosa Nostra.
I fear we have the third string on the field, and the Exec Council is simply functioning as a self-appointed law unto its own aims.
I look forward to a strong and clear response to this from SC. The integrity of anglicanism in the US is at stake, the alternative being this The Executive Council Church.
As a delegate, with only a partial vote, one can only wish she was accurate in her assessment of some of the resolutions, unfortunately she is NOT!
Grandmother in SC
Well she doesn’t sound very bonnie, but no doubt did something to earn all those titles.
Ah, the Bonnie compliance committee Rider, appearing without her mask and riding her high horse! She’s a bit daft on the history issue, but then, does she hail from a state that predates the formation of the General Convention and brought it into existence, or just the functionary of half of a bicameral legislature? Does she even know the latter?
This letter of hers is quite likely to produce an effect opposite to that which it is intended to achieve. In short, it could backfire on her.
Ms Anderson said, “Withdrawing will decrease the opportunities for dialogues in which we discover that we are all committed to Christ’s mission and ministry.”
HUGE assumption there on her part, that conversation, if it goes on long enough, brings acceptance. However, the people, clergy, and bishops of SC have listened to the “progressives” enough to have discovered precisely the opposite of “we are all committed to Christ’s mission and ministry.” To argue that defying God’s commandments is to further Christ’s ministry would be laughable were it not so horrifying. They may think that they are engaged in Christ’s ministry and mission, but it looks to me as if it is someone else’s idea they are following, not that of the Son of God.
Finally, some word from the national church trying to talk some good sense into the delegates’ heads. All the churchpeople in SC have heard is the one-sided case presented by the diocesan structure. Thank you, Dr. Anderson. I just wish it had come sooner.
She is clueless if she thinks TEC and SC share the same mission. It sounds good but it is not true. This is the core problem and not common ground. More of the one way dialogue.
seitz (#15) – I, for one, find a striking similarity to the new polity advocated by TEC’s ruling party (which you have termed the “Executive Council Church”) and the polity of the former Soviet Union. The General Convention would seem to be roughly equal to the Supreme Soviet, while the Executive Council would be roughly equal to the Politburo, and the PB roughly equal to the General Secretary. Under this new polity, the dioceses would have about as much autonomy and power as would the former soviet socialist republics. Any questioning of the General Secretary or Politburo is grounds for treason.
I speak here quite seriously, and I find this very disturbing.
I love the “In Peace” bit.
The President of the House of Deputies is an office established by canon, but not by the Constitution of TEC. The Executive Council is not a constitutionally established body either, being mentioned only once in the Constitution in connection with a specific duty. It is the Constitution, not the canons, which “sets forth the basic articles for the government of this Church.†The views of Mrs. Anderson expressed in the letter, and those of the Executive Council which she cites, may be interesting as a demonstration of the state of their knowledge or lack thereof, but have no particular legal or canonical significance.
I expect it is TECspeak:
reconciliation = attrition
generous release = deposition
canons = non-binding historical documents
peace = anything but
Thank you, Mike. It is hard to know how best to attack this thing, as you well know. I am beginning to think–sad to say–it will play out in courtrooms. The invented polity of Executive Council appears self-evidently ‘episcopalian’ to them, and they are now bold enough to seek to speak principles/logic. I suspect that is a big misstep. Overhearing Judge Chupp, one gets the sense that the ‘do not look behind the curtain’ logic of TEC will have a rough ride.
God judged Israel by leaving her to the nations. Luther spoke of the civil wrath of the magistrate. The hot light of civil courts may end up Executive Council’s undoing. ‘Hierarchy’ is an unstable notion, when one sets LCMS, RCC, PCA, TEC side-by-side. I think the ‘Judge Chupp’ of the system gets it.
I agree with Dr. Seitz. This is presumptious as well as unprecidented. My impression after 2 GC’s is that people like Mrs. Anderson, Rebecca Snow and Ruth Meyers to name just a few among others have very shallow lives outside the confines of GC and their efforts to compel the implimentation of their one item agenda.
The continued commitment to mission is one we clearly share as evidenced by our work in that area at General Convention.
Refresh my memory – didn’t the General Convention cut the mission budget to a nub?
What authority is actually delegated to the president of the House of Deputies?
Ms Anderson said, “Withdrawing will decrease the opportunities for dialogues in which we discover that we are all committed to Christ’s mission and ministry.â€
Isn’t it remarkable that at the very same time that Ms Anderson “invites” SC into continued dialogue she is able to tell them what the end-result will be? I guess the definition of “dialogue” has been redefined by TEC as well. As someone else said, “the mask is off.”
Nice note from Bonnie Blah-Blah. Y’all quaking in your boots yet?
Whereas: The President of the House of Deputies has no business messing around in the Diocese of South Carolina.
Be it Resolved: That the President of the House of Deputies be declared by this body to be null and void.
I understand that the ‘high pressure’ weather system of news has given (proper) space to the Vatican-Levada announcement. Lionel Deimol has seen the significance of the Dallas Diocesan Convention. I mention it here because it is a solid 1-2-3 punch against the logic of Bonnie Anderson. Bishop Stanton’s talk should be posted soon at ACI’s website. McCall and Turner have already posted their papers. SC-Dallas-CFL-WLA are offering a coherent, carefully prepared, accurate account of Episcopal Anglicanism in the US.
The rantings of Ms Anderson are of little effect.
I agree with Cennyyd that this will have the opposite effect. But hopefully now all are forewarned of the consequences and ready to make whatever sacrifices they feel necessary.
Dr. Seitz, one would pray that either a) Bonnie Anderson and KJS would actually study church history, canon law, theology and ecclesiology or b) the 80 bishops of the HoB who commonly sit on their hands or, worse, aid and abet the destruction of their church would, well, be bishops. However, after hundreds of illegal depositions, property seizures (remember the Connecticut case where the churches were still in TEC at the time), illegal ousting of standing committees, declaring churches “in distress” so their rectors can be ousted….. Well, the disgrace seems to go on and on. The point I want to make is that after 3 years of utter disregard for rule of law, or, for that matter, the will of God, I fear that 815 will wreak havoc in South Carolina, although it does appear they will have a more difficult time than usual seizing the property.
I am, however, trying to envision what would have happened to a member of the executive council, circa 1960, if they had shown up and started giving orders to a bishop and standing committee.
#34. Your concerns are valid. As to b), I would wait for the effect of Vatican’s recent statements on Covenant, and section 4; and also the difficulty TEC will have in principle defending their ‘polity’ before the courts. SC is going to be tough going for TEC and I believe Bonnie Anderson is making a mistake arguing principle, as against the usual ‘power-grab’. SC needs to respond. Your last sentence is very true.
I do hope that more attention is paid to the Dallas Diocesan Convention. We are beginning to see a ‘class-action’ mentality. SC-CFL-Dallas-WLA and the other CP dioceses — it will not be easy to defeat this with the strategy presently being deployed. Esp if the ‘Judge Chupp’ insight begins to surface and gain ground.
I have been so appalled at this arrogant … stuff… that I almost forgot the most important thing – prayers rising for the Diocese of South Carolina, its bishop, its clergy and its people.
#4, 10, 12 — ms. anderson is correct; as the very title page itself will tell you, “the book of common prayer and administration of the sacraments and other rites and ceremonies of the church together with the psalter or psalms of david” are what comprise the bcp. the prayers and thanksgivings, catechism, historical documents, easter tables, and lectionaries are not part of the prayer book proper, just conveniently included within the same binding.
After her warlike letter, “In Peace” reeks of cognitive dissonance.
Anderson casts her usual dim religious light.
Younf Rabbit: Do cite your authority the notion that the Catechism etc are not part of the BCP. Now it is True that the Ordinal is not part of the 1662 BCP but that custom has not been followed in America.
This is the first I have noticed of a TEC functionary officially dis-avowing the 39 Articles. TEC is officially rootless?
The Elder Rabbit
What is evident here is the quality of our leadership. Does anyone remember the “Peter Principle”?
#40 — how about the very title page of the book itself, which i already did mention, and which defines exactly what the books consists of (and, in their absences, what it does not)?
43 Your point? The whole of it is Constitutional.
#45 — the prayers, catechism, historical documents, and lectionaries are not part of the constitution. that’s why it doesn’t take 2 general conventions to change the lectionary, for example. all those items are useful, hence it makes sense that they be reproduced after the bcp proper, but they have no constitutional standing of their own. this is straight out of my history and polity of the episcopal church class, taught by one of our very own bishops.
RE: “Withdrawing will decrease the opportunities for dialogues in which we discover that we are all committed to Christ’s mission and ministry.”
. . . Yeh . . . like we all discovered at GC 2009.
. . . “we discover that we are all committed to Christ’s mission and ministry.”
Tee hee.
It’s just richly humorous.
[i] Ad hominem comment deleted by elf. [/i]
Excuse me, but the 39 Articles WERE adopted by this Church at its founding. For a reason. To codify the balance of catholic/Protestant thought. Those who believe that those articles are not core doctrine should explain WHERE in TEC’s Canons or Constritution one finds another base of such teaching. The answer is “nowhere”.
BTW: I would, if I were Ms. Anderson, not parade that Donated Dignity degree around too much. It’s just desperate and self-inflating. The insistence of flashing unearned degrees shows a lower sort of quality demanding attention.
It is surprising to me that so few people are educated on the BCP and what our doctrine is.
When I once mentioned the 39 articles to another member of the parish as to how important they were, she said they were “just” historical documents…..My reply was that so is the Bible without the “just”
IT would be better for Ms Anderson if she would not use documents from within the BCP to argue against said documents within the BCP.
And to whichever liturgy-teaching bishop has made use of the title page of the BCP to minimalize the actual contents of the BCP, one would hope he or she has learned since of the concept of internal evidence.
And those parts of the BCP mentioned above as not part of the constitution are part of the constitution because they are in the BCP and that’s the content of Article X. That the Lectionary may be changed by one General Convention is an allowance made in the Constitution itself, and thus does not come under the general rule re: Articles vs Canons and their amendability. Further, any of the prayers (including Thanksgivings) found in the Book of Common Prayer are there to be included in the Common Prayers of the Church — any of them, as the plain reading of the title page (were that a defensible argument) will allow.
Where’s Massey when you need him?
Perhaps it is just mere paranoia but I seem to sense that if one of the “chapters” fails to follow directives from the “parent organization” there may be an “excuse” to replace another bishop and standing committee. What would happen if the BCP gets revised and some of the “chapters” fail to “keep up with the program”?
To sign one’s name with “D.D.” rather says it all. That’s fine when listing one’s degrees in a C.V. or a listing at a university where everyone lists every degree. It’s fine (as with “The Honorable” or “Esq.”) for someone ELSE to use it in referring to the person holding the distinction. It’s even okay for someone ELSE to call her “Dr. Anderson.” But for her to use it is not only improper as a matter of etiquette, it is quite emblematic of the new religion of the self that TEC has embraced.
“Nice diocese you got here. I’d hate to see something ‘unfortunate’ happen to it. Sometimes bad things happen to people who don’t have ‘friends’.”
Did I hear the sound of knuckles cracking?
As a Pittsburgh Anglican it was leadership like this that made my decision to realign a whole lot easier.
One of the reasons the Anglican Church survived until now despite its lack of authoritarian structures and concise doctrine is that its leadership was educated and wise in substantive ways.
It really needs to be said that one of the principal reasons we are in this mess is that we have poorly educated and formed clergy and even worse laity allowed to run things because they have the approved ideologies. And with each notch of decline the next notch is set in place to be lower yet — until one gets Bonnie Anderson writing letters like this. Pitiful and tragic. And the heads roll of those who actually have something in them.
I gather one is made President of the HoD by vote? Is Bonnie Anderson ordained? What kind of c/v does she have that enables her to speak with such authority on matters of BCP, Church History, Theology? I don’t know her training. One can also see this as part of the new denominationalism now being drawn up to replace TEC as an anglican church (along with the view of orders espoused by the PB), that is, Bishops and Dioceses are now in a position to be admonished by elected officials. Did people elect Bonnie Anderson on the assumption that her remit included this kind of authority? She does not just speak as President and say, “we’d like you to attend General Convention as you have before; would you please consider that?” No, this appears to be part one of a case being made against the Diocese of SC, with Bonnie Anderson instructing SC about where it is in error on matters of theological substance. Where did this auhority come from?
Why is it surprising, Brian #50? We tell you that here and elsewhere every single week, with clergy and leaders throwing cold water on the creedal doctrine, advocating sexual adventurism, practicing pantheism and the worst kind of syncretism, &c. The only thing I would quibble with you on is the notion that ECUSA has a doctrine – clearly, it doesn’t. But it does have a BCP, and, you’re right, many Episcopalians seem to be ignorant of it, especially in leadership. Welcome to the party, though you’re late.
[b] Brian from T19 #50[/b] in its narthex, entitled “Why Choose the Episcopal Church;” inside it, basically listed all the things one [i]does not[/i] have to believe in order to “be” an Episcopalian, e.g. the Virgin Birth, Bodily Resurrection, the Bible, the Creeds…you know, the little things). In all seriousness, shouldn’t GC issue a summation of the ECUSA’s “doctrine” governing each triennium? It just seems to me that the only “truth” that is immutable in the ECUSA is the supremacy of GC.
My memory might be somewhat faulty, but didn’t the bishops who sat on the Righter Trial determine that ECUSA had no doctrine? If, indeed I am wrong about this, can someone point out where the doctrines of the ECUSA might be found? Finally, did anyone else find it somewhat rich that BA prattled [i]ad nauseum[/i] about a diocese’s ability to disregard resolutions passed by GC – eventhough GC 2006 acknowleged that partnered gay clergy and laity are “part of our common life” blah blah blah, thus giving tacit approval to their lifestyle (prior to which no such approval was enshrined by GC – and in fact, the exact opposite was the case); or that bishops were allowing “blessings” of same-gender unions in their dioceses’ despite being voted down by previous GCs; or that women were ordained (albeit “irregulary” – whatever that means) prior to approval by GC? I’m just asking…
It seems to me (a cradle Episcopalian, BTW), that the ECUSA’s “doctrines” are very much a moving target and depend on the mood of any given GC (side-note: While in college during the mid-80’s, I attended a church – ONCE – which had pamphlets written by a bishop
Cognitive dissonance, indeed.
Correction to my posting #60. It should read, “…prattled on [i]ad nauseum[/i] about a diocese’s [b]inability[/b] to disregard….”
[i] Off topic comment deleted by elf. [/i]
[i] The Creed of Saint Athanasius, Preface to the Church of England First Book of Common Prayer of 1549, and the Thirty-Nine Articles are not part of the doctrine, discipline, or worship of The Episcopal Church.[/i]
This is a breathtaking statement by someone so high up in the denomination’s leadership. In what sense is there any doctrinal unity with other Anglicans? I guess Arianism is okay, then?
[i]The Creed of Saint Athanasius, Preface to the Church of England First Book of Common Prayer of 1549, and the Thirty-Nine Articles are not part of the doctrine, discipline, or worship of The Episcopal Church.[/i]
This is a breathtaking statement by someone so high up in the denomination’s leadership. In what sense is there any doctrinal unity with other Anglicans? I guess Arianism is okay, then?
#63/64: If you can manage to find a way to reconcile Arianism with the Nicene Creed, then sure.
re “no dioceses have left”: I wonder if when South Carolina seceded from the union in 1861, Pres. Lincoln maintained that no states have left, only some people and governors?
#66
Lincoln maintained that the southern states never left the United States
Don’t know if anyone has pointed this out yet but a diocese can declare anything from the general convention null and void as long as it is something that hasn’t has caused a change to the constitution and canons. Resolutions are just resolutions. If its not in the constitution or canons it doesn’t count.
[i] Off topic comment deleted by elf. This is not a discussion about Bonnie Anderson’s credentials. [/i]
[i] Off topic comment deleted by elf. [/i]
[i] Off topic comment deleted by elf. [/i]
wow, y’all are being petty and off topic — more ad hominem-esque attacks on here w/out elves intervening than i can believe. so much for staying on the content of the letter itself…. thoughts, elves?
[i] The elves have intervened. [/i]
Dr Seitz in #56 asked about Bonnie Anderson’s c/v. I cited it. If it is not a discussion of “Dr” Anderson’s credentials that why was Dr Seitz’s posting not deleted like that of mine and the rest?
On top of that one person who does not even identify him/herself by name “youngadult” complains of pettiness and ad hominem attacks and you intervene! I think it is absolutely pertinent that Bonnie Anderson was discipled by Saul Alinsky.
Elves (and youngadult): for which they are not properly credentialed ). Finally, given the volume of depositions (most recently +Kelshaw) lately, the ongoing concerns that the constitution and canons were not followed, and the multitude of lawsuits initiated by 815 (the basis for many of them being the Dennis Canon) I think it is absolutely imperative that the credentials/qualifications of those in positions of authority be examined.
My apologies… but FWIW, my comment was not meant as to be an ad hominem attack on BA. Additionally, I must strongly (but respectfully) disagree with your determination that BA’s credentials are not apropos vis-a-vis her letter to the Diocese of SC. As she sent the letter in her capacity as President of the House of Deputies, under the imprimatur of the ECUSA and asserted that several resolutions slated to be voted on would violate the constitution and canons of the ECUSA [i][b]and[/i][/b] concluded with the academic initials “D.D.” on her signature line – IMHO, would suggest to the average pew potato that she has the qualifications to judge the legality of the resolutions. In many regards, this is [i]not[/i] dissimilar from the “world of medicine”: When I put on my white lab coat and speak to family members about the progress of a loved-one’s surgery, the majority of people immediately assume that I am a physician (all the more so when I introduce myself and tell them that I am the director of surgical services). Superficially, at least, one’s title and credentials give others the perception of authority and expertise…and is rarely questioned (BTW, the Nurse Practice Act in most states prohibit the use of the title “nurse” by anyone who is not actually a nurse – e.g. nursing assistants, medical assistants, etc. Moreover, it is forbidden for nurses to assign to themselves a title
[Elves do not claim infallibility but their decisions are final. Please return to the thread subject which is the content of the letter rather than the writer. We thank you – Elf]
Thanks elves:
The content of the letter is totally consistant with the past actions and self avowed training of the writer. My last comment on this thread.
[b]12. Phil[/b],
You asked [blockquote]One wonders where the whole charade stops.[/blockquote] One has the distinct suspicion that the charade on the part of Schorri, Anderson and their minions may not stop this side of ηελλ, although that may seem a presumptuous supposition on my part. Perhaps we should plan on keeping in touch with them in the [i]world to come[/i] to see (as your namesake TV psychologist puts it) “how that ends up working for them” in the final analysis.
Pax et bonum,
Keith Töpfer
[b]58. Rev. Dr. Seitz[/b],
You wrote [blockquote]Where did this auhority come from? [/blockquote] If memory serves, I believe it was [i]cut from whole cloth[/i], in the American sense of that term.
Pax et bonum,
Keith Töpfer