We should point out that you were deposed from ministry of the Episcopal Church by the presiding bishop, Katharine Jefferts Schori, after you threatened to have your diocese in Pittsburgh secede.
That was a year ago, but what’s interesting is that virtually no one in the Anglican world accepted that sentence. Within two weeks of being deposed, I was received at Lambeth Palace in London by the archbishop of Canterbury, who continues to consider me a bishop.
Bishop Schori heads the Episcopal Church in this country, and you opposed her election in 2006?
She was the least qualified, the least experienced, of the candidates, but I hoped that what she would bring if she were elected was the kind of grace that women often bring. She turned out to be far harder, far less willing to bend or compromise, than any of the men.
Odd choice of questions.
Since the interview was condensed and edited, one can’t be sure what the tone of the original was. However, my impression is that Abp. Duncan has given graceful and honest answers to some rather biased questions.
That was a year ago, but what’s interesting is that virtually no one in the Anglican world accepted that sentence. Within two weeks of being deposed, I was received at Lambeth Palace in London by the archbishop of Canterbury, who continues to consider me a bishop.
I consider him a bishop too. As I consider Pope Benedict XVI or TD Jakes. Just not a bishop in the Anglican Communion. And neither does ++Rowan.
Brian from T19 ,
Did you check that out with ++Rowan? Archbishops representing most of the world’s Anglicans have certainly accepted Archbishop Duncan.
[blockquote]Just not a bishop in the Anglican Communion. And neither does ++Rowan.[/blockquote]
I would imagine that there are currently more bishops in the Anglican Communion who consider themselves to be in communion with Robert Duncan than consider themselves to be in communion with KJS.
Brian, I remind you again that since Archbishop Duncan is recognized as a bishop under Archbishop Venables of the Province of the Southern Cone, he is also recognized as a bishop of the Anglican Communion by Archbishop Williams……the status of the ACNA notwithstanding. Bishop Schofield……my bishop……is recognized in the same manner.
I tend to look askance at interviews that are “edited and condensed”, especially in the NY Times.
I would imagine that there are currently more bishops in the Anglican Communion who consider themselves to be in communion with Robert Duncan than consider themselves to be in communion with KJS.
I heartily agree. He is simply no recognized by Canterbury.
English Teacher, your argument does nothing to contradict mine. I consider ++Duncan an Archbishop (and would address a letter to him as ‘Dear Archbishop’)
Cennydd, unfortunately, your bishop (and +Venables) have made critical mis representations to you and I can not correct those as you will only take them at their word. But actual fact is on my side.
I have never understood how Bishop Duncan remained a Bishop after being deposed. I do not think it enough to say that many did not accept the deposition. Was he ever elected and installed within the SC? I know that some priests and deacons in the SC elected him Bishop of Pittsburgh, but I think he was never installed by other Bishops. I could be wrong on this: maybe someone could tell us when this happened.
Are you saying that my bishop and Archbishop Venables aren’t telling the truth? If they are, please prove it with some verifiable facts.
Eugene, ++Duncan was deposed ONLY by TEC, and was accepted as a bishop by the province of the Southern Cone, as was Bishop Schofield.
And furthermore, these bishops and their clergy are licensed by the province of the Southern Cone. I was at the diocesan convention as a delegate when the deacons and priests of the Anglican Diocese of San Joaquin were presented with their licenses.
And since they ARE licensed by the Southern Cone, that means that they are legitimate Anglican Communion bishops and clergy……..even though the ACNA is not yet recognized as a province of the Anglican Communion. Sooner or later, we WILL be.
And by the way, those licenses were transmitted by electronic means.
Just for the point of a timeline, Bishop Duncan told us at clergy conference in September, 2008, that he had been received into the House of Bishops of the Province of the Southern Cone on the same day that the House of Bishops of the Episcopal Church voted to authorize the Presiding Bishop to act on his deposition. In fact, Bishop Jefferts Schori did not pronounce the sentence immediately–stating that she wanted, appropriately, to communicate with Bishop Duncan first. We would assume that for those few days Bishop Duncan held canonical status in both Provinces–and that of course the sentence of deposition pronounced by the Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church would have had effect only in reference to canonical status in the Episcopal Church.
I am curious, and perhaps some of my Pittsburgh-Anglican colleagues can fill me in–whether the Diocese of Pittsburgh-Anglican and Archbishop Duncan intend to maintain their status within Southern Cone while also joining the ACNA?
Bruce Robison
Are you saying that my bishop and Archbishop Venables aren’t telling the truth?
Yes. But I am not saying they are lying. They claim that ++Rowan has conferred some status on the bishops. He has not. He has said as much at various times and at Anglican Communion meetings which none of the deposed bishops have attended. ++Venables and +Schofield actually belive that +Schofield is still a bishop in the Anglican Communion. +Schofield believes this because ++Venables told him this. ++Venables believes this because he persuaded many people to leave based on the premise that they would not be leaving the Anglican Communion. There was no bad intention on either of their parts, however, now they need to hold on to this false belief, which has been openly stated by ++Rowan at the last ACC meeting and in other places, because to not believe it would cause too much cognitive dissonance. Their view of themselves as pastors would be too damaged if they admitted that they misrepresented their position and actually led people out of the Anglican Communion without their consent. I don’t really have a problem with it because they (and obviously their followers, need to believe this about themselves. But to proclaim this falsehood to the world outside of the Anglican Communion can actually lead more people to make choices based on false information. This is what needs to be prevented.
The issue of whether or not the ACNA will become a legitimate province of the Anglican Communion may be decided soon. The Church of England’s House of Bishops, has, I’m told, recommended the recognition of ACNA, thus putting great pressure on Rowan Cantuar, and I believe he will eventually have to accede to their recommendation. The primates are scheduled to meet in February, 2010, and I have reason to believe that the recommendation may be discussed at that conference. I believe that the recognition will eventually come. It is just a matter of time.
Further, it stands to reason that if ++Duncan, +Schofield, and +Iker have been welcomed as bishops of the Southern Cone, it reinforces the FACT that since they ARE under ++Venables, they ARE bishops of the Communion, despite the fact that the ACNA is not yet a recognized province of the Communion, does it not?
And I remind one and all that the Province of the Southern Cone is part of the Anglican Communion.
There are many things true and anointed by God that are not recognized by the current Archbishop of Canterbury. That does not change their authenticity or authority.