For three decades, a succession of conservative bishops here barred women from being ordained as priests in the Episcopal Church.
But the conservatives went their own way last fall, forming the Anglican Church in North America. And so on Sunday, exactly one year after that schism, Susan Slaughter will become the first woman in the Episcopal Church’s Forth Worth diocese to don a red stole for ordination to the priesthood.
“God works in mysterious ways,” Ms. Slaughter said, “and this is one of those.”
In the soi-disant faux ‘diocese”, that is.
Besides a bishop, presbyters, deacons, a number of congregations with lay members, diocesan governance structures, and recognition by a currently-recognized province of the Anglican Communion, what else does a “faux ‘diocese'” need to be real? Although they don’t acknowledge each other, the facts on the ground tell us that there are currently two [i]real[/i] Anglican dioceses in and around Fort Worth, Texas. Depending on how one chooses to define “real,” the diocese that this story describes has as much claim to be regarded as a real Anglican diocese as the entity headed by Bishop Iker, although that could change in the future.
Depending on how one chooses to define “real,†the diocese that this story describes has as much claim to be regarded as a real Anglican diocese as the entity headed by Bishop Iker, although that could change in the future.
Absolutely true. However, only the diocese in this article is recognized by ++Rowan as the legitimate authority of the Anglican Communion in its geographic area. That too could change in the future.
A faux diocese is one which is subsequent to another preexisting religious entity of the same name, erected by to supposedly ‘be’ or otherwise represent the exact same organization as the one which preceded it. Hence, Dale, the term faux is perfectly descriptive, though Potemkin diocese would do, as well. At least no one has taken issue with the term soi-disant, yet. AND, whatever Rowan Williams might or might not do in regard to the DFW has absolutely no bearing on what it actually IS, which is recognized by perfectly pukka Anglican jurisdictions representing, oh, around 2/3 or more of the members of the Anglican Communion. The only reason why Mrs Schori is pursuing people in the courts, and doing her best to avoid any possibility of genuine reconciliation is because she is desperately afraid that a far, far greater number of parishes and dioceses would depart for greener pastures. A strategy of intimidation is therefore seen as called for, and is being utilized to the fullest extent she can manage.
Senior Priest [#1], how about everyone, on all sides, stop with the unhelpful labels, such as “soi-disant faux ‘diocese'” and “rump organization” and the like?
Asserting hard, verifiable (or refutable) facts is one thing. But the labeling — which is really just name-calling — is purely a matter of opinion, and doesn’t do anything to advance the discussion.
There are two counterfeits in this story. One being the diocese and the other the ordinations.
In ICXC
John
It is also a strategy motivated by fear, and that fear is becoming increasingly palpable with every new lawsuit against faithful Anglicans. It is a fear evidenced by the strident rhetoric coming from the revisionist heretics supporting PB Schori’s every extra-canonical move and pronouncement.
Oh, and the soi-disant faux dioceses of Quincy, San Joaquin, and FW will in their current forms never be able to be self-supporting (another sure sign of their Potemkin status). The best thing that could be done for them is to reincorporate the few congregations into the surrounding dioceses. However, if that’s done, Mrs Schori will be unable to use them for as vehicles for pass-through funds to make lawsuits possible. Does anyone actually imagine that if, for example, San Joaquin’s 35 parish churches were, under cover of law, transferred to Jerry Lamb’s jurisdiction that their congregants would docilely follow along with the buildings? JL reportedly thinks this will be the case. Perhaps the Potemkin DFW administrators imagine this, as well. This is all so sad, and unnecessary. It would be better if everyone just pursued generosity and peace.
DCTodt #5 – I’m happy to agree to use the designations ‘original DFW’ and ‘new DFW’ if everyone else will do so as well. 🙂
ASP [#8], I’ve long said that the property ought to go where it can best be used to bring people to God.
#10 Pretty much rules out Tec, then.
There is no reason for confusion: the two are DFW(ACNA) and DFW(TEC).
Ad Orientem : you may have noticed that the Pittsburgh Diocese (ACNA) has female priests and deacons. I do not think that their Bishop would like it to be said that they are “counterfeits”.
RE: “what else does a “faux ‘diocese’†need to be real? . . . ”
Easy. A request to the General Convention for acceptance as a diocese — as others have pointed out endlessly. But no . . . they didn’t want to do that, because it would have meant acknowledging the truth — which was that a diocese of TEC [i]left TEC[/i].
Given that . . . they’ve had to grossly and blatantly violate the canons of the Episcopal Church in order to create their faux diocese in order to be involved in the lawsuit.
The canons are quite clear about what it takes to become a diocese of TEC.
Re # 12
Eugene,
If the bishop of Pittsburgh wishes to pass around three dollar bills that’s between him and those that will accept them.
In ICXC
John
Paves way…not quite. There had been a concordat between DFW and Dallas whereby women interested in ordination to the priesthood could be accepted there. But it is hard to keeps facts straight.
AND, whatever Rowan Williams might or might not do in regard to the DFW has absolutely no bearing on what it actually IS
Patently false. If ++Canterbury is not in communion with one or the other of the Dioceses (and we know from his statements that only one non-consensual geographic diocese will be recognized), then that diocese is not a member of the Anglican Communion, regardless of the soi-disant status conferred on it by 2/3 of the members of the Anglican Communion.
#16, You’re behind on your talking points. Rowan Williams is in communion with provinces, not dioceses. When ACI and its fellow travelers tried to argue it should be otherwise, they were shouted down by the ECUSA mob.
Ad Orientem wrote: “If the bishop of Pittsburgh wishes to pass around three dollar bills that’s between him and those that will accept them.”
It also is between him and his fellow Bishops (like Bishop Iker) and between him and the Lord.
Sorry but I do not think ++Duncan would accept your three dollar analogy. It makes it sound like he is a “thief” not an Archbishop!
I guess you do not believe him to be a Bishop.
Re # 18
Eugene,
I believe Duncan means well. I believe he is a far better choice than the leadership of TEO. But he is wrong on many issues of which this is one of the more major. I would not say he is dishonest. A man who passes a three dollar bill believing it to be legal tender is not a crook. But he is still wrong.
As for your closing assertion, I would acknowledge Duncan as an Anglican Archbishop and would as a matter of courtesy always refer to him by that title. From a sacramental perspective however the teaching of the Orthodox Church is pretty clear. There are no mysteries outside the Church.
In ICXC
John
The Iker Diocese’s may be a real diocese, but its choice to retain the legal name “The Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth” is intentionally misleading, IMO. Why don’t they change their name to reflect that they are no longer an Episcopalian diocese? The name change would not affect the lawsuit; it would clarify the identity of the Iker diocese and be more honest about who it is.
Honesty? Honestly, Dallasite, honesty is a two way street. The original recipe still owns the farm under that nom de plume. The potemkin’s still have not followed the Canons to create what they are living under. We await with bated breath to see the outcome.
One of the reasons that our reappraising side does so well is our unity. This thread is a prime example of why the reasserters fall apart. The article is about how women will now be ordained in Fort Worth whereas they were not previously ordained. Reasserters addressing this disagree on:
-What is a Diocese
-Who can be ordained
-What names to call each diocese
-Who qualifies as a bishop
and so it goes. Whatever happened to “The enemy of my enemy is my friend.”? If you all and your various definitions of God ever got together, Lord help our side. We’d be trounced.
The oddly great comedian Emo Phillips has a joke that is right on point
Once I saw this guy on a bridge about to jump. I said, “Don’t do it!” He said, “Nobody loves me.” I said, “God loves you. Do you believe in God?”
He said, “Yes.” I said, “Are you a Christian or a Jew?” He said, “A Christian.” I said, “Me, too! Protestant or Catholic?” He said, “Protestant.” I said, “Me, too! What franchise?” He said, “Baptist.” I said, “Me, too! Northern Baptist or Southern Baptist?” He said, “Northern Baptist.” I said, “Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist or Northern Liberal Baptist?”
He said, “Northern Conservative Baptist.” I said, “Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region, or Northern Conservative Baptist Eastern Region?” He said, “Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region.” I said, “Me, too!
“Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1879, or Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912?” He said, “Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912.” I said, “Die, heretic!” And I pushed him over.
Dallasite,
As has, of course, already occurred in Pittsburgh.
I also disliked the retention of that nomenclature; it smacked of a purely legalistic strategy.
[url=http://catholicandreformed.blogspot.com]Catholic and Reformed[/url]
Wrong, Brian. They were ordained from FW. They just had to cross town.
Brian and Jeremy- my dear friends. Actually the Episcopal Church of Scotland or the African Methodist Episcopal Church might disagree. The term Episcopal, as it has *always* been touted by PECUSA, ECUSA, and TEC… all three of them (LOL!! Rebranding doesn’t always work!)… simply says that the faith community in question is governed by episkopoi, that’s all. DFW (ACNA) has a real bishop, who is the same one they canonically elected, consecrated, and enthroned. He is, perhaps persona non grata, in most but not all TEC houses of worship. DFW (TEC) has what many believe is a real episkopos, though never canoncially installed in accordance with TEC canons. Therefore, one must ineluctably arrive at the revelatory notion that both are at least nominally Episcopal dioceses.
RE: “One of the reasons that our reappraising side does so well is our unity.”
Well — except they’re not unified at all. They fight constantly and have just as many disagreements as we do.
They’re not as public about it, of course . . . but the ongoing power scuffle between Schori and Bonnie Anderson has been lip-smacking, however much they’ve worked to bury that. And they’re many more where those came from.
That . . . and the fact that the revisionists don’t have high-trafficked blogs of course . . . explains the appearance of “unity.” ;> )
I do agree, that the right is divided between the orthodox orthodox and the semi-orthodox. AND, worse than that, they are neither patient nor ruthless. They jump ship too fast (for example), and simply could not bring themselves to liquidate the reappraising revisers when they had the opportunity. Hmmm…. reminds me of real-life history… the Tsar exiled Lenin but Lenin didn’t make the same mistake. A question, mes amis: how many reasserters work at 815 these days? The few that were left were almost all gone by the time Kate arrived. Now there are none. There’s another reason why the reappraising side does so well… they are most effective at bureaucratically eliminating opposition within TEC as an institution.
Re # 27
I am not sure ruthlessness is a virtue to which one should aspire, even in defense of orthodoxy. As for your historical references, I would note that Lenin’s legacy is today is that of a monster whose ideals have been relegated to the ash-heap of history. In contrast the Royal Passion Bearer Czar Emperor Nicholas II is a canonized saint.
In ICXC
John
Senior Priest,
I agree that there has been a historical use of the term to denote the acknowledgment of the office of bishop (even if not in apostolic succession) by certain denominations, but that’s not relevant to the present debate.
I very much doubt that there would have been much desire to retain the title “Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh,” absent the lawsuit. In American Anglican eyes the term “Episcopal” is now tainted and to continue to use it is to identify oneself with the very brand that you excoriate. The fact that the ACNA convention just passed witnessed the change of title (still using the strange arrow cross icon to which I’ve never quite got accustomed) is pretty indicative, I think.
You got my point Ad Orientem/John, precisely. Who is the monster whose monstrousness will become clear one day, and who is the future canonized martyr in 2009? And of course, Jeremy, one must try to think ahead when dealing with litigious individuals and the organizations they control. 🙂
A new day is dawning! (yawn) We are in the age of Aquarius!