Asked at a press conference held on Feb 22, what prayers should be offered for South Carolina, Bishop Jefferts Schori said she “would hope that Episcopalians in South Carolina have a clear understanding” of the church’s polity and “not rely upon erroneous information.”
The focus on South Carolina arose from pleas to her office from distressed members of the diocese. “My understanding is that Episcopalians in South Carolina are concerned about those who have departed and are attempting to keep the Episcopal Church’s property,” she said.
Asked by CEN whether she was referring to the Anglican Communion Institute (ACI) as the source of this “erroneous information” the presiding bishop said that “Episcopalians, like many others, often seek information from the internet. They are looking at sources that are not peer reviewed, or rely on opinions. The representations on the theology of the church as a whole are inaccurate.”
The President of the House of Deputies of the Episcopal Church, Mrs. Bonnie Anderson added that there was an “influx of information coming from sources outside the official bodies” of the Episcopal Church.
“sources not peer reviewed” she is taking a page from the warmist handbook. Just declare all oponents ineligible for peer review then blame them for not being peer reviewed. It just won’t work, for the truth shall set you free.
Somebody needs to ask the PB the following question. Among numerous other aspects of your tenure as PB, despite Scriptural admonitions to the contrary, you invasively and with a distinct lack of compaassion abuse your office and your fiduciary duty by time and again bringing lawsuits against your Christian brothers and sisters. We won’t begin to list the blatant canonical abuses you personally have perpetrated against a part of Christ’s body you took solemn vows to serve. Why, in blue blazes, Presiding Bishop (sic), should we trust any information coming from you or your associates?? At least the “influx of information” to which you refer is factually, morally, logically, spiritually, and theologically true, while your information is, well the kindest way anyone can put it, effluent? (see definition 5 of effluent at http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/effluent)
Unfortunately, the title of the article is precisely the sort of grossly misrepresentative and inflammatory information the PB is condemning. Is it possible for a parish to leave the Episcopal Church and align with ACNA and not leave the Diocese? I would suggest that the good Bishop follow the Canons and invite investigation if he is free of guilt.
“The national Church should be the source of information on the polity and structures of the Episcopal Church,†Mrs. Anderson said.
I genuinely don’t think that the people imagining themselves as ‘the national church’ have any idea how bizarre their remarks are. In an academic context it would be like saying, “Yale University is in charge of all accurate information on Biology.” Does Bonnie Anderson ever play comments like this back and listen to herself?
As others have noted at many places on the internet, the EcUSA/TEc has been peer-reviewed at Lambeth 1998, Primates Meetings, the Windsor Report, et alia et ad infinitum, and been found wanting. They just ignore all the rest of the Anglican Communion. So the PB is merely having a hissy fit because people do as she does and not as she says. Wot?
So… we should rely on peer reviewed sources. I would think ‘peer review’ in an ecclesial context would mean somethinig like this:
[blockquote]” Now in the Catholic Church itself we [b]take the greatest care to hold that which has been believed everywhere, always and by all.[/b] That is truly and properly ‘Catholic,’ as is shown by the very force and meaning of the word, which comprehends everything almost universally. We shall hold to this rule if we follow universality [i.e. oecumenicity], antiquity, and consent. We shall follow universality if we acknowledge that one Faith to be true which the whole Church throughout the world confesses; antiquity if we in no wise depart from those interpretations which it is clear that our ancestors and fathers proclaimed; consent, if in antiquity itself we keep following the definitions and opinions of all, or certainly nearly all, bishops and doctors alike.”[/blockquote]
True peer review might lead to reversal of her lamentable innovations.
😉
Sometimes–though I hope not in this case–lamentable innovations become recognized as orthodoxy. Most of us conveniently forget that Augustine of Hippo’s theology of grace was the target of Vincent of Lerins when he announced his famous “Canon” of “everywhere, always, and by all.” Vincent regarded Augustinian anti-Pelagianism as a dangerous innovation which should be rejected by all who followed the (semi-Pelagian) tradition of the Fathers. We all know how that debate turned out, at least in the West.
RE: “Mrs. Bonnie Anderson added that there was an “influx of information coming from sources outside the official bodies†of the Episcopal Church.”
Tee hee.
“The official bodies” are losing out on the ability to direct the conversation and act as the source of all content.
What a shame.
I’ve got an idea for them. They could start up their own media — Internets, and Blogs Posts, and Emails, and such — and then they could use those to put out the information from “the official bodies” of the church — which would be them, of course. You know . . . people like Bonnie Anderson — she’s an “official” body and all.
They need to come up with a catchy name for their media though. Maybe Centralized Pravda Media or something?
. . . Oh yeh . . . they already tried that.
So to stay Episcopalian you have to be a liberal right? Because if you are a conservative or a moderate in Newark or Los Angeles, I don’t see the PB rising up to protect your theological point of view.
“Peer review,” huh? What she really means is [b]censorship.[/b]
She doesn’t want Episcopalians in DioSC to know the truth, does she?
The articles title is a bit ridiculous. When was this actually said?
I genuinely don’t think that the people imagining themselves as ‘the national church’ have any idea how bizarre their remarks are. In an academic context it would be like saying, “Yale University is in charge of all accurate information on Biology.†Does Bonnie Anderson ever play comments like this back and listen to herself?
Actually, the proper analogy would be ‘Yale University is in charge of all accurate information on the policies and procedures related to Yale University.’ This of course would be factual and accurate. as was Bonnie Anderson’s comment.
#11.
So TEC is now 1) a national church? (something B Anderson has herself questioned); 2) a ‘national church’ which defines polity? — and where and how does it do that? who in the ‘national church’ tells us and is authorised so to do, that ‘the polity’ of TEC is or that? 3) usually a ‘polity’ is something that exists in constitutional or canonical form and language–as with UMC, RCC, PCA, etc–so we can look that kind of thing up; so, we don’t have to rely on Pravda-national church suggestions that it says what this is (a nonsense idea, in respect of canon law).
The very fact that Anderson speaks of ‘ask the national church’ is because she has invented an idea of polity, rather than that she is deferring to one corporately held, or recognised as such.
The ‘national church’ is not ‘Yale University’ because unlike the latter, it is a fiction. There is no ‘national church’ with legal status on analogy with Yale. I realise you and others might like that, but you are making it up. And it is wrecking episcopal/anglican mission in the US, and confusing all the genuine provinces in the AC.
In your sentence above, therefore, you need a subject of the verb ‘is in charge of’ on analogy with Yale University and you simply do not have one. ‘National Church’ is an idea, not a fact in law or reality.
seitz
Who deposed +Duncan? When you answer that question correctly, you’ll understand what the national church is.
#13- Let me see Brian… I’ll take Who is a Kangaroo Court for $500 please.
RE: “Who deposed +Duncan? When you answer that question correctly, you’ll understand what the national church is.”
But as has been explained multiple times elsewhere, Christians don’t believe that “those individuals who have power to take actions” also get to define words. Words mean things — and ideas either reflect Truth more or less.
Now—Brian has on other pages seemed to proclaim that “what is reality right now†and “those who exert power in TEC” is the definition of “what is moral and right and legalâ€â€”see the canon law threads, for instance. That’s certainly one way that deconstructionists view the discourse community.
But obviously that’s not what people of the Christian faith believe. In fact, often “what exists right now†is what needs to be overthrown and defeated and exposed as Lie. As has occurred time and time again throughout history.
Further, Bonnie Anderson and KJS — no matter how much current power they have — don’t get to define what is “national church” and “what national church believes” — and in fact, it’s exactly their whining about others speaking for them and “official bodies” that [i]exposes that they’re still unsure of their own power and their own ability to define reality.[/i]
Everything I know about organizations tells me that ultimately, the Andersons and Schoris of TEC will fail to define reality and “national church” — they simply don’t have the vehicles of communication and other of the necessary apparatus [not to mention Truth] on their side to be able to *ultimately* pull that off.
Now — certainly there will be another decade of nastiness and attempts to define reality.
But the-thing-that-the-apparatchiks-have-asserted-is-TEC has been given many mortal blows, and it won’t survive them.
Listen again to what Anderson is saying, “The national church should be the source of information on the polity and structures of the Episcopal Church.” She is not saying that the national church, whatever that is, is just the final arbiter of the questions, but that the “national church should be the source of the information. …” In other words, unless opinion is vetted first thru the “national church” it is automatically illegitmate. The old Soviets were amateurs compared to Anderson.
Sarah
Now—Brian has on other pages seemed to proclaim that “what is reality right now†and “those who exert power in TEC†is the definition of “what is moral and right and legalâ€â€”see the canon law threads, for instance.
Actually, I proclaim that what is reality right now is legal. It indeed is not ethical ‘right,’ however, it is legal. When +Lawrence is deposed, it will indeed be legal and real. It will undoubtedly be immoral and unjust, but the effect will be the same. Certain people (and I do NOT include you in this group) wait by the sidelines encouraging others to test the waters. Then they publish opinions and calls for justice. These fall on deaf (or at best impotent) ears. The Anglican Communion (ABC, ACC) is willing to wait out ++Katharine’s term and move on from there.
“When +Lawrence is deposed, it will indeed be legal and real.” Nonsense. You simply make these things up and hope.
But one thing you are right about, it does indeed seem possible that the ‘national church’ (whatever that means) will seek by any means to remove +ML.
What then you will need to track is the reaction to that. Let’s say the Standing Committee ignores it, and the Diocese does the same. By what legal means will the removal of a bishop who has not left and does not intend to; in the state courts of SC; on what grounds and filed by whom; will your hoped for “legal and real” outcome happen?
I’ll of course let Sarah speak for herself, but I suspect she is gladly in the company of those who say this adventure on the part of a national church would be a ‘little stone bridge’ too far and one likely to expose the fradulent character of the claims now being asserted, especially in the unfriendly territory of SC state law. SC courts ruling in favor of a NY hdqrts who has placed an agent on the ground and claims to hold the offices and property of the diocese of SC? This is a testing of the waters and it would be foolish. But we shall see.
“When +Lawrence is deposed, it will indeed be legal and real.†Nonsense. You simply make these things up and hope
If you need proof of the legality and reality ask the ABC or the ACC or the Church Pension Group or the Episcopal Church Medical Trust. As for hoping, I actually hope this does not happen. There are those who do hope that it does. Conservative activists who need martyrs to further their cause. They collect their paychecks, issue their ‘open letters’ and ‘opinion papers’ and claim that the destruction of a Dioceses and several people’s lives proves that Dioceses can sign the Covenant and circumvent anyone who disagrees.. It’s sad that there are people who prey on other people’s misfortune, but that is the way of the world.
What then you will need to track is the reaction to that. Let’s say the Standing Committee ignores it, and the Diocese does the same. By what legal means will the removal of a bishop who has not left and does not intend to; in the state courts of SC; on what grounds and filed by whom; will your hoped for “legal and real†outcome happen?
That would apply only to Diocesan real property. The deposition remains both legal and real. Again, as I am not a conservative activist, I have no cause to further, so I do not hope this happens.
May we ask commenters to be careful about personal comments and not allow this thread to overheat – thank you – Elf
“If you need proof of the legality and reality ask the ABC or the ACC or the Church Pension Group or the Episcopal Church Medical Trust.”
What does the ABC have to do with a national church’s efforts to remove a Bishop in SC? I suspect he’d shake his head in disbelief. Or the ACC? Or the Church Pension Group or Medical Trust? What +ML does or does not do has virtually nothing to do with ‘conservative activism’ whatever you mean by that. If removed by the PB, he and the diocese will act accordingly to stand up against illegal and uncanonical power assertions — that would be my hunch and I would judge him to be acting in absolute accordance with his vows as a Bishop.
A deposition that ends up having no effect can hardly be called ‘legal and real’ by the way.