KJS and the TEC HOB deposed Bishop Duncan. Yet there he is standing next to the Archbishop of Canterbury and distributing the Eucharist along with him. This Anglican gathering, which as mentioned includes the ABoC, acts as if he is not only still a bishop, but a Primate. Interesting…
Archbishop Robert Duncan, Bishop Martyn Minns, Bishop John Guernsey and Bishop Bill Atwood are among the Anglican Church in North America leaders who are attending the event
I wouldn’t get too excited. These bishops are neither African nor members of the Anglican Communion.
Oh Brian, how ridiculous to speak of our dear American brethren in that way. Why not take the tacks and needles out of your mouth before speaking? It really doesn’t become you. Btw did your Presiding Bishop’s invitation get lost in the post?
Brian, ++John Chew is not African either. But ABp Chew and ABp Duncan were asked to sit on the primates council at CAPA. If one defines “Anglican” as being invited to Lambeth, then we will see in eight years. Of course, this definition only applies to bishops. How does one tell if a priest or layperson is “Anglican”?
It is all semantics. What does matter is that the majority of the Anglican Communion are in communion with ABp Duncan.
My Presiding Bishop isn’t African, however, she is a member of the Anglican Communion.
How does one tell if a priest or layperson is “Anglican�
They use Anglican rites. One defines membership in the Anglican Communion by several things. However, the most common is membership on the ACC’s list of Provinces.
#6 Brian
[blockquote]However, the most common is membership on the ACC’s list of Provinces.[/blockquote]
I see. Which ACC is that – the Constitutional ACC which has been around since 1976, or Canon Rees’s Faux ACC he registered in July with him and a.n.other as subscribers?
#3 – Such 815-centric protestations notwithstanding, I do not think the global south primates and bishops particularly care for TEC’s opinion on who is and is not or should or should not a member of the Anglican Communion. In fact, I believe that almost all of the African primates there with the exception of South Africa no longer consider themselves to be in communion with TEC (and I suspect, with the exception of the communion partners, do not consider TEC bishops to be bishops) while they do consider themselves to be in communion with ACNA and the ACNA bishops to have the status of bishops in the Anglican Communion. And they make up most of the Anglican Communion.
By the way, I also like the group picture of the primates present, which I don’t think has been posted on T19 yet.
#6 – Oh, I get your point now. Schori is in the Anglican Communion because she is on the list that TEC considers most important, but most of the rest of the Anglican Communion is not in communion with her and no longer recognizes her or most of her bishops. Duncan is not in the Anglican Communion because he is not on the list but is in communion with most of the Anglican Communion except TEC and he and his bishops are recognized as part of the Anglican Communion by most of the rest of the comunion except TEC. Glad you cleared that up.
I see. Which ACC is that – the Constitutional ACC which has been around since 1976, or Canon Rees’s Faux ACC he registered in July with him and a.n.other as subscribers?
Well that is an interesting question and unfortunately one with circular logic. The Constitutional ACC allowed for the creation of the Faux ACC by not objecting or taking any action. Thus the Faux ACC became the Constitutional ACC by default. Chicken and egg thing I guess.
Oh, I get your point now. Schori is in the Anglican Communion because she is on the list that TEC considers most important, but most of the rest of the Anglican Communion is not in communion with her and no longer recognizes her or most of her bishops.
I truly don’t know which Provinces have broken communion with TEC. I assume the majority of Provinces are in impaired, but not broken, communion-although that may have changed after recent events. Additionally, it may be true that the number of members of the Anglican Communion represented by those in broken communion represents the majority of members of the Anglican Communion. I simply don’t know.
Duncan is not in the Anglican Communion because he is not on the list but is in communion with most of the Anglican Communion except TEC and he and his bishops are recognized as part of the Anglican Communion by most of the rest of the comunion except TEC. Glad you cleared that up.
“most of the rest of the communion except TEC” and CoE, ACoC and numerous other Provinces.
#10 Brian
[blockquote][i]I see. Which ACC is that – the Constitutional ACC which has been around since 1976, or Canon Rees’s Faux ACC he registered in July with him and a.n.other as subscribers?[/i]
Well that is an interesting question and unfortunately one with circular logic. [b]The Constitutional ACC allowed for the creation of the Faux ACC by not objecting or taking any action. Thus the Faux ACC became the Constitutional ACC by default.[/b] Chicken and egg thing I guess.[/blockquote]
Um no – only in the dysfunctional world of TEC does such an argument work.
In the real world, a body changes its constitution and makeup by following the rules of that body. That requires that say, if a certain majority is required to effect change, following a particular procedure, the constitutional change is only effective if the procedural requirements are followed, and the required majority signifies its assent.
Keeping quiet, or not replying because one has not been asked, does not constitute assent in the real [non TEC] world. Notwithstanding any involvement he had in drafting the Articles, David Booth Beers’ argument will not run in the Communion as it does in TEC, because we are not dealing with a TEC House of Bishops which models itself on the three wise monkeys.
[blockquote]“most of the rest of the communion except TEC†and CoE, ACoC and numerous other Provinces.[/blockquote]
I would be cautious of placing the CofE in the same camp as TEC and ACoC. We will take our own view of TEC, and of ACNA, thanks.
FWIW the schedule attached to the ACC, in its own terms, defines only those who are members of the ACC. It doesn’t claim to define membership of the Anglican Communion (for which there is, given that there is no Communion Canon Law, no defined list of members).
Some Provinces (such as the COE) formally use the Schedule in their own Canon Law to define which Provinces they recognize as members of the Anglican Communion. Others, I imagine, do not. E.g. I don’t think the Schedule of ACC is mentioned, for example, in the Canons of the Episcopal Church.
No, Bishop Duncan is not “officially” part of the Anglican Communion. But isn’t it interesting that Bishop Duncan is being treated as if he was a Primate in the Anglican Communion by CAPA and that Rowan Williams falls right in line? After deposing him KJS sent a letter to all the Archbishops and Metropolitans and Presiding Bishops in Communion with TEC informing them that Bishop Duncan had been “deprived of his right to exercise the gifts and spiritual authority of God’s word and sacraments conferred at ordination”- trying to ward off just this sort of recognition. I think CAPA is making a statement.
Nevin: if Bishop Duncan was deposed by the PB, who reconsecrated him a Bishop? I think no-one did, but I could be wrong. I do not think that matters to the ACNA folk, but again I could be wrong
#14, Did the wider AC recognize Schori’s “deposing” as legal and valid? I don’t think so, hence we have ++Duncan standing next to +++Rowan, who certainly must know the significance of such a photo. That noise you hear is the teeth gnashing at 815…..
Um no – only in the dysfunctional world of TEC does such an argument work.
In the real world, a body changes its constitution and makeup by following the rules of that body. That requires that say, if a certain majority is required to effect change, following a particular procedure, the constitutional change is only effective if the procedural requirements are followed, and the required majority signifies its assent.
Here is how you measure things in the real world: when there is a violation of the Constitution of a particular body, to whom do you appeal? And when you do appeal, what is decided?
An appeal has been made. The ACC has answered that there is no Constitutional irregularities. The Faux ACC now is the only ACC. If you can demonstrate that an appeal has been made to a particular body with oversight of the ACC, then I am unaware of it. The problem lies in the fact that the ACC has oversight of the ACC. This is how TEC works as well in its HoB/HoD.
I would be cautious of placing the CofE in the same camp as TEC and ACoC. We will take our own view of TEC, and of ACNA, thanks.
At what Synod has the Church of England broken communion with TEC? You are certainly free to take your own view, as am I, but neither of us are Provinces and the CoE remains in communion with TEC. This may change in the future, but for now, the view of the CoE is that TEC is in the Anglican Communion and the ACNA is not.
No, Bishop Duncan is not “officially†part of the Anglican Communion. But isn’t it interesting that Bishop Duncan is being treated as if he was a Primate in the Anglican Communion by CAPA and that Rowan Williams falls right in line? After deposing him KJS sent a letter to all the Archbishops and Metropolitans and Presiding Bishops in Communion with TEC informing them that Bishop Duncan had been “deprived of his right to exercise the gifts and spiritual authority of God’s word and sacraments conferred at ordinationâ€- trying to ward off just this sort of recognition. I think CAPA is making a statement.
Well, there are a few things to remember:
1. ++Rowan is simply a guest, he has not called the meeting and does not set CAPA’s polity
2. ++Rowan has said that ACNA (and by extension ++Duncan) is not a part of the Anglican Communion.
3. ++Duncan did not “exercise the gifts and spiritual authority of God’s word and sacraments conferred at ordination.†he only “shared in the distribution of communion.” I can do that.
As they say, a picture is worth a thousand words…I believe we now have close to a thousand words in responses 1-15, but for all the words, the picture tells the story.
Bishop Duncan was not “reconsecrated”. I don’t think anyone outside of TEC viewed the deposition as legitimate. He was later “re-elected” as the Bishop of the Anglican Diocese of Pittsburgh.
Well I see that two bitter revisionists have managed to bring up completely irrelevant but beautifully distracting details that are really silly [but revealing about the mindset of the two].
RE: “I wouldn’t get too excited. These bishops are neither African nor members of the Anglican Communion.”
Yup — and . . . nobody cares, it appears, in that picture. Which leads one to understand that increasingly membership in the Anglican Communion is becoming less important. That’s understandable, since that entity is so corrupt that it’s natural for members to look for alternative alliances and comrades in others who share the same Gospel.
Subsequent comments by that commenter thus become meaningless.
RE: “Nevin: if Bishop Duncan was deposed by the PB, who reconsecrated him a Bishop? I think no-one did, but I could be wrong. I do not think that matters to the ACNA folk, but again I could be wrong . . . ”
The majority of the Anglican Communion does not recognize the attempted deposition by the PB. They do not recognize her action as accomplishing what she attempted to accomplish.
It not only therefore is an inconsequential attempt by to ACNA folks but it is to most of the conservative in TEC, and the conservatives in the Anglican Communion in general. Thus, Duncan is able to celebrate the Eucharist in more Anglican Communion provinces than Schori is.
And yeh . .. there’s a whole lot of gnashing by our Dear Leaders — but they won’t be admitting or revealing that. No problemo — we all know it anyway. The picture and the administration of the Eucharist are meant to give the clear symbol that they have given.
FWIW, Bishop Duncan had the offer to become bishop in the Southern Cone at the invitation of Bishop Venables, weeks prior to the second vote to leave TEC. That is why the trifold glossy print flyers on the Southern Cone realignment handed out before lunch at the realigning convention in Monroeville prominently featured a full color photograph of Bishop Duncan. The vote to leave TEC was earlier that morning. Also, all clergy in attendence were advised to pick up a form immediately to register as priests in the Southern Cone. They’re not Episcopalian, but they’re still all Anglican, Bishop Duncan and those priests who followed him.
“Official” membership in the Anglican Communion is becoming about as important as “official” membership in the Whig party in the US, the Liberal party in the UK, the Progressive Conservative party in Canada, etc. Interesting, perhaps from an academic point of view, but not very useful for thinking about the future. Really, the Anglican Communion is undergoing a period of transition. It is sort of like trying to determine who the “official” government of the 13 colonies was in 1780.
Brian from T19, the problems with your Presiding Bishop are that she thinks she controls the Communion via TEC’s money, and she has entirely too much influence. Now, you can criticize ++Duncan all you want, and you can even demonize him, if that’s what makes you happy, but the fact remains that he was invited to the conference by the organizers, who respect him for what he believes in and for what he has done. He IS a bishop and an archbishop according to them, and that’s what matters.
I agree with Betsybrowneyes. I am a delegate to convention from the Anglican Diocese of San Joaquin. Archbishop Duncan’s episcopacy was recognized by Archbishop Venables, as was that of my bishop, John-David Schofield. Except for TEC and the ACofC, there has never been any doubt about either bishop’s legitimacy; not even from ++Rowan Williams, who has publicly recognized them both as legitimate.
“Official†membership in the Anglican Communion is becoming about as important as “official†membership in the Whig party in the US, the Liberal party in the UK, the Progressive Conservative party in Canada, etc. Interesting, perhaps from an academic point of view, but not very useful for thinking about the future. Really, the Anglican Communion is undergoing a period of transition. It is sort of like trying to determine who the “official†government of the 13 colonies was in 1780.
I agree. The same principle applies here as the one I mentioned in the Constitutional ACC vs. Faux ACC. Those in charge make the rules. The majority of the ACC is diametrically opposed to TEC and ACoC positions. The problem for the majority is that the minority (TEC, ACoC & CoE) is currently in charge. We’ll see if/how that changes.
One can argue that KJS isn’t really in Holy Orders at all, since she doesn’t meet certain Scriptural qualifications (e.g., 1 Tim 3:1-7) for the office of Bishop.
There can be no doubt that Robert Duncan has been validly ordained by God, at the hands of the Church. Whether he holds the office of Archbishop in a branch of the Anglican Communion is of course debatable; it’s simply a matter of recognition (sometimes called the “second ordination” in Tradition).
We’re seeing more and more signs of that recognition, while the KJS faction continues to behave in ways that might affirm the idea that they are not acting as if they were created in the image of God.
The modern Borgias are poisoning the Anglican Communion from within. If the AC is to survive, the Primates must take charge, and administer the antidote. This is within the scope of their authority, and they have the power to do it. They know what they need to do. If they allow it to die, a new worldwide Anglican entity will be born to replace it. In that case, I cannot predict what would happen to the established CoE, which is in grave danger.
#26 Ralph, depends on what you mean by Holy Orders. I remind you that while Bishop Duncan oversaw TEC Diocese of Pittsburgh, there were more ordained women clergy in our diocese than in any other Episcopal diocese. He was proud of that statistic. Indeed, he elevated Canon Mary Hays to Canon to the Ordinary as well as Canon Missioner in his present Anglican diocese. However, I respect the rights of Bishops Schofield and Iker, following their interpretations of scripture, not to do so within their dioceses, just as I respected them when they were still part of TEC. I just wanted to remind you, though, that WO does continue in Bishop Duncan’s diocese.
However much longer that will continue, since the ACNA will reevaluate that position, given that influential bishops and their dioceses don’t practice WO to the priesthood.
A simple technicality, but in terms of the status of Bishop Duncan at the time of his “deposition” by Presiding Bishop Schori, it should be noted that Bishop Duncan was received into the House of Bishops of the Anglican Church of the Southern Cone in September, 2008, following the vote of the House of Bishops but prior to the actual issuance of the deposition. I’m not an expert canonist, but it seems to me that by the canons of the Episcopal Church, Bishop Duncan was no longer a Bishop of the Episcopal Church following the deposition, but that nonetheless the action of the Presiding Bishop could have no effect on his status as a Bishop of the Southern Cone.
Bruce Robison
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
#30 Cennydd13, there’s truth in what you say, no guarantee. However, Bishop Duncan is strongly supportive of his clergy, both male and female. At my old parish, I know of one woman who moved there after I started at my present parish, and she is now in the process of preparing for the dioconate. The priest at that parish, who has been elevated by Bishop Duncan to position of dean, relies on that lady to do a fair amount within the parish. Before I switched parishes to where I am now, that priest encouraged me numerous times to explore entering the dioconate. Not feeling the call, I consistently refused, but the friendly pressure to do so was there. What will happen to those ladies who said yes, I wonder?
The deposition of ++ Duncan wasn’t valid because he was not first inhibited with the approval of the three senior bishops in the TEC HOB. That was one of the early attempts by the PB to extend her powers far above the bounds the Canons and Constitution of the Episcopal Church. Her (local) success has led to increasing disregard for the rules. She simply now makes them up as she goes along.
Brian #16- I generally like reading your posts even if I often disagree with your positions because you tend to recognize some of the same “facts on the ground” that most reasserters see. However, you’re number two in the post is not accurate. ++Rowan was never stated that ++ Duncan and the ACNA are not part of the Anglican Communion. Such a straightforward response would require a spine, which we all know he lacks.
I don’t believe he has spoken of the ACNA officially in person, but he has spoken of the various bishops that now comprise the ACNA. He has categorized them as “legitmate but irregular”. While this is hardly a ringing endorsement, nonetheless he hasn’t questioned their being in the Anglican Communion as bishops, though they are “irregular” in a way about which he will not speculate.
Also, I would assume as the one of the two primates of the Church of England, that his official stance toward the ACNA would be the resolution that was passed by Synod that at least recognizes ACNA’s “desire to be Anglican.” Again, not an unequivocal home run, but nonetheless far from stating that “Duncan and the ACNA are not part of the Anglican Communion.”
BMR+, no deposition imposed by Schori has any effect outside TEC, since she operates under her own rules……therefore effectively taking TEC out of the Communion, except for her claim of sole recognition at the expense of faithful Anglican Christians who dare to oppose her.
While I don’t think we should read too much into it, there is significance to ++Rowan’s participation in this Eucharist, knowing full well that ++Bob would be there. Compare and contrast this moment to “Mitregate” a couple months ago. And his reception by the African bishops is much more cordial than the one he received at TEC’s GC last year.
However nice these pictures are to see (and indeed they are nice to see) I think ++Rowan now knows that a photo op is not going to be enough to keep the GS on board. We will know soon whether he is willing to take the steps necessary. It is up to him whether he leads a global Communion of 75 million or becomes a figurehead in a western communion of 7.5 million led by KJS.
#34 Cennydd13 — I agree entirely with you, and of course it is correct that a TEC deposition has effect only within TEC. My point was simply to remind folks of the sometimes overlooked fact that Bishop Duncan’s “deposition” in the Episcopal Church took place after his reception into the House of Bishops of the Anglican Church of the Southern Cone. There was no “moment” in the rollercoaster of Fall, 2008 when Bishop Duncan was not a bishop in good standing in a Province of the Anglican Communion.
KJS and the TEC HOB deposed Bishop Duncan. Yet there he is standing next to the Archbishop of Canterbury and distributing the Eucharist along with him. This Anglican gathering, which as mentioned includes the ABoC, acts as if he is not only still a bishop, but a Primate. Interesting…
Quite so. Quite right too.
Archbishop Robert Duncan, Bishop Martyn Minns, Bishop John Guernsey and Bishop Bill Atwood are among the Anglican Church in North America leaders who are attending the event
I wouldn’t get too excited. These bishops are neither African nor members of the Anglican Communion.
Oh Brian, how ridiculous to speak of our dear American brethren in that way. Why not take the tacks and needles out of your mouth before speaking? It really doesn’t become you. Btw did your Presiding Bishop’s invitation get lost in the post?
Brian, ++John Chew is not African either. But ABp Chew and ABp Duncan were asked to sit on the primates council at CAPA. If one defines “Anglican” as being invited to Lambeth, then we will see in eight years. Of course, this definition only applies to bishops. How does one tell if a priest or layperson is “Anglican”?
It is all semantics. What does matter is that the majority of the Anglican Communion are in communion with ABp Duncan.
My Presiding Bishop isn’t African, however, she is a member of the Anglican Communion.
How does one tell if a priest or layperson is “Anglican�
They use Anglican rites. One defines membership in the Anglican Communion by several things. However, the most common is membership on the ACC’s list of Provinces.
#6 Brian
[blockquote]However, the most common is membership on the ACC’s list of Provinces.[/blockquote]
I see. Which ACC is that – the Constitutional ACC which has been around since 1976, or Canon Rees’s Faux ACC he registered in July with him and a.n.other as subscribers?
#3 – Such 815-centric protestations notwithstanding, I do not think the global south primates and bishops particularly care for TEC’s opinion on who is and is not or should or should not a member of the Anglican Communion. In fact, I believe that almost all of the African primates there with the exception of South Africa no longer consider themselves to be in communion with TEC (and I suspect, with the exception of the communion partners, do not consider TEC bishops to be bishops) while they do consider themselves to be in communion with ACNA and the ACNA bishops to have the status of bishops in the Anglican Communion. And they make up most of the Anglican Communion.
By the way, I also like the group picture of the primates present, which I don’t think has been posted on T19 yet.
#6 – Oh, I get your point now. Schori is in the Anglican Communion because she is on the list that TEC considers most important, but most of the rest of the Anglican Communion is not in communion with her and no longer recognizes her or most of her bishops. Duncan is not in the Anglican Communion because he is not on the list but is in communion with most of the Anglican Communion except TEC and he and his bishops are recognized as part of the Anglican Communion by most of the rest of the comunion except TEC. Glad you cleared that up.
I see. Which ACC is that – the Constitutional ACC which has been around since 1976, or Canon Rees’s Faux ACC he registered in July with him and a.n.other as subscribers?
Well that is an interesting question and unfortunately one with circular logic. The Constitutional ACC allowed for the creation of the Faux ACC by not objecting or taking any action. Thus the Faux ACC became the Constitutional ACC by default. Chicken and egg thing I guess.
Oh, I get your point now. Schori is in the Anglican Communion because she is on the list that TEC considers most important, but most of the rest of the Anglican Communion is not in communion with her and no longer recognizes her or most of her bishops.
I truly don’t know which Provinces have broken communion with TEC. I assume the majority of Provinces are in impaired, but not broken, communion-although that may have changed after recent events. Additionally, it may be true that the number of members of the Anglican Communion represented by those in broken communion represents the majority of members of the Anglican Communion. I simply don’t know.
Duncan is not in the Anglican Communion because he is not on the list but is in communion with most of the Anglican Communion except TEC and he and his bishops are recognized as part of the Anglican Communion by most of the rest of the comunion except TEC. Glad you cleared that up.
“most of the rest of the communion except TEC” and CoE, ACoC and numerous other Provinces.
#10 Brian
[blockquote][i]I see. Which ACC is that – the Constitutional ACC which has been around since 1976, or Canon Rees’s Faux ACC he registered in July with him and a.n.other as subscribers?[/i]
Well that is an interesting question and unfortunately one with circular logic. [b]The Constitutional ACC allowed for the creation of the Faux ACC by not objecting or taking any action. Thus the Faux ACC became the Constitutional ACC by default.[/b] Chicken and egg thing I guess.[/blockquote]
Um no – only in the dysfunctional world of TEC does such an argument work.
In the real world, a body changes its constitution and makeup by following the rules of that body. That requires that say, if a certain majority is required to effect change, following a particular procedure, the constitutional change is only effective if the procedural requirements are followed, and the required majority signifies its assent.
Keeping quiet, or not replying because one has not been asked, does not constitute assent in the real [non TEC] world. Notwithstanding any involvement he had in drafting the Articles, David Booth Beers’ argument will not run in the Communion as it does in TEC, because we are not dealing with a TEC House of Bishops which models itself on the three wise monkeys.
[blockquote]“most of the rest of the communion except TEC†and CoE, ACoC and numerous other Provinces.[/blockquote]
I would be cautious of placing the CofE in the same camp as TEC and ACoC. We will take our own view of TEC, and of ACNA, thanks.
FWIW the schedule attached to the ACC, in its own terms, defines only those who are members of the ACC. It doesn’t claim to define membership of the Anglican Communion (for which there is, given that there is no Communion Canon Law, no defined list of members).
Some Provinces (such as the COE) formally use the Schedule in their own Canon Law to define which Provinces they recognize as members of the Anglican Communion. Others, I imagine, do not. E.g. I don’t think the Schedule of ACC is mentioned, for example, in the Canons of the Episcopal Church.
No, Bishop Duncan is not “officially” part of the Anglican Communion. But isn’t it interesting that Bishop Duncan is being treated as if he was a Primate in the Anglican Communion by CAPA and that Rowan Williams falls right in line? After deposing him KJS sent a letter to all the Archbishops and Metropolitans and Presiding Bishops in Communion with TEC informing them that Bishop Duncan had been “deprived of his right to exercise the gifts and spiritual authority of God’s word and sacraments conferred at ordination”- trying to ward off just this sort of recognition. I think CAPA is making a statement.
Nevin: if Bishop Duncan was deposed by the PB, who reconsecrated him a Bishop? I think no-one did, but I could be wrong. I do not think that matters to the ACNA folk, but again I could be wrong
#14, Did the wider AC recognize Schori’s “deposing” as legal and valid? I don’t think so, hence we have ++Duncan standing next to +++Rowan, who certainly must know the significance of such a photo. That noise you hear is the teeth gnashing at 815…..
Um no – only in the dysfunctional world of TEC does such an argument work.
In the real world, a body changes its constitution and makeup by following the rules of that body. That requires that say, if a certain majority is required to effect change, following a particular procedure, the constitutional change is only effective if the procedural requirements are followed, and the required majority signifies its assent.
Here is how you measure things in the real world: when there is a violation of the Constitution of a particular body, to whom do you appeal? And when you do appeal, what is decided?
An appeal has been made. The ACC has answered that there is no Constitutional irregularities. The Faux ACC now is the only ACC. If you can demonstrate that an appeal has been made to a particular body with oversight of the ACC, then I am unaware of it. The problem lies in the fact that the ACC has oversight of the ACC. This is how TEC works as well in its HoB/HoD.
I would be cautious of placing the CofE in the same camp as TEC and ACoC. We will take our own view of TEC, and of ACNA, thanks.
At what Synod has the Church of England broken communion with TEC? You are certainly free to take your own view, as am I, but neither of us are Provinces and the CoE remains in communion with TEC. This may change in the future, but for now, the view of the CoE is that TEC is in the Anglican Communion and the ACNA is not.
No, Bishop Duncan is not “officially†part of the Anglican Communion. But isn’t it interesting that Bishop Duncan is being treated as if he was a Primate in the Anglican Communion by CAPA and that Rowan Williams falls right in line? After deposing him KJS sent a letter to all the Archbishops and Metropolitans and Presiding Bishops in Communion with TEC informing them that Bishop Duncan had been “deprived of his right to exercise the gifts and spiritual authority of God’s word and sacraments conferred at ordinationâ€- trying to ward off just this sort of recognition. I think CAPA is making a statement.
Well, there are a few things to remember:
1. ++Rowan is simply a guest, he has not called the meeting and does not set CAPA’s polity
2. ++Rowan has said that ACNA (and by extension ++Duncan) is not a part of the Anglican Communion.
3. ++Duncan did not “exercise the gifts and spiritual authority of God’s word and sacraments conferred at ordination.†he only “shared in the distribution of communion.” I can do that.
As they say, a picture is worth a thousand words…I believe we now have close to a thousand words in responses 1-15, but for all the words, the picture tells the story.
Bishop Duncan was not “reconsecrated”. I don’t think anyone outside of TEC viewed the deposition as legitimate. He was later “re-elected” as the Bishop of the Anglican Diocese of Pittsburgh.
Well I see that two bitter revisionists have managed to bring up completely irrelevant but beautifully distracting details that are really silly [but revealing about the mindset of the two].
RE: “I wouldn’t get too excited. These bishops are neither African nor members of the Anglican Communion.”
Yup — and . . . nobody cares, it appears, in that picture. Which leads one to understand that increasingly membership in the Anglican Communion is becoming less important. That’s understandable, since that entity is so corrupt that it’s natural for members to look for alternative alliances and comrades in others who share the same Gospel.
Subsequent comments by that commenter thus become meaningless.
RE: “Nevin: if Bishop Duncan was deposed by the PB, who reconsecrated him a Bishop? I think no-one did, but I could be wrong. I do not think that matters to the ACNA folk, but again I could be wrong . . . ”
The majority of the Anglican Communion does not recognize the attempted deposition by the PB. They do not recognize her action as accomplishing what she attempted to accomplish.
It not only therefore is an inconsequential attempt by to ACNA folks but it is to most of the conservative in TEC, and the conservatives in the Anglican Communion in general. Thus, Duncan is able to celebrate the Eucharist in more Anglican Communion provinces than Schori is.
And yeh . .. there’s a whole lot of gnashing by our Dear Leaders — but they won’t be admitting or revealing that. No problemo — we all know it anyway. The picture and the administration of the Eucharist are meant to give the clear symbol that they have given.
RE: “he only “shared in the distribution of communion.†I can do that. . . . ”
Well — you could do it in [i]some[/i] circumstances. But not in those in which Duncan participated.
But don’t feel bad — neither could our Beloved Primate either. ; > )
FWIW, Bishop Duncan had the offer to become bishop in the Southern Cone at the invitation of Bishop Venables, weeks prior to the second vote to leave TEC. That is why the trifold glossy print flyers on the Southern Cone realignment handed out before lunch at the realigning convention in Monroeville prominently featured a full color photograph of Bishop Duncan. The vote to leave TEC was earlier that morning. Also, all clergy in attendence were advised to pick up a form immediately to register as priests in the Southern Cone. They’re not Episcopalian, but they’re still all Anglican, Bishop Duncan and those priests who followed him.
“Official” membership in the Anglican Communion is becoming about as important as “official” membership in the Whig party in the US, the Liberal party in the UK, the Progressive Conservative party in Canada, etc. Interesting, perhaps from an academic point of view, but not very useful for thinking about the future. Really, the Anglican Communion is undergoing a period of transition. It is sort of like trying to determine who the “official” government of the 13 colonies was in 1780.
Brian from T19, the problems with your Presiding Bishop are that she thinks she controls the Communion via TEC’s money, and she has entirely too much influence. Now, you can criticize ++Duncan all you want, and you can even demonize him, if that’s what makes you happy, but the fact remains that he was invited to the conference by the organizers, who respect him for what he believes in and for what he has done. He IS a bishop and an archbishop according to them, and that’s what matters.
I agree with Betsybrowneyes. I am a delegate to convention from the Anglican Diocese of San Joaquin. Archbishop Duncan’s episcopacy was recognized by Archbishop Venables, as was that of my bishop, John-David Schofield. Except for TEC and the ACofC, there has never been any doubt about either bishop’s legitimacy; not even from ++Rowan Williams, who has publicly recognized them both as legitimate.
“Official†membership in the Anglican Communion is becoming about as important as “official†membership in the Whig party in the US, the Liberal party in the UK, the Progressive Conservative party in Canada, etc. Interesting, perhaps from an academic point of view, but not very useful for thinking about the future. Really, the Anglican Communion is undergoing a period of transition. It is sort of like trying to determine who the “official†government of the 13 colonies was in 1780.
I agree. The same principle applies here as the one I mentioned in the Constitutional ACC vs. Faux ACC. Those in charge make the rules. The majority of the ACC is diametrically opposed to TEC and ACoC positions. The problem for the majority is that the minority (TEC, ACoC & CoE) is currently in charge. We’ll see if/how that changes.
One can argue that KJS isn’t really in Holy Orders at all, since she doesn’t meet certain Scriptural qualifications (e.g., 1 Tim 3:1-7) for the office of Bishop.
There can be no doubt that Robert Duncan has been validly ordained by God, at the hands of the Church. Whether he holds the office of Archbishop in a branch of the Anglican Communion is of course debatable; it’s simply a matter of recognition (sometimes called the “second ordination” in Tradition).
We’re seeing more and more signs of that recognition, while the KJS faction continues to behave in ways that might affirm the idea that they are not acting as if they were created in the image of God.
The modern Borgias are poisoning the Anglican Communion from within. If the AC is to survive, the Primates must take charge, and administer the antidote. This is within the scope of their authority, and they have the power to do it. They know what they need to do. If they allow it to die, a new worldwide Anglican entity will be born to replace it. In that case, I cannot predict what would happen to the established CoE, which is in grave danger.
Thank you, Ralph, for your expository statement. I agree completely.
#26 Ralph, depends on what you mean by Holy Orders. I remind you that while Bishop Duncan oversaw TEC Diocese of Pittsburgh, there were more ordained women clergy in our diocese than in any other Episcopal diocese. He was proud of that statistic. Indeed, he elevated Canon Mary Hays to Canon to the Ordinary as well as Canon Missioner in his present Anglican diocese. However, I respect the rights of Bishops Schofield and Iker, following their interpretations of scripture, not to do so within their dioceses, just as I respected them when they were still part of TEC. I just wanted to remind you, though, that WO does continue in Bishop Duncan’s diocese.
However much longer that will continue, since the ACNA will reevaluate that position, given that influential bishops and their dioceses don’t practice WO to the priesthood.
In other words, there’s no guarantee that it’ll continue in ++Duncan’s diocese.
A simple technicality, but in terms of the status of Bishop Duncan at the time of his “deposition” by Presiding Bishop Schori, it should be noted that Bishop Duncan was received into the House of Bishops of the Anglican Church of the Southern Cone in September, 2008, following the vote of the House of Bishops but prior to the actual issuance of the deposition. I’m not an expert canonist, but it seems to me that by the canons of the Episcopal Church, Bishop Duncan was no longer a Bishop of the Episcopal Church following the deposition, but that nonetheless the action of the Presiding Bishop could have no effect on his status as a Bishop of the Southern Cone.
Bruce Robison
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
#30 Cennydd13, there’s truth in what you say, no guarantee. However, Bishop Duncan is strongly supportive of his clergy, both male and female. At my old parish, I know of one woman who moved there after I started at my present parish, and she is now in the process of preparing for the dioconate. The priest at that parish, who has been elevated by Bishop Duncan to position of dean, relies on that lady to do a fair amount within the parish. Before I switched parishes to where I am now, that priest encouraged me numerous times to explore entering the dioconate. Not feeling the call, I consistently refused, but the friendly pressure to do so was there. What will happen to those ladies who said yes, I wonder?
The deposition of ++ Duncan wasn’t valid because he was not first inhibited with the approval of the three senior bishops in the TEC HOB. That was one of the early attempts by the PB to extend her powers far above the bounds the Canons and Constitution of the Episcopal Church. Her (local) success has led to increasing disregard for the rules. She simply now makes them up as she goes along.
Brian #16- I generally like reading your posts even if I often disagree with your positions because you tend to recognize some of the same “facts on the ground” that most reasserters see. However, you’re number two in the post is not accurate. ++Rowan was never stated that ++ Duncan and the ACNA are not part of the Anglican Communion. Such a straightforward response would require a spine, which we all know he lacks.
I don’t believe he has spoken of the ACNA officially in person, but he has spoken of the various bishops that now comprise the ACNA. He has categorized them as “legitmate but irregular”. While this is hardly a ringing endorsement, nonetheless he hasn’t questioned their being in the Anglican Communion as bishops, though they are “irregular” in a way about which he will not speculate.
Also, I would assume as the one of the two primates of the Church of England, that his official stance toward the ACNA would be the resolution that was passed by Synod that at least recognizes ACNA’s “desire to be Anglican.” Again, not an unequivocal home run, but nonetheless far from stating that “Duncan and the ACNA are not part of the Anglican Communion.”
BMR+, no deposition imposed by Schori has any effect outside TEC, since she operates under her own rules……therefore effectively taking TEC out of the Communion, except for her claim of sole recognition at the expense of faithful Anglican Christians who dare to oppose her.
While I don’t think we should read too much into it, there is significance to ++Rowan’s participation in this Eucharist, knowing full well that ++Bob would be there. Compare and contrast this moment to “Mitregate” a couple months ago. And his reception by the African bishops is much more cordial than the one he received at TEC’s GC last year.
However nice these pictures are to see (and indeed they are nice to see) I think ++Rowan now knows that a photo op is not going to be enough to keep the GS on board. We will know soon whether he is willing to take the steps necessary. It is up to him whether he leads a global Communion of 75 million or becomes a figurehead in a western communion of 7.5 million led by KJS.
#34 Cennydd13 — I agree entirely with you, and of course it is correct that a TEC deposition has effect only within TEC. My point was simply to remind folks of the sometimes overlooked fact that Bishop Duncan’s “deposition” in the Episcopal Church took place after his reception into the House of Bishops of the Anglican Church of the Southern Cone. There was no “moment” in the rollercoaster of Fall, 2008 when Bishop Duncan was not a bishop in good standing in a Province of the Anglican Communion.
Bruce Robison
Pittsburgh, Pennslvania