Letter Doesn’t Sway Central Florida Parishes

A letter from Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams to Bishop John W. Howe of Central Florida has changed nothing for the rectors and wardens of seven parishes and two church plants in that diocese, said a spokesperson for the group.

“We remain committed to disaffiliation from The Episcopal Church and continue in discussion with Bishop Howe over that process,” said the Rev. Don Curran, rector of Grace Church, Ocala, and president of the standing committee. “We want to handle this as expeditiously as possible, but there is no established deadline.”

Read it all.


Posted in * Anglican - Episcopal, Episcopal Church (TEC), TEC Conflicts

16 comments on “Letter Doesn’t Sway Central Florida Parishes

  1. Pb says:

    How could anyone be swayed by something that is incomprehensible?

  2. Br. Michael says:

    Thank God.

  3. tired says:

    I found the letter to be a bit sad, as if the ABC were able to understand or address only a secondary question that appears to be less relevant every day: “would churches in even ‘Windsor compliant’ dioceses of TEC be excommunicated from AC membership if the rest of TEC lost membership?” He provided sufficient assurance to answer that question.

    However, he provided no assurance: (i) if anything will ever happen to TEC, and when the decision will be made, (ii) what the process is, and why the conciliar DES communique was rejected in NO, (iii) what the ABC considers to be a “windsor” compliant bishop or diocese, and why, (iv) what are the consequences of not being a windsor bishop, (v) why the invitations to Lambeth were sent out in a way to undercut DES, (vi) what happened to the CA bishops (referenced in the DES communique) or the ACN bishops, and why were they unsupported and discarded as a critical mass, (vii) will the communion remaining after completion of the secret, undefined process be one that reasserters can inhabit?

  4. RoyIII says:

    How long do the parishes wait for the train that derailed long ago?

  5. Athanasius Returns says:

    [blockquote] will the communion remaining after completion of the secret, undefined process be one that reasserters can inhabit? [/blockquote]

    Hoping against hope that somehow this trenchant question gets to Lambeth Palace and distributed broadly among its denizens and abettors.

    Thanks, tired!

  6. pendennis88 says:

    #3 – and then to the extent that he answered any questions, he had his press office unanswer them the next day. Sort of. Or perhaps not. I mean, really, to the extent that his original letter was intended to help anything, that he allowed his press office to mangle it further the next day in a futile and half-cocked transparent effort to reverse the damage he’d done to the scorched earth litigation strategy of the TEC lawyers, he has just made things worse than if he had simply thrown Howe’s missive into the trash.

  7. Dallasite says:

    If Rev. Coyle is trying to separate from TEC, why on earth is he running for the Standing Committee?

  8. chips says:

    Dear Dallasite:
    He and his flock are not out yet and probably would like to be in a position to provide cover fire for both his parish and others until they get clear. I think the majority of the standing commitee is orthodox.

  9. Dallasite says:

    Well, if he’s stated his intention to try to separate, I think he’s got a real conflict in doing so. We had a similar situation here in Dallas when Fr. Roseberry was chairing the Standing Committee while his church was negotiating its departure from the diocese; Fr. Roseberry did finally step down from that position. If he plans to leave, I think he has no business on the standing committee, and I would not vote for him if I were in that diocese.

  10. Br_er Rabbit says:

    A swing and a miss by the ABC. Is that strike two I hear called?

  11. Irenaeus says:

    “Is that strike two I hear called?”

    Ah, but is the ABC playing baseball, rounders, or cricket?

  12. azusa says:

    # 11 – Welsh cricket – & the rules are written in Bardic Elfish.

  13. rob k says:

    I think that the catholicity of Williams’ position should be taken seriously. I think it is historically and theologically sound.

  14. Athanasius Returns says:

    #13 – Care to elaborate on what you mean by the catholicity of +++William’s position, and its historical and theological soundness? We’re standing by.

  15. alfonso says:

    Isn’t Rowan’s letter(s) a response to a specific situation, to paraphrase:

    “Hey everyone, let’s stick with brother Howe, for after all, your connection to the diocese is more important than the connection to 815. And with Howe’s diocese being hunky-dory with me and the Windsor Report, I’m siding with him on this and not those who say “enough is enough.” I can actually appreciate the Primates’ frustration over the “ugly Americanism” that even I must acknowledge; but I just don’t get at all why anyone would want to separate from my good friend John Howe.”

  16. pendennis88 says:

    #9 – is it really a conflict of interest? As the primary purpose of the diocese is not to conserve property for TEC, but to promulgate the Christian faith, it does not seem automatically true that there is a conflict unless you assume it is not in the interest of the Diocese for the parish in question to leave amicably. I realize that that is a common assumption among revisionists, but it is disputable. You seem to assume that questions of conflicts by the standing committee are judged by secular standards, but with a diocesan committee, I think the mission must come first. Further, note that the priest in question will not get anything personally from any negotiation, only that his parish, which pays his salary, might benefit. You see that as a conflict. Yet a revisionist priest, who you would appear to assume has no conflict, would benefit to a similar extent if the orthodox could be driven out by a scorched earth, no settlement policy, leaving more funds to pay his salary out of the shrinking pie. Yet in the first instance, an amicable settlement would benefit the diocese, and in the second, the revisionist priest would hurt the diocese to his personal benefit.

    I would suggest that conflict analysis is not easy. In the absence of a direct conflict, one can find indirect conflicts everywhere and on every side. There is no direct conflict with the priest in question, any more than there is a direct conflict if a priest would run that opposes selling any property to parishioners.