Saturday, November 3, 2007
The Presiding Bishop
815 Second Avenue
New York, NY 10017
Dear Katharine,
I have read with great sadness your letter to Bishop Bob Duncan of Pittsburgh. And, since you have chosen to make your letter to him public, I will make this one public, as well.
I have stood shoulder to shoulder with Bob in the efforts of the Network to reverse the course of The Episcopal Church with regard to recent decisions regarding human sexuality. I part company with him in his decision to abandon the commitment we made when we formed the Network, to work “within the Constitution and Canons of The Episcopal Church.”
But, Katharine, I cannot support your thinly veiled threat to resort to litigation if the Diocese of Pittsburgh rescinds its accession to the Constitution and Canons of The Episcopal Church.
Dioceses voluntarily join (accede to) The Episcopal Church. And they can voluntarily determine to separate from (withdraw their accession from) The Episcopal Church.
During the Civil War, the Dioceses within the Confederate States withdrew from The Episcopal Church without penalty. They were reunited when that terrible war ended. Perhaps there will be a reunion of presently seceding Dioceses at some point in our future, as well.
But just now, to threaten litigation, especially in the face of the unanimous exhortation from the Primates in Dar es Salaam (an exhortation you agreed to) to end such litigation, is deeply troubling.
I beg you to stand down.
This can only harm our relationships as fellow members of the Body of Christ and our witness to the outside world.
Warmest regards in our Lord,
The Right Rev. John W. Howe
Episcopal Bishop of Central Florida
1017 East Robinson St.
Orlando, FL 32801
Finally, someons stands up to the bully!
Do the rest of you whey faced bishops get it! You are being disgraced by a PB who places property before the Spirit, by a nominally collegiate HOB that is dominated by the nasty politics of a civil rights agenda projected onto the church,and by your own timidity in the face of the ‘corporate power’ of the national church institution.
Wake up!
If I’m Rowan Williams, I call ++Katharine (with Beers in tow) to London immediately and just lay it out: if you don’t cease with these lawsuits, you are gone from the AC and +Duncan is now whom I recognize as head of the Anglicans in the US.
What, other than his terminal dickering, is preventing him from doing that? Certainly the majority of Primates (who represent the vast majority of AC members) would support him.
Funny … If I’M Rowan Williams I call +Bob (and whoever he’d like to bring along) to London and just lay it out: what part of your ordination vows didn’t you mean?
Thank you, Bishop Howe. I hope KJS heeds your plea, but I’m not sanguine.
[blockquote]Funny … If I’M Rowan Williams I call +Bob (and whoever he’d like to bring along) to London and ust lay it out: what part of your ordination vows didn’t you mean? [/blockquote]
When the mission of TEC and the mission of Christ are in harmony, there’s no choice to be made, Susan. When the mission of TEC becomes the plaything of identity politics and heresy, a bishop has to make a choice between the two, no?
Rev. Susan Russell
While understanding your honestly held personal beliefs, had clergy like you not undertaken unauthorised SSU’s and SSB’s, Pittsburgh would not be in the position it is.
Respectfully do you see no irony in your comment “what part of your ordination vows didn’t you mean?”
Any verification of the authenticity of this letter. It really doesn’t sound to me like the way Bsp Howe usually writes.
Pagentmaster beat me to it.
I will be reciting Gloria’s in honor of Bishops Duncan and Howe.
[i] This elf emailed Bishop Howe and he affirmed the letter. [/i]
Elf Lady
I have to second # 6. Given the widespread disobedience of various canons of the Church in any number of areas, I find Rev.’d Russell’s statement remarkable.
Randall
To whom is a bishop to listen?
Bishop Howe receives a letter from the Archbishop of Canterbury reassuring him and his clergy not to worry about a hierarchical provincial relationship – in the Anglican tradition it’s all about the diocese and its bishop.
Bishop Duncan receives a letter emanating from his hierarchical provincial relationship, telling him that it is not at all about the diocese and its bishop – the diocese and diocesan must submit to the provincial hierarchy – the Constitution and Canons of The Episcopal Church and the General Convention of that Church.
Seems to me that the Diocese of Pittsburgh and its bishop are simply following the direction and interpretation of the Archbishop of Canterbury as to what it means to be Anglican.
“What part of your ordination vows didn’t you mean?”
I assume this means you are working on a presentment against +Spong and all bishops who have refused to reign in open communion.
Sorry, but there needs to be consistency here. I’m no fan of what is happening in Pitt, but doctrine comes before polity.
[i] Let’s keep this thread on topic, please. [/i]
Elf Lady
Liars, liars, pants on fire. Of course we see clearly now why they passed over the appeal to end lawsuits in New Orleans. 800,000 and falling. Can’t they see? These children of the sixties in the end will walk away leaving nothing but broken toys in the “playroom” and never come to realize why it happened.
During the Civil War, the Dioceses within the Confederate States withdrew from The Episcopal Church without penalty. They were reunited when that terrible war ended. Perhaps there will be a reunion of presently seceding Dioceses at some point in our future, as well.
A ridiculous analogy.
Look, a nice try to help your “friend” +Howe, but as you said
I part company with him in his decision to abandon the commitment we made when we formed the Network, to work “within the Constitution and Canons of The Episcopal Church.”
Her ‘threat’ was to use canonical measures, which is a thinly veiled admonishment that he will be deposed. Dar es Salaam did not prohibit this. Once he is deposed, she will appoint a new bishop and secure the necessary changes to Pittsburgh’s constitution. Mr. Duncan will continue to pretend to be a bishop and the world will move on.
Susan Russell, you are certainly entitled to your opinions……as we are to ours. And now I make reference to page 555 of the 1928 Book of Common Prayer, and in particular the following, whereby the Bishop asks the following question of the bishop-elect: “Are you ready, with all faithful diligence, to banish and drive away from the Church all erroneous and strange doctrine contrary to God’s Word; and both privately and openly to call upon and encourage others to the same?” Answer: “I am ready, the Lord being my helper.” Bishop: “Will you deny all ungodliness and worldly lusts, and live soberly, righteously, and godly in this present world; that you may show yourself in all things an example of good works unto others, that the adversary may be ashamed, having nothing to say against you?” Answer: “I will do so, the Lord being my helper.”
Some bishops need to be reminded of this…….especially those who have failed to do so……and that also applies to those who consecrate them.
[blockquote] Her ‘threat’ was to use canonical measures, which is a thinly veiled admonishment that he will be deposed. Dar es Salaam did not prohibit this. Once he is deposed, she will appoint a new bishop and secure the necessary changes to Pittsburgh’s constitution. Mr. Duncan will continue to pretend to be a bishop and the world will move on. [/blockquote]
But DeS did prohibit and/or mandate a number of measures, all of which have been ignored or repudiated in letter or spirit. TEC has stuck its thumb into the eye of the Communion yet again, to the huzzahs of the revisionist herd.
Let KJS appoint a new bishop to her heretic band. He will be without buildings, without priests, without parishoners. Justly so.
Brian from T19:
How can you be sure that a new bishop will be able to rescind the actions of this convention by the next one?
Thank you +Howe. However – do you think the PB gives a darn about your history lesson? These people who have hijacked the church have proven that history means NOTHING. Herstory is all that matters.
Brian from T19,
If its not too much to ask, can you support your subjective observation of +Howe’s reference to the civil war incident as a ridiculous analogy? Barbs are cheap and easy. Care to make your comments more substantive or should we take them for what they currently appear to be?
As for the Rev. Russell, may I ask you to flip over the coin you showed us and tell us about your ordination vows? Seems only fair wouldn’t you agree?
But DeS did prohibit and/or mandate a number of measures, all of which have been ignored or repudiated in letter or spirit. TEC has stuck its thumb into the eye of the Communion yet again, to the huzzahs of the revisionist herd.
I don’t disagree, but +Howe is using this as his argument that +Katharine should not threaten litigation. There is a difference between civil litigation and canonical disciplinary actions.
How can you be sure that a new bishop will be able to rescind the actions of this convention by the next one?
Sure, no. But the probability is largely in favor of this happening. Do we really believe those 227 delegates will remain under the newly appointed Bishop? Plus, the Bishop has several other options including blocking a vote because it is unconstitutional on its face. I think we would be naive to assume that a new bishop would not steamroll over the remnants of the Diocese.
If its not too much to ask, can you support your subjective observation of +Howe’s reference to the civil war incident as a ridiculous analogy? Barbs are cheap and easy. Care to make your comments more substantive or should we take them for what they currently appear to be?
The ‘secession’ by the Southern Dioceses was clearly in violation of the canons. Because of extant social circumstances, the HOB graciously decided to let the separatists return. +Howe argues that this is some sort of precedent, but the only precedent set in this social, non-theological situation was graciousness. And I think we can all agree that +Katharine will not be gracious.
+Howe correctly states that During the Civil War, the Dioceses within the Confederate States withdrew from The Episcopal Church without penalty. but he ignores the fact that that was a choice on the part of the North.
I wasn’t aware the PB had the power to appoint bishops… what is she, the new pope? That being said I predict the “new” Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh will be the smallest diocese in TEC…
[blockquote] I don’t disagree, but +Howe is using this as his argument that +Katharine should not threaten litigation. There is a difference between civil litigation and canonical disciplinary actions. [/blockquote]
How do you discipline someone who is no longer in your organization? +Duncan is saying, “You can’t fire me, I’ve quit.”
The ‘secession’ by the Southern Dioceses was clearly in violation of the canons. Because of extant social circumstances, the HOB graciously decided to let the separatists return. +Howe argues that this is some sort of precedent, but the only precedent set in this social, non-theological situation was graciousness. And I think we can all agree that +Katharine will not be gracious.
+Howe correctly states that During the Civil War, the Dioceses within the Confederate States withdrew from The Episcopal Church without penalty. but he ignores the fact that that was a choice on the part of the North.
Do we know this for an absolute certainty? Were arguments marshalled according to the canons and the theology of the Church regarding the secession and readmission of those dioceses?
Even if the Confederate dioceses were readmitted, with their own-chosen bishops in place and readmitted to the PECUSA’s House of Bishops, simply out of graciousness (as seems to have been the case to my only cursory and non-documentary knowledge of the matter) that does not go to the issue of secession and the canons. It just means that the thing wasn’t tested. That isn’t the same as saying that it was tested and the result ignored in favor of graciousness.
Unless, that is, you can produce documentary evidence to the contrary. Otherwise yours is an argument from silence, at least concerning this historical example of secession and readmission.
Once he is deposed, she will appoint a new bishop and secure the necessary changes to Pittsburgh’s constitution
It is passing strange to me that those who profess to be most concerned about a developing curialism within the wider Anglican Communion have not the least concern about a developing papalism in the office of the Presiding Bishop of The Episcopal Church.
#22 – “I predict the “new†Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh will be the smallest diocese in TEC… ”
It will have stiff competition for that title.
Todd,
Indeed you highlight the issue here. It IS NOT as clear as Brian would paint the picture and as he has raised it as a fact which is evident (which it is not), he bears the burden as you point out to substantiate his argument.
On a different note, it seems to me that +Howe’s “imploring” the PB not to proceed down the canonical threat route carries the undertone of one who knows that there are repercussions for such actions of which he is not at liberty to discuss. Instead, he gets as close as possible to the line without crossing it by imploring her not to provide the trigger for the next escalation or final schism. It is almost akin to a last diplomatic effort to avert a certain war if the dominant party persists in showing their brute force capabilities. Any thoughts?
If you are truly interested in delving into the differences of opinion on the position of the Southern Church, visit +Cheshire’s work on the subject from 1912:
http://anglicanhistory.org/usa/jbcheshire/confederate1912/07.html
Chapter 7 deals with the varied responses.
Brian, I find your earlier “pretend to be a bishop” comment very offensive. And I best leave it at that, except to say heretics and apostates (e.g. PB Schori and company) do not have it in their power to defrock an orthodox bishop. Athanasius, for one, never ceased to be a bishop in spite of the attacks of heretics.
As for Bishop Howe, I’ve been quite unhappy with him at times, too. But I must applaud this letter. Kudos to him.
I wrote recently here that Bishop Howe was more likely to send a love letter to Mrs. Schori than receive one of the type sent to Bishop Duncan. Clearly, I was wrong. I apologize to Bishop Howe and congratulate him for this letter.
Newbie
You’re correct. That should have “in the Anglican Communion” after it. I thought I had put that.
Mr. Duncan will continue to pretend to be a bishop and the world will move on.
I’d say it’s a toss-up as to who will be “pretending” to be a bishop. My money would be on the one who actually has parishes — with *people* in them — to work with. As opposed to the ghost parishes TEC sets up after depositions.
Brian, thanks for the clarification. I appreciate and accept that. If I overreacted, please accept my apology.
Brian,
Chesire is does not support your contention that the seperation was “clearly a violation of the canons”. In fact it doesn’t even support that the seperation was a violation period. Perhaps, I misread but if you think not, perhaps you can steer me to the appropriate passage.
+Howe’s focus and analogy is on the money as it pertains to the narrow issue of retribution of the north against the south as a result of the seperation.
Brian, how is this analogy ridiculous?
Hyacinth
Obviously you are determined to beat a dead horse.
I said:
+Howe argues that this is some sort of precedent, but the only precedent set in this social, non-theological situation was graciousness.
My reading of the history is that a large grouping considered the Southern Churches schismatic, which is abandonment of communion. But so that we don’t go around in circles, I’ll just say that you were right and I was wrong on this point.
Now here is why, as I stated above, +Howe is wrong and his analogy is ridiculous.
The eloquent Bishop of Virginia put the case as to the charge of schism most admirably to his Council of September 20, 1865:
“The separation of the Southern Dioceses from the organization with which they were happily connected, was occasioned not by any disagreement in doctrine or discipline, or manner of worship, but by political changes, which rendered the continuance of that connection impracticable. The preservation of the order and purity of the Church, in this section of the country, called for a separate organization, which was accordingly effected with a careful avoidance of any alteration which could impair that unity of spirit which our holy religion enjoins. ‘The exigency of the necessity’ furnished the divine commission under which this association was formed, and constitutes a divine sanction for its continuance, unless good and sufficient reasons to the contrary are manifest. The mere cessation of the causes in which it originated does not, as a matter of course, dissolve it, and restore the relations which previously existed… .Under these circumstances, it could not, on any principle of reason or revelation, be regarded as justly liable to the imputation of schism, which is ‘a causeless separation from the external communion of any church.’ Our organization was no breach of communion, and for the external separation which it formed there was obvious and ample cause.”
Brian,
Thank you for the link – as a North Carolinian, I should have recalled Bishop Chesire’s history.
I would agree with you if you go only so far as to say that Bishop Howe’s citation of the departure and readmission of the Southern dioceses of the PECUSA (the dioceses of the PECCSA) as analogy to the current situation is not apt. Ridiculous? I frankly don’t understand the need for the inflammatory – and, considering your remark to hyacinth about beating a dead horse, derogatory – language.
The issue of the secession and readmission of the Southern dioceses is actually far more complicated that you’re wanting to construe, bound up as it was in the secular politics of the time. The interesting thing is that my point is actually made by Bishop Cheshire’s history: the canons were not tested. Because of the irenic outcome, largely due to Presiding Bishop Hopkins’ attitude toward the Southerners, we simply don’t know. Would the PECUSA have attempted to erect parallel dioceses in those states in which a (Southern) Episcopal Church (no longer any CSA to be the PEC in) continued its separate existence? Would the PECUSA have attempted to depose the bishops of that Protestant Episcopal Church, South, and to have overturned the actions of their diocesan conventions that created the separation when a secessionist political entity (the CSA) existed?
We don’t know. I think that you are probably correct to say that Howe’s analogy doesn’t obtain. But you are far off the mark if you mean – as some of your comments seem to tend – to construe the history as an example of to those who would depose +Pittsburgh and reconstruct the diocese of executive fiat.
As to using this history to lay charges of schism, I would suggest that those in favor of the late actions of the General Convention of The Episcopal Church take great care. When those actions have in fact created a “breach in that unity of faith and fellowship”, within the Anglican Communion (an empirical observation, not a moral argument), you skate on very thin ice with a blowtorch in hand in charging Pittsburgh and their bishop alone with schism.
[blockquote]#21 – Do we really believe those 227 delegates will remain under the newly appointed Bishop? Plus, the Bishop has several other options including blocking a vote because it is unconstitutional on its face. I think we would be naive to assume that a new bishop would not steamroll over the remnants of the Diocese. [/blockquote]
While I understand what’s being said here, as someone born and raised in Philly (and, after 30+ years, finally accepted as an “adopted native Pittsburgher”) I have found it unwise to underestimate the people of Pittsburgh. Learn the history of the place, the number of times robber barons have attempted to take control of it, the number of people who have risked (and sometimes sacrificed) their lives over the years to stand against corrupt authority. The TEC has no clue who they’re dealing with.
Besides, taking over Pittsburgh’s properties would be a clear case of stealing from the poor and giving to the rich… and oh man will that play well in the press.
[blockquote]#27 – he gets as close as possible to the line without crossing it by imploring her not to provide the trigger for the next escalation or final schism. It is almost akin to a last diplomatic effort to avert a certain war if the dominant party persists in showing their brute force capabilities. Any thoughts? [/blockquote]
I tend to agree, though I can’t quite put a finger on why. Anyone else?
[url=http://www.getstarted.wordpress.com/]Peg[/url]
[blockquote]Pageantmaster: “While understanding your honestly held personal beliefs, had clergy like you not undertaken unauthorised SSU’s and SSB’s, Pittsburgh would not be in the position it is.
Respectfully do you see no irony in your comment “what part of your ordination vows didn’t you mean?— [/blockquote]
Please find in our ordination vows that place where we are forbidden to bless just about anything we’d pastorally choose to bless! And that [i]includes[/i] people and their relationships! If one’s bishop specifically prohibits it, of course I have vowed obedience to him/her. But if not…?
Red herring, Pageantmaster. Red herring.
The blessing of SSUs by Susan+, me, or many many others is no more a rationale for Pittsburgh to be “in the position it is” than the blessing of animals in honor of St. Francis. Pittsburgh is “in the position it is,” IMHO, because of an idolatrous hermeneutic, power, and gender. And I’m not sure they’re in that order.
I have spoken ill of some of the actions of Bishop Howe and even infered character flaws. It appears that I may, in part, be wrong. I am always glad, in such cases, to find out that I am wrong. I hope that Bishop Howe proves me wrong – few things could bring me greater joy.
Brian,
I didn’t realize the horse was dead. God forbid its dead on my account! I was only being persistent on the issue in so much as you made an observation which merited backup. Perhaps we shouldn’t look on this as a bad engagement as I think it is more fruitful to engage as you did, following up with facts. While I don’t agree with you analysis of the facts you present (Todd makes the point more lucidly) I respect you for having supported your position and engaging in dialogue.
Thanks for the reference. I’ve bookmarked the website.
[blobkquote] The blessing of SSUs by Susan+, me, or many many others [/blockquote]
The issue is not ordination vows.The issue from the orthodox side is when do we bless sin and call it righteousness?
I didn’t bring up ordination vows. Susan Russell+ rightly did (questioning +Duncan’s), but Pageantmaster and hyacinth turned it around.
The blessing of [i]people[/i], garyec, is what we are talking about. Real people. Their faithful, already-blessed-by-God relationships. We’re not blessing a sin and calling it righteousness.
You may believe that what we “do” (which in many cases is blown ‘waaaay out of proportion to reality) (and which in many other cases — cases I have witnessed here and on other conservative blogs — is reduced to the filth of the commenter’s own little mind) is sin. I do not. And therefore there is no earthly (nor spiritual nor ecclesial) reason for withholding the blessing.
But…I fear we have once again gotten off-thread, and for this I apologize.
[i] Padre Wayne is correct about straying off topic. Let’s get back to it. [/i]
-Elf Lady
#3 Susan Russell,
I don’t understand your response. Shouldn’t you be yawning?
44 comments and we talk of cannons and + Cheshire and yadda, yadda, yadda but not one reference to the Bible, the one and only book that makes clear sense of what we have ahead of us. Thank you +Duncan for reading and comprehending the Word of the Lord!
Re ##24 & 36: While I understand where Bp. Howe is coming from, the history of the southern dioceses that briefly formed a separate national church actually undercuts his argument.
In 1860-61, when the secular secession occurred, Anglicans universally believed that there should be a one-to-one correspondence between the boundaries of each nation-state and the boundaries of its national church… a principle enshrined in the original Articles of Religion and in the early Anglican Fathers. That is why the Church of England and Church of England have always been separate (and independent, except during the reign of Charles I), and why the Church of Ireland was separate until Ireland joined the United Kingdom in 1801 (whereupon there was a United Church of England and Ireland until Irish disestablishment in the 1870s).
It is also why Anglicans in both England and America recognized that the United States after independence was no longer under the authority of the Church of England. Any American who wanted to remain in the Church of England had to move to England or Canada; remaining within both the secular jurisdiction of the US and the ecclesiastical jurisdiction of the Bishop of London was simply not considered possible. It is not an accident that the first Lambeth Conference was held the same year that Canada became a separate Dominion; the relationship between the Mother Church and its daughters needed to be addressed. The “hot-button” issue that year (1867) was whether the Diocese of Natal—with Bishop Colenso—was independent or under the authority of the new South African province; there was no question of it being under English jurisdiction.
So, there was no doubt in 1860-61 either north or south of the Mason-Dixon line that if a state remained within the United States, its Episcopal churches must remain within the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States. That is why Episcopalians, unlike the Methodists, Presbyterians, and Baptists, did not divide into separate regional denominations during the 1850s. On the other hand, every Anglican also agreed that if a state became part of the CSA, its churches must become part of the PECCSA. Episcopalians in the South, who regarded the secession of their states as effective, organized a national church for the new nation as a matter of course; remaining within PECUSA was never considered possible.
Episcopalians in the North, who regarded the purported secessions as void, considered that the southern states were still in the USA, so the southern dioceses must still be part of PECUSA. The roll call in both the House of Bishops and House of Deputies on each day of the 1862 PECUSA General Convention included each of the southern dioceses, who were simply recorded as “absent.” The roll call in 1865 also included all the southern dioceses, three of which actually attended and were seated with applause but no special action to “rejoin” PECUSA. Since the North won the war, that meant that the CSA never legally existed, so the southern dioceses had never legally left their proper national church, PECUSA.
The southern dioceses were not subjected to any penalty for leaving PECUSA, not because the national church was being magnanimous (and certainly not because they thought a diocese had the right to leave and return), but because there was nothing to punish. The southern dioceses had never left.
So, the position of both the PECUSA and the PECCSA in 1860-65 was precisely the opposite of Bp Howe’s claim that dioceses can voluntarily leave their national church. Neither northerners nor southerners believed that to be consistent with Anglican principles; both factions believed that all the Anglicans within a single nation must belong to a single church.
Obviously, there have been substantial developments since 1865 and Anglicans are no longer particularly attached to the notion that every nation should have its own autonomous church. Indeed, many contemporary provinces are multinational, while North and South India are divided. The proposed Anglican Covenant completely rejects the notion of national autonomy. It may be that today’s Anglicans will wish to reject their historic ecclesiology and adopt the notion that each diocese can voluntarily join and leave a province at diocesan sole discretion. However, it is historically inaccurate to try and project that new ecclesiology back into the 1860s, when everyone agreed on the obligation to belong to a single national church.
Katherine Jefferts-Schori is a open book. John Howe is a mystery wrapped in an enigma. Although, I have long said that transparency is proper quality in a Christian leader.
OOps, in the second paragraph “… Church of England and Church of SCOTLAND have always been separate…”
Dale,
Perhaps I am reading +Howe wrong, however, I don’t think he was using the civil war events as related to the Episcopal Church to support his claim that dioceses can secede voluntarily. Note that he seperates the two concepts by placing those thoughts in seperate paragraphs. I believe his reference to the civil war events more closely relates to the point that similar to the healing which occurred after the civil war, he hopes we too can see a reuniting of the dioceses which are breaking away with TEC in the future. I believe that he is essentially begging the PB not to react in a way which will precipate WWWIII within the AC.
It seems to me that perhaps +Howe would prefer that the technical grounds (rather than doctrinal or biblical ones) for the eventual schism will be effected by those that are leaving TEC. I see him as a conservative but not supportive of reformation by schism. I think that while he is not in theological agreement with the PB, he respects her office and will defend it even against +Duncan. It is not that he doesn’t support biblical orthodoxy, rather, he supports “legitimate” means of reformation relative to this narrow issue of ecclesiatical authority. I see a bishop who knows that the PB’s knee jerk reaction to +Duncan can trigger the detonation and he sees it as his job to implore her not to do so rather, let +Duncan detonate this schism if he so choses.
Seems to me if this was the late 1700s, +Howe would be an orthodox Loyalist! His orthodoxy is unquestionable. His reasoning, while not in line with +Duncan and ACN is to be respected. He will pay a heavy price for his stance. I respect him for his integrity and willingness to take the heat. Furthermore, I commend him for his position towards orthodox parishes in C.Fl. which seek to depart. Your thoughts are encouraged.
I believe that +Bob took a vow to the faith once delievered and to the PECUSA – if they become incompatible and they are the one to the Faith Once Delivered should be primus.