Please observe caution in the comments on this thread and restrict them to the specifics and arguments involved. Personal comments are not necessary and nearly always unhelpful, especially in a context like this.
It seems to me that Philip Turner has made a good point. Although rescheduling diocesan arrangements – even those which are long standing – causes difficulties, it may have been worth it in this particular case.
This may turn out to be Pope Benedict XVI’s one and only visit to the USA.
I made a simliar point [url=http://www.fulcrum-anglican.org.uk/page.cfm?ID=301] here. [/url]
Canon Nestler’s explanation provides a great deal of helpful insight. I can certainly understand the bind Bishop Jefferts Schori was in, and I don’t think she necessarily made the wrong decision. However, I wonder whether her own media relations apparatus–whatever it may be–did not serve her well on this. A letter of regret from the Presiding Bishop to the Office of the Papal Visit, explaining the nature of her commitment in Utah and expressing an appreciation for the symbolic importance of the ecumenical prayer service, with the text publicly released at an appropriate time, would have shielded her from the reasonable inference that she simply didn’t care enough.
Don’t we all agree with Fr. Martins? Such a explanatory letter is a minimum civility that could be paid with no trouble to Schori. For my part, I don’t understand why this modest civility was not paid, so obvious is it, and for that reason, I continue to wonder what Schori’s motives are. Larry
“The Pope’s actual destination and detailed schedule are released only one month prior to the visit”
I’ll bet the Eastern Orthodox bishops, Governor Corzine, and a great many others had events already scheduled when they learned of the papal events. In fact, I’ll bet that the Vatican—in scheduling the visit—cleared the dates only with the likes of the White House and the cardinal-archbishops of Washington and New York.
There are good reasons why senior leaders (perhaps even KJS) have “schedulers”: they need to be able to adjust their schedules as events change and new demands and opportunities arise. Schedule a meeting a month in advance with a cabinet secretary, senator, or anyone in the White House—and you’ll get a reminder of how they recognize scheduling flexibility as a fact of life.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
“Of course, if she HAD cancelled the commitment with the Diocese of Utah to meet with the pope, they would be complaining that she was neglecting her responsibilities as presiding bishop and insulting the diocese” —Sherrod
Nonsense. She would not have had to cancel her visit, only to adjust the timing. As Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote, “even a dog knows the difference between being stumbled over and being kicked.” Even KJS’s orthodox critics know the difference between a schedule adjustment and the full MacBurney treatment.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
” I look forward to hearing…that the Presiding Bishop will be received at the Vatican, which will be a much more powerful visit and statement than her being one of many religious leaders to encounter him in New York” —Sherrod
Perhaps here Sherrod gets closer to the truth. Now that would be an event worthy of KJS and her clientele: a visit showcasing (and in effect paying homage to) her.
Bottom line was that she didn’t think meeting the pope was important, and she did think it worthwhile that others know she didn’t view it as important. Philip Turner’s point that she does not understand her office and its symbolism is precisely correct–and defenses such as those offered at this link just underscore his (overly generous) assertion that she just doesn’t get it.
Is it appropriate to point out the question of scale and perspective, or the lack of it? The average Sunday attendance in the Diocese of Utah constitutes 0.002 (that’s less than 1%) of the ASA in TEC, and is roughly equivalent to that of my parish. The PB chose to be inflexible in her scheduling on behalf of that minuscule group rather than represent the 1.8 million TEC folk over whom she presides in a service with the leader of the world’s largest group of Christians. And that point is lost on Canon Sherrod. Fascinating.
As they say, the Presiding Bishop was between and rock and a hard place. It seems to me, though, that between an invitation accepted to meet with the Governor of Utah, then a subsequent invitation to meet the President of the United States, the invitation to meet the President would take precedence.
Meeting the Pope who is the titular head of one of the world’s largest religions, to me, should or could be of much more benefit to the TEC than meeting with a group within the TEC. Also, since she is a woman, she might have shown the Pope who is adamantly against WO, any possible benefits of WO. At least she could have tried, though I am sure unsuccessfully. But the point should perhaps have been made.
This is ridiculous. She is the PB of The Episcopal Church and her duties are to this Church, first. It seems she had the opportunity to have more of an impact on the people of Utah (as described by the priest from Utah) than whether the Pope or Vatican officials missed her presence.
Because I live and minister in NYC, I may have a different perspective. Most people in NYC could care less (Episcopalians specifically and certainly the citizens in general) that the PB was not at that particular event in the Yorkville neighborhood of Manhattan. The Pope, the Archbishop of the Diocese of New York, the Vatican, and Roman Catholics generally were not offended that she was not there. They understand scheduling conflicts.
I was on 5th Ave. and on Madison Ave. (in the midst of the chaos caused because of all the street closings and security measures) with a friend of mine who happened to be an American-Evangelical. We had coffee on Madison Ave. watching it all before heading off to a regular Friday night Bible study. As he put it, “This is all a bunch of idolatry,” referring to the “rock-star worship” of the Pope and all the attention he was getting. He would salute the PB for doing her duties rather than groveling (his opinion) at the feet of the Pope. Its all a mater of perspective, I guess.
Rock stars don’t clearly proclaim the Gospel of Jesus Christ, nor do they appeal for the unity of the Church. Benedict has been doing this for many years. The presiding bishop of the episcopal church is the chief ecumenist. The reality is that she cares nothing for the Gospel nor the unity of the Church.
I have had the occasion to hear her speak twice in the past three weeks. Her message is one of environmental humanism. She described holy scripture as a primary source for understanding our faith. When confronted with questions regarding the primacy of scripture, the unique salvific character of Jesus Christ, her consistent use of litigation in dealing with those who disagree with her (and TEC’s) direction and any other serious issue she ducks, dodges and speaks in condescending tones.
She is not interested in building the Body of Christ. Meeting with the Pope would have required humility and an openness to those who may not approve of her, in which she is simply not willing to engage.
I for one have criticized the BP for the things that have come out of her mouth as well as her far-from Christian antics with Beer. However, from what the article says, the PB was definitely in a “damn if you do, damn if you don’t” situation. I’m going to be charitable here; the PB gets the benefit of the doubt on this one.
Was she asked to meet with the Bishop of Rome in a small group or as part of the elite in a public spectacle? Absence from the first would be harder to justify than skipping a ceremony with no specific role for her.
I would like to think that she did it to show that a chihuahua may still bark at a rottweiler, or a german shepherd. I fear, though, that it happened because Bishop Schori’s blind spots are further darkened by a lot of bad advice.
The [url=http://www.anglican-mainstream.net/index.php/2008/05/02/bishop-predicts-gay-union-blessings-‘in-our-lifetimes’/ ]Dallas gay newspaper[/url] asked KJS why she came to a predominantly gay Dallas parish to bless a garden. Her response: “Well, somebody asked, and that’s really all it takes — that and the consent of your bishop here in Dallas.â€
Well if you are predominantly gay church, she might come for the asking, but if you are the leader of the largest Christian church…
How does one respond to Katie Sherrod without personal comments, since her writing links – inextricably – her person and her ideas? When she writes that “mostly men” are complaining about the PB not meeting the pope… well… ok… I won’t go any further down that road, except to note that the proper response to incivility (which aptly described much of Ms. Sherrod’s writing over time) is not incivility, but neither must it be … what’s the opposite of “sharp”? Which is to say: evil demands a strong response that may not look at all “nice”.
As to the PB skipping out on the pope, that one’s been worked over enough, perhaps, but it’s worth repeating, following along with Oldman, that she had a chance to be introduced to the pope as a bishop . That would have made a powerful pro-women’s ordination statement. And, for whatever reason, she chose to not make it.
I think that she should have adjusted the timing of her visit to Utah to greet the Pope. In therms of the American Evangelical who was concerned about the “idol worship” surrounding the Pope’s visit, as I have mentioned elsewhere, I remember having had the same feelings as I attended a Billy Graham crusade. Not idol worship per se but a tremendous sense of gratitude for being in the presence of such a great servant of God.
I have a strong memory of Katie Sherrod Pool’s confirmation (or maybe it was a reception from Rome…I guess the memory isn’t that strong after twenty plus years) into the Episcopal Church. It was in the heat of controversy in the Diocese of Fort Worth, and I was there as Bishop Pope’s chaplain. Katie actually entered the Episcopal Church at the hands of Bishop Pope(!); for those with long memories, that is something worth pondering in itself. But, apart from that, I notice today that Katie doesn’t write about Dr Turner’s other points in his ACI essay. Whatever may or may not have been the “right” thing to do about Utah vs. the Pope, I would be more interested in reading Katie’s apologia for the Easter Cows version of the Gospel. Dr. Turner’s observation that her apparent lack of clear understanding and/or proclamation of the central message of the Christian Gospel is the most serious of his three points goes unanswered by Mrs. Pool.
Some background information:
The flyer for the conference that the PB actually was at is here: http://www.episcopal-ut.org/pdf/SpringWeekend08_bw.pdf
It would appear that the conference actually was very heavily dependent upon KJS being there (though I wonder what the contingency plan was if she had been hit by a bus!!!).
The content of the (predictable) homily is available here: http://www.episcopalchurch.org/81803_96572_ENG_HTM.htm
It is good to find that the St Marks Cathedral was crowded, and that the PB used her time efficiently by by recycling an old address only slightly modified for the occasion. Her time instead was used to meet with many groups notably “diocesan youth, clergy, seminarians, the local media, and religious and civic leaders, including the Latter Day Saints Church First Presidency, and with Utah Governor Jon Huntsman, Jr.”
Also to be weighed in the balance is the fact that she gets a long term advertising benefit by having an apartment in the 27 bed retreat centre named after her.
I have criticized Jefferts Schori’s absence from the ecumenical prayer service, and I am a woman, for the record. The background information does help. However, there are red-eye flights from New York to the West which might have made a modification to the schedule possible, if wanted. As pointed out, her presence there [i]as a bishop[/i] would have made a statement for a cause she holds dear. Odd all around.
Having thought about this a while – I have to say that I cannot condone Schori in this instant. Basically the argument is that because she wasn’t afforded a personal one on one moment then she had no duty to go- excuse me? Where is the humility there?
She should have sat in the crowded pews however uncomfortable if only to greet his holiness on his rare trip to the USA.
It would seem only a photo opportunity is good enough reading this article and that is frankly stupid. were I in the role I would have sat at the back of the biggest venue in mufti just to pay my respects and honour his holiness….scheduling conflict or none
rugbyplayingpirest – I’m sorry, but I missed something. When was the argument put forward that she didn’t go because she didn’t receive an invitation to a private meetings?
Do we even remember why the Church of England, and thus all Anglicanism, begun? Didn’t it have to do with something like the rejection of papal authority in the king’s realm? I wonder if the ELCA blogs are all atwitter about the fact that their PB didn’t attend the ecumenical prayer service, either? Considering they are twice our size, I suspect it should be doubly offensive, no?
What is the sudden fawning over the Pope by people who probably are much more to the Evangelical side of Anglicanism – if not Protestant-Evangelical? By the way things sound, he is OUR pope (and, yes, I realize that because the pope holds some of the same theological positions that will agree with many people on this blog that some will say they wish he were our PB rather than KJS). So, why not just pope?
This whole issue reminds me of Hillary’s campaign staff who will find any little and basically irrelevant thing to nit-pick Obama. “He said Carolina BBQ is sweet and tangy – see how out of touch he is with the common folk. Proof that he is unfit to be president.” Something like that!
Them darn Catholics understand scheduling conflicts and are not offended, why are most of you? Unless, of course, it has nothing to do with attendance an ecumenical prayer service with the Pope and everything to do with nit-picking the PB.
#18: Thanks for raising this issue. To me, Mr. Turner’s indictment of Katherine’s “theology”…the unfortunate grab-bag of Spongian anti-Creed and Post-Post Modern gnostic panentheism…is the stronger point of his missive. But: honestly, Katherine has already passed both Spong and Griswold in irrelevancy…outside her legal briefs against orthodox bishops and dioceses, that is.
#23 the article says:
[i]There was no “MEETING.” No exchange of ideas and common concerns. Nothing more than “Welcome, Your Holiness, good to see you, glad to have you here, have a good time, try the cheesecake while you’re here, it’s fabulous.” He was in, he was out, that was it[/i]
to which I deduce that simply ‘greeting the pope’ was not enough to merit a visit but a meeting mat have been.
As to your second point i would hope that all protestant Christians were wise and humble enough to aknowledge the successor of S. Peter and the leader of the largest church on earht- not to mention the clearest and most inspiring preacher of this generation. To dismiss his role and authority within 21st Century Christendom is hubris beyond my comprehension.
finally this is not mere nit picking- it is the voice of those who are VERY concerned that the person elected to lead ECUSA is not only unfit for office but not even seemingly Christian by the most basic understanding. Her dismisall of the pope may seem small on the surface but i worry it gives insight into the arrogance in her soul- which is typical of all who have taught heresy and led people away from the truth of the Gospel.
Sorry if that hurts brother but lets not dilute just what a HUGE mess the church is in at present and just how much of the damage has been self inflicted by the liberalism spawned since the sixties. If they are allowed to conitnue thier destructive path I shall have no option other than to pope. Thank God in the C of E there is (albeit only just) still a glimmer of hope. Indeed ECUSA is a powerful advertisment of where we could end up.
RE: “What is the sudden fawning over the Pope by people who probably are much more to the Evangelical side of Anglicanism – if not Protestant-Evangelical?”
Well, from my stance as a Protestant and Episcopalian who disagrees with Roman Catholicism on a variety of doctrines, I have far far far far more in common with Pope Benedict than with . . . er . . . the Woman Who Would Be Pope.
That’s a pretty amazing realization. I suspect it’s true for many others Reformed Anglicans as well out there.
Naturally, progressives wouldn’t want to hang out with the Pope, but certainly conservative Episcopalians appreciate his stance for the gospel.
# 21 Katherine, I don’t find it to be odd at all. I am quite certain that Benedict’s staff told Dr. Schori’s schedulers quietly that no re-arranging need be done and that His Holiness STRONGLY suggested she keep her promises to Utah. Got everyone out of the situation with the least amount of fuss and embarrassment. The strong condemnation of Kathy is ridiculous in this instance.
I, too, wonder, however, if Sherrod is ever going to bother to take on Turner’s other points.
There was no meeting.
There was no meeting.
There was no meeting.
There. Was. No. Meeting. Zero. Nada. Zilch. Where. She. Could. Talk. To. The Pope. And Clarify. TEC Actions…… She. Would. Have. To. Sit. And. Listen. To. The. Pope.
Does everyone understand that there was no meeting?
#30 that would presume she believed in scripture and there is scant evidence for that. I am afraid her main creed seems to be the UN humanitarian goals and her main sermon peaceful living within a sound environmental policy. I would imgaine the 39 articles matter little to her- after all the formularies and canons of her own day seem to hold little appeall. Cheap I know- but each time I read of her actions and words I grwo more disheartened. Time for the faithful to spit her out on grounds of being luke warm I fear.
Please observe caution in the comments on this thread and restrict them to the specifics and arguments involved. Personal comments are not necessary and nearly always unhelpful, especially in a context like this.
It seems to me that Philip Turner has made a good point. Although rescheduling diocesan arrangements – even those which are long standing – causes difficulties, it may have been worth it in this particular case.
This may turn out to be Pope Benedict XVI’s one and only visit to the USA.
I made a simliar point [url=http://www.fulcrum-anglican.org.uk/page.cfm?ID=301] here. [/url]
Canon Nestler’s explanation provides a great deal of helpful insight. I can certainly understand the bind Bishop Jefferts Schori was in, and I don’t think she necessarily made the wrong decision. However, I wonder whether her own media relations apparatus–whatever it may be–did not serve her well on this. A letter of regret from the Presiding Bishop to the Office of the Papal Visit, explaining the nature of her commitment in Utah and expressing an appreciation for the symbolic importance of the ecumenical prayer service, with the text publicly released at an appropriate time, would have shielded her from the reasonable inference that she simply didn’t care enough.
Don’t we all agree with Fr. Martins? Such a explanatory letter is a minimum civility that could be paid with no trouble to Schori. For my part, I don’t understand why this modest civility was not paid, so obvious is it, and for that reason, I continue to wonder what Schori’s motives are. Larry
“The Pope’s actual destination and detailed schedule are released only one month prior to the visit”
I’ll bet the Eastern Orthodox bishops, Governor Corzine, and a great many others had events already scheduled when they learned of the papal events. In fact, I’ll bet that the Vatican—in scheduling the visit—cleared the dates only with the likes of the White House and the cardinal-archbishops of Washington and New York.
There are good reasons why senior leaders (perhaps even KJS) have “schedulers”: they need to be able to adjust their schedules as events change and new demands and opportunities arise. Schedule a meeting a month in advance with a cabinet secretary, senator, or anyone in the White House—and you’ll get a reminder of how they recognize scheduling flexibility as a fact of life.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
“Of course, if she HAD cancelled the commitment with the Diocese of Utah to meet with the pope, they would be complaining that she was neglecting her responsibilities as presiding bishop and insulting the diocese” —Sherrod
Nonsense. She would not have had to cancel her visit, only to adjust the timing. As Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote, “even a dog knows the difference between being stumbled over and being kicked.” Even KJS’s orthodox critics know the difference between a schedule adjustment and the full MacBurney treatment.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
” I look forward to hearing…that the Presiding Bishop will be received at the Vatican, which will be a much more powerful visit and statement than her being one of many religious leaders to encounter him in New York” —Sherrod
Perhaps here Sherrod gets closer to the truth. Now that would be an event worthy of KJS and her clientele: a visit showcasing (and in effect paying homage to) her.
Bottom line was that she didn’t think meeting the pope was important, and she did think it worthwhile that others know she didn’t view it as important. Philip Turner’s point that she does not understand her office and its symbolism is precisely correct–and defenses such as those offered at this link just underscore his (overly generous) assertion that she just doesn’t get it.
[i] Substantially edited by elf. [/i]
Is it appropriate to point out the question of scale and perspective, or the lack of it? The average Sunday attendance in the Diocese of Utah constitutes 0.002 (that’s less than 1%) of the ASA in TEC, and is roughly equivalent to that of my parish. The PB chose to be inflexible in her scheduling on behalf of that minuscule group rather than represent the 1.8 million TEC folk over whom she presides in a service with the leader of the world’s largest group of Christians. And that point is lost on Canon Sherrod. Fascinating.
As they say, the Presiding Bishop was between and rock and a hard place. It seems to me, though, that between an invitation accepted to meet with the Governor of Utah, then a subsequent invitation to meet the President of the United States, the invitation to meet the President would take precedence.
Meeting the Pope who is the titular head of one of the world’s largest religions, to me, should or could be of much more benefit to the TEC than meeting with a group within the TEC. Also, since she is a woman, she might have shown the Pope who is adamantly against WO, any possible benefits of WO. At least she could have tried, though I am sure unsuccessfully. But the point should perhaps have been made.
This is ridiculous. She is the PB of The Episcopal Church and her duties are to this Church, first. It seems she had the opportunity to have more of an impact on the people of Utah (as described by the priest from Utah) than whether the Pope or Vatican officials missed her presence.
Because I live and minister in NYC, I may have a different perspective. Most people in NYC could care less (Episcopalians specifically and certainly the citizens in general) that the PB was not at that particular event in the Yorkville neighborhood of Manhattan. The Pope, the Archbishop of the Diocese of New York, the Vatican, and Roman Catholics generally were not offended that she was not there. They understand scheduling conflicts.
I was on 5th Ave. and on Madison Ave. (in the midst of the chaos caused because of all the street closings and security measures) with a friend of mine who happened to be an American-Evangelical. We had coffee on Madison Ave. watching it all before heading off to a regular Friday night Bible study. As he put it, “This is all a bunch of idolatry,” referring to the “rock-star worship” of the Pope and all the attention he was getting. He would salute the PB for doing her duties rather than groveling (his opinion) at the feet of the Pope. Its all a mater of perspective, I guess.
This is just sour-grapes. Stop it and grow up.
Rock stars don’t clearly proclaim the Gospel of Jesus Christ, nor do they appeal for the unity of the Church. Benedict has been doing this for many years. The presiding bishop of the episcopal church is the chief ecumenist. The reality is that she cares nothing for the Gospel nor the unity of the Church.
I have had the occasion to hear her speak twice in the past three weeks. Her message is one of environmental humanism. She described holy scripture as a primary source for understanding our faith. When confronted with questions regarding the primacy of scripture, the unique salvific character of Jesus Christ, her consistent use of litigation in dealing with those who disagree with her (and TEC’s) direction and any other serious issue she ducks, dodges and speaks in condescending tones.
She is not interested in building the Body of Christ. Meeting with the Pope would have required humility and an openness to those who may not approve of her, in which she is simply not willing to engage.
I for one have criticized the BP for the things that have come out of her mouth as well as her far-from Christian antics with Beer. However, from what the article says, the PB was definitely in a “damn if you do, damn if you don’t” situation. I’m going to be charitable here; the PB gets the benefit of the doubt on this one.
H
Was she asked to meet with the Bishop of Rome in a small group or as part of the elite in a public spectacle? Absence from the first would be harder to justify than skipping a ceremony with no specific role for her.
I would like to think that she did it to show that a chihuahua may still bark at a rottweiler, or a german shepherd. I fear, though, that it happened because Bishop Schori’s blind spots are further darkened by a lot of bad advice.
The [url=http://www.anglican-mainstream.net/index.php/2008/05/02/bishop-predicts-gay-union-blessings-‘in-our-lifetimes’/ ]Dallas gay newspaper[/url] asked KJS why she came to a predominantly gay Dallas parish to bless a garden. Her response: “Well, somebody asked, and that’s really all it takes — that and the consent of your bishop here in Dallas.â€
Well if you are predominantly gay church, she might come for the asking, but if you are the leader of the largest Christian church…
How does one respond to Katie Sherrod without personal comments, since her writing links – inextricably – her person and her ideas? When she writes that “mostly men” are complaining about the PB not meeting the pope… well… ok… I won’t go any further down that road, except to note that the proper response to incivility (which aptly described much of Ms. Sherrod’s writing over time) is not incivility, but neither must it be … what’s the opposite of “sharp”? Which is to say: evil demands a strong response that may not look at all “nice”.
As to the PB skipping out on the pope, that one’s been worked over enough, perhaps, but it’s worth repeating, following along with Oldman, that she had a chance to be introduced to the pope as a bishop . That would have made a powerful pro-women’s ordination statement. And, for whatever reason, she chose to not make it.
Like everything else in TEC: NO BIG DEAL!
I wonder what engagements she wouldn’t cancel if invited to meet with the Dalai Lama?
I think that she should have adjusted the timing of her visit to Utah to greet the Pope. In therms of the American Evangelical who was concerned about the “idol worship” surrounding the Pope’s visit, as I have mentioned elsewhere, I remember having had the same feelings as I attended a Billy Graham crusade. Not idol worship per se but a tremendous sense of gratitude for being in the presence of such a great servant of God.
I have a strong memory of Katie Sherrod Pool’s confirmation (or maybe it was a reception from Rome…I guess the memory isn’t that strong after twenty plus years) into the Episcopal Church. It was in the heat of controversy in the Diocese of Fort Worth, and I was there as Bishop Pope’s chaplain. Katie actually entered the Episcopal Church at the hands of Bishop Pope(!); for those with long memories, that is something worth pondering in itself. But, apart from that, I notice today that Katie doesn’t write about Dr Turner’s other points in his ACI essay. Whatever may or may not have been the “right” thing to do about Utah vs. the Pope, I would be more interested in reading Katie’s apologia for the Easter Cows version of the Gospel. Dr. Turner’s observation that her apparent lack of clear understanding and/or proclamation of the central message of the Christian Gospel is the most serious of his three points goes unanswered by Mrs. Pool.
Some background information:
The flyer for the conference that the PB actually was at is here:
http://www.episcopal-ut.org/pdf/SpringWeekend08_bw.pdf
It would appear that the conference actually was very heavily dependent upon KJS being there (though I wonder what the contingency plan was if she had been hit by a bus!!!).
The content of the (predictable) homily is available here:
http://www.episcopalchurch.org/81803_96572_ENG_HTM.htm
It is good to find that the St Marks Cathedral was crowded, and that the PB used her time efficiently by by recycling an old address only slightly modified for the occasion. Her time instead was used to meet with many groups notably “diocesan youth, clergy, seminarians, the local media, and religious and civic leaders, including the Latter Day Saints Church First Presidency, and with Utah Governor Jon Huntsman, Jr.”
Also to be weighed in the balance is the fact that she gets a long term advertising benefit by having an apartment in the 27 bed retreat centre named after her.
Brien –
Katie Sherrod was a Catholic, thus would have been received into the Episcopal Church.
I have criticized Jefferts Schori’s absence from the ecumenical prayer service, and I am a woman, for the record. The background information does help. However, there are red-eye flights from New York to the West which might have made a modification to the schedule possible, if wanted. As pointed out, her presence there [i]as a bishop[/i] would have made a statement for a cause she holds dear. Odd all around.
Having thought about this a while – I have to say that I cannot condone Schori in this instant. Basically the argument is that because she wasn’t afforded a personal one on one moment then she had no duty to go- excuse me? Where is the humility there?
She should have sat in the crowded pews however uncomfortable if only to greet his holiness on his rare trip to the USA.
It would seem only a photo opportunity is good enough reading this article and that is frankly stupid. were I in the role I would have sat at the back of the biggest venue in mufti just to pay my respects and honour his holiness….scheduling conflict or none
rugbyplayingpirest – I’m sorry, but I missed something. When was the argument put forward that she didn’t go because she didn’t receive an invitation to a private meetings?
Do we even remember why the Church of England, and thus all Anglicanism, begun? Didn’t it have to do with something like the rejection of papal authority in the king’s realm? I wonder if the ELCA blogs are all atwitter about the fact that their PB didn’t attend the ecumenical prayer service, either? Considering they are twice our size, I suspect it should be doubly offensive, no?
What is the sudden fawning over the Pope by people who probably are much more to the Evangelical side of Anglicanism – if not Protestant-Evangelical? By the way things sound, he is OUR pope (and, yes, I realize that because the pope holds some of the same theological positions that will agree with many people on this blog that some will say they wish he were our PB rather than KJS). So, why not just pope?
This whole issue reminds me of Hillary’s campaign staff who will find any little and basically irrelevant thing to nit-pick Obama. “He said Carolina BBQ is sweet and tangy – see how out of touch he is with the common folk. Proof that he is unfit to be president.” Something like that!
Them darn Catholics understand scheduling conflicts and are not offended, why are most of you? Unless, of course, it has nothing to do with attendance an ecumenical prayer service with the Pope and everything to do with nit-picking the PB.
#18: Thanks for raising this issue. To me, Mr. Turner’s indictment of Katherine’s “theology”…the unfortunate grab-bag of Spongian anti-Creed and Post-Post Modern gnostic panentheism…is the stronger point of his missive. But: honestly, Katherine has already passed both Spong and Griswold in irrelevancy…outside her legal briefs against orthodox bishops and dioceses, that is.
#23 the article says:
[i]There was no “MEETING.” No exchange of ideas and common concerns. Nothing more than “Welcome, Your Holiness, good to see you, glad to have you here, have a good time, try the cheesecake while you’re here, it’s fabulous.” He was in, he was out, that was it[/i]
to which I deduce that simply ‘greeting the pope’ was not enough to merit a visit but a meeting mat have been.
As to your second point i would hope that all protestant Christians were wise and humble enough to aknowledge the successor of S. Peter and the leader of the largest church on earht- not to mention the clearest and most inspiring preacher of this generation. To dismiss his role and authority within 21st Century Christendom is hubris beyond my comprehension.
finally this is not mere nit picking- it is the voice of those who are VERY concerned that the person elected to lead ECUSA is not only unfit for office but not even seemingly Christian by the most basic understanding. Her dismisall of the pope may seem small on the surface but i worry it gives insight into the arrogance in her soul- which is typical of all who have taught heresy and led people away from the truth of the Gospel.
Sorry if that hurts brother but lets not dilute just what a HUGE mess the church is in at present and just how much of the damage has been self inflicted by the liberalism spawned since the sixties. If they are allowed to conitnue thier destructive path I shall have no option other than to pope. Thank God in the C of E there is (albeit only just) still a glimmer of hope. Indeed ECUSA is a powerful advertisment of where we could end up.
RE: “What is the sudden fawning over the Pope by people who probably are much more to the Evangelical side of Anglicanism – if not Protestant-Evangelical?”
Well, from my stance as a Protestant and Episcopalian who disagrees with Roman Catholicism on a variety of doctrines, I have far far far far more in common with Pope Benedict than with . . . er . . . the Woman Who Would Be Pope.
That’s a pretty amazing realization. I suspect it’s true for many others Reformed Anglicans as well out there.
Naturally, progressives wouldn’t want to hang out with the Pope, but certainly conservative Episcopalians appreciate his stance for the gospel.
# 21 Katherine, I don’t find it to be odd at all. I am quite certain that Benedict’s staff told Dr. Schori’s schedulers quietly that no re-arranging need be done and that His Holiness STRONGLY suggested she keep her promises to Utah. Got everyone out of the situation with the least amount of fuss and embarrassment. The strong condemnation of Kathy is ridiculous in this instance.
I, too, wonder, however, if Sherrod is ever going to bother to take on Turner’s other points.
There was no meeting.
There was no meeting.
There was no meeting.
There. Was. No. Meeting. Zero. Nada. Zilch. Where. She. Could. Talk. To. The Pope. And Clarify. TEC Actions…… She. Would. Have. To. Sit. And. Listen. To. The. Pope.
Does everyone understand that there was no meeting?
She. Would. Have. To. Sit. And. Listen. To. The. Pope.
Oh! The humanity!
And after listening, she would have been presented as a woman bishop, with the whole world watching.
Maybe she believes what the authors of the 39 articles did about the Bishop of Rome!
#30 that would presume she believed in scripture and there is scant evidence for that. I am afraid her main creed seems to be the UN humanitarian goals and her main sermon peaceful living within a sound environmental policy. I would imgaine the 39 articles matter little to her- after all the formularies and canons of her own day seem to hold little appeall. Cheap I know- but each time I read of her actions and words I grwo more disheartened. Time for the faithful to spit her out on grounds of being luke warm I fear.