I’m assuming by the continued use of “us” she is responding to herself and Bishop Louttit, however, she could just as easily be responding, referring to herself using the royal “we”.
It’s a pretty sad state of affairs that it takes a bishop from half a world away to come and offer pastoral care, when a couple of years ago, the Bishop of Georgia couldn’t even be bothered to cross town to minister to them, and pretty much forced Christ Church into the situation they are in now.
How can she admonish cross-boundary bishops of violating Windsor when she, herself, violates Windsor with her lawsuits and same-sex agenda? Has someone with authority called her hand on this?
No she doesn’t. They are a Ugandan church under a Ugandan bishop. Using the same criterion she should also of sent an e-mail to the Pope for border crossing into TEC territory.
See 5 and 6. This is obviously the case: Schori has no right to interfere with a church that is not part of TEC. She must know this. Why then is she making this scene when she has no authority whatsoever. Orombi will not give her the time of day because he has no reason to. She will therefore simply look impotent, helpless, and incompetent, since all who look will see that she is both meddling and powerless. There is an opacity in her mind that I cannot begin to fathom, an obtuseness that we have seen again and again. In short, she does not see capable of learning from experience. Why?
I find it highly amusing that she refers to the Windsor Report, now if she and some of the other bishops could only find it within themselves to follow the rest of the recommendations
Re: Red Bird #4
Has someone with authority called her hand on this?
No everyone just continues to ignore her letters and do what they planned: First Bishop Gregory Venables twice and now Bishop Orambi.
Eclipse and Mr. Sulik, the Windsor Report, like it or not, did have quite a bit to say about boundary crossing. However it happens, and whether or not you think it applies to ++Orombi, it is an issue that is causing division. Moreover, there’s a difference where a congregation has left its building and started over under a new primate, such as Christ Church Midland, Tx, and where a church has simply changed the signage out front, the name of the bishop in the Prayers of the People, and the locks. Like it or not, the Windsor Report did speak to those situations, and simply saying “well, SHE’s doing it too, and WORSE” sounds like the argument my 8 year old would make when caught in a transgression against his younger sister. I think that all sides, including the reasserter side, are ready to cite the Windsor report when it suits them, but are willing to criticize and ignore it when it doesn’t. ++Orombi and the Global South, whatever their other noble motivations, have shown this in abundance.
I guess Uganda feels free to violate WIndsor. I was always told that two wrongs do not make a right. But that is what happens when no one is listening to the other. The whole thing is a mess anf there is wrong on both sides! And neither will admit to the wrong they do!
This is ritual required by the respective roles everyone is playing. ++KJS must protest the incursion; ++Orombi, like ++Venables, must ignore the protest. Everyone involved knows exactly how the exchange will play out, but the moves must be seen to have been made in order to satisfy the proprieties of the larger drama.
Sorry. If you invoke the Windsor Report, then your own observation of it had better be perfect or there is no reason for anyone else to observe it at all. Then again, I guess all this means is that Mrs. Schori feels the same way about the Windsor Report as she does about the Episcopal Organization’s Constitution and Canons.
When I was a child, I remember reading that in Stalinist Russia, there was no right to travel. I guess Comrade PB thinks she is the descendant of the Man of Steel, and can forbid Bp Orimbi from traveling to Savannah and visiting Christ Church.
Oh, right! There was that wonderful portrait of her (so thoughtfully posted by Sarah last month).
Dallasite, you need to remember that Windsor wasn’t the last word on border crossings; there was amplification on the issue from a subsequent Primate’s meeting. As much as TEC seeks to create parity or equivalence between abandoning the historic faith (and ignoring the counsel of the Communion) and border crossing; the amplification makes it clear that one of these follows on the other, and though regrettable, border crossing is is by some primates understood as a necessary pastoral response.
So, keep your focus on the whole story. Mrs Shori was present when the amplified material was discussed and published. She just isn’t remembering it right now.
I believe the wording was that other Primates or Bishops would not “initiate” border crossings. Since +Uganda did not “initiate” but was “invited” to provide emergency pastoral care, no violation of Windsor by +Uganda has happened. People should check their copies of the Windsor report and the additional comminications before making statements about “violations”. The only continuing violation of Windsor is TEC.
I don’t know about the rest of you, but as far as I’M concerned, her letter to Archbishop Orombi, a far more qualified primate than she claims to be, is an insult.
Really, the problem is not that “she just doesn’t get it” that this is not a boundary crossing. She is acutely aware that it is not a boundary crossing. However, for legal reasons, she cannot admit to this fact. She really has little other choice as long as she continues to follow the true leader of TEC, i.e., David Booth Beers.
[size=1][color=red][url=http://resurrectioncommunitypersonal.blogspot.com/]The Rabbit[/url][/color][color=gray].[/color][/size]
TEC is part of the Anglican Communion. Uganda is part of the Anglican Communion. Uganda may not recognize this, but it is still the reality. To enter the Province of another member of the Communion, with the clear inention of claiming that which is not yours within that Province, is clearly unethical, and may eventually be shown to be illegal as well.
There is not going to be any backing away on this point. Foreign Bishops must stay out of TEC’s internal affairs, or expect to be held accountable.
They will be held accountable by the courts, if necessary. The Diocese has already taken legal action to return Christ Church, Savannah to the faithful Episcopalians who are currently deprived of their worship space. And, if necessary, the same will be done with every group that continues to imagine they can switch Bishops or Primates by a congregational vote.
The lady needs to see an opthamologist . . . there’s a pronounced eye problem in that letter.
When clerics write missives or newsletter articles with a majority of sentences beginning with “I” there is almost certainly a problem of obscured vision. Experts have found a beam, or at least a major timber intrusion, often accounts for the obstruction.
Pick up a handful of church newsletters and try it yourself, or thumb through denominational news service press releases. “I” problems indicate deeper systemic issues which call for major treatment programs, such as immersion and topical application of Metanoia from the large, family sized canister.
If the church has left ECUSA, then whether or not they invite Orombi is really none of Schori’s bloody business. How remarkable that the folks at 815 are attempting to build the legalistic equivalent of the Berlin wall.
Orombi has come to our church on numerous occasions, for years without the approval of Bp Smalley, and then without the approval of Bp. Wolfe. This is Schori’s gig, and it is a significant departure from precedent under her predecessor.
By the way, that’s 5 of 8 sentences beginning “I”, not counting the “We” or the conjoined compound sentence that began a second half with “I” which would take us to 6 of 9 if included. (7 of 9 if you allow that “We” is “I” made regal.)
Once again (short version): ECUSA broke with clear and explicit Scriptural teaching. ECUSA defied the instruments of Anglican Unity. It ignores the witness of the Church Catholic throughout the ages.
In my own Diocese, Virginia, Bishop Lee couldn’t even keep to his word, not to mention the Scriptural requirement to not take fellow believers to Court.
Personally, I see no warrant in Scriptures or in the historic teaching of the Church which requires believers to be confined to strict borders. Yes, there has been a historic discipline which observes (to a certain extent) physical borders, but there is no Doctrine which mandates it. (Otherwise, why is ECUSA in Europe, Latin America and the Philippines, among other places?)
I do believe that in the announcement of Christ Church leaving the Diocese of Georgia there was a clear statement that Christ Church, and the property it owns is in the name of the RECTOR and WARDENS OF CHRIST CHURCH, not in the name of the DIOCESE OF GEORGIA OR BISHOP HENRY LOUTTIT. If the courts follow Georgia precedence on church property disputes then it is highly probable that Christ Church will retain it’s property regardless of what the Dennis Canon says or doesn’t say.
Also, in case you haven’t followed the case in Virginia, I believe the Diocese and Presiding Bishop lost the first round when Judge Bellows declared that the division statute applied. Should he find that the statute it is constitutional, then the congregations need to prove their votes were in line with the statute and the statute itself then says that when the votes are recorded in the circuit court records, that is CONCLUSIVE to the ownership of the property. I see no reason that the judge would rule the statute unconstituional. Don’t forget that the California supreme court also has a number of cases they are hearing right now and if they rule for the congregations, the Presiding Bishop has just spent millions of dollars in vain.
That’s not what I asked you, Jake. I know all about the Episcopal Organization’s worship of affection for its real estate. Where your treasure is, there will your heart be also and all that. I wanted to know how foreign bishops will be held accountable simply because Mrs. Schori doesn’t want them around.
Of course, using Fr. Jakes reasoning, depositions for abandoning communion are inappripriate. Fact is TEC is trying to have it both ways. They are in the AC for some purposes and out of the AC for some purposes.
Revisionists to Reasserters and Orthodox Bishops:
“We will cross our fingers during the creeds. We will cross swords with all of historic Christianity and make ourselves anathema to the majority of Christianity. We will choose which canons to obey. We will turn a blind eye to SSBs and stand uncritical of Robinson, Spong….and….
…wait…
you can’t come in here. You can’t challenge us….you just CAN’T because you have to respect the old ways.”
Nahh. Doesn’t wash with me or most people with brain waves and a pulse.
Schori is a liar and the truth is not in her.
If this muck doesn’t convince you, just peruse the General Convention website with her original candidacy materials. Still posted from 2006. The big lie is still there, too; that she was the dean of a theological school. If she would lie about something like that, she will lie about anything. That the LIE is still on the net, and part of the archive shows what brass she has to believe her own false witness.
Surprised that she would keep up with that trend?
To enter the Province of another member of the Communion, with the clear inention of claiming that which is not yours within that Province, is clearly unethical, and may eventually be shown to be illegal as well.
So you look at Christ Church as property to be owned, do you. But of course you do. Who cares about the people, right?
“There is an opacity in her mind that I cannot begin to fathom, an obtuseness that we have seen again and again. In short, she does not see capable of learning from experience. Why?”
The godly ABp Orombi to be held accountable by the U.S. civil courts? Hardly. The parish is most certainly not part of the diocese of Georgia. Yes, the property is part of an unchristian lawsuit to be sure. But the parish holds the title which predates the diocese of Georgia, so Jake might put off counting his eggs. But win or lose, the TEO loses in these lawsuits. I find it hard to believe that these people don’t see that.
A woman “bishop” citing ancient traditions. She makes herself look silly. Windsor report? That has been modified by Dromantine and Dar es Salaam. Does she remember Dar es Salaam?
[blockquote]We are deeply concerned that so great has been the estrangement between some of the faithful and The Episcopal Church that this has led to recrimination, hostility and even to disputes in the civil courts.[/blockquote]
[blockquote]Second, those of us who have intervened in other jurisdictions believe that we cannot abandon those who have appealed to us for pastoral care in situations in which they find themselves at odds with the normal jurisdiction. For interventions to cease, what is required in their view is a robust scheme of pastoral oversight to provide individuals and congregations alienated from The Episcopal Church with adequate space to flourish within the life of that church in the period leading up to the conclusion of the Covenant Process.[/blockquote]
#24 Fr Jake,
I take it from your response that you believe the ‘Denis Canon’ to be Church law applicable to all Anglican/Episcopal churches within the bounds of what we loosely call TEC. Is that so?
If so, how would you propose to deal with the following situations:
— A parish whose property and deed predate both the diocese and the Episcopal Church and who never relinquished the deed to the diocese?
— A parish whose deed was given to the church by the diocesan bishop after the first vote of the Denis Canon?
— A parish whose exit from TEC was legally arbitrated using the Denis Canon as a guide?
Also, this again shows how little she understands the role of the peebee. This has nothing to do with her. If Bp Louttit wants to object, that is his prerogative, but the matter has nothing to do with Ms Schori.
It is sad that Louttit allows her to step on her head to overstep her authority.
We have the template now. If any other Primates or Southern Cone/Rwandan/Nigerian/Kenyan or other bishops or archbishops visit the USA, KJS can just fill in the blanks before posting her outrage on the internet.
It’s not that you are wrong, it’s just that you are wrong. I happen to be under Uganda – and it’s not because Uganda came knocking on our door – it’s because OUR former bishop would not follow the Faith of the Church and pushed us out of the door. Uganda just had pity on a group of abandoned Anglicans and took us in. We were thankful to be able to retain our Faith AND our Tradition.
By the way – Uganda has asked us for [b]NOTHING, NOT A CENT[/b] in return for that… blows the whole liberal theory about land grabbing and money doesn’t it? But of course, lies always do come to light.
# 24 [b]Fr. Jake:[/b]
Oh, I see – then you better never evangelize anywhere on the planet because you might violate someone’s boundary. Don’t remember that one:
“Go ye therefore to only the edge of your boundary, let everyone outside perish without knowing everything I have taught you and don’t DARE baptize them in the name of the Father, Son or the Holy Spirit because the Lady of the Rainbow Ovenmitt will be mad. ”
That must be the [b]Great Omission[/b] –
Don’t think that is what Jesus said. Don’t think Christ cares a WHIT about boundaries and cares a great deal about whether people come to know Him. That’s what it is about – [b]NOT[/b] TEC [b]NOT [/b]stupid buildings [b]NOT[/b] money. The problem is Uganda remembers that and TEC lost it along the way with Scripture, Tradition and Reason. Those of us who actually WANT to follow Christ would like to continue to do so without TEC’s interference.
Funny Shori has such a problem allowing fellow Christians proclaim the Gospel – interesting indeed.
One of the nice things about the Roman Catholic Church is the fact that Rome doesn’t recognize ecclesiastical boundaries; the Church is everywhere! She sends Irish priests to parishes in the U.S., doesn’t she? Then why not Canadian Anglican priests to the U.S.? Or British priests, Argentine priests……or priests and bishops from ANY province of the Communion? Christ doesn’t care……so why should WE?
When a clergyman is doing the work of Christ, what difference does it make WHERE he comes from? Or does TEC’s “polity” tell him that he’s not welcome, and to “stay off our turf?”
TEC’s mantra – “The people are free to leave, but the property must stay!” validates Orambi’s right to visit without Shori’s or Louttit’s permission. TEC has no concern for the breakaway group other than trying to confiscate their property. Not content to persecute the departing group, TEC tries to keep them from freely associating with those they look to for spiritual guidance. Orambi is merely visiting a group who will never be part of TEC again.
21. 24. Fr. Jake
It seems to me that you have lost the ability to determine what is Caesar’s and what is God’s.
You can’t punish faithful spirits by depriving them of wordly possessions. You can only show what level you dwell on.
RE: “Foreign Bishops must stay out of TEC’s internal affairs, or expect to be held accountable.”
Yeh — maybe Lambeth can pass a resolution. Or maybe we can have a neato process that holds these Appalling Foreign Bishops accountable — something like “The York Process” or something.
Spot on, Sarah. What we need is a new committee and a new listening process. But, didn’t the presiding bishop “border cross” in San Joaquin? I guess it all depends on whose ox is being gored.
Sigh…it is most likely that neither the overseas bishops nor TEC’s bishops will be disciplined by the current Anglican Communion structures. The congregations that realign will realign and there is nothing that the structures of the Anglican Communion, the US civil courts or Father Jake can do about it. The properties of the realigning congregations will be determined by the US civil courts and nobody knows what the final resolutions will be.
The Global South will continue to build its Communion within the Anglican “Federation” and will continue to draw in an increasing number of Provinces, especially as the Global South is shown to be redefining the AC from within. The liberal North will continue its decline.
For the immediate future, KJS must make the claims she makes, and the overseas bishops will ignore her. KJS makes the claims for the purposes of the US courts and for the benefit of the inter-Anglican PR struggle. This is all very predictable.
The Lord helps those who elf themselves.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _
“There is an opacity in [KJS’s] mind that I cannot begin to fathom, an obtuseness that we have seen again and again. In short, she does not see capable of learning from experience. Why?”
—Larry Morse [#7]
A good question, well put. KJS has basically chosen to stake her reputation and office on her jihad against departing clergy and congregations. She must have a huge emotional investment in this battle, so pride and anger (and pain) probably play a role in clouding her judgment and impelling her to strike back. She’s probably also surrounded by people who find the jihad quite congenial.
For certain cases, we need a self -elf pogrom.
[size=1][color=red][url=http://resurrectioncommunitypersonal.blogspot.com/]The Rabbit[/url][/color][color=gray].[/color][/size]
The Windsor Report is the chief authority for moderates and it’s the chief authority to me as long as one can qualify that to say that it is the chief authority when imaginatively construed in a certain interpretive trajectory. I incline to think that most people, including the movable moderates, probably make up their minds on other grounds than the Windsor Report, but then they are uneasy if it collides with the Windsor Report or at least they have an eagerness to be shown how it is that the Windsor Report coheres. I don’t think, on most of these contested questions, that anybody— liberal or conservative— really reads right out of the Windsor Report. I think we basically bring hunches to the Windsor Report that arrive in all sorts of ways and then we seek confirmation.
What’s interesting about the colonial churches of Georgia is that after the Revolutionary War, the state legislature itself gave title to the wardens. The diocese does legally own some of the newer parish properties, but one might guess that Christ Church has a VERY strong case. Whether they actually needed to leave the diocese is of course a separate matter that would be off topic in this thread. The fact is that they did, and that Bp. Louttit did not inhibit and depose the clergy. The other fact is that this whole mess is like sailing in uncharted waters.
#45 “Its amazing that TEC bishops have only internalized the part of Windsor that they want to hear.”
But isn’t this what TEC has already been doing for years with the Scriptures … and the canons? When Jane Dixon was Bishop of Washington and suing Christ Church, Accokeek over their choice of rector, she was asked point blank, “Which of the canons are we to follow and which ones are we to ignore?” Her response was beyond the pale: “We are an Episcopal Church, and I am the Bishop. So I get to decide.”
This spirit has been rampant throughout TEC and been unassailable. I for one am not surprised or frustrated by such consistent behavior. The surprise will come when we see and hear things [i]contrary[/i] to this spirit. Scripture, canons, Windsor: TEC has continued to say, “We get to choose which to listen to and which to ignore. We get to decide how they are interpreted. [b]We will be held accountable by no one.[/b]” The question remains: will such blantant disregard for the bonds of affection tear the communion in two or not. GAFCON and Lambeth get their chance to speak now.
Ok, I just gotta chime in. All of the Ecumenical Councils held the same view on this matter. When a bishop or province falls into heresy it is the duty of orthodox bishops to succor orthodox Christians residing in the territory of heretics. When a bishop falls into heresy the grace of ordination departs from him (or her) and their clergy and people are absolved of any ecclesiastical duty toward them. Abps Orombi and Venables are just doing what the Councils would have required of them… succor orthodox Anglican Christians in the USA.
In reference to those who have separated from TEC: “But as for those persons, on the other hand, who, on account of some heresy condemned by holy Synods, or Fathers, withdrawing themselves from communion with their president, who, that is to say, is preaching the heresy publicly, and teaching it bareheaded in church, such persons not only are not subject to any canonical penalty on account of their having walled themselves off from any and all communion with the one called a Bishop before any conciliar or synodical verdict has been rendered, but, on the contrary, they shall be deemed worthy to enjoy the honor which befits them among orthodox Christians. For they have defied, not Bishops, but pseudo-bishops and pseudo-teachers; and they have not sundered the union of the Church with any schism, but, on the contrary, have been sedulous to rescue the Church from schisms and divisions.”
-Canon 15 of the 1st-2nd Synod, formerly called the 8th Ecumenical Council
Wow. Maybe she was caught in a grumpy moment, but this letter sounds like someone needs a little ubuntu-ing.
[blockquote]”A person with ubuntu is open and available to others, affirming of others, [b]does not feel threatened[/b] that others are able and good, for he or she has a proper self-assurance that comes from knowing that he or she belongs in a greater whole and is diminished when others are humiliated or diminished, when others are tortured or oppressed.” -D. Tutu[/blockquote]
Seems like the key word in all of this is “ignore.” First TEC ignores 2000 years of Biblical standards. Then Windsor is passed and everyone ignores that (including the ABC) and then Schori writes letters which are ignored. Schori then ignores the meaning of canons, etc.
A lot of the problem (which I have been saying for a very long time) is that there is no authority anywhere, so when something is ignored, no one has the authority to do anything about it.
I know all about the Episcopal Organization’s…affection for its real estate. Where your treasure is, there will your heart be also and all that. I wanted to know how foreign bishops will be held accountable simply because Mrs. Schori doesn’t want them around.
and
So you look at Christ Church as property to be owned, do you. But of course you do. Who cares about the people, right?
Both Chrises seem to miss the irony in their posts. Christ Church looks at themselves as property to be owned or they would not be fighting for it.
As for Fr. Jake’s assertion that they will be held accountable, I’m afraid that won’t happen – on either side. The ABC has made a point of not stopping either side and there is no indication that he will.
I think that the theologians need to take a step back and realize that in the 21st century in pluralistic America there are no theological boundaries that people are going to respect if they no longer share the same theology. Sans a true hierachical church like Rome such a concept is a thing of the past. The revisionsists should realize that a significant portion of the Anglican Communion will not abide the inovations. Therefore we have two competing religions/denominations like Anglican and Methodist.
This whole thing is an exercise in futility. In the blue corner you have representing the liberal revisionist lightweit Fr. Jake. In the Red corner you have representing the conservative Christian voice Archbishop Orambi. Who carries the most weight? Hint, It ain’t Jake.
As senior priest mentions, the early church councils would have taken action. We have our dear AB of Canterbury to thank for allowing this to linger on. Everyone says he has not authority. What a sack of horse hooey. He can declare Canterbury out of communion with anyone he has guts enough to face, but he won’t. Is Uganda in communion with TEC, I doubt it, so Uganda does not recognize TEC as the legitimate Anglican presence here. Who can say differently, no one and everyone. Canterbury can withhold communion with any jurisdiction just like Uganda or Australia or for that matter TEC. So enough with the border crosssing. If you do not recognize the border, YOU CAN”T CROSS IT. End of argument.
I do hope that at some point the revisonists stop using words like “illegal” and “theft” to describe real property claims.
When two parties have colorable claims to the same property it is called a civil dispute. TEC may have a cause of action but it is at most conversion if they prevail – and in some states they may well not. IF anyone was “stealing” or commiting “illegal” acts then it would not be a civil matter but a criminal matter and we would have DA’s prosecuting not TEC lawyers litigating.
Brothers and Sisters in Christ,
We had the privilege of hosting His Grace last night and this morning, on his way to Christ Church. (PS Katherine, he’s already here…and he didn’t need your invitation or permission to stay in our home!) He knows that the endgame of TEC is to simply grab as much property as possible to finance a sinking ship with ever dwindling numbers. He knows this is a PR ploy to selectively appeal to the AC re: boundaries, and to create a record for litigation against Christ Church . He is here because, liike children fleeing an abusive home and seeking protection, the people of Christ Church have cried out to him for help– and in order to keep them in the AC and not lose them forever, he is here to provide pastoral care. He cares NOTHING for buildings, money, pomp and circumstance– all you have to do is spend time in person with this living apostle to realize that. He prayed for Katharine and the leadership of TEC before he left, with love and genuine concern. I thank God for my Archbishop, for my bishops +Benezeri and +John, and for the pastoral care they have provided me and my family and my church since November 2005. They have ministered more to me, modeled more of Jesis Christ for me, and encouraged me in ministry more than ALL the TEC bishops I have lived under for the past 50 years, from James A. Pike to Peter Lee. I rejoice on the other side of the Red Sea, and look forward to a new missionary Anglicanism– with or without buildings!
You know, it’s going to be an *awfully* interesting term for KJS. Any bets on whether it will be a full term, or early retirement to pursue other opportunities?
LOOK OUT!
Laudry emergency at 815. The Virginia Attorney General just laid waste to TEC/Schori/Beers/Lee’s attempts to bully the Virginia churches. Read it. Lot of sense. THIS is where TEC will lose. Not in its own canons. Not in GC, but in secular court where they wanted to play ball. They misjudged and forgot that the courts aren’t made up of bishops. Pass the Pampers please.
#56, SeniorPriest,
As I never tire of citing, at the institution of the much touted canon about geographical boundaries, yes, at the VERY SAME ECUMENICAL COUNCIL, one miscreant bishop (a Primatial sort, too) was not only deposed but UN-bishop-ed and all of his ordained persons said not to be either priests or deacons!
“CANON IV. CONCERNING Maximus the Cynic and the disorder which has happened in Constantinople on his account, it is decreed that Maximus never was and is not now a Bishop; that those who have been ordained by him are in no order whatever of the clergy; since all which has been done concerning him or by him, is declared to be invalid.”
Now there’s an incursion into another Province by a Council, the very Council that said geographical boundaries should be respected.
FYI, the infamous canon is actually Canon II of that Council (The Second Ecumenical Council) “CANON II. THE bishops are not to go beyond their dioceses to churches lying outside of their bounds, nor bring confusion on the churches; but let the Bishop of Alexandria, according to the canons, alone administer the affairs of Egypt; and let the bishops of the East manage the East alone, the privileges of the Church in Antioch, which are mentioned in the canons of Nice, being preserved; and let the bishops of the Asian Diocese administer the Asian affairs only; and the Pontic bishops only Pontic matters; and the Thracian bishops only Thracian affairs. And let not bishops go beyond their dioceses for ordination or any other ecclesiastical ministrations, unless they be invited. And the aforesaid canon concerning dioceses being observed, it is evident that the synod of every province will administer the affairs of that particular province as was decreed at Nice. But the Churches of God in heathen nations must be governed according to the custom which has prevailed from the times of the Fathers. NOTES. ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON II. No traveller shall introduce confusion into the Churches either by ordaining or by enthroning. Nevertheless in Churches which are among the heathen the tradition of the Fathers shall be preserved.”
It is patently obvious that Fathers at the Council did not violate their own understanding of their own canons when they deposed and UN-bishop-ed Maximus from Constantinople.
So the infamous Canon II citations by Schori et alia are ripped out of proper context and re-interpreted to suit their arguments. That from the great “contextualistas” who would make context the alleged rationale for their misadventures! (Surely God sits above the heavens and laughs in derision at their “logic” and “reasoning” as He does the other scoffers.) The context for Canon II is an orthodox bishop adhering to the faith within his own diocese.
ECUSA/TEC/GCC/EO-PAC clearly does not meet that criterion for non-intervention. That can be established on the basis of deeds as well as words too numerous to enumerate here. But see http://walkingapart.us/tiki-index.php for a listing of such matters. Live by the canons, be deposed by the canons, PB. IT’s a package deal.
Perhaps the problem is the border crossing rule itself. It is a technicality, not a spirituality, so to speak. The notion is that TEC is like a state with defined borders and with crossing points wherein passports must be shown. Is t his really the case, or should it be the case? I may require that a guest knock at my door before he comes in, but must he knock at my town’s door before he crosses the town line?
And the other question consists of the definition of a border. When a church opts out of TEC, even though TEC and Uganda are in the AC, does the border cease to exist? LM
I’m assuming by the continued use of “us” she is responding to herself and Bishop Louttit, however, she could just as easily be responding, referring to herself using the royal “we”.
It’s a pretty sad state of affairs that it takes a bishop from half a world away to come and offer pastoral care, when a couple of years ago, the Bishop of Georgia couldn’t even be bothered to cross town to minister to them, and pretty much forced Christ Church into the situation they are in now.
i cannot wait for the response! He holds all the aces i fear!
She does have a good point about the Windsor Report’s view of boundary crossing by various Anglican bishops.
How can she admonish cross-boundary bishops of violating Windsor when she, herself, violates Windsor with her lawsuits and same-sex agenda? Has someone with authority called her hand on this?
Is this GA church still under TEC or have they officially come under Uganda? Because if it is the latter, then TEC has no rights.
Dallasite:
No she doesn’t. They are a Ugandan church under a Ugandan bishop. Using the same criterion she should also of sent an e-mail to the Pope for border crossing into TEC territory.
She is both out-of-line and seriously annoying.
See 5 and 6. This is obviously the case: Schori has no right to interfere with a church that is not part of TEC. She must know this. Why then is she making this scene when she has no authority whatsoever. Orombi will not give her the time of day because he has no reason to. She will therefore simply look impotent, helpless, and incompetent, since all who look will see that she is both meddling and powerless. There is an opacity in her mind that I cannot begin to fathom, an obtuseness that we have seen again and again. In short, she does not see capable of learning from experience. Why?
I find it highly amusing that she refers to the Windsor Report, now if she and some of the other bishops could only find it within themselves to follow the rest of the recommendations
#4. Red Bird wrote:
“How can she admonish cross-boundary bishops of violating Windsor when she, herself, violates Windsor with her lawsuits and same-sex agenda?”
Windsor for thee, but not for me!
ECUSA believes itself to bes above the church, the Scriptures and [here, self-elfing kicks in…]
Re: Red Bird #4
Has someone with authority called her hand on this?
No everyone just continues to ignore her letters and do what they planned: First Bishop Gregory Venables twice and now Bishop Orambi.
Another stupid pointless letter from a bishop. And there will surely be yet another stupid pointless response from Orombi.
Would letters like this have been written in the pre-internet days? Is it written simply to gain the oohs and aahs of the electorate?
Eclipse and Mr. Sulik, the Windsor Report, like it or not, did have quite a bit to say about boundary crossing. However it happens, and whether or not you think it applies to ++Orombi, it is an issue that is causing division. Moreover, there’s a difference where a congregation has left its building and started over under a new primate, such as Christ Church Midland, Tx, and where a church has simply changed the signage out front, the name of the bishop in the Prayers of the People, and the locks. Like it or not, the Windsor Report did speak to those situations, and simply saying “well, SHE’s doing it too, and WORSE” sounds like the argument my 8 year old would make when caught in a transgression against his younger sister. I think that all sides, including the reasserter side, are ready to cite the Windsor report when it suits them, but are willing to criticize and ignore it when it doesn’t. ++Orombi and the Global South, whatever their other noble motivations, have shown this in abundance.
I guess Uganda feels free to violate WIndsor. I was always told that two wrongs do not make a right. But that is what happens when no one is listening to the other. The whole thing is a mess anf there is wrong on both sides! And neither will admit to the wrong they do!
This is ritual required by the respective roles everyone is playing. ++KJS must protest the incursion; ++Orombi, like ++Venables, must ignore the protest. Everyone involved knows exactly how the exchange will play out, but the moves must be seen to have been made in order to satisfy the proprieties of the larger drama.
Sorry. If you invoke the Windsor Report, then your own observation of it had better be perfect or there is no reason for anyone else to observe it at all. Then again, I guess all this means is that Mrs. Schori feels the same way about the Windsor Report as she does about the Episcopal Organization’s Constitution and Canons.
When I was a child, I remember reading that in Stalinist Russia, there was no right to travel. I guess Comrade PB thinks she is the descendant of the Man of Steel, and can forbid Bp Orimbi from traveling to Savannah and visiting Christ Church.
Oh, right! There was that wonderful portrait of her (so thoughtfully posted by Sarah last month).
Dallasite, you need to remember that Windsor wasn’t the last word on border crossings; there was amplification on the issue from a subsequent Primate’s meeting. As much as TEC seeks to create parity or equivalence between abandoning the historic faith (and ignoring the counsel of the Communion) and border crossing; the amplification makes it clear that one of these follows on the other, and though regrettable, border crossing is is by some primates understood as a necessary pastoral response.
So, keep your focus on the whole story. Mrs Shori was present when the amplified material was discussed and published. She just isn’t remembering it right now.
I believe the wording was that other Primates or Bishops would not “initiate” border crossings. Since +Uganda did not “initiate” but was “invited” to provide emergency pastoral care, no violation of Windsor by +Uganda has happened. People should check their copies of the Windsor report and the additional comminications before making statements about “violations”. The only continuing violation of Windsor is TEC.
I don’t know about the rest of you, but as far as I’M concerned, her letter to Archbishop Orombi, a far more qualified primate than she claims to be, is an insult.
Really, the problem is not that “she just doesn’t get it” that this is not a boundary crossing. She is acutely aware that it is not a boundary crossing. However, for legal reasons, she cannot admit to this fact. She really has little other choice as long as she continues to follow the true leader of TEC, i.e., David Booth Beers.
[size=1][color=red][url=http://resurrectioncommunitypersonal.blogspot.com/]The Rabbit[/url][/color][color=gray].[/color][/size]
TEC is part of the Anglican Communion. Uganda is part of the Anglican Communion. Uganda may not recognize this, but it is still the reality. To enter the Province of another member of the Communion, with the clear inention of claiming that which is not yours within that Province, is clearly unethical, and may eventually be shown to be illegal as well.
There is not going to be any backing away on this point. Foreign Bishops must stay out of TEC’s internal affairs, or expect to be held accountable.
Exactly how will they be “held accountable,” Jake? There’s no Anglican pope, remember?
Perhaps Bp. Orombi could respond by expressing his disappointment that Bp. Loutit is interfering in a missionary district of the Province of Uganda!
They will be held accountable by the courts, if necessary. The Diocese has already taken legal action to return Christ Church, Savannah to the faithful Episcopalians who are currently deprived of their worship space. And, if necessary, the same will be done with every group that continues to imagine they can switch Bishops or Primates by a congregational vote.
The lady needs to see an opthamologist . . . there’s a pronounced eye problem in that letter.
When clerics write missives or newsletter articles with a majority of sentences beginning with “I” there is almost certainly a problem of obscured vision. Experts have found a beam, or at least a major timber intrusion, often accounts for the obstruction.
Pick up a handful of church newsletters and try it yourself, or thumb through denominational news service press releases. “I” problems indicate deeper systemic issues which call for major treatment programs, such as immersion and topical application of Metanoia from the large, family sized canister.
If the church has left ECUSA, then whether or not they invite Orombi is really none of Schori’s bloody business. How remarkable that the folks at 815 are attempting to build the legalistic equivalent of the Berlin wall.
Orombi has come to our church on numerous occasions, for years without the approval of Bp Smalley, and then without the approval of Bp. Wolfe. This is Schori’s gig, and it is a significant departure from precedent under her predecessor.
A new sheriff in town, indeed. A martinet.
By the way, that’s 5 of 8 sentences beginning “I”, not counting the “We” or the conjoined compound sentence that began a second half with “I” which would take us to 6 of 9 if included. (7 of 9 if you allow that “We” is “I” made regal.)
This is a reliable index in my experience.
*sigh*
Once again (short version): ECUSA broke with clear and explicit Scriptural teaching. ECUSA defied the instruments of Anglican Unity. It ignores the witness of the Church Catholic throughout the ages.
In my own Diocese, Virginia, Bishop Lee couldn’t even keep to his word, not to mention the Scriptural requirement to not take fellow believers to Court.
Personally, I see no warrant in Scriptures or in the historic teaching of the Church which requires believers to be confined to strict borders. Yes, there has been a historic discipline which observes (to a certain extent) physical borders, but there is no Doctrine which mandates it. (Otherwise, why is ECUSA in Europe, Latin America and the Philippines, among other places?)
Windsor (and the Dar Es Salaam Communiqué) attempted to give guidance to all the Communion with respect to physical boundaries, but ECUSA generally and the Presiding Bishop specifically vitiated the agreement before the ink ever dried.*
I submit that ECUSA exhibits the same fidelity to the Windor process as it does to the Scriptures.
—-
* I would refer you to ¶¶ 10 & 11 of the Dar Es Salaam Communiqué. ¶ 10 clearly observes that there is no moral equivalence between ECUSA innovations (a polite word for false teachings) and border crossings. It further notes that border crossings occur only because of the erroneous ECUSA Doctrine and the false discipline which proceeds therefrom. ¶ 11 clarifies that the entire Windsor Process as an attempt to uphold the teaching of the Anglican Communion. ¶11 ends with the following clear statement: “The Primates have reaffirmed this teaching in all their recent meetings, and indicated how a change in the formal teaching of any one Province would indicate a departure from the standard upheld by the Communion as a whole.”
Jake,
I do believe that in the announcement of Christ Church leaving the Diocese of Georgia there was a clear statement that Christ Church, and the property it owns is in the name of the RECTOR and WARDENS OF CHRIST CHURCH, not in the name of the DIOCESE OF GEORGIA OR BISHOP HENRY LOUTTIT. If the courts follow Georgia precedence on church property disputes then it is highly probable that Christ Church will retain it’s property regardless of what the Dennis Canon says or doesn’t say.
Also, in case you haven’t followed the case in Virginia, I believe the Diocese and Presiding Bishop lost the first round when Judge Bellows declared that the division statute applied. Should he find that the statute it is constitutional, then the congregations need to prove their votes were in line with the statute and the statute itself then says that when the votes are recorded in the circuit court records, that is CONCLUSIVE to the ownership of the property. I see no reason that the judge would rule the statute unconstituional. Don’t forget that the California supreme court also has a number of cases they are hearing right now and if they rule for the congregations, the Presiding Bishop has just spent millions of dollars in vain.
That’s not what I asked you, Jake. I know all about the Episcopal Organization’s
worship ofaffection for its real estate. Where your treasure is, there will your heart be also and all that. I wanted to know how foreign bishops will be held accountable simply because Mrs. Schori doesn’t want them around.Of course, using Fr. Jakes reasoning, depositions for abandoning communion are inappripriate. Fact is TEC is trying to have it both ways. They are in the AC for some purposes and out of the AC for some purposes.
Revisionists to Reasserters and Orthodox Bishops:
“We will cross our fingers during the creeds. We will cross swords with all of historic Christianity and make ourselves anathema to the majority of Christianity. We will choose which canons to obey. We will turn a blind eye to SSBs and stand uncritical of Robinson, Spong….and….
…wait…
you can’t come in here. You can’t challenge us….you just CAN’T because you have to respect the old ways.”
Nahh. Doesn’t wash with me or most people with brain waves and a pulse.
Schori is a liar and the truth is not in her.
If this muck doesn’t convince you, just peruse the General Convention website with her original candidacy materials. Still posted from 2006. The big lie is still there, too; that she was the dean of a theological school. If she would lie about something like that, she will lie about anything. That the LIE is still on the net, and part of the archive shows what brass she has to believe her own false witness.
Surprised that she would keep up with that trend?
Let’s be cool, even when provoked.
We all need to self-elf.
To enter the Province of another member of the Communion, with the clear inention of claiming that which is not yours within that Province, is clearly unethical, and may eventually be shown to be illegal as well.
So you look at Christ Church as property to be owned, do you. But of course you do. Who cares about the people, right?
“There is an opacity in her mind that I cannot begin to fathom, an obtuseness that we have seen again and again. In short, she does not see capable of learning from experience. Why?”
To much deep sea diving and too many oysters?
The godly ABp Orombi to be held accountable by the U.S. civil courts? Hardly. The parish is most certainly not part of the diocese of Georgia. Yes, the property is part of an unchristian lawsuit to be sure. But the parish holds the title which predates the diocese of Georgia, so Jake might put off counting his eggs. But win or lose, the TEO loses in these lawsuits. I find it hard to believe that these people don’t see that.
A woman “bishop” citing ancient traditions. She makes herself look silly. Windsor report? That has been modified by Dromantine and Dar es Salaam. Does she remember Dar es Salaam?
[blockquote]We are deeply concerned that so great has been the estrangement between some of the faithful and The Episcopal Church that this has led to recrimination, hostility and even to disputes in the civil courts.[/blockquote]
[blockquote]Second, those of us who have intervened in other jurisdictions believe that we cannot abandon those who have appealed to us for pastoral care in situations in which they find themselves at odds with the normal jurisdiction. For interventions to cease, what is required in their view is a robust scheme of pastoral oversight to provide individuals and congregations alienated from The Episcopal Church with adequate space to flourish within the life of that church in the period leading up to the conclusion of the Covenant Process.[/blockquote]
#24 Fr Jake,
I take it from your response that you believe the ‘Denis Canon’ to be Church law applicable to all Anglican/Episcopal churches within the bounds of what we loosely call TEC. Is that so?
If so, how would you propose to deal with the following situations:
— A parish whose property and deed predate both the diocese and the Episcopal Church and who never relinquished the deed to the diocese?
— A parish whose deed was given to the church by the diocesan bishop after the first vote of the Denis Canon?
— A parish whose exit from TEC was legally arbitrated using the Denis Canon as a guide?
Also, this again shows how little she understands the role of the peebee. This has nothing to do with her. If Bp Louttit wants to object, that is his prerogative, but the matter has nothing to do with Ms Schori.
It is sad that Louttit allows her to step on her head to overstep her authority.
Predictable.
And pathetic.
We have the template now. If any other Primates or Southern Cone/Rwandan/Nigerian/Kenyan or other bishops or archbishops visit the USA, KJS can just fill in the blanks before posting her outrage on the internet.
So SHE, as in the royal SHE, wrote another letter – ho hum
#12 [b]Dallasite:[/b]
[b]Re: Bishop Orombi[/b]
It’s not that you are wrong, it’s just that you are wrong. I happen to be under Uganda – and it’s not because Uganda came knocking on our door – it’s because OUR former bishop would not follow the Faith of the Church and pushed us out of the door. Uganda just had pity on a group of abandoned Anglicans and took us in. We were thankful to be able to retain our Faith AND our Tradition.
By the way – Uganda has asked us for [b]NOTHING, NOT A CENT[/b] in return for that… blows the whole liberal theory about land grabbing and money doesn’t it? But of course, lies always do come to light.
# 24 [b]Fr. Jake:[/b]
Oh, I see – then you better never evangelize anywhere on the planet because you might violate someone’s boundary. Don’t remember that one:
“Go ye therefore to only the edge of your boundary, let everyone outside perish without knowing everything I have taught you and don’t DARE baptize them in the name of the Father, Son or the Holy Spirit because the Lady of the Rainbow Ovenmitt will be mad. ”
That must be the [b]Great Omission[/b] –
Don’t think that is what Jesus said. Don’t think Christ cares a WHIT about boundaries and cares a great deal about whether people come to know Him. That’s what it is about – [b]NOT[/b] TEC [b]NOT [/b]stupid buildings [b]NOT[/b] money. The problem is Uganda remembers that and TEC lost it along the way with Scripture, Tradition and Reason. Those of us who actually WANT to follow Christ would like to continue to do so without TEC’s interference.
Funny Shori has such a problem allowing fellow Christians proclaim the Gospel – interesting indeed.
One of the nice things about the Roman Catholic Church is the fact that Rome doesn’t recognize ecclesiastical boundaries; the Church is everywhere! She sends Irish priests to parishes in the U.S., doesn’t she? Then why not Canadian Anglican priests to the U.S.? Or British priests, Argentine priests……or priests and bishops from ANY province of the Communion? Christ doesn’t care……so why should WE?
When a clergyman is doing the work of Christ, what difference does it make WHERE he comes from? Or does TEC’s “polity” tell him that he’s not welcome, and to “stay off our turf?”
TEC’s mantra – “The people are free to leave, but the property must stay!” validates Orambi’s right to visit without Shori’s or Louttit’s permission. TEC has no concern for the breakaway group other than trying to confiscate their property. Not content to persecute the departing group, TEC tries to keep them from freely associating with those they look to for spiritual guidance. Orambi is merely visiting a group who will never be part of TEC again.
Its amazing that TEC bishops have only internalized the part of Windsor that they want to hear.
21. 24. Fr. Jake
It seems to me that you have lost the ability to determine what is Caesar’s and what is God’s.
You can’t punish faithful spirits by depriving them of wordly possessions. You can only show what level you dwell on.
RE: “Foreign Bishops must stay out of TEC’s internal affairs, or expect to be held accountable.”
Yeh — maybe Lambeth can pass a resolution. Or maybe we can have a neato process that holds these Appalling Foreign Bishops accountable — something like “The York Process” or something.
Heh.
Spot on, Sarah. What we need is a new committee and a new listening process. But, didn’t the presiding bishop “border cross” in San Joaquin? I guess it all depends on whose ox is being gored.
# 34….
Are you proposing yet another self -elf program?
Sigh…it is most likely that neither the overseas bishops nor TEC’s bishops will be disciplined by the current Anglican Communion structures. The congregations that realign will realign and there is nothing that the structures of the Anglican Communion, the US civil courts or Father Jake can do about it. The properties of the realigning congregations will be determined by the US civil courts and nobody knows what the final resolutions will be.
The Global South will continue to build its Communion within the Anglican “Federation” and will continue to draw in an increasing number of Provinces, especially as the Global South is shown to be redefining the AC from within. The liberal North will continue its decline.
For the immediate future, KJS must make the claims she makes, and the overseas bishops will ignore her. KJS makes the claims for the purposes of the US courts and for the benefit of the inter-Anglican PR struggle. This is all very predictable.
The Lord helps those who elf themselves.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _
“There is an opacity in [KJS’s] mind that I cannot begin to fathom, an obtuseness that we have seen again and again. In short, she does not see capable of learning from experience. Why?”
—Larry Morse [#7]
A good question, well put. KJS has basically chosen to stake her reputation and office on her jihad against departing clergy and congregations. She must have a huge emotional investment in this battle, so pride and anger (and pain) probably play a role in clouding her judgment and impelling her to strike back. She’s probably also surrounded by people who find the jihad quite congenial.
For certain cases, we need a self -elf pogrom.
[size=1][color=red][url=http://resurrectioncommunitypersonal.blogspot.com/]The Rabbit[/url][/color][color=gray].[/color][/size]
The Windsor Report is the chief authority for moderates and it’s the chief authority to me as long as one can qualify that to say that it is the chief authority when imaginatively construed in a certain interpretive trajectory. I incline to think that most people, including the movable moderates, probably make up their minds on other grounds than the Windsor Report, but then they are uneasy if it collides with the Windsor Report or at least they have an eagerness to be shown how it is that the Windsor Report coheres. I don’t think, on most of these contested questions, that anybody— liberal or conservative— really reads right out of the Windsor Report. I think we basically bring hunches to the Windsor Report that arrive in all sorts of ways and then we seek confirmation.
[i]pace[/i] [url=http://www.integrityusa.org/voice/2003/Winter2003.pdf]Walter Brueggemann[/url]
What’s interesting about the colonial churches of Georgia is that after the Revolutionary War, the state legislature itself gave title to the wardens. The diocese does legally own some of the newer parish properties, but one might guess that Christ Church has a VERY strong case. Whether they actually needed to leave the diocese is of course a separate matter that would be off topic in this thread. The fact is that they did, and that Bp. Louttit did not inhibit and depose the clergy. The other fact is that this whole mess is like sailing in uncharted waters.
#45 “Its amazing that TEC bishops have only internalized the part of Windsor that they want to hear.”
But isn’t this what TEC has already been doing for years with the Scriptures … and the canons? When Jane Dixon was Bishop of Washington and suing Christ Church, Accokeek over their choice of rector, she was asked point blank, “Which of the canons are we to follow and which ones are we to ignore?” Her response was beyond the pale: “We are an Episcopal Church, and I am the Bishop. So I get to decide.”
This spirit has been rampant throughout TEC and been unassailable. I for one am not surprised or frustrated by such consistent behavior. The surprise will come when we see and hear things [i]contrary[/i] to this spirit. Scripture, canons, Windsor: TEC has continued to say, “We get to choose which to listen to and which to ignore. We get to decide how they are interpreted. [b]We will be held accountable by no one.[/b]” The question remains: will such blantant disregard for the bonds of affection tear the communion in two or not. GAFCON and Lambeth get their chance to speak now.
Ok, I just gotta chime in. All of the Ecumenical Councils held the same view on this matter. When a bishop or province falls into heresy it is the duty of orthodox bishops to succor orthodox Christians residing in the territory of heretics. When a bishop falls into heresy the grace of ordination departs from him (or her) and their clergy and people are absolved of any ecclesiastical duty toward them. Abps Orombi and Venables are just doing what the Councils would have required of them… succor orthodox Anglican Christians in the USA.
In reference to those who have separated from TEC: “But as for those persons, on the other hand, who, on account of some heresy condemned by holy Synods, or Fathers, withdrawing themselves from communion with their president, who, that is to say, is preaching the heresy publicly, and teaching it bareheaded in church, such persons not only are not subject to any canonical penalty on account of their having walled themselves off from any and all communion with the one called a Bishop before any conciliar or synodical verdict has been rendered, but, on the contrary, they shall be deemed worthy to enjoy the honor which befits them among orthodox Christians. For they have defied, not Bishops, but pseudo-bishops and pseudo-teachers; and they have not sundered the union of the Church with any schism, but, on the contrary, have been sedulous to rescue the Church from schisms and divisions.”
-Canon 15 of the 1st-2nd Synod, formerly called the 8th Ecumenical Council
Wow. Maybe she was caught in a grumpy moment, but this letter sounds like someone needs a little ubuntu-ing.
[blockquote]”A person with ubuntu is open and available to others, affirming of others, [b]does not feel threatened[/b] that others are able and good, for he or she has a proper self-assurance that comes from knowing that he or she belongs in a greater whole and is diminished when others are humiliated or diminished, when others are tortured or oppressed.” -D. Tutu[/blockquote]
Good thing they’re planning ubuntu for GC2009.
😉
Seems like the key word in all of this is “ignore.” First TEC ignores 2000 years of Biblical standards. Then Windsor is passed and everyone ignores that (including the ABC) and then Schori writes letters which are ignored. Schori then ignores the meaning of canons, etc.
A lot of the problem (which I have been saying for a very long time) is that there is no authority anywhere, so when something is ignored, no one has the authority to do anything about it.
I know all about the Episcopal Organization’s…affection for its real estate. Where your treasure is, there will your heart be also and all that. I wanted to know how foreign bishops will be held accountable simply because Mrs. Schori doesn’t want them around.
and
So you look at Christ Church as property to be owned, do you. But of course you do. Who cares about the people, right?
Both Chrises seem to miss the irony in their posts. Christ Church looks at themselves as property to be owned or they would not be fighting for it.
As for Fr. Jake’s assertion that they will be held accountable, I’m afraid that won’t happen – on either side. The ABC has made a point of not stopping either side and there is no indication that he will.
I think that the theologians need to take a step back and realize that in the 21st century in pluralistic America there are no theological boundaries that people are going to respect if they no longer share the same theology. Sans a true hierachical church like Rome such a concept is a thing of the past. The revisionsists should realize that a significant portion of the Anglican Communion will not abide the inovations. Therefore we have two competing religions/denominations like Anglican and Methodist.
This whole thing is an exercise in futility. In the blue corner you have representing the liberal revisionist lightweit Fr. Jake. In the Red corner you have representing the conservative Christian voice Archbishop Orambi. Who carries the most weight? Hint, It ain’t Jake.
As senior priest mentions, the early church councils would have taken action. We have our dear AB of Canterbury to thank for allowing this to linger on. Everyone says he has not authority. What a sack of horse hooey. He can declare Canterbury out of communion with anyone he has guts enough to face, but he won’t. Is Uganda in communion with TEC, I doubt it, so Uganda does not recognize TEC as the legitimate Anglican presence here. Who can say differently, no one and everyone. Canterbury can withhold communion with any jurisdiction just like Uganda or Australia or for that matter TEC. So enough with the border crosssing. If you do not recognize the border, YOU CAN”T CROSS IT. End of argument.
I do hope that at some point the revisonists stop using words like “illegal” and “theft” to describe real property claims.
When two parties have colorable claims to the same property it is called a civil dispute. TEC may have a cause of action but it is at most conversion if they prevail – and in some states they may well not. IF anyone was “stealing” or commiting “illegal” acts then it would not be a civil matter but a criminal matter and we would have DA’s prosecuting not TEC lawyers litigating.
Brothers and Sisters in Christ,
We had the privilege of hosting His Grace last night and this morning, on his way to Christ Church. (PS Katherine, he’s already here…and he didn’t need your invitation or permission to stay in our home!) He knows that the endgame of TEC is to simply grab as much property as possible to finance a sinking ship with ever dwindling numbers. He knows this is a PR ploy to selectively appeal to the AC re: boundaries, and to create a record for litigation against Christ Church . He is here because, liike children fleeing an abusive home and seeking protection, the people of Christ Church have cried out to him for help– and in order to keep them in the AC and not lose them forever, he is here to provide pastoral care. He cares NOTHING for buildings, money, pomp and circumstance– all you have to do is spend time in person with this living apostle to realize that. He prayed for Katharine and the leadership of TEC before he left, with love and genuine concern. I thank God for my Archbishop, for my bishops +Benezeri and +John, and for the pastoral care they have provided me and my family and my church since November 2005. They have ministered more to me, modeled more of Jesis Christ for me, and encouraged me in ministry more than ALL the TEC bishops I have lived under for the past 50 years, from James A. Pike to Peter Lee. I rejoice on the other side of the Red Sea, and look forward to a new missionary Anglicanism– with or without buildings!
You know, it’s going to be an *awfully* interesting term for KJS. Any bets on whether it will be a full term, or early retirement to pursue other opportunities?
LOOK OUT!
Laudry emergency at 815. The Virginia Attorney General just laid waste to TEC/Schori/Beers/Lee’s attempts to bully the Virginia churches. Read it. Lot of sense. THIS is where TEC will lose. Not in its own canons. Not in GC, but in secular court where they wanted to play ball. They misjudged and forgot that the courts aren’t made up of bishops. Pass the Pampers please.
#56, SeniorPriest,
As I never tire of citing, at the institution of the much touted canon about geographical boundaries, yes, at the VERY SAME ECUMENICAL COUNCIL, one miscreant bishop (a Primatial sort, too) was not only deposed but UN-bishop-ed and all of his ordained persons said not to be either priests or deacons!
See http://www.creeds.net/ specifically The Second Ecumenical Council aka The First Council of Constantinople AD 381… http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/const1.txt pages 179 forward on Maximus the Cynic, to wit:
“CANON IV. CONCERNING Maximus the Cynic and the disorder which has happened in Constantinople on his account, it is decreed that Maximus never was and is not now a Bishop; that those who have been ordained by him are in no order whatever of the clergy; since all which has been done concerning him or by him, is declared to be invalid.”
Now there’s an incursion into another Province by a Council, the very Council that said geographical boundaries should be respected.
FYI, the infamous canon is actually Canon II of that Council (The Second Ecumenical Council) “CANON II. THE bishops are not to go beyond their dioceses to churches lying outside of their bounds, nor bring confusion on the churches; but let the Bishop of Alexandria, according to the canons, alone administer the affairs of Egypt; and let the bishops of the East manage the East alone, the privileges of the Church in Antioch, which are mentioned in the canons of Nice, being preserved; and let the bishops of the Asian Diocese administer the Asian affairs only; and the Pontic bishops only Pontic matters; and the Thracian bishops only Thracian affairs. And let not bishops go beyond their dioceses for ordination or any other ecclesiastical ministrations, unless they be invited. And the aforesaid canon concerning dioceses being observed, it is evident that the synod of every province will administer the affairs of that particular province as was decreed at Nice. But the Churches of God in heathen nations must be governed according to the custom which has prevailed from the times of the Fathers. NOTES. ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON II. No traveller shall introduce confusion into the Churches either by ordaining or by enthroning. Nevertheless in Churches which are among the heathen the tradition of the Fathers shall be preserved.”
It is patently obvious that Fathers at the Council did not violate their own understanding of their own canons when they deposed and UN-bishop-ed Maximus from Constantinople.
So the infamous Canon II citations by Schori et alia are ripped out of proper context and re-interpreted to suit their arguments. That from the great “contextualistas” who would make context the alleged rationale for their misadventures! (Surely God sits above the heavens and laughs in derision at their “logic” and “reasoning” as He does the other scoffers.) The context for Canon II is an orthodox bishop adhering to the faith within his own diocese.
ECUSA/TEC/GCC/EO-PAC clearly does not meet that criterion for non-intervention. That can be established on the basis of deeds as well as words too numerous to enumerate here. But see http://walkingapart.us/tiki-index.php for a listing of such matters. Live by the canons, be deposed by the canons, PB. IT’s a package deal.
Perhaps the problem is the border crossing rule itself. It is a technicality, not a spirituality, so to speak. The notion is that TEC is like a state with defined borders and with crossing points wherein passports must be shown. Is t his really the case, or should it be the case? I may require that a guest knock at my door before he comes in, but must he knock at my town’s door before he crosses the town line?
And the other question consists of the definition of a border. When a church opts out of TEC, even though TEC and Uganda are in the AC, does the border cease to exist? LM