But what of those who had the stamina to make it to both events? The Bishop of Wyoming, the Right Rev Bruce Caldwell, compared the two. “Both were wonderful. Both were delightful in different ways. In the cathedral there was amazing architecture and voices of the choirs and singing. And here we have got a simple field and a simple wooden cross. I think Jesus was at both of them.”
There were some niggles from party-goers, however. The Bishop of Pittsburgh, the Right Rev Bob Duncan, said: “It was a glorious service, it was a gathering of the family, but there were troublesome elements ”“ the Buddhist chant, for example, and the sermon had a few challenges. A number of our brothers didn’t make their Communion.”
One Roman Catholic present, who asked not to be named, told The Times: “It was an extraordinary service, enough to make me consider becoming an Anglican.” How many and who they were may never be known as they were all huddled in the venue’s VIP area, screened off from prying eyes.
Someone might want to tell Bob Duncan that it wasn’t a “Buddhist chant” – but an invocation of the Trinity.
The unnamed Roman Catholic who regarded the service as “extraordinary” should be given a tape of the PB’s installation-coronation in November 2006.
#1 Quite – someone not only might want to, but should have, explained what it was before using it in the liturgy. To do otherwise positively invites confusion and misunderstanding.
Given that chant is very unusual in the Protestant churches of the subcontinent I’m still not at all clear on quite what it the Bishop did.
Given Bp Duncan’s, and other bishop’s, reactions, the meaning and translation of the chant either was not publicised or not mentioned before it was used. If I were there, I think I would have had the same reaction. Even when a chant from Taize or a Gregorian chant is used, the translation should be — in this case MUST be — made available at the outset, and in the program as well.
Otherwise, misunderstanding is sure to happen ESPECIALLY in this era when we have seen priests who claim both a) Druidic and Chrisitan ordination and b) Muslim and Christian faith and c) priests who have Buddhist statutes or statues of other dieties on the main or side altars of a Christian church.
Is it any wonder there is a bit of wariness about the unfamiliar?
Peace
Jim Elliott <><
A number of our brothers didn’t make their Communion.
This comment of +Duncan raises the question of who did “make their Communionâ€. Given that Schori surely partook, and that all involved are bishops, and thus guardians of the faith, would not any conservative bishop taking communion in that service be implicitly agreeing with the orthodoxy of the other bishops taking part? I thought there was some sort of impaired communion involved between the reasserters and the revisionists. But if it doesn’t impair the participation in the Eucharist I have no idea what such “impaired communion†might mean.
Are we seeing the bowing of the orthodox to the god of collegiality?
Or am I foolishly holding onto an outdated catholic understanding of the relationship between the communion of Eucharist and the communion of fellowship, especially with regard to bishops?