As the House has been informed previously, in November 2007 I directed a submission by my Office to the Title IV Review Committee that enclosed materials suggesting that Bishop Duncan had abandoned the Communion of this Church within the meaning of Canon IV.9. That submission recited that Bishop Duncan had supported first readings of amendments to the Constitution of the Diocese of Pittsburgh at the last Diocesan Convention that, among other things, would delete the unqualified accession by the Diocese to the Constitution and canons of the Episcopal Church. The submission also recited Bishop Duncan’s leadership of a program under which delegates to the next Diocesan Convention in October 2008 would determine whether or not to adopt a second reading of the proposed amendments to the Diocesan Constitution deleting the “accession” clause, and pass a resolution purporting to make the Diocese a member of another Province within the Anglican Communion. Further details of Bishop Duncan’s program were outlined in a second submission to the Review Committee by certain lay and clerical members of the Diocese of Pittsburgh.
The thrust of the foregoing submission by my Office was not that Bishop Duncan had already left the Episcopal Church, but rather that he had in his episcopal leadership role taken the position that the Diocese had the option of either remaining subject to the Constitution and canons of this Church or leaving this Church for membership in another Province of the Communion; and that in that role he was encouraging the Diocese to choose to leave. The submission suggested, therefore, that Bishop Duncan, by pressing his position that the Diocese had such a choice and should exercise it by disaffiliating from the Episcopal Church, had abandoned the Communion of this Church by “an open renunciation of the … Discipline … of this Church” within the meaning of Canon IV.9(1)(i).
The Review Committee evidently agreed with that analysis and on December 17, 2007 certified to me as Presiding Bishop that Bishop Duncan had abandoned the Communion of this Church. Shortly thereafter, I asked the three senior bishops having jurisdiction in this Church, pursuant to Canon IV.9(1), to consent to Bishop Duncan’s inhibition pending presentation of the matter to the House of Bishops, but not all these bishops gave their consent.
+Duncan hasn’t been inhibited, how can he be deposed?
May God bless Bishop Duncan and all the servants of Jesus Christ.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I walked one day along a country road,
And there a stranger journeyed, too,
Bent low beneath the burden of His load:
It was a cross, a cross I knew.
I cried, “Lord Jesus,†and He spoke my name;
I saw His hands all bruised and torn;
I stooped to kiss away the marks of shame,
The shame for me that He had borne.
“O let me bear Thy cross, dear Lord,†I cried,
And lo, a cross for me appeared,
The one forgotten I had cast aside,
The one, so long, that I had feared.
My cross I’ll carry till the crown appears,
The way I journey soon will end
Where God Himself shall wipe away all tears,
And friend hold fellowship with friend.
“Take up thy cross and follow Me.â€
I hear the blessèd Savior call;
How can I make a lesser sacrifice,
When Jesus gave His all?
She answers your question in the uncited portions. Badly, but answers none the less. The English got over this type of thing when they outlawed the Star Chamber.
Badly, I agree. The Canons say whatever she wants them to say.
Doesn’t Lambeth look like a really huge farce now? So much for INDABA +++Rowan! All-in-all, however, I think this is real progress. The logjam is breaking apart and we can ALL move on in the ways in which we think the Lord is calling us. There’s no need for anger, let’s part ways in the spirit of Christian charity. I think we should be grateful to the PB for being crystal clear in her actions. This is hugely refreshing after her predecessor.
I wonder if the PB will make this the subject of her sermon tomorrow at St Michael’s in Savannah.
Two thousand years ago, only one of the twelve apostles betrayed Jesus. Now it is the head of a province (and her bishop supporters) out of communion with the global Anglican church. This, I guess, is progress?
Rule #1: the canons mean what the PB says they mean.
Rule #2: When the canons and the PB seem at odds, see rule #1.
[blockquote]The thrust of the foregoing submission by my Office was not that Bishop Duncan had already left the Episcopal Church, but rather that he had in his episcopal leadership role taken the position that the Diocese had the option of either remaining subject to the Constitution and canons of this Church or leaving this Church for membership in another Province of the Communion; and that in that role he was encouraging the Diocese to choose to leave. The submission suggested, therefore, that Bishop Duncan, by pressing his position that the Diocese had such a choice and should exercise it by disaffiliating from the Episcopal Church, had abandoned the Communion of this Church by “an open renunciation of the … Discipline … of this Church” within the meaning of Canon IV.9(1)(i).[/blockquote]
In all fairness, let me try to understand this logic, because I am not following it. She seems to admit that Duncan has not left the Episcopal Church, but then has somehow left the Episcopal by advising actions that have not yet led to a leaving of the Episcopal Church?
Is this not putting the cart before the horse? I mean, there has to be a murder before someone can be charged with murder. This seems to be more of an endictment on conspiracy charges. It seems to me if she wants to take Duncan down on abandonment charges, then give him enough hope to hang himself. If he is indeed intent on abandoning Communion, then substantive actions will eventually be made.
In fact, if I was advising Bishop Schori, I’d let this issue ripen because if she lets Pittsburgh go off and secede, then it will be easier for her to pull a San Jaquin and put a sympathizer in as puppet bishop because as of now, if the diocese has not left, then, if Duncan is deposed, the diocese will just elect someone else as Bishop that is a carbon copy of Duncan’s views.
I just don’t understand this logic.
So, by her logic, contemplating Schim is the same as committing it. If I muse that an act is a possibility I have already committed it. I don’t think even Jesus’ sermon on the mount was that extreme.
I wonder how this applies to, oh I don’t know, same sex marriages or a host of heretical positions. Does a bishop’s musing that the creeds might not be obligatory make that bishop guilty of abandoning the Communion? Of course not! Silly me.
Apparently the canons and their present interpretation are soooo sacred that even speaking against them is sin. Wow. I wish we had that kind of power back before these pagans took over what used to be a nice church by abusing the freedoms foolishly granted them.
Bishop Duncan has been trying to get his Diocese out of TEC for many years. He should leave and not worry about being deposed. He is NOT TEC. So why is he upset?
I guess it gives his side some kind of pity factor: no pity here. He wants to leave: so be it. But do not expect that he will treated with kids gloves. He has tried to urge the parishes under his care to leave TEC, even though their by-laws forbid it. If that is not violation of his ordination vows, nothing is.
I really think he needs to sit down with someone and be shown that he is not innocent. Too many of his “flock” treat him as “blessed”. He is a mere man who wnats to leave TEC. That is all. He is not losing anything.
He is not sacrificing anything.
He has his pension
his retirement home
his “consulting” job with the ex-diocese to be of Pittsburgh.
He needs a realtiy check.
Eugene,
He is the reality check. For many of us this is not about pension and materiality. It is about a church that has abandoned Christianity. I assure Bishop Duncan would ratheir not follow this course.
Far to many in the TEC worship the institution. Duncan is among those who worship Jesus Christ.
It’s just that it would be nice if alleged Christians would obey the rules they set for themselves and not “interpret” them in such a way as to gain some goal they’ve set for themselves ever since 2003. Mrs. Schori has already declared Bishop Duncan guilty. I hope that there is enough integrity left in the HOB to call the old fraud on it but I’m not hopeful. Spines went out of style there forty years ago.
Eugene,
I think it’s misleading to say of Bishop Duncan that he’s been trying to get the Diocese out of TEC “for many years.” Of course none of us know what is in the mind of another, but I don’t think you can attribute such intent to +Bob before 2003 at the earliest. Ever since the last General Convention he’s become heavily invested in Common Cause and has started to sound much more like some of his clergy who have always favored disassociation, but I don’t think this is reflective of where he was in the 1990s. His comments on the AMIA consecrations in 2000 were not exactly glowing.
Eugene, let me give you a little “educating.”
Not a single bit of what we reasserters, including Bishop Duncan, have been doing ever since “the troubles” began would ever have happened if The Episcopal Church….aided and abetted by those who would destroy Anglican Christianity in order to rebuild it as THEY see it…..would ever have happened if TEC had not been hijacked by two movements…..the leaders of which have schemed and plotted for thirty years or more…..to influence the Church and society to adopt THEIR way of thinking. I refer to Women’s Lib and the GLBT movement and their supporters.
Your own Presiding Bishop has not been guiltless, and she has, in fact, seen fit to further the agendas of these two movements. In addition, she has openly questioned the divinity of Christ to the point where she erroneously claims the “there is more than one way to God than through Jesus Christ,” when in fact Jesus Himself said that “I am The Way, The Truth, and The Life. He who hath seen Me hath seen the Father,” and “No man cometh unto the Father except through Me.” What does she not understand about Jesus’ words, pray tell?
I detect a certain level of meglo-mania in Schori’s behavior. This is a serious comment, not a verbal attack.
I wonder if the next moves on the part of ECUSA’s revisionists will be to edit Scripture and the creeds in order to tailor them to their peculiar agenda.
Again, we have [url=http://www.leanderharding.com/blog/2008/08/29/gafcon-and-the-pastoral-forum/ ]Leander Harding+’s short but perceptive take on the situation[/url]:
[blockquote] It is clear from the recent communique from GAFCON that the move to establish a North American Province without the express approval of Canterbury is unstoppable. It is a tragically missed opportunity that a robust response to the needs of alienated orthodox Anglicans in North America was not negotiated at Lambeth. I think a unified and unifying response could still be made if the Archbishop of Canterbury immediately announces a chair for the pastoral forum who is a figure credible in Global South and GAFCON quarters. Drexel Gomez and Mouneer Anis are two names that come immediately to mind. The non-negotiable needs to be that any interim arrangement of alternate primatial oversight is acceptable to the parties seeking relief. [b]The window of opportunity for a Canterbury sponsored solution is nearly closed.[/b][/blockquote]
Truly, the inhibition of Bp Duncan will burn all the remaining bridges.
[i] Comment deleted. [/i]
The thing I really can’t believe is that NO ONE seems to be able to get through to this woman that this sort of thing is by NO MEANS HELPFUL OR PRODUCTIVE…
I’m starting to feel like Alice in Wonderland–“Off with his head”!!!
[i] Comment deleted. [/i]
[i] Comment deleted. [/i]
[i] Comment deleted. [/i]
[i] Comment deleted. [/i]
[i] Comment deleted. [/i]
[i] Comment deleted. [/i]
[i] Comment deleted. [/i]
[i] Comment deleted. [/i]
[i] Comment deleted. [/i]
[i] Comment deleted. [/i]
[i] Comment deleted. [/i]
[i] Comment deleted. [/i]
“…just like a fart may smell sweet while living in a paper mill town. Outside in the fresh air the natural stench will become more obvious”.
Chris Hathaway, thank you for this illuminating mental picture. At least I agree with your theological stance…
🙂
[i] This thread has gone off topic. Those comments discussing WO have been deleted. [/i]