Bishop Gary Lillibridge of West Texas
“As difficult as this decision is for me and many others in our Church, it is important to realize that the decision in the House today was not based on the theological convictions of Bishop Duncan, but rather on the evidence presented regarding statements and actions concerning moves to take the Diocese of Pittsburgh out of the Episcopal Church.”.
Bishop James Mathes of San Diego
“Today’s decision was difficult and emotional but a necessary action to care for the order of the Church, the people of the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh, and the collegiality of the House of Bishops.”
Bishop Porter Taylor of Western North Carolina
“Our decisions today were very difficult and came out of our deep love for our Church, a commitment to honor our ordination vows, and a desire to strengthen the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh.”
These so called bishops that voted to depose bishop Duncan have all withdrawn themselves from communion with the wider Anglican Communion. They have denied Christ, they have violated the canons of their own “church” and do not have the guts to stand up for Christ. If they did, they would bring queen katie up on charges that she is a heretic. Don’t hold your breath waiting on that to happen. These spinless wimps have totally capitulated to the wicked witch.
As David Virtue noted, the dissenters included a number of bishops not known for their conservative credentials (the Bishop of Rhode Island once again showing herself to be a person of integrity). That being the case, why did Bishop Lillibridge feel the need to support the deposition at this time. Was it really necessary?
[url=http://catholicandreformed.blogspot.com]Catholic and Reformed[/url]
In other words, it’s not just actions that are a threat to 815, but thoughts and words. No freedom of speech in the new TEC. Just the merest *whiff* of dissent is enough to warrant deposition.
Reaserters beware. Who is next? Maybe YOUR bishop!
JE <><
Unless I am mistaken, Bishop Lilliebridge’s comments would need to be interpreted as from one who voted No. I am no mind reader, but suspect Lilliebridge may be emphasizing that Duncan and his positions were not at issue, but rather how the canons are properly to be applied. Lists I have seen indicate that for him, they did not did not lead to a vote to depose. Others can correct re: how he voted.
Somebody bring these guys a silver bowl of water so they can wash their hands.
[b]Throughout the discussions, the gathering was quiet, prayerful and respectful as the bishops listened to one another. There was a great appreciation for the beliefs and viewpoints of the bishops from all perspectives.[/b] from Episcope
Maybe it is time to stop being quiet, maybe it is time to call evil by its name. Maybe it is time to call out those bishops who are cowards and those who have abandoned communion with Christ and his Gospel.
RSB
The wall of shame – their actions shall live in ignominy!
#4,
Looking back at his statement, I suspect that you are correct. My apologies to Bishop Lillibridge.
#6 Bunker I’m with you. Is this how The Episcopal Church will end in America? Not with a bang, but with a whimper?
Shameful.
KTF!….mrb
Trivial Pursuit: Scriptural Facts Edition
Q: Exactly how many vipers are in a brood?
Ans: 87
A sad day.
Did Duncan try to take the diocese of Pittsburgh out of TEC? What would a TEC responsible for those in Pittsburgh who wanted to remain in TEC have to do otherwise?
John (#11),
I have issues with the property question (and the negative effect it’s having on conservatives), but the Diocese of Pittsburgh is in the surprisingly healthy state that it is for a Rustbelt community (which is still not great) because of the efforts of many of those who now propose realignment. So much of the “Pittsburgh Paradigm” (see this month’s ANGLICAN AND EPISCOPAL HISTORY) is tied to Evangelicalism and there was a time when Pittsburgh was held up as a model of how to “do church.”
I had an exchange some while back with Joan Gundersen where I asked how she imagined she could rebuild a parish like St. Stephen’s, Sewickley if she were handed the building and 5-10 percent of the membership. Her response was that she had had experience of rebuilding many divided parishes. That may be true, but I doubt if she ever had to work with this scale of disaster.
I would say that a charitable response would be to acknowledge the reality of division, divide the assets where they cannot be applied to mutually agreeable projects, assign church buildings based on which side has the greatest likelihood of keeping them open (with possibility of reversion should they fail) and cease to worry excessively about overlapping jurisdictions. If it’s going to happen regardless of what is done, then making an issue of it is rubbing salt in the wound.
John Wilkins – A better question might be why most of a diocese wants nothing to do with your organization, just as a normal person would have asked why the most vibrant congregations, such as Christ Church Plano, TFC, etc., thought of ECUSA as something best avoided. Of course, the answers would require your “leaders” to do harder thinking than taking direction from the latest Abercrombie & Fitch ads.
#11, John Wilkins, why does majority rule apply in General Convention and in TEC in general, but you don’t want it to apply in diocesan decisions, like this one in D. of Pittsburgh?
In answer to your question, +Duncan (he hasn’t been deposed yet, so he still deserves the + from you) did not call the first convention or push for a vote for realignment. Only after the first vote was taken and passed overwhelmingly did he support the vote and support realignment. Now your question “did he try to take the diocese … out of TEC” is interesting, because that becomes a factual question and also a question as to whether an attempt is “abandonment” within the terms of the canon. He says he did not abandon. So the prudent thing for TEC to do would be to wait for the second vote and see if realignment passed and if +Duncan agreed to it. If it did and if he did, then I suspect there would be no problem in getting the signatures of the 3 most senior bishops (as required by canon) for inhibition and then there would not be the accusations of unfairness that are being attached to this process. There seems little question to any observer that this was a railroad of the worse order and trampled the protective procedure of the canons for the convenience and expediency of the PB and Bp Sauls and DBBeers, most likely, I suspect, so that they can attempt to change the standing committee of D. of Pittsburgh, like they did in San Joaquin, to keep the seond vote on realignment from occurring. They may get more than they bargained for if they try that. Finally, it is indeed ironic that a man from NH, who is living in an open homosexual a relationship that 20-30 years ago would have immediately called for his inhibition and deposition from the priesthood, could today sit in judgment on a man who is upholding the faith all believed in 20 years ago. As I’ve asked you before, John, what if you (and those you support – those 88 bishops) are wrong? The millstone may be awfully heavy.
Behold the august (well, september) wisdom of the white witch and her [url=http://marrowcleaver.blogspot.com/2008/09/death-to-traitors.html]court[/url] of dark dwarfs They have punished a bishop for what they knew he was going to do. Why wait for the deed to happan before the punishment. The age of Future Crime is here!
And you thought that was just from some dumb Tom Cruise movie.
[blockquote]Bishop Porter Taylor of Western North Carolina
“Our decisions today were very difficult and came out of our deep love for our Church, a commitment to honor our ordination vows, and a desire to strengthen the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh.â€[/blockquote]
+Taylor apparently voted “no.” And indeed, the Diocese of Pittsburgh has been strengthened, but hardly in the way Taylor imagined.
Billy,
TEC is organized like the US. It’s similar to letting a state secede. Duncan could decide not to raise the question and continue relating to conservative dioceses without taking the diocese out of the Episcopal Church. How should Lincoln have handled Jefferson Davis?
If we are wrong, then we will ask for God’s mercy. “I desire mercy and not sacrifice” the scriptures say. Being perfect in our decisions is impossible. As Paul said, the greatest of these is love. Perhaps if Duncan had offered more charity to TEC, we would not resort to such a legal struggle.
Then – what if you are wrong, and homosexuality is meant to be placed within the context of love, commitment and joy rather than made into a religious taboo; within the context of mutual encouragement, rather than sanctifying our personal discomfort?