The deposition of Bishop Duncan does not mean that he is no longer a bishop. Our church believes that Holy Orders are indelible. And in fact, as Bishop Duncan was deposed on Thursday, he was at essentially the same time received into the House of Bishops in the Church of the Province of the Southern Cone, in which Anglican diocese he would be and is now authorized to celebrate the Holy Eucharist, to administer Confirmation, to ordain, and so on. Whether this ministry would also be recognized in other parts of the Anglican Communion is an issue with a mixed answer. Some Provinces have immediately announced that recognition, and others to this point have been silent. But in any case, what the deposition does mean is that Bishop Duncan is now deprived of his ability to function as a bishop sacramentally within official boundaries of the Episcopal Church. He could still be considered a baptized member of the Episcopal Church and function in any ministry that a layperson could be authorized to perform, but he could not validly celebrate the Eucharist, officiate at a marriage, pronounce a liturgical blessing, confirm, or ordain. He also may not hold any office in the Episcopal Church that would require ordination–as a rector of a parish, say, or, obviously, as the bishop of a diocese.
At his deposition, Bishop Duncan ceases to have authority as bishop of our diocese, and what is called the “ecclesiastical authority” of the bishop shifts immediately to our diocesan Standing Committee, four priests and four laypersons elected at diocesan convention. They will be the authority in our diocese for the next two weeks, at least until the conclusion of the October 4th Diocesan Convention.
It is expected that if the diocese realigns and forms a diocesan entity within the Southern Cone, it will then go forward to elect Bishop Duncan once again as what I believe they will term the “Bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh of the Province of the Southern Cone.” He will then resume his role as bishop within that entity, and under the canons and authority of that Province. Those of us who will not recognize or participate in the realignment, continuing under the canons and authority of the Episcopal Church, will continue to be under the Ecclesiastical Authority of the Standing Committee””as that committee will then be reorganized with members who continue to recognize the authority of the Episcopal Church.
[blockquote]He could still be considered a baptized member of the Episcopal Church and function in any ministry that a layperson could be authorized to perform, but he could not validly celebrate the Eucharist, officiate at a marriage, pronounce a liturgical blessing, confirm, or ordain. [/blockquote]
Is this technically correct according to the canons? He was deposed as a bishop and hence cannot do sacramental roles that a bishop does, i.e. confirmations, etc.
He has not been deposed as a priest has he? Theoritically he could still do baptisms and weddings, etc, provided that whatever jurisdiction he is canonically resident in allows him to function as a priest. He has not been defrocked as a priest, per se, has he, or is that stipulated in the indictment for abandonment of communion?
The alleged proceedings allegedly resultant in the alleged deposition of Bp Duncan violated the canons of the ECUSA/TEC/GCC/EO-PAC. The importation of the kangaroos for the proceedings gave the debacle an international, um, aroma. So nice to see Orwell fulfilled, prophet that he was. He just missed the institution doing the show trials slightly.
And what pray does this mean anymore????? The sad fact is that Bishop Duncan was not deposed under the canons and constitution of TEC. He was purportedly deposed and TEC’s ruling cabal will act as if he was deposed, but in point of fact, he was not deposed.
Just as there is no bar in TEC’s canons and constitution for a diocese to disaffiliate with the General Convention. Once the Diocese of Pittsburgh votes to disaffiliate, it is gone. TEC loyalists may reorganize a replacement diocese, but until that is done canonically, there is none.
Were I in Pittsburgh I would have voted against leaving TEC (although with the apparent lawlessness in TEC as exemplified by the sham attempt to depose Duncan, I now probably would vote in favor of realigning), but if the Diocese voted to depart, I would have went with it, because the Diocese has the right to do so. If I wanted to remain with TEC, I would have resigned my position on the diocesan standing committee, and called for the work to be done to create a new TEC Diocese of Pittsburgh and have it admitted into union with the GC.
No mention of the outrageous circumstances of the “deposition.” Integrity demands such.
You have chosen your bedmates. Watch your backside. You might want to talk to Rob Eaton+ about what you can expect from the Pittsburgh equivalent of Bp Lamb.
Please do not attack Bruce Robison or his motives. He is a godly man and repected by all in the Diocese of Pittsburgh —re-aligners and non-re-aligners alike. If all in TEC were as gracious, as magnanimous and as caring as Bruce were would not be re-aligning
on 4 Oct
The David Wilson, President
Standing Cmte
I’m really not sure how Bruce Robinson can say that Bp. Duncan can no longer validly celebrate the Eucharist, officiate at a marriage, or pronounce a liturgical blessing. The HOB in Salt Lake City did not negate the ontological change regarding Holy Orders, and thus, at the minimum, +Bob Duncan can still perform all of the functions of a priest, and everything he does sacramentally is both valid and efficacious. Obviously he would be doing so in another eccleciastical jurisdiction, but the validity would not be in question. I would love to hear how he reaches that conclusion.
+Bruce Robison’s statement to his congregation seems to be a fair expression of how he understands the situation. Whether he is technically correct in all his statements, his letter suggests a generosity of spirit that is sadly lacking in most of the discourse between opponents in these times.
For the record, I’m no longer in TEC, but I admire +Duncan greatly and am solidly behind the course he has taken.
No one can call what was done by the HoB of a heretical sect in violation of its own rules a valid deposition. Anyone who does not refute and renounce this action and remains in communion with KJS et al is complicit in their lawlessness and heresies- Bruce Robison included.
David: Thanks for your nice comments about Bruce. Actually most of those staying are like Bruce: I think of Dr. Simons, Jeff Murph, and many others.
It seems like your post says you are voting to realign because everyone else is not like Bruce. I thought there may have been other reasons. Maybe you better reconsider your vote! I do not think it is valid to rend apart the fabric of the diocese because everyone is not “..as gracious, as magnanimous and as caring as Bruce “
Eugene,
The fabric of the Communion has already been rent. Not by the reasserters, but by the leadership of TEc. What we are seeing in Pittsburg, SJ and others is a realization that sooner or later, all reasserting bishops are going to suffer the same fate as +Duncan.
Jim Elliott <><
#6
[blockquote] I’m really not sure how Bruce Robinson can say that Bp. Duncan can no longer validly celebrate the Eucharist, officiate at a marriage, or pronounce a liturgical blessing.
[/blockquote]
Your question is applicable, but not in the Episcopal Church. ecusa has chosen to dispose of +Duncan’s services. As is obvious from any read of the canons, if you are not on the list of clergy at 815, then you aren’t clergy in ecusa. Now, with that the case, what church is he a member of?
[blockquote] The quickest way to get rich in America is to start a new religion.[/blockquote]
-Twain
[blockquote] [Bishop Duncan] could not validly celebrate the Eucharist, officiate at a marriage, pronounce a liturgical blessing, confirm, or ordain. [/blockquote]
What Dr Robinsos should have said (and perhaps meant to say) was that Bp Duncan no longer performs these actions [i] licitly. [/i]Big difference.
Deposition refers to ALL clerical orders from deacon to bishhop. Therefore, if a bishop is deposed, this means that he reverts to lay status within the Church.
Eugene:
What I said about Bruce was about Bruce not about me. I beleive in the absolute necessity to re-align and have since at least GC 2003. There is no chance in me changing my mind or my vote.
David Wilson
#13 – you are from a rather Anglo-Catholic diocese. Do you not believe that an ontological change happens at ordination that cannot be undone by anyone – even the pope?
#12 — With thanks. I believe if I were re-writing the letter, “licitly” would indeed have been the better and more accurate word. Bishop Duncan is now a bishop of the Anglican Diocese of the Southern Cone, and of course his sacramental ministry is “valid.”
Bruce Robison
The author makes two inconsistent statements. First he notes correctly that TEC adheres to the Roman understanding of Holy Orders, which is that it is indelible; once a priest always a priest. He then goes on to claim that Bp. Duncan can not validly perform certain sacramental functions reserved to the clergy. I believe that he has confused (probably unintentionally) the terms valid and licit. Bp. Duncan may not “licitly” perform those functions within the claimed canonical territory of TEC (from TEC’s POV of course). But their validity does not seem to be in doubt amongst persons of the Anglican persuasion.
Of course being an Orthodox Christian, I would note that the Roman position on the indelible nature of Holy Orders is not consistent with the traditional teaching of the Church. In Orthodoxy a priest or bishop once deposed reverts to a layman. In Orthodox sacramental theology the grace of the Mysteries including Holy Orders do not operate outside of the Church. In the Roman Catholic position (accepted by TEC) Holy Orders and the sacraments have been separated from the Church and operate independently of it. Thus it is possible to be a heretic or notorious schismatic and still be a bishop or priest. (Not that I am accusing +Duncan of such things beyond the obvious observation that he is not Orthodox.)
ICXC NIKA
[url=http://ad-orientem.blogspot.com/]John[/url]
It seems my post evoked David Wilson+’s reply.
I do think that his situation and Father Rob Eaton’s are very analogous. Rob+ did condemn the violations of the canons of the PBess when she “deposed” Bp Schofield and “dismissed” the standing committee. Integrity demands that Robinson+ do the same. His letter is resoundingly silent on that point. Thus, he should have stated, [blockquote] Despite many canonical violations and more importantly a blatant disregard for justice in an organization that purports to hold justice issues dearly, the situation is that Bp Duncan has been deposed by the Episcopal church… [/blockquote]
David Wilson’s descriptor of Bruce Robinson+ “magnanimous, godly and respected by the whole diocese” applies to Rob Eaton+. But I believe that both are wrong. I respect the sense of discipline that both espouse. If they feel that their ordination vows demand that they stay with the sinking ship, then fine, but I believe that to convince their parishioners to stay is wrong when to do so might have soul endangering consequences (if not for the parishioners then for their children). The proper course, especially in light of what happened to Father Rob’s church is to ask to transfer to another diocese (like Father Dan Martins did) and tell the parish to take the opportunity to flee the coming wrath.
Robroy
My last post was in response to #9 Eugene not yours
David Wilson
#15 Charles, although the temporal authorities of the Church can require that a bishop cease performing his episcopal acts, it is God Himself who makes the ultimate choice.
Robroy: What folks like Robison and Eaton depends on several factors. As I have said, I probably would not have voted to realign with the Southern Cone yet (though I would have favored establishing a “backup plan” in the canons). I have also said that I believe that a diocese is NOT prevented under TEC’s constitution and canons from disaffiliating with the General Convention. I believe that the core unit in the Anglican churches are the dioceses and that good order needs to begin there.
Accordingly, I could summarize my position as follows:
1) I think the move to realign was perhaps premature;
2) A diocese has the right to leave TEC;
3) A priest desiring to be faithful to Anglican ecclesiology should follow the diocesan lead, even if that wasn’t what they wanted.