Let us suppose that it was the Primates who wrote: It is my sincere hope and prayer that these bishops, who once pledged of their own free will to engage to remain faithful to the doctrine, discipline and worship of the Anglican Communion, will in a spirit of reconciliation choose to fulfill their previous promises.
If they are unable to do so, we in the Anglican Communion must do our sad duty to discipline them and move in a timely manner to protect and provide for the many remaining faithful of these dioceses.
I should have put my cursor over the link before I clicked on it. LOL
Unfortunately Episcopal Cafe is not Netscape-friendly, and all I ever see is a huge, ugly brown-blob screen.
Am I just lucky? Sure seems to be a message there somewhere.
Gloria
Read it. I believe that should be Bishop ‘Fraid, ya’ll. At least he pretends to be protection of the “membership and patrimony” of the ECUSA/TEC. Glad to know his priorities. Just give ’em time and the current leadership will have VGR lead the attack on this “patriarchal” defense of the glorious new ECUSA/TEC being created in the du jour mode.
If, dear bishop, the [i]”oath to engage to conform to the doctrine, discipline and worship of The Episcopal Church”[/i] caused one to go against the true doctrine, discipline and worship we are called to through Holy Scripture and the one holy, catholic and apostolic Church, which following would your pastoral leadership recommend we follow?
Inquiring minds would like to know (in preparing for the Final Judgment).
+Frade’s position may not be a surprise but the clarity of his statement is certainly an encouragement. In particular: [blockquote]”… after reviewing all the supporting documents that give evidence of their actions, I was astonished that we neglected to take action any sooner on their obvious violation and breach of their oath to engage to conform to the doctrine, discipline and worship of The Episcopal Church.”[/blockquote]
… makes it clear that the more the truth comes out about those, like +Duncan, who have determined to split the church they haven’t been able to dominate, the more the consensus grows that it is time to call “time” on the schism and division and get on with the mission and ministry of the church.
Yes indeed, let’s get on with [blockquote] the mission and ministry of the Church, [/blockquote] to call all people-groups into repentance and discipleship under He who is the Only Way to come to the Father.
[blockquote]RE:”It was with great sadness that I concluded I had no other choice but to vote to move to inhibit two of my brothers who have betrayed their trust to be faithful shepherds of their dioceses, which are integral parts of our Episcopal Church.”[/blockquote]
Rather, sir, your brothers have kept their trust to be faithful shepherds to God’s people, and they seem to understand that Episcopal Church is a ship that has become unmoored from rock of the Truth and is adrift in dangerous waters.
Bishop Frade – if you believe that Bishop Duncan is liable to discipline, then accuse him and try him under the canonical process set up for trial. Please don’t circumvent the process by saying that he “abandoned the communion” of this Church. Can you cite a specific canon that +Duncan has violated or is it more of “well, it feels like he has abandoned us?”
blockquote] … makes it clear that the more the truth comes out about those, like +Duncan, who have determined to split the church they haven’t been able to dominate, the more the consensus grows that it is time to call “time†on the schism and division and get on with the mission and ministry of the church. [/blockquote]
Very interesting statement. I guess if you are not a TRUE Christian, you will buy that. But for a TRUE Christian, when it come to the church, whether it be TEC, AC, or ANY Christian church, the “schism and division” you speak of in your comments is caused by those who chose to go against Scripture and attempt to rewrite it into their own words. Somehow, I don’t think God approves of that. As a matter of fact it’s clear in Scripture that the consequences of such actions will be great on Judgement Day. All I can do is pray that the lost souls of those who continue to follow these heretic practices will be turned back to God BEFORE the day of Judgement.
Bishop Fraid clearly doesn’t get it either, or else he would never even have to question the fact that Bishop Duncan is clearly trying to keep his flock safe from the heresy that TEC is now promoting. A TRUE Christian would have no problem with telling KJS that “inhibiting” a TRUE Christian in the church is totally uncalled for, and would NEVER even consider such an action. The fact that Bishop Fraid only looks at words of “legalism” in the “polity” of the church tells me that he’s totally missed the message Jesus gave in the Scriptures. The TEC leaders of today are only the “Pharisees” of today. We all know what Jesus thought of the Pharisees. THEY definitely needed to be “inhibited”, as do all the heretic leaders of TEC today.
It is fortunate that the Anglican Communion , and the whole of God’s Church, has great precedent to allow groups of the orthodox faithful to reject the false teachings of other Churches. What is happening here is remarkably similar to that other minor aspect of Anglican history, in which the English Church was forced to dissolve its relationship with the see of Rome in order to maintain the orthodox teachings of scripture and the fathers. It’s clear that the “schismatics” here are not the bishops of San Joaquin or Pittsburgh, but those like +Frade who don’t understand that the Church is bound together by adherence to the catholic faith, not by some sort of sense of Episcopal brotherhood (however well intended).
Susan–I know you, but new readers at this highly trafficked site might not. Don’t you think fairness would suggest that you identify yourself as President of Integrity–the gay advocacy group in TEC? You are not just one of us little people popping in with our opinions.
I find +Leo Frade’s comments extremely offensive. Bishops Duncan, Schofield, and their so-called “co-conspirators” owe their allegiance only to Christ and His Church Universal…….NOT to The Episcopal Church. For him to denigrate these good and faithful Christian bishops is absolutely inexcusable, not becoming of a so-called “Christian bishop”……the fact of which which he has never proven himself to be in my eyes, and is certainly not the mark of a gentleman. This man owes the entire Christian world an apology.
The Title IV Review Committee is required under Canon IV.9 to state the acts or declarations constituting abondment, which in this case would be statements constituting an open renunciation of the Doctrine, Discipline or Worship of the Episcopal Church. The Review Committee didn’t do so. Instead, it attached its “certificate” to the one-sided submissions of the complaining parties and said in effect that the acts and declarations showing abandonment are somewhere in these voluminous documents the complainants have submitted.
Even the statements of the complaining parties don’t specify the particular statements claimed to constitute an open renunciation. Strikingly, Mr. Beers and the other submitters do not even use the canonical language, “open renunciation.” Why? By using words like “repudiation” of doctrine, discipline or worship the lawyers can argue that this or that amounts to a repudiation. But for an “open renunciation” there’s no concept of “amounting to”; there either is or isn’t one. That’s the difference between the kind of charges which can be brought under Canon IV.9 and those that properly should be made if at all under Canon IV.1.
Diet of Worms — I couldn’t agree more — Susan Russell’s comment above shows just what a misnomer their claims for “inclusion” and “a broad tent” are. They are extremely and over-the-top exclusive in their thinking.
I wonder if they ever believed the rhetoric they said a year or so ago about the virtues of a broad church?
#14, I see no reason why Susan Russell should ID herself as President of Integrity. She said nothing specific regarding the same-sex issue, and nothing more than I, a non-Intregity member, might have said about Bp. Frade’s remarks. We do share a respect for him personally. I also respect his boldness in speaking what I believe to be the truth of the matter, as I have said in the past.
Bob–When Susan speaks, Integrity speaks (like it or not), unless she indicates otherwise. My point would be that Bishop Frade’s action in zeal for the “patrimony” (!?!) of the House of Bishops, the PB’s seeking to inhibit, and, indeed Bishop Duncan’s words and actions, are not happening in a vacuum. The context is precisely the successful push by Integrity and their supporters (prominently in the HOB) to move TEC to affirm gay unions as a holy thing. It wouldn’t be totally outlandish to suggest that Susan is driving the steamroller (or at least fueling it up each day) now taking aim on Bishop Duncan and others. I just think such disclosure is only fair to new readers here.
Apparently, “due process” will follow Duncan, Schofield, Iker, the dioceses of San Joaquin, Pittsburgh and Forth Worth, the 11 CANA parishes in Virginia, etc., etc. out of TEC.
What I find truly shocking here is the complete liberal disregard for due process and intergrity when dealing with the canons. For them it is “whatever works.” Given their reaction to what the Primates have called for, the liberals have revealed themselves as monumental hypocrites.
I have no doubt that the liberals will be able to push this sort of abuse of process through. What I think the liberals don’t realize will be the tremendous cost of so doing.
Certainly the homosexualist of TEC are anything but inclusive and tolerant or anyone who doesn’t agree with them. However, that isn’t the issue here.
Bishops such as Schofield, Iker, and Duncan are trying to lead their people out of the TEC swamp, retaining what they have built and worked for. They are, I suppose, “schismatics”, (though a more apt term might be “refugees”), and are acting within historic Anglican ecclesiology.
“What is happening here is remarkably similar to that other minor aspect of Anglican history, in which the English Church was forced to dissolve its relationship with the see of Rome in order to maintain the orthodox teachings of scripture and the fathers.”
Could some smart historically-minded reader help me out a bit? Please inform me, in detail and with source references, when, where and by what means “the English Church was forced to dissolve its relationship with the See of Rome?” Was it the Canterbury Convocation’s acceptance of Henry’s “Supreme Headship” in May 1533? But if so, it was a vote that lacked the concurrence of the lower house, and so of dubious validity; and in any event “the English Church” quite decisively repudiated that dubious decision in 1553 and 1554. Was it the acts of a later convocation, say at the time of the final breach with Rome in the first half of 1559? But to my best recollection the Canterbury Convocation at that time, when invited by the Crown to respond to “reform” proposals, repudiated in clear and uncompromising terms both the competence of secular authorities (Crown and Parliament) to “reform” or indeed to legislate for the Church without its own consent, and went on to reaffirm the papal supremacy.
But perhaps we are to understand “forced to” in this assertion in the same sense that a man might be “forced to” hand over his money to an armed robber, or a virtuous woman “forced to” submit to a rapist.
Hmmm . . . Jim, I just assume that everybody knows that Susan Russell is one of the architects of “the mission and ministry of the church [sic: Integrity]” that she keeps talking about. And Integrity’s mission is, shall we say, well-connected with all sorts of other progressives in the church, including members of the Executive Committee and the HOB, as well as the HOD . . . and, as we all noticed when KJS touched down from her ill-fated agreements at Dar and got “spoken to” . . . with KJS. ; > )
That’s what happens when you win control of the levers of power in the church, as Integrity has most carefully, calculatedly, and strategically done. Hats off to them for working hard at that.
Surely everybody who would be on this blog knows that? I just read and smile . . . and I assume that most reasserters do. I’m with Bob on this — surely everybody on this blog knows her and what gospel she preaches. Seems excessive to try to get her to say it again.
My, my, my … maybe the elves are were off watching the Nevada primary like I was, but it does seem to me the topic du jour is Bishop Frade’s actions re: Bishop Duncan, not Susan Russell’s CV.
As for the mission and ministry of the church, how about this: [blockquote]Q. What is the mission of the Church?
A. The mission of the Church is to restore all people to unity with God and each other in Christ.
Q. How does the Church pursue its mission?
A. The Church pursues its mission as it prays and worships, proclaims the Gospel, and promotes justice, peace, and love. [/blockquote]
That’s the mission and ministry we’re working to get back to. Thanks for the opportunity to clarify.
[i] Never fear. The elves are right here reading everything. [/i]
RE: “As for the mission and ministry of the church, how about this:”
Sure would have been nice for Integrity to focus on that.
I do agree that the topic of this thread should not be Susan Russell’s mission and ministry through Integrity, but instead Bishop Frade.
I personally think that Jim Workman should be inhibited, deposed, and then banned from the site for suggesting such extreme ignorance of the commenters here about Susan Russell’s goals. It is he who has nefariously driven this thread off-topic with spurious suggestions about the knowledge of Kendall Harmon’s commenters.
[blockquote] Given their reaction to what the Primates have called for, the liberals have revealed themselves as monumental hypocrites.
I have no doubt that the liberals will be able to push this sort of abuse of process through. What I think the liberals don’t realize will be the tremendous cost of so doing. [/blockquote]
“Could some smart historically-minded reader help me out a bit? Please inform me, in detail and with source references, when, where and by what means “the English Church was forced to dissolve its relationship with the See of Rome?—
Frankly Doctor, given that you are clearly the expert in the bureaucracy of the English reformation, it seems that you are the man to answer all the questions that you ask here. What I can say is that in 1571 the Articles of Religion are ratified by both houses of the Convocation, and are assented to by Her Majesty Elisabeth I. By this time it is made blatant within the articles that this is the attitude of the English Church as a whole. Perhaps you could explain the thrust of your argument?
“But perhaps we are to understand “forced to†in this assertion in the same sense that a man might be “forced to†hand over his money to an armed robber, or a virtuous woman “forced to†submit to a rapist.”
Despite the tasteless imagery you use here I will clarify the sense in which the English Church was “forced to” dissolve its relationship with Rome. It was forced by its own adherence to the catholic religion to reject that which was false. The Church of England was (and is) not in schism, but moved in such a way as to avoid schism. In order to be what it aspires to be, the Church is constantly compelled to follow the truth of the Gospel as it is laid out in scripture and interpreted by its own traditions, inspired the grace of the Spirit. To use the pattern of your imagery, it is like Stephen, who is “forced to” speak the truth of the Gospel to those who murdered him because he is compelled by his own faith in God.
What’s the big deal here? Isn’t +Frade just recycling the dictum of another “progressive,” Lavrenty Beria, when he said, “Show me the man, and I’ll find the crime”?
Susan Russell wrote:
As for the mission and ministry of the church, how about this:
Q. What is the mission of the Church?
A. The mission of the Church is to restore all people to unity with God and each other in Christ.
Q. How does the Church pursue its mission?
A. The Church pursues its mission as it prays and worships, proclaims the Gospel, and promotes justice, peace, and love.
Susan, I agree that the mission of the church is to “restore all people to unity with God and each other in Christ”. However, not at the expense of the TRUTH. If there is no unity in the TRUTH, there is no unity at all. In other words, what you might call “unity” is not UNITY in TRUTH. What you are calling “unity” is just people uniting who believe a pack of lies. Bishop Fraid is feeding into those lies by attempting to inhibit a truly Biblical bishop of the church (the WHOLE church, not just TEC).
As to this statement of yours,
“A. The Church pursues its mission as it prays and worships, proclaims the Gospel, and promotes justice, peace, and love.”
The church does pursue its mission as it prays and worships, and proclaims the TRUE Gospel (as given to us in Scripture). NOT proclaiming the lies you call gospel. Jesus did not come to bring “peace”, but a “sword”. There will be no peace until the end of time. Yes, the second great commandment does command us to “love” one another as we love ourselves. However, not to “love” LIES! There is no justice to be served according to the Bible. Jesus will dole out the rewards and punishment to each and every one of us individually when we meet Him for Judgement. For those of you promoting the LIES, I’d be really concerned about that. Jesus knows what’s in our hearts. We can’t make any excuses to Him. Just think about that when your day comes. Bishop Fraid might want to think about that too as he goes about condemning Bishops in the Church who are TRUE Christians according to Scripture.
[blockquote] I personally think that Jim Workman should be inhibited, deposed, and then banned from the site for suggesting such extreme ignorance of the commenters here about Susan Russell’s goals. It is he who has nefariously driven this thread off-topic with spurious suggestions about the knowledge of Kendall Harmon’s commenters.
I for one am outraged.
[/blockquote]
And, of course, don’t forget the sale of a bridge in Brooklyn that should also go along with this outrage… ;>)
[blockquote]I also believe that it is my episcopal duty to assiduously safeguard both the membership and patrimony of our Church as a whole. The faithful of those dioceses that have been betrayed by their bishops need to know that they are not abandoned by their Church.[/blockquote]
I suppose it’s a matter of what one is being faithful to, Bishop Frade, an apostate ‘church’ or the Lord Christ. +Scofield and +Duncan know whom they are following, do you?
[blockquote]The Episcopate must not tolerate such actions as these bishops have taken…[/blockquote]
In case it had escaped your gimlet-eyed gaze, Bishop Frade, the departure of DioSJ was not a unilateral move by +Schofield, nor will it be regarding DioPitt and +Duncan. The membership is rejecting you and your heretical innovations and voting with their feet, individually and en masse as entire dioceses. They are not betrayed by their bishops, who remain faithful to Anglican doctrine, but by the likes of you and your puppet masters at 815.
[blockquote] They are not betrayed by their bishops, who remain faithful to Anglican doctrine, but by the likes of you and your puppet masters at 815. [/blockquote]
Well said, Jeffersonian. In this case, it is indeed Bishop Fraid and his cohorts who are betraying the faithful in the church, NOT Bishop Duncan. I don’t know how these “bishops” can sleep at night and still call themselves bishops. But then again, the book of Jude does warn us really well. Many have crept in who are wolves in sheep’s clothing. We’re seeing it bold and clear in TEC right now. Let’s not be sucked into the fire with Bishop Fraid and his cohorts.
The seriousness of this betrayal is not mitigated by the fact that in one of the cases the goal of turning away from The Episcopal Church has not been fully achieved. As I have learned to say in America, “You can not just be a little pregnant.”
I think this is clearly where the distinction lies. If we look at the history of the Church, simple advocacy that fell short of action was punished by inhibition and deposition. Even today, the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches inhibit or depose based on advocacy that falls short of action (as well as action). In the case of +Duncan, he has not simply advocated for change. He has taken concrete steps designed to eliminate the Episcopal Church and replace it with a church of his own design. He may do these things in the dark and behind closed doors, but he has never denied that this is his intention. Semantics can not be used to hide the truth.
Thank God that the bishops are in extraction mode. This will (hopefully) mean that long-standing private doctrinal interpretatations and teachings will now be subject for inhibition. I say that attention should NOW be turned to Bishop Andrus and his Grace Cathedral, San Francisco. For a most BASIC violation of the Canons, one can read Bishop Andrus’ cathedral bulletin as it invites anyone to come to communion…just so long as they are seekers. What happened to the officially-adopted Episcopal CANON on Holy Communion? I read it and it’s plain. Only those who are baptized shall receive in this church. Seekers can come and be taught and then receive.
Soooo: let’s keep the ball rolling. The Canon on Holy Communion is being flagrantly violated. The House of Bishops should demand a recantation by Bishop Andrus, or move to inhibit him.
Somehow I find #42’s generalized “steps designed to eliminate the Episcopal Church and replace it with a church of his own design” rather overblown. That polemic calls into question the remainder of the post’s provenance as well.
Speaking of our Mission , Susan,
The Gospel we proclaim is to bring people to repent and know and serve Jesus as unique, True God, and the One who calls us to allow him to live through us. Not just to accept one another and to go forth in charity. All Saints aside, one cannot equate confirmation as graduation to a new level of knowing oneself.
“A church of his own design?” Surely you jest! The Church which Bishop Duncan is faithful to, and to which he and millions of other Anglicans belong, is the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. He has never denied that he is leading his flock in staying in that Church, while the reappraiser members of The Episcopal Church’s House of Bishops insist that he is not.
Isn’t it strange that so many millions of orthodox Anglicans disagree with them?
[blockquote] Isn’t it strange that so many millions of orthodox Anglicans disagree with them? [/blockquote]
I’m inclined to ask the same question. Just how truly authentic are those who don’t agree that Bp Duncan is only trying to save his flock? I’m not sure of the right way to go about it, but I do believe that Bp Duncan’s diocese is doing the right thing in deciding to leave TEC. It’s clear that TEC is not going back to God. The Bishop’s responsibility is to protect his flock. I know Bp Duncan is doing everything he can to do that. All we can do is pray for them.
It is interesting that Bp. Frade does not mention whether he consented or was even asked to consent to the inhibition of Bp. William Cox. There is a story out tonight on another blog that Cox was notified on Jan. 8, three days before Schofield and a week before Duncan, that he too faces deposition. Even more interesting is that the review committee sent the certification to Schori on May 29, 2007, seven months ago. She apparently did not want to have the matter of deposing an 86 six year old bishop considered in New Orleans in front of Rowan Williams, the Anglican Communion and the world. So, notwithstanding a canon that requires that she act “forthwith,†she waited for seven months until she could try to sneak it by in secret under cover of the widely trumpeted Schofield and Duncan cases. No stories on ENS on this one.
I for one would like to pause to give thanks for the bravery of Bp. Duncan and and his witness to the gospel. He has truly answered the call defend the faith. O Lord, protect him, inspire him, and continue to propel him forward in cause of your good news. And Lord, we ask for mercy for Bp. Frade and the misguided with him.
Re #42: Without even addressing the over-the-top descriptions of what Bishop Duncan has done, it can be observed that the premise of the comment of Brian from T19 is incorrect. No one is suggesting that advocacy short of further action cannot be the basis for inhibition and deposition. For example, “holding and teaching publicly or privately, and advisedly, any doctrine contrary to that held by this Church” can result in liability to presentment and trial under Canon IV.1. The issue here is not simply speech versus action, but whether conduct (assuming the conduct were specified by the Review Committee, which it hasn’t been) is chargeable under Canon IV.9 which doesn’t provide for presentment and trial.
I doubt one can be “a little apostate” either. TEC is indeed apostate. Therefore Bishop Duncan is perfectly true to his vows in leading his diocese out. And Bishop Frade is full of fatuous bovine excrement.
#48 Mark McCall
Yes -this policy looks as though it was worked out as a hardball plan long ago – it has only been made public since they thought they were off the hook.
John Richardson had a [url=http://ugleyvicar.blogspot.com/2008/01/as-depositions-threaten-who-here-is.html ]thoughtful comment [/url] on Friday – food for thought.
#44 Tom, do you deny that +Duncan’s goal is to eliminate the Episcopal Church (by that I mean remove it from the Anglican Communion, not actually destroy it) and further he wants to replace it with a structure that he helped develop?
#46 Cennydd, you’re making some spiritual distinction regarding a temporal issue. He may belong to the One Church or whatever, but he is trying to supplant the temporal representatives of the AC.
#46 & 47 I have no doubt that some part of +Duncan believes his ‘flock’ is in some sort of ‘spiritual peril,’ but belief does not make it true. If it does, then are you arguing that those who stay in TEC have or will lose their souls/salvation?
#48 Mark, nothing was done in hiding. Hiding and doing things in secret is done by the reasserter leadership, not TECs leadership. Everything TEC has done has been out in the open.
#50 Mike, that may be your issue, but +Frade makes the distinction that I quoted in #42. In addition, the conduct is specified in some detail.
RE: “#44 Tom, do you deny that +Duncan’s goal is to eliminate the Episcopal Church (by that I mean remove it from the Anglican Communion, not actually destroy it) and further he wants to replace it with a structure that he helped develop?”
Well . . . I’m not “Tom” but yeh, I deny it. What a gas! That’s like asking [blockquote]”#44 Tom, do you deny that Sarah’s goal is to eliminate the [Communist Party] (by that I mean remove it from the [U.S.], not actually destroy it) and further [s]he wants to replace it with a structure that [s]he helped develop?”[/blockquote]
I mean . . . Bishop Duncan has no power at all to “eliminate the Episcopal Church”, much less “replace it.” Good grief, not even the ABC can apparently do that.
No, the real issue for folks like Brian and so many other progressive activists is that they just can’t stand anybody even [i]hoping[/i] for discipline of The Runaway Church . . . or success for their own ideology [i]rather than Integrity’s[/i]. That in itself — that belief or wish — is anathema and must be stamped out and ground into a fine powder. Even thinking such a dreadful thought as [i]”I wish that the progressive activists were not successful”[/i] is dastardly and worthy of excommunication. The thought that somebody — or worse, more than just somebody — might not be on board or supportive of the agenda of our Dear Leaders In Power fills them with outrage and frenzy.
RE: “nothing was done in hiding. Hiding and doing things in secret is done by the reasserter leadership, not TECs leadership. . . . ”
HEH HEH HEH HEH HEH
. . . how about the meeting that the late bishop McKelsey organized. How about the numerous gay activist meetings with allies that occur repeatedly that are secret. How about email exchanges discussing strategy between Kenneth Kearon and . . . er. . . humble Servants of the People. ; > )
Everything reasserters know about strategy, politics, and secrecy, we learned from Episcopal Progressive Activists — they did some good stuff over the past 30 years and it’s been nice to learn how they did it.
No, the real issue for folks like Brian and so many other progressive activists is that they just can’t stand anybody even hoping for discipline of The Runaway Church>/i>
+Duncan is not hoping, he is planning and executing. He has taken all of the steps to make his concept a reality. You may pretend that no one has any power, but we all know that a competent ABC would have dealt with this, either way, by now. Just because ++Rowan does not exercise his power does not mean it doesn’t exist.
how about the meeting that the late bishop McKelsey organized. How about the numerous gay activist meetings with allies that occur repeatedly that are secret. How about email exchanges discussing strategy between Kenneth Kearon and . . . er. . . humble Servants of the People. ; >
Brian from T19, Bishop Duncan doesn’t have to try to destroy The Episcopal Church; they’re doing a great job of destroying themselves without anyone else’s help!
It’s just a pity that bishops in previous decades couldn’t be bothered to remove those who denied the faith. Now that the deniers are in charge, they have no qualms. However, deposing Duncan without the required inhibition will be breaking the sacred canon, the only thing these people have left to believe in. I hope enough “moderates” in the HOB see the danger.
Did Frade not experience any feelings on issuing this statement while in the land where Christ died for his sake?
Katherine: TEC is near, or past the point of a complete moral collapse. Bishops who do clearly and openly violate the canons (i.e. those who permit open communion) are honored in TEC. Bishops who do not violate any specific canon (despite Brian’s and others displeasure, nobody has yet pointed to a specific canon that Duncan has violated) are subjected to a gross abuse of process for “abandoning the Communion of this church” for violating church discipline.
The canons are egregiously violated to charge a bishop with violating the canons who actually has not violated any canons. You have the canon-violators charging the canon-follower with violating the canons. Truly Alice in Wonderland.
Brian – Duncan’s argument – and it is a very good one, and one that I agree with – is that nothing in TEC’s constitution or canons prevent a diocese from leaving the unity of General Convention. No specific canonical language has ever been presented to justify 815’s position. Furthermore, there is no canonical prohibition of Duncan advocating Communion discipline for TEC. What you and your liberal friends are advocating is deposing a bishop for having a different interpretation of the canons then you do. Real inclusive that.
RE: “+Duncan is not hoping, he is planning and executing.”
Duncan cannot “plan and execute” anything, Brian, that can “eliminate” the Episcopal church, or “replace” it. You are smoking something.
RE: “You may pretend that no one has any power, . . . ”
Not a pretense. Nobody has any power to “eliminate” TEC.
Sure, a competent ABC would have dealt with this . . . how, I don’t know, but he would have done something. But nobody knows how a “competent” ABC would have decided. Nobody — not even the Grand Prophet Prognosticator Brian — knows. And furthermore, Brian, Duncan couldn’t “make” a competent ABC do anything. But . . . just because Duncan wishes — [and I wish, and hosts of clergy and laypeople wish] that the Anglican Communion would disinvite those dioceses who don’t believe the gospel from the AC — that’s what folks like you and other progressive activists hate so much.
I’ll put it to you that in reality Duncan is taking action based on the fact that the ABC is not going to discipline TEC — and thus Duncan is working to protect his diocese, and rightly so. There is no “canon” that states that dioceses cannot withdraw, and hence, now we have the progressive activists bringing up the actual expressed hopes of Duncan in words that are supposed to somehow “prove” that he really has violated the canons. It’s a hoot, Brian — and it’s based solely on the fact that [i]they can’t find a canon that Duncan has violated.[/i]
RE: “I said TEC leadership . . . ”
So the 1/4 of the Executive Committee that are non-celibate progressive gay activists are not “TEC leadership”? And none of TECs bishops are “TEC leadership”?
HAH HAH!!!
Well then who the dickens is “TEC leadership” if it’s not members of the Executive Committee or bishops? How about deputies of General Convention — which most indubitably engage in secret meetings, Brian.
Let’s just repeat what I said. Everything reasserters know about secrecy, strategy, and politics was learned by the simple expedient of watching the progressive activists over the past 30 years.
Well, I didn’t expect anybody to make my point for me so expansively, but thks, Sarah.
From the interchange from my 55 on, I’d observe that Brian is following +Frade’s lead, in the manner of how one wag cited Comrade Beria in #34.
You try to argue that ‘there is no canon’ but the reality is that the PB and the 3 senior bishops believe that there is and they all agree that +Schofield violated it. +Wimberly doesn’t believe that +Duncan has violated it yet. But +Duncan will and he will be deposed and that’s the reality-not speculation.
[blockquote]You try to argue that ‘there is no canon’ but the reality is that the PB and the 3 senior bishops believe that there is and they all agree that +Schofield violated it. [/blockquote]
All they need to do is to cite which one, and we’ll all sit down and be quiet, Brian.
Let us suppose that it was the Primates who wrote: It is my sincere hope and prayer that these bishops, who once pledged of their own free will to engage to remain faithful to the doctrine, discipline and worship of the Anglican Communion, will in a spirit of reconciliation choose to fulfill their previous promises.
If they are unable to do so, we in the Anglican Communion must do our sad duty to discipline them and move in a timely manner to protect and provide for the many remaining faithful of these dioceses.
How would that sound?
I should have put my cursor over the link before I clicked on it. LOL
Unfortunately Episcopal Cafe is not Netscape-friendly, and all I ever see is a huge, ugly brown-blob screen.
Am I just lucky? Sure seems to be a message there somewhere.
Gloria
Read it. I believe that should be Bishop ‘Fraid, ya’ll. At least he pretends to be protection of the “membership and patrimony” of the ECUSA/TEC. Glad to know his priorities. Just give ’em time and the current leadership will have VGR lead the attack on this “patriarchal” defense of the glorious new ECUSA/TEC being created in the du jour mode.
If, dear bishop, the [i]”oath to engage to conform to the doctrine, discipline and worship of The Episcopal Church”[/i] caused one to go against the true doctrine, discipline and worship we are called to through Holy Scripture and the one holy, catholic and apostolic Church, which following would your pastoral leadership recommend we follow?
Inquiring minds would like to know (in preparing for the Final Judgment).
Gee, Frade voted to “inhibit” the Bishop of Pittsburgh. Is this a surprise to anyone?
This is just rich. +Frade fervently chortles over the [blockquote] beauty and flexibility of Anglican polity [/blockquote] that allows him to cast out his colleague, while Russell+ exuberantly cheers him on along with the exposé uncovering [blockquote] the whole story [/blockquote] of the Dastardly Deeds of Duncan and his Co-Conspirators. Made my day.
+Frade’s position may not be a surprise but the clarity of his statement is certainly an encouragement. In particular: [blockquote]”… after reviewing all the supporting documents that give evidence of their actions, I was astonished that we neglected to take action any sooner on their obvious violation and breach of their oath to engage to conform to the doctrine, discipline and worship of The Episcopal Church.”[/blockquote]
… makes it clear that the more the truth comes out about those, like +Duncan, who have determined to split the church they haven’t been able to dominate, the more the consensus grows that it is time to call “time” on the schism and division and get on with the mission and ministry of the church.
Yes indeed, let’s get on with [blockquote] the mission and ministry of the Church, [/blockquote] to call all people-groups into repentance and discipleship under He who is the Only Way to come to the Father.
[blockquote]RE:”It was with great sadness that I concluded I had no other choice but to vote to move to inhibit two of my brothers who have betrayed their trust to be faithful shepherds of their dioceses, which are integral parts of our Episcopal Church.”[/blockquote]
Rather, sir, your brothers have kept their trust to be faithful shepherds to God’s people, and they seem to understand that Episcopal Church is a ship that has become unmoored from rock of the Truth and is adrift in dangerous waters.
Bishop Frade – if you believe that Bishop Duncan is liable to discipline, then accuse him and try him under the canonical process set up for trial. Please don’t circumvent the process by saying that he “abandoned the communion” of this Church. Can you cite a specific canon that +Duncan has violated or is it more of “well, it feels like he has abandoned us?”
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
blockquote] … makes it clear that the more the truth comes out about those, like +Duncan, who have determined to split the church they haven’t been able to dominate, the more the consensus grows that it is time to call “time†on the schism and division and get on with the mission and ministry of the church. [/blockquote]
Very interesting statement. I guess if you are not a TRUE Christian, you will buy that. But for a TRUE Christian, when it come to the church, whether it be TEC, AC, or ANY Christian church, the “schism and division” you speak of in your comments is caused by those who chose to go against Scripture and attempt to rewrite it into their own words. Somehow, I don’t think God approves of that. As a matter of fact it’s clear in Scripture that the consequences of such actions will be great on Judgement Day. All I can do is pray that the lost souls of those who continue to follow these heretic practices will be turned back to God BEFORE the day of Judgement.
Bishop Fraid clearly doesn’t get it either, or else he would never even have to question the fact that Bishop Duncan is clearly trying to keep his flock safe from the heresy that TEC is now promoting. A TRUE Christian would have no problem with telling KJS that “inhibiting” a TRUE Christian in the church is totally uncalled for, and would NEVER even consider such an action. The fact that Bishop Fraid only looks at words of “legalism” in the “polity” of the church tells me that he’s totally missed the message Jesus gave in the Scriptures. The TEC leaders of today are only the “Pharisees” of today. We all know what Jesus thought of the Pharisees. THEY definitely needed to be “inhibited”, as do all the heretic leaders of TEC today.
Mugsie
My block quote thingy didn’t work. Sorry about that.
It is fortunate that the Anglican Communion , and the whole of God’s Church, has great precedent to allow groups of the orthodox faithful to reject the false teachings of other Churches. What is happening here is remarkably similar to that other minor aspect of Anglican history, in which the English Church was forced to dissolve its relationship with the see of Rome in order to maintain the orthodox teachings of scripture and the fathers. It’s clear that the “schismatics” here are not the bishops of San Joaquin or Pittsburgh, but those like +Frade who don’t understand that the Church is bound together by adherence to the catholic faith, not by some sort of sense of Episcopal brotherhood (however well intended).
Susan–I know you, but new readers at this highly trafficked site might not. Don’t you think fairness would suggest that you identify yourself as President of Integrity–the gay advocacy group in TEC? You are not just one of us little people popping in with our opinions.
(The Rev’d) Jim Workman
Easley, SC
I find +Leo Frade’s comments extremely offensive. Bishops Duncan, Schofield, and their so-called “co-conspirators” owe their allegiance only to Christ and His Church Universal…….NOT to The Episcopal Church. For him to denigrate these good and faithful Christian bishops is absolutely inexcusable, not becoming of a so-called “Christian bishop”……the fact of which which he has never proven himself to be in my eyes, and is certainly not the mark of a gentleman. This man owes the entire Christian world an apology.
In addition, this is character assassination of the worst kind.
The Title IV Review Committee is required under Canon IV.9 to state the acts or declarations constituting abondment, which in this case would be statements constituting an open renunciation of the Doctrine, Discipline or Worship of the Episcopal Church. The Review Committee didn’t do so. Instead, it attached its “certificate” to the one-sided submissions of the complaining parties and said in effect that the acts and declarations showing abandonment are somewhere in these voluminous documents the complainants have submitted.
Even the statements of the complaining parties don’t specify the particular statements claimed to constitute an open renunciation. Strikingly, Mr. Beers and the other submitters do not even use the canonical language, “open renunciation.” Why? By using words like “repudiation” of doctrine, discipline or worship the lawyers can argue that this or that amounts to a repudiation. But for an “open renunciation” there’s no concept of “amounting to”; there either is or isn’t one. That’s the difference between the kind of charges which can be brought under Canon IV.9 and those that properly should be made if at all under Canon IV.1.
After going after bishops, then priests, then deacons, the lay folks, and then who? Ah, reconcilation will be complete!
This Bishop Henderson has been busy with this Title IV lynching. How many bishops have they sought to hang this month? Anybody have a count?
The Episcopal Church is becoming very intolerant of Christians.
Diet of Worms — I couldn’t agree more — Susan Russell’s comment above shows just what a misnomer their claims for “inclusion” and “a broad tent” are. They are extremely and over-the-top exclusive in their thinking.
I wonder if they ever believed the rhetoric they said a year or so ago about the virtues of a broad church?
#14, I see no reason why Susan Russell should ID herself as President of Integrity. She said nothing specific regarding the same-sex issue, and nothing more than I, a non-Intregity member, might have said about Bp. Frade’s remarks. We do share a respect for him personally. I also respect his boldness in speaking what I believe to be the truth of the matter, as I have said in the past.
Bob–When Susan speaks, Integrity speaks (like it or not), unless she indicates otherwise. My point would be that Bishop Frade’s action in zeal for the “patrimony” (!?!) of the House of Bishops, the PB’s seeking to inhibit, and, indeed Bishop Duncan’s words and actions, are not happening in a vacuum. The context is precisely the successful push by Integrity and their supporters (prominently in the HOB) to move TEC to affirm gay unions as a holy thing. It wouldn’t be totally outlandish to suggest that Susan is driving the steamroller (or at least fueling it up each day) now taking aim on Bishop Duncan and others. I just think such disclosure is only fair to new readers here.
Apparently, “due process” will follow Duncan, Schofield, Iker, the dioceses of San Joaquin, Pittsburgh and Forth Worth, the 11 CANA parishes in Virginia, etc., etc. out of TEC.
What I find truly shocking here is the complete liberal disregard for due process and intergrity when dealing with the canons. For them it is “whatever works.” Given their reaction to what the Primates have called for, the liberals have revealed themselves as monumental hypocrites.
I have no doubt that the liberals will be able to push this sort of abuse of process through. What I think the liberals don’t realize will be the tremendous cost of so doing.
Certainly the homosexualist of TEC are anything but inclusive and tolerant or anyone who doesn’t agree with them. However, that isn’t the issue here.
Bishops such as Schofield, Iker, and Duncan are trying to lead their people out of the TEC swamp, retaining what they have built and worked for. They are, I suppose, “schismatics”, (though a more apt term might be “refugees”), and are acting within historic Anglican ecclesiology.
“What is happening here is remarkably similar to that other minor aspect of Anglican history, in which the English Church was forced to dissolve its relationship with the see of Rome in order to maintain the orthodox teachings of scripture and the fathers.”
Could some smart historically-minded reader help me out a bit? Please inform me, in detail and with source references, when, where and by what means “the English Church was forced to dissolve its relationship with the See of Rome?” Was it the Canterbury Convocation’s acceptance of Henry’s “Supreme Headship” in May 1533? But if so, it was a vote that lacked the concurrence of the lower house, and so of dubious validity; and in any event “the English Church” quite decisively repudiated that dubious decision in 1553 and 1554. Was it the acts of a later convocation, say at the time of the final breach with Rome in the first half of 1559? But to my best recollection the Canterbury Convocation at that time, when invited by the Crown to respond to “reform” proposals, repudiated in clear and uncompromising terms both the competence of secular authorities (Crown and Parliament) to “reform” or indeed to legislate for the Church without its own consent, and went on to reaffirm the papal supremacy.
But perhaps we are to understand “forced to” in this assertion in the same sense that a man might be “forced to” hand over his money to an armed robber, or a virtuous woman “forced to” submit to a rapist.
Hmmm . . . Jim, I just assume that everybody knows that Susan Russell is one of the architects of “the mission and ministry of the church [sic: Integrity]” that she keeps talking about. And Integrity’s mission is, shall we say, well-connected with all sorts of other progressives in the church, including members of the Executive Committee and the HOB, as well as the HOD . . . and, as we all noticed when KJS touched down from her ill-fated agreements at Dar and got “spoken to” . . . with KJS. ; > )
That’s what happens when you win control of the levers of power in the church, as Integrity has most carefully, calculatedly, and strategically done. Hats off to them for working hard at that.
Surely everybody who would be on this blog knows that? I just read and smile . . . and I assume that most reasserters do. I’m with Bob on this — surely everybody on this blog knows her and what gospel she preaches. Seems excessive to try to get her to say it again.
My, my, my … maybe the elves are were off watching the Nevada primary like I was, but it does seem to me the topic du jour is Bishop Frade’s actions re: Bishop Duncan, not Susan Russell’s CV.
As for the mission and ministry of the church, how about this: [blockquote]Q. What is the mission of the Church?
A. The mission of the Church is to restore all people to unity with God and each other in Christ.
Q. How does the Church pursue its mission?
A. The Church pursues its mission as it prays and worships, proclaims the Gospel, and promotes justice, peace, and love. [/blockquote]
That’s the mission and ministry we’re working to get back to. Thanks for the opportunity to clarify.
[i] Never fear. The elves are right here reading everything. [/i]
Touché.
[size=1][u][url=http://resurrectiongulfcoast.blogspot.com/]The Rabbit[/url][/u][/size]
Thanks for that reassurance, elves! Labor on!
RE: “As for the mission and ministry of the church, how about this:”
Sure would have been nice for Integrity to focus on that.
I do agree that the topic of this thread should not be Susan Russell’s mission and ministry through Integrity, but instead Bishop Frade.
I personally think that Jim Workman should be inhibited, deposed, and then banned from the site for suggesting such extreme ignorance of the commenters here about Susan Russell’s goals. It is he who has nefariously driven this thread off-topic with spurious suggestions about the knowledge of Kendall Harmon’s commenters.
I for one am outraged.
[blockquote] Given their reaction to what the Primates have called for, the liberals have revealed themselves as monumental hypocrites.
I have no doubt that the liberals will be able to push this sort of abuse of process through. What I think the liberals don’t realize will be the tremendous cost of so doing. [/blockquote]
Jamesw, I agree with you here 100%.
Mugsie
“Could some smart historically-minded reader help me out a bit? Please inform me, in detail and with source references, when, where and by what means “the English Church was forced to dissolve its relationship with the See of Rome?—
Frankly Doctor, given that you are clearly the expert in the bureaucracy of the English reformation, it seems that you are the man to answer all the questions that you ask here. What I can say is that in 1571 the Articles of Religion are ratified by both houses of the Convocation, and are assented to by Her Majesty Elisabeth I. By this time it is made blatant within the articles that this is the attitude of the English Church as a whole. Perhaps you could explain the thrust of your argument?
“But perhaps we are to understand “forced to†in this assertion in the same sense that a man might be “forced to†hand over his money to an armed robber, or a virtuous woman “forced to†submit to a rapist.”
Despite the tasteless imagery you use here I will clarify the sense in which the English Church was “forced to” dissolve its relationship with Rome. It was forced by its own adherence to the catholic religion to reject that which was false. The Church of England was (and is) not in schism, but moved in such a way as to avoid schism. In order to be what it aspires to be, the Church is constantly compelled to follow the truth of the Gospel as it is laid out in scripture and interpreted by its own traditions, inspired the grace of the Spirit. To use the pattern of your imagery, it is like Stephen, who is “forced to” speak the truth of the Gospel to those who murdered him because he is compelled by his own faith in God.
What’s the big deal here? Isn’t +Frade just recycling the dictum of another “progressive,” Lavrenty Beria, when he said, “Show me the man, and I’ll find the crime”?
Susan Russell wrote:
As for the mission and ministry of the church, how about this:
Q. What is the mission of the Church?
A. The mission of the Church is to restore all people to unity with God and each other in Christ.
Q. How does the Church pursue its mission?
A. The Church pursues its mission as it prays and worships, proclaims the Gospel, and promotes justice, peace, and love.
Susan, I agree that the mission of the church is to “restore all people to unity with God and each other in Christ”. However, not at the expense of the TRUTH. If there is no unity in the TRUTH, there is no unity at all. In other words, what you might call “unity” is not UNITY in TRUTH. What you are calling “unity” is just people uniting who believe a pack of lies. Bishop Fraid is feeding into those lies by attempting to inhibit a truly Biblical bishop of the church (the WHOLE church, not just TEC).
As to this statement of yours,
“A. The Church pursues its mission as it prays and worships, proclaims the Gospel, and promotes justice, peace, and love.”
The church does pursue its mission as it prays and worships, and proclaims the TRUE Gospel (as given to us in Scripture). NOT proclaiming the lies you call gospel. Jesus did not come to bring “peace”, but a “sword”. There will be no peace until the end of time. Yes, the second great commandment does command us to “love” one another as we love ourselves. However, not to “love” LIES! There is no justice to be served according to the Bible. Jesus will dole out the rewards and punishment to each and every one of us individually when we meet Him for Judgement. For those of you promoting the LIES, I’d be really concerned about that. Jesus knows what’s in our hearts. We can’t make any excuses to Him. Just think about that when your day comes. Bishop Fraid might want to think about that too as he goes about condemning Bishops in the Church who are TRUE Christians according to Scripture.
Mugsie
[blockquote] I personally think that Jim Workman should be inhibited, deposed, and then banned from the site for suggesting such extreme ignorance of the commenters here about Susan Russell’s goals. It is he who has nefariously driven this thread off-topic with spurious suggestions about the knowledge of Kendall Harmon’s commenters.
I for one am outraged.
[/blockquote]
And, of course, don’t forget the sale of a bridge in Brooklyn that should also go along with this outrage… ;>)
[i] The remaining comments NEED to be about the original thread, or they will be edited.[/i]
[blockquote]I also believe that it is my episcopal duty to assiduously safeguard both the membership and patrimony of our Church as a whole. The faithful of those dioceses that have been betrayed by their bishops need to know that they are not abandoned by their Church.[/blockquote]
I suppose it’s a matter of what one is being faithful to, Bishop Frade, an apostate ‘church’ or the Lord Christ. +Scofield and +Duncan know whom they are following, do you?
[blockquote]The Episcopate must not tolerate such actions as these bishops have taken…[/blockquote]
In case it had escaped your gimlet-eyed gaze, Bishop Frade, the departure of DioSJ was not a unilateral move by +Schofield, nor will it be regarding DioPitt and +Duncan. The membership is rejecting you and your heretical innovations and voting with their feet, individually and en masse as entire dioceses. They are not betrayed by their bishops, who remain faithful to Anglican doctrine, but by the likes of you and your puppet masters at 815.
[blockquote] They are not betrayed by their bishops, who remain faithful to Anglican doctrine, but by the likes of you and your puppet masters at 815. [/blockquote]
Well said, Jeffersonian. In this case, it is indeed Bishop Fraid and his cohorts who are betraying the faithful in the church, NOT Bishop Duncan. I don’t know how these “bishops” can sleep at night and still call themselves bishops. But then again, the book of Jude does warn us really well. Many have crept in who are wolves in sheep’s clothing. We’re seeing it bold and clear in TEC right now. Let’s not be sucked into the fire with Bishop Fraid and his cohorts.
Mugsie
[i] Comment off topic. [/i]
[i] Off topic. [/i]
The seriousness of this betrayal is not mitigated by the fact that in one of the cases the goal of turning away from The Episcopal Church has not been fully achieved. As I have learned to say in America, “You can not just be a little pregnant.”
I think this is clearly where the distinction lies. If we look at the history of the Church, simple advocacy that fell short of action was punished by inhibition and deposition. Even today, the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches inhibit or depose based on advocacy that falls short of action (as well as action). In the case of +Duncan, he has not simply advocated for change. He has taken concrete steps designed to eliminate the Episcopal Church and replace it with a church of his own design. He may do these things in the dark and behind closed doors, but he has never denied that this is his intention. Semantics can not be used to hide the truth.
Thank God that the bishops are in extraction mode. This will (hopefully) mean that long-standing private doctrinal interpretatations and teachings will now be subject for inhibition. I say that attention should NOW be turned to Bishop Andrus and his Grace Cathedral, San Francisco. For a most BASIC violation of the Canons, one can read Bishop Andrus’ cathedral bulletin as it invites anyone to come to communion…just so long as they are seekers. What happened to the officially-adopted Episcopal CANON on Holy Communion? I read it and it’s plain. Only those who are baptized shall receive in this church. Seekers can come and be taught and then receive.
Soooo: let’s keep the ball rolling. The Canon on Holy Communion is being flagrantly violated. The House of Bishops should demand a recantation by Bishop Andrus, or move to inhibit him.
Somehow I find #42’s generalized “steps designed to eliminate the Episcopal Church and replace it with a church of his own design” rather overblown. That polemic calls into question the remainder of the post’s provenance as well.
Speaking of our Mission , Susan,
The Gospel we proclaim is to bring people to repent and know and serve Jesus as unique, True God, and the One who calls us to allow him to live through us. Not just to accept one another and to go forth in charity. All Saints aside, one cannot equate confirmation as graduation to a new level of knowing oneself.
“A church of his own design?” Surely you jest! The Church which Bishop Duncan is faithful to, and to which he and millions of other Anglicans belong, is the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. He has never denied that he is leading his flock in staying in that Church, while the reappraiser members of The Episcopal Church’s House of Bishops insist that he is not.
Isn’t it strange that so many millions of orthodox Anglicans disagree with them?
#46, Cennydd, you state:
[blockquote] Isn’t it strange that so many millions of orthodox Anglicans disagree with them? [/blockquote]
I’m inclined to ask the same question. Just how truly authentic are those who don’t agree that Bp Duncan is only trying to save his flock? I’m not sure of the right way to go about it, but I do believe that Bp Duncan’s diocese is doing the right thing in deciding to leave TEC. It’s clear that TEC is not going back to God. The Bishop’s responsibility is to protect his flock. I know Bp Duncan is doing everything he can to do that. All we can do is pray for them.
Mugsie
It is interesting that Bp. Frade does not mention whether he consented or was even asked to consent to the inhibition of Bp. William Cox. There is a story out tonight on another blog that Cox was notified on Jan. 8, three days before Schofield and a week before Duncan, that he too faces deposition. Even more interesting is that the review committee sent the certification to Schori on May 29, 2007, seven months ago. She apparently did not want to have the matter of deposing an 86 six year old bishop considered in New Orleans in front of Rowan Williams, the Anglican Communion and the world. So, notwithstanding a canon that requires that she act “forthwith,†she waited for seven months until she could try to sneak it by in secret under cover of the widely trumpeted Schofield and Duncan cases. No stories on ENS on this one.
I for one would like to pause to give thanks for the bravery of Bp. Duncan and and his witness to the gospel. He has truly answered the call defend the faith. O Lord, protect him, inspire him, and continue to propel him forward in cause of your good news. And Lord, we ask for mercy for Bp. Frade and the misguided with him.
Re #42: Without even addressing the over-the-top descriptions of what Bishop Duncan has done, it can be observed that the premise of the comment of Brian from T19 is incorrect. No one is suggesting that advocacy short of further action cannot be the basis for inhibition and deposition. For example, “holding and teaching publicly or privately, and advisedly, any doctrine contrary to that held by this Church” can result in liability to presentment and trial under Canon IV.1. The issue here is not simply speech versus action, but whether conduct (assuming the conduct were specified by the Review Committee, which it hasn’t been) is chargeable under Canon IV.9 which doesn’t provide for presentment and trial.
I doubt one can be “a little apostate” either. TEC is indeed apostate. Therefore Bishop Duncan is perfectly true to his vows in leading his diocese out. And Bishop Frade is full of fatuous bovine excrement.
#48 Mark McCall
Yes -this policy looks as though it was worked out as a hardball plan long ago – it has only been made public since they thought they were off the hook.
John Richardson had a [url=http://ugleyvicar.blogspot.com/2008/01/as-depositions-threaten-who-here-is.html ]thoughtful comment [/url] on Friday – food for thought.
#44 Tom, do you deny that +Duncan’s goal is to eliminate the Episcopal Church (by that I mean remove it from the Anglican Communion, not actually destroy it) and further he wants to replace it with a structure that he helped develop?
#46 Cennydd, you’re making some spiritual distinction regarding a temporal issue. He may belong to the One Church or whatever, but he is trying to supplant the temporal representatives of the AC.
#46 & 47 I have no doubt that some part of +Duncan believes his ‘flock’ is in some sort of ‘spiritual peril,’ but belief does not make it true. If it does, then are you arguing that those who stay in TEC have or will lose their souls/salvation?
#48 Mark, nothing was done in hiding. Hiding and doing things in secret is done by the reasserter leadership, not TECs leadership. Everything TEC has done has been out in the open.
#50 Mike, that may be your issue, but +Frade makes the distinction that I quoted in #42. In addition, the conduct is specified in some detail.
It was discussed in closed session in NO while our Archbishop and the JSC were having the wool pulled over their eyes
53- I would not put words into another man’s mouth, without citation, as you have.
RE: “#44 Tom, do you deny that +Duncan’s goal is to eliminate the Episcopal Church (by that I mean remove it from the Anglican Communion, not actually destroy it) and further he wants to replace it with a structure that he helped develop?”
Well . . . I’m not “Tom” but yeh, I deny it. What a gas! That’s like asking [blockquote]”#44 Tom, do you deny that Sarah’s goal is to eliminate the [Communist Party] (by that I mean remove it from the [U.S.], not actually destroy it) and further [s]he wants to replace it with a structure that [s]he helped develop?”[/blockquote]
I mean . . . Bishop Duncan has no power at all to “eliminate the Episcopal Church”, much less “replace it.” Good grief, not even the ABC can apparently do that.
No, the real issue for folks like Brian and so many other progressive activists is that they just can’t stand anybody even [i]hoping[/i] for discipline of The Runaway Church . . . or success for their own ideology [i]rather than Integrity’s[/i]. That in itself — that belief or wish — is anathema and must be stamped out and ground into a fine powder. Even thinking such a dreadful thought as [i]”I wish that the progressive activists were not successful”[/i] is dastardly and worthy of excommunication. The thought that somebody — or worse, more than just somebody — might not be on board or supportive of the agenda of our Dear Leaders In Power fills them with outrage and frenzy.
RE: “nothing was done in hiding. Hiding and doing things in secret is done by the reasserter leadership, not TECs leadership. . . . ”
HEH HEH HEH HEH HEH
. . . how about the meeting that the late bishop McKelsey organized. How about the numerous gay activist meetings with allies that occur repeatedly that are secret. How about email exchanges discussing strategy between Kenneth Kearon and . . . er. . . humble Servants of the People. ; > )
Everything reasserters know about strategy, politics, and secrecy, we learned from Episcopal Progressive Activists — they did some good stuff over the past 30 years and it’s been nice to learn how they did it.
Good.
Sarah
No, the real issue for folks like Brian and so many other progressive activists is that they just can’t stand anybody even hoping for discipline of The Runaway Church>/i>
+Duncan is not hoping, he is planning and executing. He has taken all of the steps to make his concept a reality. You may pretend that no one has any power, but we all know that a competent ABC would have dealt with this, either way, by now. Just because ++Rowan does not exercise his power does not mean it doesn’t exist.
how about the meeting that the late bishop McKelsey organized. How about the numerous gay activist meetings with allies that occur repeatedly that are secret. How about email exchanges discussing strategy between Kenneth Kearon and . . . er. . . humble Servants of the People. ; >
I said TEC leadership, not Kearon+ or Integrity.
Brian from T19, Bishop Duncan doesn’t have to try to destroy The Episcopal Church; they’re doing a great job of destroying themselves without anyone else’s help!
It’s just a pity that bishops in previous decades couldn’t be bothered to remove those who denied the faith. Now that the deniers are in charge, they have no qualms. However, deposing Duncan without the required inhibition will be breaking the sacred canon, the only thing these people have left to believe in. I hope enough “moderates” in the HOB see the danger.
Did Frade not experience any feelings on issuing this statement while in the land where Christ died for his sake?
Katherine: TEC is near, or past the point of a complete moral collapse. Bishops who do clearly and openly violate the canons (i.e. those who permit open communion) are honored in TEC. Bishops who do not violate any specific canon (despite Brian’s and others displeasure, nobody has yet pointed to a specific canon that Duncan has violated) are subjected to a gross abuse of process for “abandoning the Communion of this church” for violating church discipline.
The canons are egregiously violated to charge a bishop with violating the canons who actually has not violated any canons. You have the canon-violators charging the canon-follower with violating the canons. Truly Alice in Wonderland.
Brian – Duncan’s argument – and it is a very good one, and one that I agree with – is that nothing in TEC’s constitution or canons prevent a diocese from leaving the unity of General Convention. No specific canonical language has ever been presented to justify 815’s position. Furthermore, there is no canonical prohibition of Duncan advocating Communion discipline for TEC. What you and your liberal friends are advocating is deposing a bishop for having a different interpretation of the canons then you do. Real inclusive that.
RE: “+Duncan is not hoping, he is planning and executing.”
Duncan cannot “plan and execute” anything, Brian, that can “eliminate” the Episcopal church, or “replace” it. You are smoking something.
RE: “You may pretend that no one has any power, . . . ”
Not a pretense. Nobody has any power to “eliminate” TEC.
Sure, a competent ABC would have dealt with this . . . how, I don’t know, but he would have done something. But nobody knows how a “competent” ABC would have decided. Nobody — not even the Grand Prophet Prognosticator Brian — knows. And furthermore, Brian, Duncan couldn’t “make” a competent ABC do anything. But . . . just because Duncan wishes — [and I wish, and hosts of clergy and laypeople wish] that the Anglican Communion would disinvite those dioceses who don’t believe the gospel from the AC — that’s what folks like you and other progressive activists hate so much.
I’ll put it to you that in reality Duncan is taking action based on the fact that the ABC is not going to discipline TEC — and thus Duncan is working to protect his diocese, and rightly so. There is no “canon” that states that dioceses cannot withdraw, and hence, now we have the progressive activists bringing up the actual expressed hopes of Duncan in words that are supposed to somehow “prove” that he really has violated the canons. It’s a hoot, Brian — and it’s based solely on the fact that [i]they can’t find a canon that Duncan has violated.[/i]
RE: “I said TEC leadership . . . ”
So the 1/4 of the Executive Committee that are non-celibate progressive gay activists are not “TEC leadership”? And none of TECs bishops are “TEC leadership”?
HAH HAH!!!
Well then who the dickens is “TEC leadership” if it’s not members of the Executive Committee or bishops? How about deputies of General Convention — which most indubitably engage in secret meetings, Brian.
Let’s just repeat what I said. Everything reasserters know about secrecy, strategy, and politics was learned by the simple expedient of watching the progressive activists over the past 30 years.
It’s been some good larnin’ . . .
Well, I didn’t expect anybody to make my point for me so expansively, but thks, Sarah.
From the interchange from my 55 on, I’d observe that Brian is following +Frade’s lead, in the manner of how one wag cited Comrade Beria in #34.
Sarah and jamesw
You try to argue that ‘there is no canon’ but the reality is that the PB and the 3 senior bishops believe that there is and they all agree that +Schofield violated it. +Wimberly doesn’t believe that +Duncan has violated it yet. But +Duncan will and he will be deposed and that’s the reality-not speculation.
63- would you care to give figures on which way the stock market will close on Tuesday, also?
Tom
The stock market will close down, but not until Tuesday when it reopens.
65- your answer is skew to my question, though it reflects on the substance of your prophetic assertions.
jamesw
having a different interpretation of the canons then you do. Real inclusive that.
[i] Edited by elf. [/i]
[blockquote]You try to argue that ‘there is no canon’ but the reality is that the PB and the 3 senior bishops believe that there is and they all agree that +Schofield violated it. [/blockquote]
All they need to do is to cite which one, and we’ll all sit down and be quiet, Brian.