Subcutaneous Sinsick Blues

Another gem from anglicanbeachparty

Dear Bob????!!!!!

For something as momentous and painful as deposing a Bishop from his ministry and, in effect, excommunicating an entire diocese, don't you think something a bit more formal than "Dear Bob" is called for? This woman is so lacking in class. And doesn't she have a secretary, for crying out loud? When I worked at 815, if I had allowed something like this to get past me and embarrass my boss, I would have had to answer for it.

The Episcopal Church
The Most Reverend Katharine Jefferts Schori
Presiding Bishop and Primate

September 22, 2008

Robert W. Duncan
125 N. Linden Ave.
Pittsburgh, PA 15208

Dear Bob,

I wanted to write you personally to inform you that following the House of Bishop’s decision to consent to your deposition, of which you are already aware, I have signed the Sentence of Deposition, a copy of which is enclosed.

I think the press statement following the vote accurately sets forth the prayerful and thoughtful atmosphere of the discussions.

Please know that I urged the bishops gathered to hold you in prayer, and to do what they can to maintain a pastoral relationship with you. I pray that you may know the peace of Jesus Christ, and I remain

Your servant in Christ,


Katharine Jefferts Schori

From t19

Letter to the Presiding Bishop

via email:

September 16, 2008



The House of Bishops of the Episcopal Church

The Episcopal Church Center

815 Second Avenue

New York, NY 10017



Dear Presiding Bishop Jefferts Schori and Members of the House of Bishops,



The Standing Committee and Bishop of the Diocese of Albany express our grave concern and hereby formally protest the planned deposition proceedings directed against Bishop Robert W. Duncan, called for by the Presiding Bishop in her Memorandum to the House of Bishops, dated September 12, 2008. We urge you in the strongest terms possible, not to proceed in this matter for the following reasons:



1) From a procedural and fairness standpoint, while it had been widely speculated that deposition proceedings would be brought against Bishop Duncan at the September HOB Meeting, the Presiding Bishop’s Memorandum to the House of Bishops, dated September 12, 2008, was the first official notification that such proceedings would in fact occur. There was no mention of deposition proceedings referenced in the draft agenda for the September HOB Meeting sent out on August 20, 2008. In the text of the agenda, it is stated that, “The main purpose of this meeting will be to reflect and deliberate together following the Lambeth Conference.” We believe that in a matter of such importance as the deposition of a bishop, every member of the House of Bishops should be notified well in advance of such actions, in order that every effort can be made by them to attend the proceedings. In accordance with the General Rules for Meetings in this House, Rule XIX on page 193 in the Rules of Order, House of Bishops, in order for any resolution to come before the House of Bishops at a special meeting the resolution must have been circulated 30 days in advance to all of the members, unless there is a two-thirds vote to allow the resolution. Should not the deposition of a bishop have, at a minimum, that same level of notification?



2) As acknowledged by the Presiding Bishop herself in the September 12th Memorandum, there have been significant differences of opinion expressed in regard to the interpretation of Canon IV.9 and the criteria that must be met as outlined in the canon. Specifically there is much debate centered around two major areas of concern: A) The required number of bishops needed to consent to the deposition of a bishop (whether it be a majority of all bishops in the House of Bishops eligible to vote or simply a majority of those present at the HOB meeting

in which the deposition proceedings occur); and B) Whether or not the inhibition of a bishop is a prerequisite to deposition. As you are well aware, the depositions of Bishop Schofield and Bishop Cox on March 12, 2008, were followed by an outcry by many within the Episcopal Church and the larger Anglican Communion. At question was the legality of the actions taken by the House of Bishops, particularly in regard to whether all the criteria outlined in Canon IV.9 were properly met and adhered to. While Presiding Bishop Jefferts Schori and her Chancellor David Booth Beers have both expressed their belief that they have properly interpreted the canons in regard to these matters, in a letter to the Presiding Bishop, dated March 27, 2008, the Standing Committee and Bishop of the Diocese of South Carolina, made a strong, well reasoned argument for an interpretation of Canon IV.9 which differs greatly from that held by the Presiding Bishop and her Chancellor. The Dioceses of Central Florida, Northern Indiana, Springfield and Western Louisiana, in statements published by their Standing Committees and or/Bishops in recent months, have raised similar concerns and interpretations of Canon IV.9 as those expressed by South Carolina. Due to these widely differing views and interpretations of Canon IV.9 and the extreme damage that can occur if misinterpreted, we call upon the House of Bishops to refrain from acting on this canon, until the House of Bishops is able to receive a legal interpretation of Canon IV.9 from a panel, consisting of a minimum of five canon lawyers/experts who are not involved in the proceedings against Bishop Duncan or any of the on going legal proceedings dealing with property disputes or parishes or dioceses leaving The Episcopal Church. While we appreciate the Presiding Bishop, her Chancellor and Bishop Stacy Sauls’ attempts to provide clarity in interpreting Canon IV.9, due to their current high level of involvement in legal proceedings throughout TEC that could be influenced by the outcome of the interpretation of Canon IV.9, we believe it is important to get an unbiased, outside interpretation of the canon, to prevent any appearance of a conflict of interest.



3) In defense or justification of the Presiding Bishop’s interpretation of Canon IV.9 in the depositions of Bishop Schofield, Bishop Cox and the pending deposition proceedings against Bishop Duncan, the depositions of Bishop Davies, the resigned bishop of Fort Worth in 1993, and Bishop Larrea, the Bishop of Ecuador Central in 2004 are cited as precedent, therefore paving the way for future depositions. The fact that no one apparently challenged the 1993 and 2004 depositions does not necessarily mean that the Presiding Bishop and her Chancellor have interpreted the canons correctly. If precedent is going to be used as justification for future actions, it is imperative that the canons are being properly interpreted and applied and that the process is agreed upon by the House of Bishops before action is taken. Again, the recent outcry by many over the believed failure to follow and apply the Canons properly in the depositions of Bishop Schofield and Bishop Cox, have only added to the growing division within TEC and the Anglican Communion.



4) In a letter to the Bishops of the Episcopal Church, dated August 24, 2008, Bishop Duncan stated, “The proper forum to determine whether I have violated constitution or canons would be a church trial, as I am a Bishop of this Church. But such a trial would have required due process and all the protections of the trial canons. The Course chosen…was an expedient course, requiring none of the justice, none of the expense, none of the rights of the accused, none of the lengthy timetable.” We concur with Bishop Duncan’s assessment that the proper forum to determine his guilt or innocence in regard to the charges that have been brought against him would be a church or ecclesiastical trial. The deposition of a bishop is an extremely serious matter as you well know. It is equivalent to the death penalty in regard to one’s ordained ministry. This is NO time to seek the most “expedient course” in determining one’s guilt or innocence. Bishop Duncan has dedicated his life to serving our Lord Jesus Christ and His Church. While we question the charges brought against him, if he is to be charged, it should be dealt with in an ecclesiastical trial with all the protections guaranteed in the trial canons. Anything less is doing Bishop Duncan and the Church a great injustice.



5) In their attempts to explain their interpretations of Canon IV.9, The Presiding Bishop, her Chancellor and Bishop Sauls make numerous references to the “intent” of a canon. In her September 12th Memorandum, Presiding Bishop Jefferts Schori stated, “…the General Convention in enacting this canon did not intend to give the three senior bishops a “veto” over the House’s right to determine whether or not a bishop who has been certified by the Review Committee as having abandoned the Communion of this Church should be deposed. Rather, that decision was intended to be made by the House.” First we would argue that is purely a judgment call on the part of the Presiding Bishop and her advisors. Others could well argue that the canonical stipulation that the majority vote of the three senior bishops was inserted to provide another level of discernment and to protect the House from having to deal with frivolous accusations. Second, after studying the history of Canon IV.9, a strong argument could be made that this canon was never intended to be used in the manner in which it was applied in the depositions of Bishop Schofield, Bishop Cox and the pending deposition proceedings against Bishop Duncan. It would seem that the intent of the canon is to deal with those bishops who not only leave the Episcopal Church, but also the Anglican Communion. That is clearly not the case with the three bishops just mentioned. While Bishop Schofield and Bishop Cox may have left TEC and in the case of Bishop Duncan it would appear he has plans to leave TEC, none of the three bishops have abandoned the Anglican Communion, but simply realigned with another province within the Anglican Communion. Because TEC is part of the Anglican Communion, it would seem that a charge of abandonment of Communion has no merit.



Despite the attempts of some to downplay the seriousness of the current situation in which tens of thousands of once loyal Episcopalians are leaving TEC, with no end in sight, the Episcopal Church is in a state of chaos. It is our belief that unless the current downward spiral is reversed, current and future charges of abandonment of communion will be a moot point. Within the not-too-distant future, if things continue as they currently are, there won’t be a communion to abandon. If the current on-going depositions of bishops and priests are intended to stop the mass exodus out of TEC, it isn’t working, but rather having the opposite effect. More and more clergy and laity are reaching the point that they can no longer accept or tolerate the recent theological innovations that have become so pervasive throughout much of The Episcopal Church’s leadership. The current attacks directed against the theologically conservative orthodox Christians within TEC are not scaring or intimidating them, but rather angering and emboldening them. With each new attack, more fuel is thrown on the fire. The depositions and lawsuits must stop. What type of example are we setting for our children and the rest of the world? What are we saying about how Episcopalians treat one another? Jesus commands us to love our enemy; to love our neighbor as we love ourselves; to love one another as He loves us. Clearly many in the Episcopal Church have not heard or listened to His command, when it comes to the way we relate to one another within TEC and the wider Anglican Communion.



The Standing Committee and Bishop of Albany call upon the House of Bishops, the House of Deputies and all involved in the current theological war to call a truce, enabling The Episcopal Church to refocus our time, energy and resources on the difficult but necessary process of figuring out how Christians who passionately hold what appear to be irreconcilable differences in the understanding and interpretation of Holy Scripture and its authority on our lives as well as issues of human sexuality, can move forward in building up the Kingdom of God by sharing the love and Good News of Jesus Christ with all who will receive it. For far too long we have been consumed by politically-charged agendas to the detriment of the Church and the building up of the Kingdom of God. May God give us the grace, the wisdom, the compassion, the humility we need to discern His will, moving forward in His Name to His honor and glory and to the benefit of His Church and people.



Faithfully in Christ,







The Reverend Lorraine M. Lyons

President, Standing Committee of the Diocese of Albany







The Right Reverend William H. Love

Bishop, Diocese of Albany

First they came for the old.....

I found the link for this story at Billy Ockham. What in the world is going on with TEC? The leadership is turning on the elderly, inhibiting and deposing 70 and 80 year old men, most in ill health or with failing family members. This begins to look like a deliberate purge. Get rid of any of the old guard, discredit and defame them. Then, who will be next? The conservative or even moderate bishops? Yes, look at Pittsburgh. Then, the priests and deacons. Lastly, with changes in canon law at GC2009, prosecute and purge any laity that dare to open their mouths.

Call me naive, but this just does not look to me to be the way to build a church. Welcome to the Episcopal Church! Once you walk through these doors, you give up all rights to your own property, actions and thoughts. You will do and think as we say or we will grind you into the dust.

This is truly cruel and unneccesary

From David Virtue

Mrs. Katharine Jefferts Schori, Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church, has formally inhibited The Rt. Rev. Edward H. MacBurney, retired Bishop of Quincy. Two days after the letter of inhibition was signed by the Presiding Bishop, MacBurney's son Page died.

Bishop Keith L. Ackerman SSC, Bishop of Quincy, said MacBurney was not aware of the inhibition. Ackerman had to read the inhibition to him over the phone.

"I am beside myself with grief over this unnecessary action taken against my predecessor especially at a time when he is mourning the death of his son this past Friday. I am particularly saddened that, with the exception of the Bishop who initiated this action, those involved in determining this course have never spoken with Bishop MacBurney directly. In the midst of this difficult time for Bishop MacBurney and his family, I am really much more concerned about the implications of St. Matthew 18:15-17 as it relates to how reconciliation is pursued than I am with Title IV, Canon 1, Section 6 as it relates to discipling my dear brother. In the meantime, we are ministering to the needs of the MacBurney family."

Mrs. Jefferts Schori said the presentment issued by the Title IV Review Committee was based on Title IV, canon 3, Section 43Copyright, 44, and 45 of The Episcopal Church. Bishop MacBurney is inhibited from exercising his gifts of ministry and will face a court trial.

http://www.forwardinfaith.com/news/pages/InhibitionBpMac.pdf

(h/t to MCJ)

Boundary Crossings

Women's Caucus Plans Uninvited Visits to 11 Dioceses

The Episcopal Women’s Caucus recently announced plans to target at least 11 dioceses of The Episcopal Church for visits not at the invitation of the local bishop under its expanded Angel Project.

"not at the invitation of the local bishop" -- isn't that the greatest sin against the canons?

“New times create new opportunities,” wrote the Rev. Elizabeth Kaeton, EWC president and rector of St. Paul’s Church in Chatham, N.J., in an article on “listening” in the latest issue of the Ruach, the EWC newsletter. “The caucus board has conceived of a new incarnation of this project. Based on communication we have received, we have identified 11 dioceses that are decidedly hostile to the ministry of women, lay and ordained. There are, no doubt, many more.”

The dioceses to be targeted are: Albany, Central Florida, Dallas, Fort Worth, Pittsburgh, Quincy (Illinois), the Rio Grande (New Mexico and the Texas Panhandle), San Joaquin (California), South Carolina, Southwest Florida and Springfield (Illinois).

"decidedly hostile to the ministry of women, lay and ordained" - that should come as a great big giant surprise to my fellow female postulants & candidates for holy orders. Albany is hardly a hostile diocese. Do some here not believe in or support women in holy orders? Sure. But I'll bet you some people in Keaton's diocese have qualms about the issue as well. And this whole "lay and ordained" is just a smoke screen. We all know darn well exactly what she means - PRIESTED women. That's the only order they care about. Well, maybe now women bishops as well. But there is little to no real belief that doing lay ministry or diaconal ministry is valuable.

Diocesan officials and female clergy from at least three of the dioceses named were amazed to learn that their diocese was included on the list.

“That’s ridiculous,” said Peter Frank, director of communication for the Diocese of Pittsburgh. “We have women clergy at all levels of leadership, including our senior staff officer in charge of clergy placement. If this is what hostility looks like, they really don’t have much to worry about.”

In his formal March 14 response denying charges of abandonment of communion to Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori, Bishop Robert Duncan of Pittsburgh noted that his support and encouragement for the ministry of women in holy orders was the one aspect of his episcopacy to what “faithful Anglicans and mainstream Christians have always preached and taught.”

What Peter Frank doesn't get is that this is not really about women's ministry. This is about the revisionist agenda. This is just the foot in the door, the camel nose in the tent.

Clergy and laywoman from the dioceses of Central Florida and Southwest Florida were equally incredulous to learn of their inclusion.

“I was very surprised when I saw the article,” said Karen Patterson, who is president of the Standing Committee in the Diocese of Southwest Florida. “I had to re-read it to make sure I was understanding correctly,” she said in an interview with The Southern Cross, the Diocese of Southwest Florida’s newspaper.

Ms. Kaeton denied to the reporter from The Southern Cross that the caucus was compiling a hit list.

“It’s not at all,” she said. “It’s a list of places where, for years, we have heard women say the ministry of women, lay and ordained, is not being celebrated, or is flat-out hostile. And we want to go and hear those stories and provide some companionship and some hope.

“If we can raise awareness and educate and begin the process of change in the church, I think that will be a success,” she said. “Maybe by providing a picture of what it’s like for a woman in The Episcopal Church, we might be able to bring about some change.”

She hits all the buttons here, doesn't she? "for years"- this is an ancient evil that is grinding down the poor girls in these dioceses. "not being celebrated" - well, I guess the darn women can do ministry, but let's not give them too much acknowledgment, it'll just encourage more of them to do it. "flat-out hostile" - yeah, you didn't throw me a party for me & my ministry (not the Lord's ministry, mind) so you're hostile!! (pretty little foot stamp inserted here) "hear those stories" - gag, more listening. "raise awareness and educate" - do we get a pretty awareness ribbon to wear?

But this is my favorite: “Maybe by providing a picture of what it’s like for a woman in The Episcopal Church, we might be able to bring about some change.” Yeah, it's tough being a woman in the Episcopal Church. I mean, I gotta wear that burqa thing & never speak in public & nobody ever throws me a party to celebrate me.

The first Angel Project was created by the caucus after the 73rd General Convention in 2000 criticized the dioceses of Fort Worth, Quincy and San Joaquin over the refusal of the bishops in those dioceses to ordain women. Those visits included celebration of Holy Eucharist in some cases. The canons of The Episcopal Church permit a priest to function in a diocese without a license from the local bishop for up to 59 days.

"This is not about using the sacrament as a act of protest or defiance and there will be no bishops involved," Ms. Kaeton said. "We are very clear about sending a priest and a lay person. Any celebration of the Eucharist would be done in a private, pastoral setting in response to an invitation from the women. It would certainly not be done in a church, either."

Oh, this is so about "using the sacrament". The sacrament is nothing but a prop to these people. This is just agitprop, designed to make people think there is a problem where there is no problem, to sow seeds of discontent.

Continuing Reconciliation

From the comments on TitusOneNine:

Don Armstrong wrote:

O’Neill of Colorado just sent a letter to an 89 year old priest with Parkinson’s disease telling him he was going to be defrocked for asking Archbishop Ping for help in 2001...Paula Nesbitt’s work on reconciliation at the HOB meeting must have been very moving...and how about those Windsor Bishops--our hope in ages past?

More about Bishop MacBurney

Bishop MacBurney was ordained a priest in 1952.

His son is in hospice, dying. This was apparently well known to the Presiding Bishop and the House of Bishops.

Can't you just feel the love?

The Reckoning contiunes......

From ENS
House of Bishops consents to deposition of John-David Schofield, William Cox

The House of Bishops voted March 12 to consent to the deposition from the ordained ministry of the Rt. Rev. John-David Schofield, bishop of the Diocese of San Joaquin, and the Rt. Rev. William Jackson Cox, bishop suffragan of the Diocese of Maryland (resigned).

From the Tulsa World: Bishop William Cox: “I feel sorry that they felt they needed to do this. A more charitable thing to do would be to say, ‘We recognize that you are now a member of the church in Argentina and ask God’s blessing on your ministry.’ ”

Did I mention that Bishop Cox is 86 years old and was ordained a priest in 1958??? Thank you for 50 years of faithful service to this Church; now we are deposing you.



Bishop Schofield's response:

The question that begs to be answered by the House of Bishops,” said Bishop Schofield, “is, why bishops who continue to teach and publish books that deny the most basic Christian beliefs are not disciplined while those of us who uphold the Christian Faith are?” He added, "At least I am in good company. It is a privilege to know that I am standing along side of one of the outstanding theologians of our time, J. I. Packer, who is under similar discipline by the Canadian Church and who, also, has placed himself under the authority of the Southern Cone."



Interesting that when I checked Church Publishing's on-line clerical directory, I got "no results found" when looking for stats on Bishop Schofield. Hmmm.

Next we get this:

Former Quincy Bishop Charged

---

Bishop Edward MacBurney

Bishop Edward MacBurney, bishop retired of the Diocese of Quincy, has been formally charged with canonical violations by the Episcopal Church in the United States of America. These charges stem from events occurring in June, 2007 when Bishop MacBurney was invited to make a pastoral visit to a non-Episcopal church in San Diego, California. MacBurney, 80 years old, retired from his position as a diocesan bishop in 1994, but as a bishop in good standing still actively ministers to churches throughout the country and also in other parts of the Anglican Communion..

The basis of the charges against MacBurney relate to the allegation that he did not receive permission to perform liturgical rites from the sitting Episcopal diocesan bishop in San Diego. Even though the church MacBurney visited had severed ties with the Episcopal Church in the United States and had re-affiliated with the Anglican Bishop of Argentina, a primate of the worldwide Anglican Communion, the charges allege that MacBurney impermissibly crossed Diocesan boundaries.

Flying Monkeys Alert!!!

From Matt Kennedy at Stand Firm

Presiding Bishop Plans to Try Bishop Duncan before the Lambeth Conference

The Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church plans to poll the House of Bishops in April 2008 for approval of a plan to move the possible deposition of Bishop Bob Duncan of Pittsburgh forward from September 2008 to May 2008.

This was announced at the post-meeting press conference yesterday. Bishops Ed Little, Roskam, Curry, and Alvarez were among those present at the conference.

The reasons for this move have not been made public, however, the effect of such a move is clear. The Lambeth Conference begins in July. Were Bishop Duncan to be deposed prior to the Lambeth Conference, the Archbishop of Canterbury would be forced to decide whether to honor the Episcopal Church’s deposition and disinvite Bishop Duncan or to disregard it, a decision similar to the one he faces with regard to Bishop Schofield of San Joaquin.

Litigation Season

Let's take a look at the current activity from 815.

First, January 9th, the Presiding Bishop (& PRIMATE, lest we forget) writes to Bishop Iker.

January 9, 2008
The Rt. Rev Jack L. Iker, D.D.
The Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth
2900 Alameda
Fort Worth, TX 76108

Dear Jack,

Thank you for your letter. I believe you have misinterpreted my previous letter. I gave no "acknowledgement that dioceses can and do leave the Episcopal Church." On the contrary, I continue to aver that individuals may leave, but congregations and dioceses do not. I continue to urge you to withdraw from any encouragement of such a belief, or action toward departure, as i believe it to be a violation of the vows we have both repeatedly taken to "conform to the doctrine, discipline, and worship of the Episcopal Church."

I lament your belief that clergy and laity with your theological position are being systematically eliminated from positions of leadership and influence. If they are disappearing, it is by their own decision and at their own hands. I note how carefully the current and former Presidents of the House of Deputies have been to ensure broad representation in appointment to various church bodies, and know that my predecessors and I have also sought to include all theological positions in appointments within our purview.

You state your concern about those who would stand by their convictions being threatened with depositions and lawsuits. I would also note that depositions and lawsuits have no substance if there has been no violation. Fear of same is probably not rational if there is no basis for same.

I pray that your ministry may be one of abundance in the coming year, and I remain

Your servant in Christ,

Katharine Jefferts Schori

This is the craziest line in the whole letter: You state your concern about those who would stand by their convictions being threatened with depositions and lawsuits. I would also note that depositions and lawsuits have no substance if there has been no violation. Fear of same is probably not rational if there is no basis for same.

Okay, true enough I suppose. If a lawsuit is brought against someone for, oh let's say robbing a bank, and that person is manifestly not guilty, than of course the deposition and lawauit have no substance. However, to bring charges where there is no case is a threat. Lawsuits are costly, time consuming and soul wearying. Lawsuits brought against clergy for their holding to the old, orthodox teachings are harassment. "Fear of same" is rational. The PB seems to like to accuse the conservatives of mental illness. Remember when she implied Bp. Scofield was perhaps a little unhinged, what with his sense of isolation and all?

And speaking of Bp. Scofield, on January 11, the PB inhibits Bp. John-David Scofield.

Mike Glass, a San Rafael, California attorney who represents congregations and individual Episcopalians who wish to remain in the Episcopal Church, welcomed the actions.

"The Title IV Review Committee's certification of abandonment is the first step in clarifying and resolving John-David Schofield's canonical status.

(I love this line:)

The accompanying inhibition will provide safety and assurance to those who are working toward the continuance of the Episcopal Diocese of San Joaquin in the Episcopal Church," Glass said.

"The inhibition also provides a safe space for those who wish to remain Episcopalian, but may have otherwise felt they could not speak their true heart for fear of retribution. My clients, Canon Robert Moore and I will use this time to continue our efforts to reach out to those individuals, missions, and parishes."

Saftey and assurance. Just how dangerous is Bp. Scofield? Does he have the power to take away pensions? Oh, no,wait. That would be in TEC's hands.

On January 12, we get clarifiation from San Joaquin & the Southern Cone. Bishop Scofield is a Bishop in good standing in the Anglican Province of the Southern Cone. How can he have abandoned communion with TEC unless TEC admits it is not in communion with the Southern Cone?

Onward to January 15, where we see that the Title IV Review Committee accuses Bp. Duncan of Pittsburgh of also abandoning communion. But, oops, at least one of the three senior bishops needed to sign on to this won't cooperate & Bp. Duncan must resign the loyalty oath & faces a dressing-down at the next House of Bishop's meeting in March.


So, in review, "remind" Bp. Iker, inhibit Bp. Scofield & try to inhibit Bp. Duncan, but issue a summons to appear instead. Not bad for a week's work. But do you think it occurs to her there might just be a little something wrong in TEC if you have this many bad boys you need to discipline?

Bishop Scofield responds

From Stand Firm:



Dear Bishop Schori:

Greetings in the name of Jesus Christ, our one and only Lord and Savior.

I have read your letter of December 3, 2007 and thank you for your prayers. There is a pastoral tone to this letter which is much appreciated. Informing me that you are not writing with any threats is most encouraging also. One would hope that this indicates your serious consideration of the Primates’ specific request that deposition and litigation under the present circumstances be abandoned as unacceptable behavior among Christians.

Please know I do not share your feelings that I am isolated. My understanding of the authority of the Holy Scriptures, as well as Catholic Faith and Order are shared by the Roman Catholic Church, Eastern Orthodox Churches and by some 60 million faithful Anglicans worldwide. It is The Episcopal Church that has isolated itself from the overwhelming majority of Christendom and more specifically from the Anglican Communion by denying Biblical truth and walking apart from the historic Faith and Order.

It is true that the House of Bishops has ignored my views for nearly twenty years. After this length of time, one wonders how genuine the offer of change for the Church can be by having the "loyal opposition" present at the table. Despite all of this, we are not pining away here in the Diocese of San Joaquin; we are rejoicing in the truth of God’s word!

The decision to be made by our Annual Convention this Saturday is the culmination of The Episcopal Church’s failure to heed the repeated calls for repentance issued by the Primates of the Anglican Communion and for the cessation of false teaching and sacramental actions explicitly contrary to Scripture. For years, I have tried in vain to obtain adequate Primatial oversight to protect the Diocese from an apostate institution that has minted a new religion irreconcilable with the Anglican faith. Hopes were raised in February 2007 when leaders of the Anglican Communion met in Dar es Salaam. The direction given by them for the formation of a pastoral council would have provided the protection we requested and would have averted the need for the Diocese to seek sanctuary from another Province. You were in Dar es Salaam, and in the presence of the assembled Primates you verbally signified your agreement to this direction. By the time you returned to the United States, however, you denied your public statement and declared you had only meant to bring it back for further consideration. It was no surprise, therefore, when the Executive Council and the House of Bishops of The Episcopal Church later denounced the plan for a pastoral council that you went along with them. This was a clear signal that our religious freedom to practice the Historic Faith as this Church has received it would not be protected by The Episcopal Church. My Ordination vows require me to be a faithful steward of God’s holy Word and to defend His truth and "be ready, with all faithful diligence, to banish and drive away from the Church all erroneous and strange doctrines contrary to God’s Word; and to use both public and private monitions and exhortations..." I can do no other.

The Anglican Church of the Southern Cone has graciously offered the Diocese sanctuary on a temporary and emergency basis. This action is unprecedented but so, too, are the apostate actions of The Episcopal Church that make these protective measures necessary. The invitation of the Southern Cone is a matter of public record. In essence it embodies the solution agreed upon by you and the rest of the Anglican leaders at Dar es Salaam to provide adequate, acceptable Alternative Primatial Oversight. To endorse this as a way forward need not be a final nor irreconcilable commitment. Should it be the will of the Annual Convention to accept this most generous gift, I will welcome the opportunity implied in your letter to discuss how it impacts our relationship. In the event that the clergy and laity reject this offer from the Southern Cone, I would, of course, follow your recommendation to participate as a dissenter of the present unbiblical course of action being pursued by the House of Bishops. To do anything else would be to abandon God’s people of San Joaquin and, in the end, prove to be a hireling and not a shepherd. For me, at least, this is the honorable course the Lord would have me follow.

You will remain in my prayers,

Sincerely,

+John-David M. Schofield
Bishop of San Joaquin

The Reconciler-in-Chief writes again

This is the nastiest of the letters so far, especially it's hinting at perhaps a mental disorder in poor John-David's "sense of isolation" and feeling "dismissed or ignored". Well, I bet he doesn't feel ignored after reading this!

From ENS:

December 3, 2007

The Rt. Rev. John-David M. Schofield
Episcopal Diocese of San Joaquin
4159 East Dakota Avenue
Fresno, CA 93726-5227

Dear John-David,

As you approach your next Diocesan Convention, I would like to remind you of my prayers, and those of many other Episcopalians, for you and for the Diocese of San Joaquin. I continue to be concerned for your health, and for your evident sense of isolation. You have been clear that you feel your views are dismissed or ignored within the Episcopal Church, yet you have ceased to participate in the councils of the Church. It is difficult to have dialogue with one who is absent. While there are a number who disagree with you, I believe many more would welcome your participation, particularly as a sign of your faithfulness to your vow to share in the councils of the Church. The Church will never change if dissenters withdraw from the table. There is an ancient and honored tradition of loyal opposition, and many would welcome your participation.

I do not need to remind you as well of the potential consequences of the direction in which you appear to be leading the Diocese of San Joaquin. In this connection I have in mind, among other things, your support of amendments to that diocese's Constitution that would be plainly inconsistent with the Constitution of the Episcopal Church and that would implicitly reject the Church's property and other canons, as well as your support for the transfer of the membership of your Diocese to the Province of the Southern Cone. If you continue along this path, I believe it will be necessary to ascertain whether you have in fact abandoned the communion of this Church, and violated your vows to uphold the doctrine, discipline, and worship of this Church. I do not intend to threaten you, only to urge you to reconsider and draw back from this trajectory.

While you may believe that the Diocese of San Joaquin can be welcomed into another Province of the Anglican Communion, I believe you will find that few parts of the Communion will recognize such a proposal. Such an action is without precedent, violates long-standing principles of catholic Christianity, and can only harm those faithful Episcopalians who only seek to follow Christ. I urge you to consider whether there might not be a more honorable course for you, personally, than seeking to violate your ordination vows and the Canons of this Church. Together with many in this Church, I would very much value your continued and increased presence at the table – both the table of Jesus Christ and the table of fellowship.

You and the Diocese of San Joaquin continue in my prayers, and I remain

Your servant in Christ,

Katharine Jefferts Schori

Bishop Iker responds.

Following a nearly identical letter to the one sent to Bishop Duncan, Bishop Iker responds:

(From STAND FIRM )


November 12, 2007

The Most Rev. Katharine Jefferts Schori
815 Second Avenue
New York, NY 10017

Dear Katharine,

I have received your letter of November 8th and am rather surprised by your suggestion that I have somehow abandoned the communion of the church and may be subject to ecclesiastical discipline. Such a charge is baseless. I have abandoned nothing, and I have violated no canons. Every year at our Chrism Mass, I very happily reaffirm my ordination vows, along with all our clergy, that I will be “loyal to the doctrine, discipline, and worship of Christ as this Church has received them.” (BCP, pages 526 and 538)

It is highly inappropriate for you to attempt to interfere in the internal life of this diocese as we prayerfully prepare to gather in Convention. The threatening tone of your open letter makes no attempt to promote reconciliation, mediation, or even dialogue about our profound theological differences. Instead, it appears designed to intimidate our delegates and me, in an attempt to deter us from taking any action that opposes the direction in which you are leading our Church. It is deeply troubling that you would have me prevent the clergy and laity of this diocese from openly discussing our future place in the life of the wider Anglican Communion, as we debate a variety of proposals. As you well know, the polity of this Church requires the full participation of the clergy and lay orders, not just bishops, in the decision making process. It grieves me that as the Presiding Bishop you would misuse your office in an attempt to intimidate and manipulate this diocese.

While I do not wish to meet antagonism with antagonism, I must remind you that 25 years ago this month, the newly formed Diocese of Fort Worth voluntarily voted to enter into union with the General Convention of the Episcopal Church. If circumstances warrant it, we can likewise, by voluntary vote, terminate that relationship. Your aggressive, dictatorial posturing has no place in that decision. Sadly, however, your missive will now be one of the factors that our Convention will consider as we determine the future course of this diocese for the next 25 years and beyond, under God’s grace and guidance.

In closing, let me be very clear. While your threats deeply sadden us, they do not frighten us. We will continue to stand firm for the unchanging truth of the Holy Scriptures and the redeeming Gospel of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, whatever the costs. I shall continue to pray for you, as I trust you will pray for me, in the difficult days ahead.

Faithfully in Christ,

The Rt. Rev. Jack Leo Iker Bishop of Fort Worth

Bishop Duncan responds

I am stunned. This more than an incredible response. I had faith Bishop Duncan would stand his ground, but this is clearer than I could ever have imagined.


http://www.pgh.anglican.org/news/local/pbresponse110207


Bishop Duncan Responds to Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori


Bishop Robert Duncan responded today to a letter from the Episcopal Church's Presiding Bishop.

1st November, A.D. 2007
The Feast of All Saints

The Most Revd Katharine Jefferts Schori
Episcopal Church Center
New York, New York

Dear Katharine,

Here I stand. I can do no other. I will neither compromise the Faith once delivered to the saints, nor will I abandon the sheep who elected me to protect them.

Pax et bonum in Christ Jesus our Lord,

+Bob Pittsburgh

The PB reaches out in love......

From ENS


Letter from the Presiding Bishop to Pittsburgh Bishop Robert Duncan

The Rt. Rev. Robert Duncan
Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh
Pittsburgh, PA

Dear Bob,

There have been numerous public references in recent weeks regarding resolutions to be introduced at your forthcoming diocesan convention. Those resolutions, if adopted, would amend several of your diocesan canons and begin the process of amending one or more provisions of your diocesan Constitution. I have reviewed a number of these proposed resolutions, and it is evident to me that they would violate the Constitutional requirement that the Diocese conform to the Constitution and Canons of The Episcopal Church. It is apparent from your pre-convention report that you endorse these proposed changes. I am also aware of other of your statements and actions in recent months that demonstrate an intention to lead your diocese into a position that would purportedly permit it to depart from The Episcopal Church. All these efforts, in my view, display a fundamental misunderstanding of the relationship between The Episcopal Church and its dioceses. Our Constitution explicitly provides that a diocese must accede to the Constitution and Canons of the Church.

I call upon you to recede from this direction and to lead your diocese on a new course that recognizes the interdependent and hierarchical relationship between the national Church and its dioceses and parishes. That relationship is at the heart of our mission, as expressed in our polity. Specifically, I sincerely hope that you will change your position and urge your diocese at its forthcoming convention not to adopt the resolutions that you have until now supported.

If your course does not change, I shall regrettably be compelled to see that appropriate canonical steps are promptly taken to consider whether you have abandoned the Communion of this Church -- by actions and substantive statements, however they may be phrased -- and whether you have committed canonical offences that warrant disciplinary action.

It grieves me that any bishop of this Church would seek to lead any of its members out of it. I would remind you of my open offer of an Episcopal Visitor if you wish to receive pastoral care from another bishop. I continue to pray for reconciliation of this situation, and I remain

Your servant in Christ,

Katharine Jefferts Schori

And your little dog, too....

In an amazing show of mean-spiritedness, the Presiding Bishop announces her rules for leaving TEC:

The Episcopal Church will make sure that any property it sells is not intended for use by parishes that plan to affiliate with other Anglican provinces, Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori said Sept. 30 on a visit to Grace Cathedral in San Francisco.

”If a building is sold to a congregation, The Episcopal Church as a whole is not so concerned if it’s going to be a community church,” she said, although there must be assurances that stewardship was addressed and that the building was sold at fair market value. “But if a congregation purports to set up as another part of the Anglican Communion, we are concerned about that.”