tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10326675.post5748936688705533146..comments2024-02-15T03:32:25.686-05:00Comments on Preludium, Anglican and Episcopal futures: The Camel’s Nose and the Primate’s Tent.Mark Harrishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06871096746243771489noreply@blogger.comBlogger15125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10326675.post-81532869282666273732012-11-18T11:52:08.264-05:002012-11-18T11:52:08.264-05:00Unbearably obfuscatory.Unbearably obfuscatory.StephenASmalleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06893444432526781247noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10326675.post-60415639195692927012007-02-14T13:07:00.000-05:002007-02-14T13:07:00.000-05:00Mr. Harris: There is a Counterfeit Gospel being pr...Mr. Harris: There is a Counterfeit Gospel being promoted by many in the Episcopal Church leadership. You only need to open USA Today and see it, from our presiding BP herself. And remember BP. Spong? If you and Bovinesue are threatened by BP. Duncan's comments made "in a hot and heavy exchange" personally, then maybe God is speaking to your conscience. <BR/><BR/>If you are not of this group, then BP. Duncan's comments are not for you. <BR/><BR/>And goodbye this is not a forum for a conservativeAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10326675.post-27715427719105572012007-02-13T22:26:00.000-05:002007-02-13T22:26:00.000-05:00momtat said,"I have a very hard time believing tha...momtat said,"I have a very hard time believing that my Bishop would ever call her or her associates "Counterfeit Christians". <BR/><BR/>Don't know about that, but he has said essentially that about a lot of us:<BR/><BR/>Here are references: <BR/><BR/>Duncan ripped Connecticut Bishop Andrew Smith, saying "there are wolves here that are set upon the flock. Does a shepherd come after the sheep? Does a shepherd seek to disable his flock? This too is a counterfeit, and those who lead in this way are counterfeiters." http://jmm.aaa.net.au/articles/15077.htm <BR/><BR/>AT THE RALLY outside the Hartford capitol building May 13, attended by the same leaders as the previous evening, Bishop Duncan blasted revisionist Episcopal bishops for promoting a "counterfeit" religion, and lauded the "Connecticut Six" for standing for the "faith once delivered." http://www.challengeonline.org/modules/wfsection/article.php?articleid=66 <BR/><BR/>"The choice is for Jesus Christ, True God and True Man," he said, as opposed to something less or counterfeit, as he believes ECUSA is offering. The choice is for "truth over accommodation, accountability over autonomy, mission over sullen inaction," Duncan told the gathering of Episcopalians/Anglicans from 77 dioceses and several extramural bodies. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1523417/posts <BR/><BR/>Bishop Robert Duncan of the diocese of Pittsburgh and head of the Anglican Communion Network said, “We are here to warn the people of this nation that there is a counterfeit abroad in the land that looks and sounds like the real thing but has no currency when you try to spend it.” http://www.thinkinganglicans.org.uk/archives/2005_05.html <BR/><BR/>Now granted three of these four references came from a particularly hot and heavy exchange in and around a rally for the Conn. 6, but the quotes (all from different sources) give roughly the same read of the matter.<BR/><BR/>Sue and I and many other progressives took the stinging charge that we are "counterfeit christians" to heart.<BR/><BR/>Sue states, "That, I believe, was the most unkindly cut that could ever have been made. It has hurt many of us to the core, believe me."<BR/><BR/>When the Moderator said that he may have been involved in what seemed to be hyperbole or perhaps the excess of the moment. And it can be argued that he was targeting Bishop Smith. But that charge does not sit well with many of us.<BR/><BR/>At any rate, The Moderator did say that of those he believes have left the right path. He can say it, of course, but we who also adhere to the Gospel have no desire to have his statement about being counterfeit adhere to us as well, or for that matter to Bishop Smith.Mark Harrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06871096746243771489noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10326675.post-67839559402192335002007-02-13T20:40:00.000-05:002007-02-13T20:40:00.000-05:00"I say "Christians" because we who consider oursel..."I say "Christians" because we who consider ourselves faithful to the Episcopal Church, its Constitution and Canons, have been told, in no uncertain terms, by our Bishop and his Associates, that we are "Counterfeit Christians". "<BR/><BR/>Considering that what Bovinesue wrote originally in this thread (and has posted at other venues I might add) was a lie, I have a very hard time believing that my Bishop would ever call her or her associates "Counterfeit Christians". She has shown that what she says cannot be trusted, how can we trust what she says about our Bishop Duncan? Mr. Frank was kind in calling her post "grossly inaccurate".<BR/><BR/>"I say "Christians" because we who consider ourselves faithful to the Episcopal Church, its Constitution and Canons,"<BR/><BR/>Christians? Only if you adhere to the truth of the gospel. That Christ is the incarnation, he died for the sins of all the world, rose again in 3 days and ascended to heaven. That is what makes us Christian.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10326675.post-18443458377621800872007-02-12T21:32:00.000-05:002007-02-12T21:32:00.000-05:00Christopher+ wrote:But there is another, rather pr...Christopher+ wrote:<BR/><BR/><I>But there is another, rather practical matter in all this. The worst a two-thirds majority of the gathered Primates could do in terms of realigment is perhaps pre-approve changes in the membership of the Anglican Communion that would then have to be proposed and approved by the Anglican Consultative Council (ACC). According to the ACC's Constitution:<BR/><BR/>"The Council shall be constituted with a membership according to the schedule hereto. With the assent of two-thirds of the Primates of the Anglican Communion, the council may alter or add to the schedule."</I><BR/><BR/>This understanding of determining the membership of the Anglican Communion is not correct. Membership in the Anglican Consultative Council does not equate with membership in the Anglican Communion <I>per se</I>.<BR/><BR/>The Primates' Meeting is the Anglican Communion body who admit new provincial Churches to membership in the Communion. (Though perhaps they exercise this as a sort of standing committee function of the Lambeth Conference?)<BR/><BR/>For further discussion, see:<BR/>http://reader.classicalanglican.net/?p=941Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10326675.post-72235201464726286822007-02-10T20:15:00.000-05:002007-02-10T20:15:00.000-05:00Bovine Sue writes:"I say "Christians" because we w...Bovine Sue writes:<BR/><I>"I say "Christians" because we who consider ourselves faithful to the Episcopal Church, its Constitution and Canons, have been told, in no uncertain terms, by our Bishop and his Associates, that we are "Counterfeit Christians". That, I believe, was the most unkindly cut that could ever have been made. It has hurt many of us to the core, believe me. I cannot believe that any of us would EVER say such a thing about Bishop Duncan or his allies. Yet,I continue to pray for him, and he knows that. It's what Christians are supposed to be doing." </I><BR/><BR/>I would love to hear what Peter Frank and others who know Bp Duncan have to say about his stating that those who disagree with him are Counterfeit Christians. I find it awful to think that a man ordained as a bishop in this church could behave in such a manner. Does Bp Duncan really believe this?<BR/>Mr. Frank, any comments?Dennishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01945343859290558131noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10326675.post-53743658966504132162007-02-09T15:12:00.000-05:002007-02-09T15:12:00.000-05:00Canon Mark and All,I apologize for initially react...Canon Mark and All,<BR/><BR/>I apologize for initially reacting, rather than reporting what I was given to understand had happened with +Duncan and Diocesan Council. I do try to attend those meetings and would have been there if at all possible. I have since posted a correction after speaking to a person who WAS there and took notes.<BR/>It seems to me that the person who can speak to whether the Diocese of Pittsburgh has actually withdrawn from Province III is the President of Provine III, Bishop Robert Ihloff. I wrote to him and he informed me that whatever happens, those who wish to be in Province III will remain in Province III. He suggested that such parishes send representatives to the Province meetings, etc. <BR/>What all this boils down to is the very sad situation of ever-growing distrust between "Christians" within the Diocese of Pittsburgh which has been going on now for at least ten years. I say "Christians" because we who consider ourselves faithful to the Episcopal Church, its Constitution and Canons, have been told, in no uncertain terms, by our Bishop and his Associates, that we are "Counterfeit Christians". That, I believe, was the most unkindly cut that could ever have been made. It has hurt many of us to the core, believe me. I cannot believe that any of us would EVER say such a thing about Bishop Duncan or his allies. Yet,I continue to pray for him, and he knows that. It's what Christians are supposed to be doing. <BR/>Bovinesuebovinesuehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15577706035574416779noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10326675.post-20361618809867089942007-02-09T12:24:00.000-05:002007-02-09T12:24:00.000-05:00Mark,FWIW, I do think you have accurately identifi...Mark,<BR/><BR/>FWIW, I do think you have accurately identified and described part of the disagreement we are having. <BR/><BR/>Our self-understanding here in Pittsburgh is that we have indeed withdrawn from Province III. With you, it appears, we see no way for an individual church in the diocese to be part of the province if the diocese as a whole has withdrawn (though, of course, we have a major disagreement about whether or not that can actually happen). <BR/><BR/>Thus from our perspective, if one of our parishes is absolutely intent on maintaining the connection with Province III, the only way we can see for them to do that is to join another diocese that is in the Province.<BR/><BR/>The ironic thing is that the organization that Sue is a member of, Progressive Episcopalians of Pittsburgh, has categorically denied that the diocese can withdraw from the internal provincial system. They say in their 2006 Diocesan Convention briefing papers "A diocese simply does not have the power to remove itself from a province." <BR/><BR/>Link: <BR/><BR/>http://progressiveepiscopalians.org/html/AC06-R01-01.htm<BR/><BR/>If they are right about that, I don’t understand why they are concerned about their membership in Province III. From their point of view, we are all members, whether we like it or not, and no-one should need to do anything to maintain membership.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10326675.post-49402240594236614582007-02-09T11:41:00.000-05:002007-02-09T11:41:00.000-05:00I believe that it was Andrew Brown on Helminblog w...I believe that it was Andrew Brown on Helminblog who suggested that when ++Rowan dumped his former best friend Jeffrey John into the vat of shit, he did not realize how much he had spattered on himself.<BR/><BR/>I do not know what the ABC will do, but based on his track record, I am pretty sure it will be wrong.<BR/><BR/>The sad thing is that I am past caring.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10326675.post-30939597058549984042007-02-09T10:48:00.000-05:002007-02-09T10:48:00.000-05:00Regarding Sue(bovinesue)'s comment and the followu...Regarding Sue(bovinesue)'s comment and the followup by Daniel and Peter:<BR/><BR/>The exchange seems to have brought some clarity, even with the difference of report. All seem to agree that Bishop Duncan's position is that because the Diocese is no longer part of Province III parishes who wish to remain parto of Province III will no longer be part of the Diocese of Pittsburgh.<BR/><BR/>I agree with Peter that these are difficult times for everybody. <BR/><BR/>It does seem to me that Sue is, in the main, saying the same thing regarding non-Network, or "province III" parishes not being part of the diocese. Whether or not it is a matter of their choice (staying as part of Province III) or part of the Bishop's discernment (you have chosen to leave the diocese) is unclear.<BR/><BR/>What puzzles me is the notion that parishes could choose or not to belong to a Province. A Province (on a domestic level) is made up of dioceses, not parishes. So, if a diocese distanced itself from the Province that is the dioces's business. I strongly disagree with the reading of the canons that suggest a Diocese can, on its own, simply disengage with a Province. It can request reassignment, but somehow that gets settled by General Convention. When Puerto Rico came back into the Episcopal Church it was assigned to particular province. It all made sense of course (Province IX), but one supposes they could have asked to be part of another province.<BR/><BR/>The whole business of domestic Provinces is a bit odd. Dioceses in the Episcopal Church belong to the Episcopal Church. It is the church as a whole that for a variety of reasons institutes the domestic province system, but a diocese is first a part of the church as a whole.<BR/><BR/>Then again, who knowns.Mark Harrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06871096746243771489noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10326675.post-53024504357375649682007-02-09T09:52:00.000-05:002007-02-09T09:52:00.000-05:00In response to bovinesue:I'm Peter Frank, Bishop D...In response to bovinesue:<BR/><BR/>I'm Peter Frank, Bishop Duncan's Communication's director. What Sue is saying here is grossly inaccurate (Sue wasn't even at the meeting). Bishop Duncan commented that it was very unusual that he had been invited along with Schori to deliberations in Tanzania. This meant that there was a recognition that significant division existed in the American Church. He made it clear that it was up to the Primates to decide whether or not there would be another province. He also did not say that non-network parishes must leave the diocese. He said that parishes committed to stay in Province III must understand that they were choosing to leave the diocese, because the diocese is not a member of Province III. <BR/><BR/>These are difficult times for everyone without gross misinformation like this being passed around.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10326675.post-6750964985619295992007-02-09T08:30:00.000-05:002007-02-09T08:30:00.000-05:00What bovinesue writes is inaccurate. Duncan did no...What bovinesue writes is inaccurate. Duncan did not say that a separate US Province will be established nor did he say that the non-Network parishes "must leave" the Diocese. He did say, however, that parishes who wish to remain in Province III while still in the Diocese, will have to make a choice if, as he prays will happen, Alternative Primatial Oversight is granted.Dan Crawfordhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08091073644841770744noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10326675.post-75883225519633591372007-02-08T21:10:00.000-05:002007-02-08T21:10:00.000-05:00Of course they should be wiping their brows that s...Of course they should be wiping their brows that she was elected, for however would they be able to spew such venom at TEC if not so? Perhaps someday the vote will be made public and it will be known how ++KJS was made martyr...<BR/><BR/>However, from a second grade teacher, the camel is adapted to close his nostrils voluntarily. He/she does not need to stick his/her head under a tent flap to know what is fair and what is foul.heidihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16497965286299472592noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10326675.post-45163788009231934402007-02-08T19:02:00.000-05:002007-02-08T19:02:00.000-05:00Add to this that the Moderator this week informed ...Add to this that the Moderator this week informed his Diocesan Council that he expects to return from Tanzania with the promise that a separate U.S. Anglican Province will be established and that upon his return he will inform the Non-Network Parishes that they must LEAVE the Diocese of Pittsburgh!!!!bovinesuehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15577706035574416779noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10326675.post-48727727015794740762007-02-08T18:03:00.000-05:002007-02-08T18:03:00.000-05:00"If the Archbishop of Canterbury does not whack th..."If the Archbishop of Canterbury does not whack the Camel now he may discover that he has lost all power and control of things and shortly after the Episcopal Church is squeezed out, he will be too."<BR/><BR/>Well, your word in ++Rowan's ear, of course.<BR/><BR/>But there is another, rather practical matter in all this. The worst a two-thirds majority of the gathered Primates could do in terms of realigment is perhaps pre-approve changes in the membership of the Anglican Communion that would then have to be proposed and approved by the Anglican Consultative Council (ACC). According to the ACC's Constitution:<BR/><BR/>"The Council shall be constituted with a membership according to the schedule hereto. With the assent of two-thirds of the Primates of the Anglican Communion, the council may alter or add to the schedule."<BR/><BR/>Doing such a thing would be bad enough, but it is not at all clear that the ACC, being much more representative of the laity and clergy of the Anglican Communion than the Primates Meeting, would go along. The Primates can say and vote on many things, but they cannot - on their own - fundamentally alter the Anglican Communion in any way that has teeth, which is, of course, as it should be. This is a meeting for fellowship - and for more of that "listening" everyone has been doing so very well.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com