March 25, 2017

October 22, 2009


House of Bishops Listserv: Schori vs. Ackerman

Regarding Katharine Schori’s recent acceptance of Keith Ackerman’s non-renunciation, for some reason the presiding bishop decided to post to the House of Bishops listserv:

Dear Brothers and Sisters in Christ,

There have been several questions asked regarding Keith Ackerman and acceptance of his renunciation of orders in the Episcopal Church.

Acceptance of Keith Ackerman’s renunciation of orders in The Episcopal Church was the result of consultation with my Council of Advice, and based on his written submission to me describing his intention to function as a bishop in the Diocese of Bolivia, in the Province of the Southern Cone and requesting that he be “transferred” to that church and thus out of the Episcopal Church.  It is also based on his public participation in, and signature on a document affirming, the election of Robert Duncan as “archbishop” of ACNA.

Acceptance of his renunciation says nothing about the indelibility of his orders.  It does clarify the reality that he is no longer permitted to function as a bishop in The Episcopal Church.

We have been and will be consistent regarding our canons, which clearly state that The Episcopal Church can accept the ministry of a bishop of The Episcopal Church functioning temporarily in another province of the Anglican Communion,  when it is clear that that province does not seek to undermine or replace the ministry of this Church.  Such temporary duty requires the full and informed consent of the respective ecclesiastical authorities.  The ministry of Mark McDonald is an example, but as his position becomes permanent, his loyalty will have to be to the Anglican Church of Canada, rather than The Episcopal Church, and a recognition of his renunciation of orders in this Church will be necessary.

Yours in Christ,

The Most Rev. Katharine Jefferts Schori

Presiding Bishop and Primate

Bishop Ackerman sent this reply to a number of Anglican leaders via email:

There are several errors here:

- I indicated my desire to transfer to the Diocese of Bolivia and she indicated that she would send the appropriate documentation.

- I intentionally did not use the term “renunciation.”  In fact I said that my request could not be interpreted as either “renunciation” or “abandonment.”

I have no real interest in responding to her, but am responding to you.

Some of you may see the negative implications of having someone interpret requests without being given an opportunity to provide any additional input.  A priest who would run his parish this way – by not contacting a parishioner for clarification regarding a request can soon reduce his parish to the appropriate level of his competence.


Share this story:


Recent Related Posts

Comments

121 comments

I’m happy to be corrected, but I seriously doubt any of ECUSA’s canons incorporate the concept of “province[s] ... not seek[ing] to undermine or replace the ministry of this Church [sic]” as a factor in issuing letters dimissory.

[1] Posted by Phil on 10-22-2009 at 07:52 AM · [top]

That was my immediate thought as well, Phil.  She’s making this up as she goes along, as usual.

[2] Posted by evan miller on 10-22-2009 at 07:55 AM · [top]

We have been and will be consistent regarding our canons, which clearly state that The Episcopal Church can accept the ministry of a bishop of The Episcopal Church functioning temporarily in another province of the Anglican Communion, when it is clear that that province does not seek to undermine or replace the ministry of this Church.

This begs to have the question addressed how does the ministry of the Episcopal Church differ from that of the Southern Cone or the Anglican Communion as a whole? How is that they are so diametrically opposed that there is a conflict?

[3] Posted by Festivus on 10-22-2009 at 07:58 AM · [top]

sub

[4] Posted by AndrewA on 10-22-2009 at 08:10 AM · [top]

Could one interpret her actions as bearing false witness?

[5] Posted by midwestnorwegian on 10-22-2009 at 08:19 AM · [top]

Just to get it out of the way:

“How dare you post the personal and private correspondence between the members of the great and terrible HoBD mailing list. Someone should boot you off of it PDQ! Kids these days have no respect. The world is going to hell in a handbasket (except there is no hell) when someone can’t send an email to two thousand of her closest friends and retain complete privacy.”

/revisionist

Thanks for posting the exchange. There’s a lot to be said for overturning the rocks in a church and letting the light in.

The HoBD mailing list is a continual source of amazement always, dismay often and delight rarely.

[6] Posted by Matthew A (formerly mousestalker) on 10-22-2009 at 08:33 AM · [top]

Today’s quiz: how many of the ten commandments did she violate.

[7] Posted by ctowles on 10-22-2009 at 08:38 AM · [top]

The ministry of Mark McDonald is an example, but as his position becomes permanent, his loyalty will have to be to the Anglican Church of Canada, rather than The Episcopal Church, and a recognition of his renunciation of orders in this Church will be necessary.

Shouldn’t his loyalty rather be to Christ and His Church?  Having workerd for an international organization of many years I have to tell you that even when I transferred from one local operation to another (and technically “left” the preceeding one, including coming under differing hierarchy, health and benefits packages, etc)  all they ever talked about in terms of loyalty was loyalty to the mission of the organization.  This woman should be embarrassed to appear so coldly unspiritual.

[8] Posted by Fidela on 10-22-2009 at 08:38 AM · [top]

#8, Fidela, ecumneism is dead in the Episcopal Church. Various leaders may pay it lip service from time to time, but any hope of reconciliation with Rome or the Orthodox was dealt a mortla blow back in the seventies, died in the nineties and was buried fairly recently. The only sort of ecumenical activity we will see will be with other theology impaired Protestant denominations.

Further, in the working theology of the Episcopal Church God is both relativistic and group defined. So your loyalty to ‘God’ is the personification of your loyalty to the community. In this case, the Episcopal Church. It’s an understanding that is foreign to any Christian theology about God, but I defy anyone to argue that isn’t the current theology of 815 and the General Convention right now.

/stridency

[9] Posted by Matthew A (formerly mousestalker) on 10-22-2009 at 08:46 AM · [top]

Pray for Bishop Katharine. Pray that God breaks her heart of stone; pray that she comes to know the joy of serving the risen Christ in all His glory. And through absolute service to Him she will know, without any doubt, the joy, freedom and love that stem from a true servant ministry.

[10] Posted by iambutone on 10-22-2009 at 09:06 AM · [top]

can soon reduce his parish to the appropriate level of his competence.

Made me smile- yes, KJS is reducing the TEC to the level of her competence. Oh my.

[11] Posted by Kate Stirk on 10-22-2009 at 09:07 AM · [top]

#8, this woman, embarrassed?????  Ain’t in the gene mix.

[12] Posted by Capt. Father Warren on 10-22-2009 at 09:08 AM · [top]

Precisely so, Matthew.
I am sure that the KJS sycophants of the HoBD list will be jumping on each other in an effort to praise her wisdom, but I have to wonder how this will play, long run, with the bishops.  They all know +Keith Ackerman.  Many disagree with him vehemently over theology, women’s ordination and a host of other issues.  And every one of them I have EVER heard from respects his integrity and honesty.  They KNOW who is telling the truth here.
  And a few of them have even read the canons.  Unless there was a “double secret probation canon” passed by GC09 without anyone actually seeing it and kept in a mayonnaise jar in the PB’s office, there is no canon

“which clearly state that The Episcopal Church can accept the ministry of a bishop of The Episcopal Church functioning temporarily in another province of the Anglican Communion, when it is clear that that province does not seek to undermine or replace the ministry of this Church.”

Rowan could do with scoring some points with Anglo Catholics about now.  He should invite +Ackerman to preside at Canterbury Cathedral and receive Communion from him and settle this question.  Of course, that won’t happen. Don’t think that the irony is lost on anyone that a week after KJS illegally deposed Bishop Ackerman, the Pope extended an invitation.  I suspect he would also find himself welcomed in the Orthodox Churches as well. Not to mention virtually every province of the Anglican Communion, save TEC and a few minions. Welcomed among Christians everywhere except in little, tiny, TEC.

[13] Posted by tjmcmahon on 10-22-2009 at 09:11 AM · [top]

Please see my update of the headline and my clarification above.

[14] Posted by Greg Griffith on 10-22-2009 at 09:21 AM · [top]

Target rich environment for howlers (2 of several highlights):

We have been and will be consistent regarding our canons

reduce…parish (by implication, her [meaning the current PB] province) to the appropriate level of his (her) (in)competence

My sides are still achin’...

[15] Posted by Athanasius Returns on 10-22-2009 at 09:33 AM · [top]

The PB says

The ministry of Mark McDonald is an example, but as his position becomes permanent, his loyalty will have to be to the Anglican Church of Canada, rather than The Episcopal Church, and a recognition of his renunciation of orders in this Church will be necessary.

When you transfer, you transfer.  You do not renounce your orders, but rather move them from one national church to another.  Of course, you cannot vote, etc, in your former diocese, but if you were invited back to a parish for some reason, you could still preach, celebrate the Eucharist, baptize, etc.  You are still in orders, merely in a different branch of the Communion.

When one renounces one’s orders, one is saying, “I am no longer a deacon/priest/bishop, and I will not function as one anywhere.”  A person who renounces his or her orders is removed from participating in the counsels of the church as an ordained person.

If this woman took a course in elementary logic, I suspect it would be discovered that she is invincibly ignorant of all phases of logical thought.

[16] Posted by AnglicanXn on 10-22-2009 at 09:39 AM · [top]

I believe the issue is one of mis-intrepetation.
+KJS is upset that +Ackerman (et. al.) are renouncing her orders (directives) and, so, should be deposed.  +KJS is upset because these bishops are not towing the line and she confuses renouncing her directives with renouncing their Orders.

YBIC,
Phil Snyder

[17] Posted by Philip Snyder on 10-22-2009 at 09:54 AM · [top]

What is perceived to be disloyalty to the church(TEC) has rapidly become an ecclesiastical capital offense.  What is alarming is that I am aware of exactly zero bishops doing anything about this.  Where are the so called communion partner bishops? ( who by pledging loyalty to the Communion, which TEC clearly doesn’t care to much about, risk a charge of disloyalty themselves, perhaps.  One would think they would be challanging this openly.)

[18] Posted by aacswfl1 on 10-22-2009 at 10:59 AM · [top]

“A priest who would run his parish this way – by not contacting a parishioner for clarification regarding a request can soon reduce his parish to the appropriate level of his competence”.

SMACKDOWN!!

[19] Posted by Passing By on 10-22-2009 at 11:06 AM · [top]

subscribe

[20] Posted by ewart-touzot on 10-22-2009 at 11:15 AM · [top]

Acceptance of Keith Ackerman’s renunciation of orders in The Episcopal Church was the result of consultation with my Council of Advice.KJS

My clones made me do it!

[21] Posted by Irenaeus on 10-22-2009 at 11:32 AM · [top]

She has to be deposed.

[22] Posted by ctowles on 10-22-2009 at 11:36 AM · [top]

Today’s quiz: how many of the ten commandments did she violate.


In this particular email, or in today as a whole??

[23] Posted by The Pilgrim on 10-22-2009 at 11:37 AM · [top]

She’s the Norma Desmond of the Anglican Communion.  “No one ever leaves a star!”

[24] Posted by Nasty, Brutish & Short on 10-22-2009 at 11:38 AM · [top]

Acceptance of Keith Ackerman’s renunciation of orders in The Episcopal Church was the result of consultation with my Council of Advice, and based on his written submission to me describing his intention to function as a bishop in the Diocese of Bolivia, in the Province of the Southern Cone and requesting that he be “transferred” to that church and thus out of the Episcopal Church. It is also based on his public participation in, and signature on a document affirming, the election of Robert Duncan as “archbishop” of ACNA.KJS

No matter how high you heap them, crummy reasons still don’t make one good reason.

[25] Posted by Irenaeus on 10-22-2009 at 11:39 AM · [top]

No matter how high you heap them, crummy reasons still don’t make one good reason.

Stringing together unpersuasive reasons makes them look even less persuasive.

Consider the response that the youthful Irenaeus received from a kindly but unwilling Christian girl:

No, dearest Irenaeus, I can’t go to the circus with you tomorrow afternoon because
I. I never go to the circus between Christmas & Epiphany,
II. My circus chiton has a stain in it, and
III. I might have a headache that afternoon.
—Theodora

[26] Posted by Irenaeus on 10-22-2009 at 11:51 AM · [top]

The only sort of ecumenical activity we will see will be with other theology impaired Protestant denominations.

Or with Pagans, Buddhists, Muslims, tree worshiping tribes and Kiss Fan Clubs.

[27] Posted by oscewicee on 10-22-2009 at 11:51 AM · [top]

No matter how high you heap them, crummy reasons still don’t make one good reason.

Stringing together unpersuasive reasons makes them look even less persuasive.

Consider the response that the youthful Irenaeus received from a kindly but unwilling Christian girl:

No, dearest Irenaeus, I can’t go to the circus with you tomorrow afternoon because
I. I never go to the circus between Christmas & Epiphany,
II. My circus chiton has a stain in it, and
III. I might have a headache that afternoon.
—Theodora

[28] Posted by Irenaeus on 10-22-2009 at 11:52 AM · [top]

You left out “I’m washing my hair.”

[29] Posted by oscewicee on 10-22-2009 at 11:54 AM · [top]

As increasingly unlikely as it sounds, allowing the PB to flagrantly violate the Canons and invent new ones of her own may come back one day to bite the moderates, liberals, and lefty-lefts that remain.

Right now they are playing to politics of expediency and relativism- “The ends justify the means”.

But what happens when one of their own sacred cows comes within her crosshairs. What if she starts meddling in Bruno’s diocese or Chane’s?  What’s to stop her, when by their silence these novel power grabs becomes established by precedent.

[30] Posted by billqs on 10-22-2009 at 12:09 PM · [top]

You can bet that if Bishop Bruno or Bishop Chane ever change their tune, Schori’ll be on them like stink on a skunk.  Predators have been known to turn on their own, after all!

[31] Posted by Cennydd on 10-22-2009 at 12:19 PM · [top]

As I said on another blog, Bishop Ackerman is a good and kindly Christian gentleman, but if I were him, I’d forget about gentle manners and haul that woman into court tout suite!  And I’d also file suit against TEC for damages.  I know we have some fine lawyers amongst us who would be only too happy to help Bishop Ackerman if he were to ask.

[32] Posted by Cennydd on 10-22-2009 at 12:23 PM · [top]

The logic here, and operative phrase, is “orders in this church.” To some degree at least, this is correct.

However, it has implications.

When authorities of the Episcopal Church are speaking of “renunciation of orders,” it presupposes that they mean, “orders in this church.” The notion of the indelibility of orders in the church catholic is rendered of less significance, almost as an afterthought, as a pointless abstraction.

The Episcopal Church sees itself in the first place as an organization and it has lost faith in the church catholic. The church catholic has become for it another abstract, mystical metaphor - without significance even for its own actions.

Its definition of “justice” however is ruthlessly concrete and applicable. This is no abstraction or metaphor. The faith is in the social project defined by these terms of justice. The church catholic and God are merely a part of the metaphorical imagery which the leaders use in projecting their personalities, sort of like identifying one’s self with a band or a brandname. It’s the indirect associations here - of spiritual depth, contemplativeness, self-sacrificial generosity ... which are the primary appeal. It’s like being a fan of Bono since one admires all the cool things he does and can groove with the whole identity package that U2 has put together. It’s grooving with a kind of identity politics.

[33] Posted by Wilf on 10-22-2009 at 12:26 PM · [top]

That’s a very smart reading, Wilf.

[34] Posted by JoshuaB on 10-22-2009 at 12:30 PM · [top]

I look at TEC this way:  TEC looks upon itself as a kind of religious universe, with Katharine Jefferts Schori as its Sun, and its House of Bishops and House of Deputies as the stars and planets.  For Schori, and by extension to so many of them, the mere mention of Christ as the one and only Savior of Men (Hominem Salvator) is reactionary and “divisive.”

[35] Posted by Cennydd on 10-22-2009 at 12:37 PM · [top]

Matthew A. #9, what you said about revisionist theology being consistently demonstrated in this matter, “being both relativistic and group defined”, and what Wilf #33 said describing TEC, “it has lost faith in the church catholic”, brings an interesting thought to mind.  Matthew A. is correct in his summation of TEC’s theological pathos.  To KJS, and I have heard her say this first hand, “Truth is determined in community.”  What, then, of the larger, catholic community?  If Wilf is also correct, and I suspect he is, then TEC is in sinning by its own accords.  I am sure they would simply turn around and say that we are the ones in breach of community, and they have on a number of occasions.  However, by their own admission, when they say that ‘God is doing a new thing here’, they admit that they are the ones who have changed and therefore are the ones who have burned bridges with the church catholic.  The day that is realized in TEC will be a good day for forgiveness and sound biblical teaching.

[36] Posted by Modest Mystic on 10-22-2009 at 12:48 PM · [top]

I am just curious as to how she (KJS) continues to lie to everyone and no one with any standing in the church rebukes her? she bends church ordinances to fit her own agenda and moves on to the next lawsuit. pathetic…

[37] Posted by joshmistake on 10-22-2009 at 01:22 PM · [top]

I am just curious as to how she (KJS) continues to lie to everyone and no one with any standing in the church rebukes her? she bends church ordinances to fit her own agenda and moves on to the next lawsuit.—#37

KJS is a hawk ruling rabbits. Even if her House of Bishops colleagues wanted to resist her, they’re too timid and disorganized to do so. She has even greater sway over ECUSA’s other governing bodies, including the Executive Council and the House of Deputies. Barring a scandal or other debacle, she’ll do as she pleases for the rest of her term.

[38] Posted by Irenaeus on 10-22-2009 at 01:47 PM · [top]

I hate to disagree with you Irenaeus, but I really think that she isn’t so much a bully, but rather expressing the mind of the ‘in crowd’. She is telling her fellow bishops what they want to hear. After reading what the departing bishops have written about their experiences in the HoB, what comes through is how marginalized they felt being there.

It also takes a great deal of courage to stand up against the group. If it really were just the PB that was set on running the troublemakers out, I think there would be more outcry. But instead she is articulating the will of the majority and it takes a fair amount of courage to stand up against that. And we have not been selecting our bishops for courage.

[39] Posted by Matthew A (formerly mousestalker) on 10-22-2009 at 01:52 PM · [top]

Mrs. Shori’S actions in these requests by both bishops and priests that they be transfered to other Anglican Provincesby way of letters dimissory is, pure and simple, a recognition on her part that TEC, the Church she leads, is not a part of the Anglican Communion any more. That is the only logical reason for her behavior.  Sad indeed!

[40] Posted by David+ on 10-22-2009 at 01:54 PM · [top]

Ditto #37. During lunch with a friend of conservative persuasion and catching him up on the goings on in TEC since GC(it was a long lunch)he was amazed and asked: “doesn’t anyone stand up in opposition to her”? I sheepishly answered, not really other then the parties who are vigorously defendind/prosecuting the property litigation. He reminded me of the old southern saying about “not getting in a _ _ssing match with a skunk”!I believe we’ve become so jaded to the PB’s conduct that the opposition is paralyzed, a fact which she takes full advantage of.

[41] Posted by Doubting Thomas on 10-22-2009 at 01:57 PM · [top]

Folks, it’s wash our hands and leave time.  There is just sooo much hate and spite.  Instead of the elder, wealthier brother blessing these leave takers; all that’s left is negativity, and heartfelt murder, as you can see here, where people are obliterated.  It certainly is depressing if we do not look to the Lord.  We’ll have to wait on the Lord for the final Act.  Good luck to them.

[42] Posted by francis on 10-22-2009 at 02:08 PM · [top]

[6] Matthew A (formerly mousestalker),

You wrote

The world is going to hell in a handbasket (except there is no hell) when….

I am sorry to have to be the one to break this to you, but not only is it asserted by some that there is no hell, but handbaskets have become rather scarce as well over the last few decades, and those capacious enough to hold the world, are even rarer.

wink

Pax et bonum,
Keith Töpfer (proud owner of a MacLaren F1, but one small enough to fit in a standard handbasket)

[43] Posted by Militaris Artifex on 10-22-2009 at 02:19 PM · [top]

[39]Matthew A (formerly mousestalker),

Please accept my congratulations on your (very) recent nomination for the 2009 Episcopal Understatement of the Year Award for your quote on this blog thread, as follows:

…we have not been selecting our bishops for courage.

Pax et bonum,
Keith Töpfer

[44] Posted by Militaris Artifex on 10-22-2009 at 02:29 PM · [top]

Goodness knows where the PB gets the idea that if Mark MacDonald remains in the Anglican Church of Canada he will have to renounce his Orders in TEC.  What a very odd concept of “communion”.

[45] Posted by wvparson on 10-22-2009 at 02:41 PM · [top]

She isn’t so much a bully, but rather expressing the mind of the ‘in crowd’.

MatthewA [#39]: Agreed. The in crowd heartily approves of the direction in which KJS is leading ECUSA.

But KJS is no longer really beholden to the in crowd. Cennydd [#31] rightly observes that “if Bishop Bruno or Bishop Chane ever change their tune, Schori’ll be on them like stink on a skunk”. She won’t do them in, of course, but without a scandal or debacle they can’t do her in either. She’s in control.

[46] Posted by Irenaeus on 10-22-2009 at 02:46 PM · [top]

Where does she get that idea?  The answer is obvious:  She gets it from her Play Book, and any football or basketball coach knows what that is.

[47] Posted by Cennydd on 10-22-2009 at 02:46 PM · [top]

Sergio Carranza is from Mexico and is an assistant bishop to Bruno from Mexico. He needs to be reconsecrated as a TEClub bishop.

[48] Posted by robroy on 10-22-2009 at 03:15 PM · [top]

Goodness knows where the PB gets the idea that if Mark MacDonald remains in the Anglican Church of Canada he will have to renounce his Orders in TEC.  What a very odd concept of “communion”.

You got that right Father.  It also struck me as bizarre that she sees this as some sort of sliding scale-

The ministry of Mark McDonald is an example, but as his position becomes permanent, his loyalty will have to be to the Anglican Church of Canada, rather than The Episcopal Church…

Note, she did not say “when” or “at such time that” or “if” but “as his position becomes permanent.”  In plain English that means his position will become permanent, not at some date certain, or as a result of a particular action, but as the result of some ongoing process of “becoming”- allowing her to choose the time when he has been sufficiently processed to be deemed as having lost his loyalty to TEC.
And then there is the bizarre language of “loyalty.” As though TEC were a nation-state, and holy orders some form of citizenship.
Well, y’all have fun with KJS.  Personally, I think this is a case where the CP bishops aught to sit back, be quiet, and force the Tom Briedenthals and Pierre Whalons and the other bishops with pretenses to catholicism deal with this woman and her latest embarrassment.  In the 1960s, a 10 year old needed a better understanding of Holy Orders than the current PB if they wanted to pass catechism class.  This letter is completely and utterly incoherent from an ecclesial point of view.  Look at it- she managed in 2 paragraphs and a couple sentences to mangle the canons, redefine Holy Orders, threaten to depose a bishop of the Anglican Church of Canada (hope he is already vested in the pension, otherwise it will be a bleak retirement), and she says that someone renouncing their orders only causes orders to be invalid in TEC, but that they remain perfectly valid for the rest of the Communion….wha????  Has she ever READ the canon?

[49] Posted by tjmcmahon on 10-22-2009 at 03:33 PM · [top]

The good bishop makes an interesting point at the end of his post - that if a rector operated in a parish this way…

Do we need reminding that she (KJS) never was rector of a parish?  Unlike the Most Rev’d Robert William Duncan, whom she describes as the “‘archbishop’” of the ACNA.  Suppose she thinks the quotation marks removes the efficacy of his office.  Ridiculous.

Fr. Darin Lovelace+
St. David’s Anglican Church (ACNA)
Durant, Iowa
http://www.stdavidsdurant.info

[50] Posted by frdarin on 10-22-2009 at 03:47 PM · [top]

#13 Thanks for “Double Secret Probation Canon”

Oh, I’m still wiping my eyes over that one!

KTF!...mrb

[51] Posted by Mike Bertaut on 10-22-2009 at 04:24 PM · [top]

... our canons, which clearly state that The Episcopal Church can accept the ministry of a bishop of The Episcopal Church functioning temporarily in another province of the Anglican Communion, when it is clear that that province does not seek to undermine or replace the ministry of this Church

I’ve just run my tired eyes over the length of the comments seeking to learn whether the TEC canons if fact state this. Can anyone clarify?

(And following on Matthew A.‘s early post, I would like to suggest the phrase “Great and Terrible” become part of the official Presiding Bishop of The Episcopal Church title.)

[52] Posted by Romkey on 10-22-2009 at 04:40 PM · [top]

FrDarin, I have never subscribed to Mrs Katharine Jefferts Schori’s being a clergyperson, because as far as I’m concerned, she isn’t one.  At best, she is a “Wannabe clergyperson.” The last Presiding Bishop was Frank Tracy Griswold, and we all know he wasn’t the best. 

I came into the Church when +John Maury Allin was the Presiding Bishop, and who really DID preside over the HoB.  Given the ever-increasing decline and fall of TEC, I’m glad I left when I did….and I should’ve left much sooner. 

KJS’ description of the Most Rev Robert Duncan as an “archbishop” is an insult to him and to us who acknowledge him as our ARCHBISHOP.

[53] Posted by Cennydd on 10-22-2009 at 04:55 PM · [top]

Unless there was a “double secret probation canon” passed by GC09 without anyone actually seeing it and kept in a mayonnaise jar in the PB’s office, there is no canon

I do hope the jar was empty and washed thoroughly before this environmentally correct reduce/reuse/recycle use of the precious resource of glass and steel. wink

One can only wonder what KJS’ plans are for her post-PB days.  Unless she plans to invoke emergency powers and declare herself Supreme Maximum Presiding Bishop for life, may she be blessed forever.  A macabre thought, but perhaps Johnson’s Law waiting to be invoked?  Who could be a worthy successor to Katiff I?

[54] Posted by Milton on 10-22-2009 at 05:48 PM · [top]

Schori knows no bounds to her ego and frankly I am surprised that she has not had ecclesiastical charges of abuse of canons successfully prosecuted against her.

[55] Posted by DTerwilliger on 10-22-2009 at 07:17 PM · [top]

#55 DTerwilliger,

The PB has not faced even a scintilla of presentment charges due to the utter and abject feckless spinelessness of the entire HOB.  The HOB is a completely failed arm of TEC.

If TEC actually survives the junk of the last 40-50 years, it will have to do so by rebuilding from the very beginning, starting with the HOB.

[56] Posted by Athanasius Returns on 10-22-2009 at 07:42 PM · [top]

Cennyd writes:

KJS’ description of the Most Rev Robert Duncan as an “archbishop” is an insult to him and to us who acknowledge him as our ARCHBISHOP.

Sadly, his description of the Most Rev. Katharine Jefferts Schori as “Mrs.” instead of her proper religious title, followed by his remark that, “at best” she’s a “Wannabe clergyperson”, is an insult to her and to use who acknowledge her as our PRESIDING BISHOP and PRIMATE.

Oh, well.

[57] Posted by Vintner on 10-22-2009 at 08:16 PM · [top]

I am just curious as to how she (KJS) continues to lie to everyone and no one with any standing in the church rebukes her? she bends church ordinances to fit her own agenda and moves on to the next lawsuit.—#37

You can search the entire HoB and you won’t find a set of cajones anywhere.

[58] Posted by Nikolaus on 10-22-2009 at 08:18 PM · [top]

[49] tjmcmahon,

As you appear from your nom de blog to be a person with some Scots heritage, I would suggest that a part of your referenced comment could be summarized by describing the PB by use of a term common to preseent day Scots. With respect to canon law (at the least) she appears to be what they would likely call an eedjit.

Pax et bonum,
Keith Töpfer

[59] Posted by Militaris Artifex on 10-22-2009 at 08:36 PM · [top]

Hawk over rabbits?  Nay.  Dissectionist over spineless squid?  Yea.  Invertebrates all, the HOB.

[60] Posted by dwstroudmd+ on 10-22-2009 at 08:43 PM · [top]

Vintner, I am one of those who refuses to recognize the ordination of women priests and bishops as valid. 

I need not go into your “Presiding Bishop’s” behavior towards faithful Anglican clergy who want only to serve Christ and His Church in this country as a member of another Anglican Church….you have been manifestly made aware of her actions, which by the way, are and have been in direct violation of your own Church’s canons.  Good canon lawyers have pointed out those violations, and yet, no actions have been taken to apologize for those actions or the effects they have had on those clergy. 

In addition, since your bishops seem to be “in the back pocket” of your “Presiding Bishop,” no such actions are ever likely to take place.  Therefore, we can expect more such violations to occur, with the same results. 

I sincerely hope that Bishop Ackerman does file suit against her and your Church.  He has been deeply wronged, and that wrong must be righted.

[61] Posted by Cennydd on 10-22-2009 at 09:00 PM · [top]

Amen, Cennydd.  As a former priest in TEC - now canonically Anglican Church of Canada - I agree whole-heartedly!

[62] Posted by DTerwilliger on 10-22-2009 at 09:09 PM · [top]

Yep, and I am one of those who refuses to recognize the validity of the orders of those in “ACNA”.  Go figure.  As to the validity of her actions concerning deposition, until someone wants to formally charge her instead of harping about charging her…

[63] Posted by Vintner on 10-22-2009 at 09:09 PM · [top]

Yep, and I am one of those who refuses to recognize the validity of the orders of those in “ACNA”.

Because we all know that to be outside TEC is to be outside the Church Catholic, and outside TEC there are no validly ordained bishops, archbishops, priests or deacons.

[64] Posted by AndrewA on 10-22-2009 at 09:13 PM · [top]

As to the validity of her actions concerning deposition, until someone wants to formally charge her instead of harping about charging her…

Vintner [#63]: This is unworthy of you. ECUSA’s internal disciplinary processes have no more integrity than the old Soviet legal system. Your comment is akin to suggesting you wouldn’t believe lynchings occurred in the Deep South during the 1930s unless an all-white jury convicted the perpetrators.

[65] Posted by Irenaeus on 10-22-2009 at 09:31 PM · [top]

RE: “This is unworthy of you.”

I am afraid you greatly exaggerate Vintner’s personal standards of integrity or worthiness.

[66] Posted by Sarah on 10-22-2009 at 09:47 PM · [top]

Vintner’s confidence that the PB could do anything to her “conservative” opponents and not face successful prosecution rightly, but sadly, reflects my own judgment and presumably the judgment of the remaining “conservative” bishops.

It’s a fatal flaw in TEC’s polity. Those who make policy judge its legality. Who watches the watchmen?

[67] Posted by driver8 on 10-22-2009 at 11:00 PM · [top]

I would also ask Vintner if he or she thinks the “Presiding Bishop’s” actions are canonically legal, and if so, why?  If they are not, then why won’t those who have the authority to actually do something about these violations of the canons take action to put a stop to them?  Or are those actions “legal” because Katharine Jefferts Schori and her Council of Advice SAY they are? 

I have seen nothing come out of General Convention or the House of Deputies which says that anyone gave her permission to act as she did, and I am quite certain that the House of Bishops does not need her permission to do anything which might remove her from office.  She may think that she’s immune from a Church trial, but she isn’t, and she needs to remember that.

[68] Posted by Cennydd on 10-22-2009 at 11:01 PM · [top]

She also needs to remember that carnivores often turn on their own kind, and that’s why she won’t hesitate to put the screws to any clergy who dare to even look they might cross her….TEC conservatives and CP bishops beware!

[69] Posted by Cennydd on 10-22-2009 at 11:07 PM · [top]

To Vinter:  Your ad hominem comments regarding ACNA orders is simply absurd and doesn’t answer the question.  Do you have an argument?

[70] Posted by DTerwilliger on 10-22-2009 at 11:24 PM · [top]

DTerwilliger,
I wouldn’t worry about Vinter’s comment, since it has no foundation. Of course he can refuse to recognise the validity of orders in ACNA; He can also refuse to recognise that the sky is blue!

[71] Posted by MichaelA on 10-22-2009 at 11:35 PM · [top]

What great ecumenical moment is lost if Pope Vintner refuses to recognize ACNA orders?

[72] Posted by James Manley on 10-22-2009 at 11:51 PM · [top]

Vitner,
What, in yuor view, renders the orders in ACNA invalid?

I understand why some don’t consider Dr. Schori to be a cleric.

I understand why some don’t consider ACNA ‘Anglican’. 

But I don’t understand why the orders of the clerics there would be invalid.

[73] Posted by Bo on 10-23-2009 at 12:04 AM · [top]

I’m so done with KJS and TEC.  Their legalism, shyster arguments and downright cruelty make me sick.  How can ANYONE with a soul read the recent news and these posts and want to be in this organization (can’t really call it a church).  I agree that it is wash your hands—and go through the decon chamber as you leave—time.  By Advent I hope to be peaceably worshiping in a different denomination, one that is actually Christian. It makes me sad to leave my parish family, but Jesus himself warned us we might have to leave our family to follow him.  And so I will.

[74] Posted by angla80 on 10-23-2009 at 01:32 AM · [top]

#74, angla80,

Prayers ascending for your discernment.  May our LORD and Savior Jesus Christ guide, guard, and protect you and manifest His presence in wonderfully helpful ways throughout the days ahead!  Grace & peace be multiplied to you and yours.

[75] Posted by Athanasius Returns on 10-23-2009 at 02:58 AM · [top]

To wvparson (who really is niparson) and tj,
Thank you for picking up the absolute illogic of the PB placing Mark MacDonald into the renunciation hopper. 
The illogic is stunning. 
My guess is that Jefferts Schori is now beginning to receive phone calls and emails from the left of center crowd asking her to revise her determination on his account.
She has unwittingly placed +Mark in the same category of “kind” of bishop, if you will, as how she considers +Keith, +John-David, +Jack, +David, +Robert, etc.
She has done that by her justification for her actions with +Keith Ackerman first:  leaving TEC, going to a Province that is not in accord with TEC, and affirming by participation the existence of the ACNA (or presumably some other formerly TEC association of congregations, clergy and people).
Now, I know that both +Mark and +Keith will look at this apologetic of hers, sigh deeply, and then head on to the ministries they believe God has called them to do.  It will thus be left to those of us in TEC to raise the question and the complaint.  The liberal playbook includes letters and letters and emails and emails to bishops, primarily, and then to others in TEC leadership positions (such as the Exec. Council), demanding a fair reading of the Canons for those ordained who are going to be ministering in other Anglican Provinces, and to use terms other than “renunciation.”
In that regard, Vintner is wrong in his/her disregard for the orders of those in ACNA, especially those ordained in TEC prior to departure to ACNA related entities.  That is, Vintner, you must recognize - as a good, BCP toting Episcopalian - the validity of their orders, but rather not their ability/permission to make use of their “orders” within TEC at this time.  The latter is the proper sticking point, because some would accept their ministrations, and some would not, if they are part of an umbrella Province.  Still, the issue in any case is not the validity of their orders, in the sense of being ordained.  Perhaps in a Lutheran sense, but not in an acceptable Episcopal/catholic sense.

[76] Posted by Rob Eaton+ on 10-23-2009 at 03:21 AM · [top]

Earlier someone suggested that +Ackerman should file suit in court.  He won’t, that is not him.  And civil court won’t touch this issue..totally ecclesiastical.
BUT Vintner’s challenge should be accepted and the canons used to bring charges against her by several CP bishops and Rectors and laity.  This would necessarily force the procedures in Title IV to begin and make TEC deal with this authority, canonical issue openly.  I don’t expect a favorable outcome, to the contrary. But a NO is very powerful.  And besides until the no decision is delivered civil actions could not begin anyway.

[77] Posted by aacswfl1 on 10-23-2009 at 08:06 AM · [top]

Keep in mind that Bonnie Anderson as much as threated South Carolina that they would be treated like the dioceses that have departed if they go forth with their current plans.  It would be in the interest of the Communion Partners to show a united front disclaiming this “Renunciation of Orders” tactic, publically, vehmently, and officially. 

‘Cause they are probably next on the list…

[78] Posted by AndrewA on 10-23-2009 at 08:11 AM · [top]

Very interesting thread, re: the dangerous and supposedly indomitable personage occupying the presider’s chair in TEC.
Have +Bruno et al created their own monster?
Or more to the point, have followed the lead of Dr. Frankenstein?

[79] Posted by Br_er Rabbit on 10-23-2009 at 09:32 AM · [top]

Fr. Rob,

Actually, I think you are wrong in point of detail.  While Holy Orders are indelible, it is within canon law to “defrock” a member of the clergy, and, when one does so, bars them from ministry for all with whom one is in Communion.  The issue here is not whether a priest or bishop CAN be deposed, but rather, whether they actually HAVE been deposed.  The canons of TEC are very clear on HOW this must be done.  In the case of a bishop, there are, essentially, 3 ways.  First, by decision of a trial court, affirmed by the House of Bishops.  Second, by the HoB itself, in cases of Abandonment of Communion.  Third, by the bishop himself, through a letter of renunciation sent to the PB’s office.  To the best of my knowledge, this last has only taken place in cases where a bishop has left TEC to go to a church not in communion with TEC.  And, if you think about it, the Roman church, for example, would never ACCEPT a priest or bishop who did not formally renounce his orders in TEC.  Nor, I imagine, would the Baptists, or other churches not in communion.
  The issue here is that the PB is taking on Metropolitan power to depose based on her opinion, and openly violating canon law in so doing.  And lying to get it done.  But she is getting away with it because it serves the political aims of the majority of the bishops and power brokers who have discarded Christianity in favor of whatever this new pseudo Christian religion is. TEC is no longer an Episcopal church, because the bishops have ceded all their ecclesial authority to an autocrat.  She can depose anybody she wants to.
  Personally, I do not see this as a fight that should be waged by CP bishops and rectors.  They are the witnesses, not the prosecutor, in this case.  If TEC wants to be a church with any sort of Christian doctrine 10 years from now, it is the bishops in the majority who will need to come forward to challenge her.  I see the circumstances as analogous to the N Michigan consent process.  This can only be fought and one by those who see themselves as the “moderate” or “institutional” bishops.  The institution of TEC is being destroyed, along with the office of bishop.  And so far, the majority of bishops are voting in favor of their own destruction.
  The CP bishops and rectors should keep their heads down until the ABoC- the fellow who wanted to see the formation of the CP in the first place, is willing to stick his head above the parapet and take the lead, or until some sort of coalition of “moderates” (what we used to call radical revisionists) is willing to stand up for their own office.

[80] Posted by tjmcmahon on 10-23-2009 at 09:42 AM · [top]

But she is getting away with it because it serves the political aims of the majority of the bishops and power brokers who have discarded Christianity in favor of whatever this new pseudo Christian religion is. TEC is no longer an Episcopal church, because the bishops have ceded all their ecclesial authority to an autocrat.  She can depose anybody she wants to.

In a fine show of high principles and moral fiber, eh? I think it won’t be long before TEC, whatever it is, is run by GC. The bishops will be window dressing.

[81] Posted by oscewicee on 10-23-2009 at 10:02 AM · [top]

“This can only be fought and one”
Errr….(removing egg from face)
Fought and won

[82] Posted by tjmcmahon on 10-23-2009 at 10:11 AM · [top]

#78 Andrew A, you wrote, “It would be in the interest of the Communion Partners to show a united front disclaiming this “Renunciation of Orders” tactic, publically, vehmently, and officially.”

I certainly can’t speak with knowlege of all Communion Partner Bishops, but a very prominent one used the Abandonment of Communion charge to depose me last year. This followed an attempt by the bishop and then-Canon to the Ordinary to persuade me to sign a renunciation of my orders as a “purely administrative detail.” When I refused and instead submitted my written request for transfer to another province that request was taken as grounds for my deposition.

None of this would seem surprising in what we think of as liberal dioceses, but as I said, the bishop in question was prominent in the CP and I’m only aware of one priest who raised his voice in opposition in a diocese that is fairly well supplied with CP rectors. As far as I can tell, some of the CP bishops seem just fine with this sort of thing and keep it as a tool in their own toolbox.

[83] Posted by C Heenan on 10-23-2009 at 10:21 AM · [top]

I certainly can’t speak with knowlege of all Communion Partner Bishops, but a very prominent one used the Abandonment of Communion charge to depose me last year

Since you can’t speak with knowledge of all CP bishops, perhaps you should be more specific about exactly which CP bishop you are speaking of.

[84] Posted by AndrewA on 10-23-2009 at 10:26 AM · [top]

That was Bishop Don Wimberly, who has since retired. The Canon to the Ordinary at the time is now the current Bishop of Texas, Andy Doyle.

[85] Posted by C Heenan on 10-23-2009 at 10:55 AM · [top]

Vintner’s challenge should be accepted and the canons used to bring charges against [KJS] by several CP bishops and Rectors and laity. This would necessarily force the procedures in Title IV to begin and make TEC deal with this authority, canonical issue openly.—#77

In a properly functioning system, that might be true. But remember that 815 has simply sat on inconvenient presentments against revisionist bishops. That occurred, as I recall, in the case against Bp. Bennison—until matters became so bad that 815 itself wanted him out (not least because the secular news media were highlighting the sex scandal).

[86] Posted by Irenaeus on 10-23-2009 at 12:04 PM · [top]

AndrewA [#84]: I recall high-handed action against the orthodox by Bp. Lillibridge of West Texas.

[87] Posted by Irenaeus on 10-23-2009 at 12:17 PM · [top]

#80 obviously we will have to disagree.  Your assertion presupposes the majority of bishops have any interest in stopping KJ-S or enforcing the letter of the law.  They don’t obviously and it is convenient to ignore the violations because they like the result…a strong central episcopal authority, because right now they agree with her.  Many here know most of them created the monster they have with full intent to get what is happening now.  It is no accident she became PB
It is only the CP Bishops/Rectors who can initiate a fight because only they care, or should care enough to force the issue.  I am beginning to think that CP’s don’t really want to do anything.  Are they waiting for someone else to do it for them?  Do they want to be seen as avoiding discord at any cost?, Are they laying low until all the shooting is over so they can survive and stand up, put their fingers to the wind and decide which way to go?(I know, I know that is unfair but it seems like it)  I give most of the CP’s credit for knowing what they are doing individually . But the problem is in many cases they are taking a lot of unsuspecting others with them, who are without full knowledge of the consequences because they have been told,’ hush, don’t cry everything is going to be alright’,  to their potential detriment, I am afraid.  [Sorry, some of this stuff just gets my blood boiling.] 
We need militant orthodox leadership who are willing to challenge those in power and shout out that they have led a great institution into schism, call on them to repent, and failing that to get out.  That is biblical discipline. That is what the Windsor Report and later process started out to do.  Unfortunately, it is not what it will do any longer.  CP’s are waiting on a dream, I am afraid.

[88] Posted by aacswfl1 on 10-23-2009 at 01:27 PM · [top]

It would seem that Chairman Schori can no long be troubled with convening a kangaroo court to defenestrate insufficiently emascuated bishops, but now relies on simple pronouncements to banish the inconvenient. 

Yet another lawless act from the tyrannical termagant heading a dirty, grubby and, thankfully, imploding institution.

[89] Posted by Jeffersonian on 10-23-2009 at 04:46 PM · [top]

Very interesting thread, re: the dangerous and supposedly indomitable personage occupying the presider’s chair in TEC. Have +Bruno et al created their own monster?—Bre’r Rabbit [#79]

Yes, sir, though they may not realize it yet. There’s a blindness that comes from holding monstrous theology and engaging in monstrous ecclesiastical behavior. Yet monsters fall out with one another, even eat each other. The pecking order becomes a wrecking order. Unless KJS faces a scandal or other debacle, woe betide these silly men if they trifle with her.

[90] Posted by Irenaeus on 10-23-2009 at 06:16 PM · [top]

It would seem that Chairman Schori can no long be troubled with convening a kangaroo court to defenestrate insufficiently emasculated bishops.—#89

And why should she? She has constituted herself a kangaroo court even as her castrati choir of bishops coos back-up vocals.

[91] Posted by Irenaeus on 10-23-2009 at 06:29 PM · [top]

aacswfl1-
I probably did not make myself sufficiently clear.

Katharine Schori, and those who stand with her, are excommunicated from the Church.  They have taken it upon themselves to destroy that part of the Church known as the Episcopal Church, and to drive out of it all who hold the traditional faith of our forebears. The act of illegally deposing true bishops has violated every tenet of the Church- and indeed the bishop actually removed from orders thereby is the presiding bishop herself.  Am I adequately clear on where I stand on this issue?

However, I do not see much point in the CP bishops mounting some sort of campaign to depose the presiding bishop.  If anything, I think they should follow Mark Lawrence’s path, and withdraw from the councils of TEC. They cannot save TEC.  The only people who can save it are those bishops who comprise the majority.  Please understand, I see this as being unlikely to a point just this side of impossible.  But if it is to happen, it will have to be because of a change of heart by the majority.  Now, granted, if somebody puts together the 2/3 vote necessary to challenge KJS (remember, to bring anything so much as criticizing her to the floor, you have to override her ruling from the chair), and they are 8 or 10 votes shy, THEN the CP bishops should show up en masse.

Of course, ++Rowan could do something, but I see that as about as likely as ++Bob Duncan being elected PB of TEC.  And that is the other problem the CP bishops have- CP is a creature of ++Rowan.  Their very existence is due to one of his schemes.  They can only get so far ahead of the Covenant plans and such.  Again, if they want to back action on his part, that would be great, but they can’t back what doesn’t happen.

[92] Posted by tjmcmahon on 10-23-2009 at 06:46 PM · [top]

Oh, this is too “funny”.  I mean come on, Shori talking about Canons?  Give me a break.  Let see, Katie, since you are so into quoting and referring to Canons of TEC, why not show us where is says 815 owns Diocesan property; show us in the TEC Canons where is states a Diocese cannot leave TEC….waiting…still waiting. 

I find it strange that the refers to Duncan as “archbishop”.  What’s with the quotes around his title, Katie?  Perhaps we should start referring to her as the Presiding “Bishop” of the Episcopal “Church”? She is such a fraud, an empty vestment.

[93] Posted by Mopar5 on 10-23-2009 at 07:40 PM · [top]

(Secret transcript recently released from 815 deliberations on Bishop Ackerman, Archbishop Williams, and Rome’s recent offer to the Anglo-Catholic orthodox)

We’re Knights of the Round Table
We dance when ‘ere we’re able
We do routines, and Chorus Scenes,
With footwork Im-pecc-able
We dine well here in Camelot
We eat ham and jam and spam a lot!

And then just when we thought they were going to get serious….

We’re Knights of the Round Table
Our shows are for-mid-able
But many times
We’re given rhymes
That are un-sing-able
We’re Opera Mad in Camelot
We sing from the diaphram-a-lot

And now that the world has tuned in to hear how they will react, we get this little tune:

In war we’re tough and able
Quite In-de-fat-i-gable
Between our quests
We sequin vests
And imitate Clark Gable
It’s a busy life in Camelot
I have to push the Pram-a-lot

So that’s what they’ve been up to at 815!

And all this time I thought they were just being silly!

(with apologies to Monty Python) KTF!...mrb

[94] Posted by Mike Bertaut on 10-23-2009 at 08:57 PM · [top]

She has constituted herself a kangaroo court even as her castrati choir of bishops coos back-up vocals.

Irenaeus, that has to be the single best bitingly satirical sentence that I’ve read in a long time.  Has me chuckling every time I reread it.

[95] Posted by Todd Granger on 10-23-2009 at 09:08 PM · [top]

So, blowin’ in the wind Wimperly made it to retirement, eh?
Bet he’s happy.  Remember the Camp Allen bishops and the Windsor bishops and all those other castratii vocal groups he sang with?  Ah, the good ol’ do-little era of bishops!!!

[96] Posted by dwstroudmd+ on 10-23-2009 at 09:12 PM · [top]

96—“The Camp Allen Bishops”. I had forgotten that gathering of Bishops Who Wanted to Do Nothing.

[97] Posted by Going Home on 10-23-2009 at 09:14 PM · [top]

“Off with his head! Off with his head!  He presented proof of his disloyalty to me, to MEEEEEE!”  Sounds like looking-glass material.  Why anyone should try so see reason in any of this is grounds for eye-rolling, I’d say.  Does that make the Holy Father the Cheshire Cat?  Perhaps we could tie her up while she was sleeping?

Isn’t any of this embarrassing to Vitner or any pew-sitting member of a TEC congregation?  Is it possible that people think that this is normal behavior for a primate in the AC? 

Clearly, it is the Southern Cone’s gain and TEC’s loss that such a holy man as +Keith Ackerman feels it is time to move on.  Of course, he tried to do the right thing, that’s just him, but to be told, “Don’t let the door hit you in the a** on your way out!” is just petty and mean.

Is there a prize for the most number of question marks in a comment??

[98] Posted by RicardoCR on 10-23-2009 at 09:47 PM · [top]

To #75, Thank you for your prayers, Athanasius Returns.  Same back at you!  Many blessings to you!

[99] Posted by angla80 on 10-23-2009 at 11:23 PM · [top]

Presiding Litigator - get a life.  A new life.

[100] Posted by Dallas Priest on 10-24-2009 at 12:18 PM · [top]

96—“The Camp Allen Bishops”. I had forgotten that gathering of Bishops Who Wanted to Do Nothing.

Aka, the People’s Front of Judea

[101] Posted by Jeffersonian on 10-24-2009 at 12:36 PM · [top]

Splitters!

[102] Posted by driver8 on 10-24-2009 at 12:44 PM · [top]

101 - I immediately thought of Veggie Tales:

We are the Bishops Who Don’t Do Anything!
We just stay home and lie around.
And if you ask us to do anything,
We just tell you…We don’t do anything!

[103] Posted by Dr. Mabuse on 10-24-2009 at 12:53 PM · [top]

Remember that CAMP ALLEN is an anagram of PENAL CLAM. Such a clam doesn’t do much—but still makes you sorry.

[104] Posted by Irenaeus on 10-24-2009 at 01:45 PM · [top]

Not all is well on the Sept’s financials:
http://www.episcopalchurch.org/documents/2009SeptemberBudgetarySummary.pdf
$2 million for Title IV and legal assistance to the diocese so far this year. Perhaps ‘renunciation’ was cheaper than ‘deposing’.

[105] Posted by martin5 on 10-24-2009 at 10:45 PM · [top]

The budgeted amount was $100,000 and the actual lawyer’s bills sent to the dioceses year to date was 1700% over budget. Oops. And where is the cost of Ms Schori’s personal litigator?

[106] Posted by robroy on 10-25-2009 at 05:39 AM · [top]

Perhaps the even sadder number is the “income from ordination exams” line- which demonstrates, really, 3 things.  First, sad that you give an exam to make sure people are liberal enough (beware your answers to the essay questions).  Second, that you make potential ordinands PAY you to take it.  Third, the number itself is way down- indicating that people are not lining up in droves to become clergy- from the numbers, it appears no one took it last month- and we are nine months into the year, so unless there is a big Christmas rush, unlikely to catch up.
I wonder if mutual ministry types have to take the exam?  Seems unlikely that most I know could have passed one.  Of course, the existence of mutual ministry could have a lot to do with low ordination numbers- why pay a priest a salary when any retired person or idle rich fella can be ordained and take it on as a hobby?  With no job prospects, ordination becomes a less desirable career choice- family to feed and all that.

[107] Posted by tjmcmahon on 10-25-2009 at 06:02 AM · [top]

Re: 86 from Irenaeus

AndrewA [#84]: I recall high-handed action against the orthodox by Bp. Lillibridge of West Texas.

Sorry, I just read through this thread and was taken aback by this accusation against my bishop.  I don’t recall any “high-handed” actions.  I would appreciate knowing what this is about or else an apology for spreading rumors and false, malicious gossip. 
Peace,
The Rev Eric Fenton
Retired in San Antonio

[108] Posted by Eric Fenton on 10-25-2009 at 06:38 AM · [top]

107 tjmcmahon,
But it begins to make sense from a financial standpoint: less ordained clergy to draw on a pension mean the Church Pension Fund can be used to pursue litigation.

[109] Posted by iambutone on 10-25-2009 at 07:35 AM · [top]

Oh, true enough Iambutone.  Age demographics alone demonstrate that in 10 years, TEC be 25% or so smaller than it is now.  Add in all the folks who are departing for other Churches, and they will be hoping for clergy retirements.  The tipping point will come when the pension fund interest and dividends no longer cover the outflow and they start tapping the capital to make payments (which may have happened over the last year or two related to financial fluctuations, but I mean when you start seeing it in long term financials).

[110] Posted by tjmcmahon on 10-25-2009 at 09:23 AM · [top]

#96 and #101,

Ah Veggie Tales and Life of Brian snippets in the same thread.  Love it!

Unless the Peoples Front bishops-who-won’t-do-anything actually get down to really and truly doing something (censure of the PB and sycophants, presentment, orthodox activism, prayer AND praxis, for example), well… We’ll just see more and more and more and more and more of this type of gross tyranny perpetrated against orthodox by the ersatz PB.

Organizationally, the PB is pathological.

Not doing something substantive about this is tantamount to not mere acquiescence, but actual approval.

I certainly hope “orthodoxTEC bishops know the dim, dingy picture they have painted of themselves.

[111] Posted by Athanasius Returns on 10-25-2009 at 01:24 PM · [top]

Seems the ABC is learning that dance routine, too, Athanasius Returns.  It would be a liberal Anglican flaw to acquiese by doing something and alleged conservative or traditional flaw to do nothing.  I speak merely to the historical record, of course.

Nasty ol’ Pope Benedict, actually DOING something!  What kind of example does that set, I ask you?

[112] Posted by dwstroudmd+ on 10-25-2009 at 02:27 PM · [top]

dwstroudmd,

Then, what we have in the vaunted “orthodox” bishops is a small cadre of closet liberals?  Interesting…

[113] Posted by Athanasius Returns on 10-25-2009 at 03:24 PM · [top]

I have had no luck finding out exactly how many members of the clergy KJS has deposed so far in her career as PB.  Over 100 yet?  Seems like a real bloodbath.  I’d love to see the complete list with alleged reasons, like the one for the bishops above.  Stand Firm should keep a running tally, sort of a Hall of Fame for defenders of the faith.  Also, I wonder where TEC will get their money from now on.  Not from me!  Maybe Obama will give them some stimulus money from the same magic dollar tree that will pay off all this wasteful spending by the feds.  Same crowd, same tactics, same philosophy.  Same result.

[114] Posted by angla80 on 10-25-2009 at 04:40 PM · [top]

The Diocese of Quincy put out a document that lists clergy that have been removed or deposed between 2006 and 2007. I have the document. There are about 100 on the list. If you look at the 4 dioceses that have left, and those parishes that have left since then, the lsit will probably double when they are deposed. The bishop in the diocese of Florida, has deposed about 46 priests alone.

[115] Posted by martin5 on 10-25-2009 at 05:23 PM · [top]

Fr. Fenton [#108]: I based #87 on statements that a priest of the diocese made in a face-to-face conversation with me. He was relating his view of how Bp. Lillibridge had treated him and his congregation. If I were writing the comment now, I would say, “I recall hearing of high-handed action against the orthodox by Bp. Lillibridge of West Texas.” That is what I meant.

[116] Posted by Irenaeus on 10-25-2009 at 06:15 PM · [top]

I have had no luck finding out exactly how many members of the clergy KJS has deposed so far in her career as PB.

Angla80 [#114]: KJS specializes in deposing bishops. Priests (as I recall) get executed by their diocesan bishops.

Depositions have soared under KJS. Here’s what Bp. David Anderson of the American Anglican Council wrote back in July:

“The American Anglican Council has a Wall of Honor, displaying the framed Deposition Pronouncements of several hundred clergy and bishops. Presiding Bishop Jefferts Schori has come very close to deposing more faithful American Episcopal bishops and clergy in her three year tenure than have been deposed by all Presiding Bishops of TEC since 1789.”

[117] Posted by Irenaeus on 10-25-2009 at 06:27 PM · [top]

The total number of clergy….including bishops….is now well over 100.

[118] Posted by Cennydd on 10-25-2009 at 07:03 PM · [top]

Wise words, TJMcMahon at #92. All romantic or hopeful ideas that Ms Schori may have some spark of decency in her have to be abandoned.

Iambutone at #10 is sstill right - we do have to pray that God will melt Schori’s heart of stone. If He can convert Saul of Tarsus, then he can convert anyone.

But we can’t assume that that will happen. So the church truly has to be “wise as serpents and innocent as doves” in opposing her.

[119] Posted by MichaelA on 10-25-2009 at 07:08 PM · [top]

Presiding Bishop Jefferts Schori has come very close to deposing more faithful American Episcopal bishops and clergy in her three year tenure than have been deposed by all Presiding Bishops of TEC since 1789.”

Thank you for the information on the KJS Terror.  I knew it was bad, but WOW.  I am quite sure that she has more than surpassed the record for the past 200+ years if we limit the count to FAITHFUL bishops and clergy.  That is seriously messed up.  If we ever had any doubt that God is slow to anger, we have our answer now.  Verily, again I say, wow.

Note to self:  keep praying.

[120] Posted by angla80 on 10-25-2009 at 11:53 PM · [top]

Presiding Bishop Jefferts Schori has come very close to deposing more faithful American Episcopal bishops and clergy in her three year tenure than have been deposed by all Presiding Bishops of TEC since 1789.

What an extraordinary admission of failure by TEC. They truly are fools. Any objective observer could tell them that even if they succeed in their immediate aim, they will do lasting damage to their cause.

History repeats (or at least rhymes): The reformation in C16 gained little traction among the general public in England, until Bloody Mary started burning a christian every day. After 3 years of that, public opinion had turned irrevocably against the cause she espoused. Schori is on her way to accomplishing the same thing, by similar methods.

[121] Posted by MichaelA on 10-26-2009 at 05:26 PM · [top]

Registered members are welcome to leave comments. Log in here, or register here.

Comment Policy: We pride ourselves on having some of the most open, honest debate anywhere. However, we do have a few rules that we enforce strictly. They are: No over-the-top profanity, no racial or ethnic slurs, and no threats real or implied of physical violence. Please see this post for more explanation, and the posts here, here, and here for advice on becoming a valued commenter as opposed to an ex-commenter. Although we rarely do so, we reserve the right to remove or edit comments, as well as suspend users' accounts, solely at the discretion of site administrators. Since we try to err on the side of open debate, you may sometimes see comments which you believe strain the boundaries of our rules. Comments are the opinions of visitors, and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of Stand Firm site administrators or Gri5th Media, LLC.