Sat, Sep 27 02:05 PM
Lahore, Sept 27 (ANI): A temple in Lahore has become the centre of feud between the Hindus and the Christians. While both the communities claim full rights over the temple, with each putting forth arguments in its favour, the Christian converts (Hindus who converted to Christianity) currently assume control of the temple site.
The ancestors of the Balmiki Christians, who currently have possession of the temple, converted to Christianity from Hinduism about 30 years ago, but are still affiliated with the Swami Balmiki, for whom the temple was built.
They maintain that they have full rights to the temple despite being Christians, and will not give it up, reported the Daily Times.
Conversely, the Hindu Sudhar Sabha, an association of city's Hindu population, has alleged that the Christian caretakers harass them and prevent them from worshipping in the temple. They claim that their actions have made the temple the site of a hub of activities that are against the respect of the temple. However, the Christians claim that they do not want any 'occupier' to intervene in the internal affairs of the temple, added the paper.
more
Saturday, September 27, 2008
Thursday, September 25, 2008
It's time for the 'silent majority' to speak up: T V R Shenoy
One can understand -- and respect -- conversion. If an individual chooses to change his faith after struggling with his convictions, so be it. But going around asking others to convert, with none-too-subtle overtones of 'My God is better than your god!' is not respect but hostility. And that, let us be honest, is the tone adopted by some Christian missionaries in India.
Once again, I believe that this is not true of most Indian Christians. This country has had a long history of Christians -- Catholic, Protestant, Mar Thoma Syrian Christians -- living perfectly amicably without feeling any need to convert their Hindu neighbours.Church in the World: It's time for the 'silent majority' to speak up: T V R Shenoy
Once again, I believe that this is not true of most Indian Christians. This country has had a long history of Christians -- Catholic, Protestant, Mar Thoma Syrian Christians -- living perfectly amicably without feeling any need to convert their Hindu neighbours.Church in the World: It's time for the 'silent majority' to speak up: T V R Shenoy
It's time for the 'silent majority' to speak up: T V R Shenoy
If Hindus are required to respect other religions then it must be a two-way street. And, frankly, there is nothing so utterly disrespectful as proselytisation.
One can understand -- and respect -- conversion. If an individual chooses to change his faith after struggling with his convictions, so be it. But going around asking others to convert, with none-too-subtle overtones of 'My God is better than your god!' is not respect but hostility. And that, let us be honest, is the tone adopted by some Christian missionaries in India.
Once again, I believe that this is not true of most Indian Christians. This country has had a long history of Christians -- Catholic, Protestant, Mar Thoma Syrian Christians -- living perfectly amicably without feeling any need to convert their Hindu neighbours. (Although it must be noted that one major exception was during Portuguese rule when the Catholics made converts at the point of the sword).
There was a major change more recently, one that became clear when Pope John Paul II unveiled the document 'Ecclesia in Asia' when he came here in 1999. The Holy Father said on that occasion, 'The peoples of Asia need Jesus Christ and his gospel. Asia is thirsting for the living water that Jesus alone can give.' Can you blame Hindus for worrying after that?
Oddly, at the same time the Vatican was fuming about 'sheep stealing' in Latin America. That was because Catholics were turning to some Protestant sects like the Evangelicals and the Pentecostals. (By the way, Republican vice-presidentiial nominee Sarah Palin [Images] was born a Catholic, but now attends an independent congregation). Is it surprising that Hindus share similar worries?
Read it all
One can understand -- and respect -- conversion. If an individual chooses to change his faith after struggling with his convictions, so be it. But going around asking others to convert, with none-too-subtle overtones of 'My God is better than your god!' is not respect but hostility. And that, let us be honest, is the tone adopted by some Christian missionaries in India.
Once again, I believe that this is not true of most Indian Christians. This country has had a long history of Christians -- Catholic, Protestant, Mar Thoma Syrian Christians -- living perfectly amicably without feeling any need to convert their Hindu neighbours. (Although it must be noted that one major exception was during Portuguese rule when the Catholics made converts at the point of the sword).
There was a major change more recently, one that became clear when Pope John Paul II unveiled the document 'Ecclesia in Asia' when he came here in 1999. The Holy Father said on that occasion, 'The peoples of Asia need Jesus Christ and his gospel. Asia is thirsting for the living water that Jesus alone can give.' Can you blame Hindus for worrying after that?
Oddly, at the same time the Vatican was fuming about 'sheep stealing' in Latin America. That was because Catholics were turning to some Protestant sects like the Evangelicals and the Pentecostals. (By the way, Republican vice-presidentiial nominee Sarah Palin [Images] was born a Catholic, but now attends an independent congregation). Is it surprising that Hindus share similar worries?
Read it all
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
Sudden Death of Pope John Paul I still a Mystery after 30 years
Albino Luciani, Patriarch of Venice was elected as Pope John Paul I when Paul VI, famous for his his 1968 encyclical, Humanae Vitae which proclaimed that any sort of artificial birth control was “against God’s will” died on 6 August 1968.
His reaction when the fabled white smoke announced that the search was over, that he was Pope, was humble: “I don’t know how I could have accepted. The day after I already regretted it, but by then it was too late.
This ever-smiling son of a bricklayer, who looked, someone said, like everyone’s favourite uncle, swiftly earned the name “the Homely Pope”. He combined the names of his two predecessors to become John Paul I and in spite of his benign, self-effacing approach to the job, he quickly sent tremors through the Vatican old guard.
He began as he meant to go on. With humility. There would be no splendid coronation. He refused to be crowned. There would be no sedia gestatoria, the chair in which Popes were carried above the crowd; no jewel-encrusted triple-deck tiara, instead just a white wool stole around his shoulders; no traditional six-hour ceremony, either, Just a simple mass.
He was, to put it bluntly, a new broom and he felt there was much in the Vatican to be swept away.
Sensationally, some Italian newspapers claimed he contemplated allowing use of the contraceptive pill, their stories based on a document supposed to have been sent by Luciani to Pope Paul. This was instantly denied by the Vatican hierarchy. Artificial contraception was anathema to the traditionalists.
The new Pope was also rumoured to be unhappy with the activities of the Vatican Bank and its alleged connection to P2, a Masonic lodge within the Vatican, and this was enough, later writings claim, to antagonise powerful forces within the Church.
Little wonder, then, that the conspiracy theories surfaced almost immediately when John Paul I was found dead in his bed on September 29 after just 33 days in office. After all, he was only 65 and in good health, so not surprisingly the whispers started.
The Pope had been murdered. Why? To prevent him sacking men like the Chicago-born Archbishop Paul Marcincus, “God’s Enforcer”, suspected of some very dodgy financial deals which might even have embraced the Mafia. Read it all
His reaction when the fabled white smoke announced that the search was over, that he was Pope, was humble: “I don’t know how I could have accepted. The day after I already regretted it, but by then it was too late.
This ever-smiling son of a bricklayer, who looked, someone said, like everyone’s favourite uncle, swiftly earned the name “the Homely Pope”. He combined the names of his two predecessors to become John Paul I and in spite of his benign, self-effacing approach to the job, he quickly sent tremors through the Vatican old guard.
He began as he meant to go on. With humility. There would be no splendid coronation. He refused to be crowned. There would be no sedia gestatoria, the chair in which Popes were carried above the crowd; no jewel-encrusted triple-deck tiara, instead just a white wool stole around his shoulders; no traditional six-hour ceremony, either, Just a simple mass.
He was, to put it bluntly, a new broom and he felt there was much in the Vatican to be swept away.
Sensationally, some Italian newspapers claimed he contemplated allowing use of the contraceptive pill, their stories based on a document supposed to have been sent by Luciani to Pope Paul. This was instantly denied by the Vatican hierarchy. Artificial contraception was anathema to the traditionalists.
The new Pope was also rumoured to be unhappy with the activities of the Vatican Bank and its alleged connection to P2, a Masonic lodge within the Vatican, and this was enough, later writings claim, to antagonise powerful forces within the Church.
Little wonder, then, that the conspiracy theories surfaced almost immediately when John Paul I was found dead in his bed on September 29 after just 33 days in office. After all, he was only 65 and in good health, so not surprisingly the whispers started.
The Pope had been murdered. Why? To prevent him sacking men like the Chicago-born Archbishop Paul Marcincus, “God’s Enforcer”, suspected of some very dodgy financial deals which might even have embraced the Mafia. Read it all
Sunday, September 21, 2008
Luther Decade
The state churches in Germany, in cooperation with government agencies and institutions, is launching the "Luther Decade" — a celebration of all things Luther, culminating in 2017, the 500th anniversary of the posting of the 95 theses. Of particular interest will be a special exhibition in Halle, featuring the archeological finds from recent decades in Mansfeld and Wittenberg. ...>
Link
A New Online home for the Book of Concord
The image shown on this page is the title page of the first edition of the Book of Concord, printed in Dresden, Germany in 1580. English translation: CONCORDIA. YHWH. Christian repeated unanimous confession of later-named Electors, Princes, and Estates of the Augsburg Confession, and of their theologians' doctrine and faith. In addition, there has been added a thorough explanation of certain articles, well-founded in God's Word as the only rule, which after Dr. Martin Luther's blessed death were the subject of controversy. Set forth by the joint resolution and order of said Electors, Princes, and Estates for the instruction and admonition of their lands, churches, schools and posterity. With the privilege of His Electoral Grace of Saxony. Dresden, 1580.
link
Link
A New Online home for the Book of Concord
The image shown on this page is the title page of the first edition of the Book of Concord, printed in Dresden, Germany in 1580. English translation: CONCORDIA. YHWH. Christian repeated unanimous confession of later-named Electors, Princes, and Estates of the Augsburg Confession, and of their theologians' doctrine and faith. In addition, there has been added a thorough explanation of certain articles, well-founded in God's Word as the only rule, which after Dr. Martin Luther's blessed death were the subject of controversy. Set forth by the joint resolution and order of said Electors, Princes, and Estates for the instruction and admonition of their lands, churches, schools and posterity. With the privilege of His Electoral Grace of Saxony. Dresden, 1580.
link
Saturday, September 13, 2008
Update by Nirmala Carvalho on Orissa Christians
| ||||||
| Help AsiaNews | About us | P.I.M.E. | Contact us | ||||||
| go to front page Geographic areas 
| China | Islam | Economy | Freedom of religion | Vatican | |||||
 | ||||||
 Copyright © 2003 AsiaNews C.F. 00889190153 All rights reserved. Content on this site is made available for personal, non-commercial use only. You may not reproduce, republish, sell or otherwise distribute the content or any modified or altered versions of it without the express written permission of the editor. Photos on AsiaNews.it are largely taken from the internet and thus considered to be in the public domain. Anyone contrary to their publication need only contact the editorial office which will immediately proceed to remove the photos. | ||||||
.jpg)
Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori's memo to Bishop Bob Duncan of Pittsburgh
Saturday, September 13, 2008
Total visitors right now (TitusOneNine & Stand Firm): 325
"Around the Web" has moved here, and can also be reached by clicking the 'Blogs' button in the top menu.
© 2004-2008 Stand Firm, LLC. All rights reserved.
[60 : 1.1302]
© 2004-2008 Stand Firm, LLC. All rights reserved.
[60 : 1.1302]
Welcome!
GREG GRIFFITH
Presiding Bishop’s Memo Outlining Duncan Deposition
Saturday, September 13, 2008 • 11:02 am
Plucked like rotting fruit from the tree of the College of Bishops' "secure" web site... I present to you the Presiding Bishop's memo detailing her plans to depose Pittsburgh bishop Bob Duncan.
September 12, 2008
Memorandum to the House of Bishops
Subject: Bishop of Pittsburgh
Sisters and Brothers:
As has been widely reported, at the forthcoming business meeting of the House in Salt Lake City on September 18, I shall present to the House the matter of the certification to me by the Title IV Review Committee that Bishop Robert W. Duncan has abandoned the Communion of this Church within the meaning of Canon IV.9. In this memorandum, I layout the background of this matter and what I see as the procedural and substantive issues that are raised by it.
1. The Title IV Review Committee Certification
As the House has been informed previously, in November 2007 I directed a submission by my Office to the Title IV Review Committee that enclosed materials suggesting that Bishop Duncan had abandoned the Communion of this Church within the meaning of Canon IV.9. That submission recited that Bishop Duncan had supported first readings of amendments to the Constitution of the Diocese of Pittsburgh at the last Diocesan Convention that, among other things, would delete the unqualified accession by the Diocese to the Constitution and canons of the Episcopal Church. The submission also recited Bishop Duncan's leadership of a program under which delegates to the next Diocesan Convention in October 2008 would determine whether or not to adopt a second reading of the proposed amendments to the Diocesan Constitution deleting the "accession" clause, and pass a resolution purporting to make the Diocese a member of another Province within the Anglican Communion. Further details of Bishop Duncan's program were outlined in a second submission to the Review Committee by certain lay and clerical members of the Diocese of Pittsburgh.
The thrust of the foregoing submission by my Office was not that Bishop Duncan had already left the Episcopal Church, but rather that he had in his episcopal leadership role taken the position that the Diocese had the option of either remaining subject to the Constitution and canons of this Church or leaving this Church for membership in another Province of the Communion; and that in that role he was encouraging the Diocese to choose to leave. The submission suggested, therefore, that Bishop Duncan, by pressing his position that the Diocese had such a choice and should exercise it by disaffiliating from the Episcopal Church, had abandoned the Communion of this Church by "an open renunciation of the ... Discipline ... of this Church" within the meaning of Canon IV.9(1)(i).
The Review Committee evidently agreed with that analysis and on December 17, 2007 certified to me as Presiding Bishop that Bishop Duncan had abandoned the Communion of this Church. Shortly thereafter, I asked the three senior bishops having jurisdiction in this Church, pursuant to Canon IV.9(1), to consent to Bishop Duncan's inhibition pending presentation of the matter to the House of Bishops, but not all these bishops gave their consent.
2. Bishop Duncan's Response
As the House has also been previously informed, on January 15, 2008, I informed Bishop Duncan of the Review Committee's certification and pointed out the provisions of Canon IV.9 that permitted him to respond to this certification in advance of a meeting of the House of Bishops at which consent to his deposition from the ordained ministry of this Church would be sought. On March 14, 2008, Bishop Duncan responded in a letter in which he stated that he considered himself fully subject to the Doctrine, Discipline and Worship of this Church, and described certain actions that he believed supported that view. I concluded then, and I remain of the view now, that that response was not a sufficient "declaration ... that the facts alleged in the certificate are false," and that therefore Bishop Duncan remains "liable to Deposition" under Canon IV.9(2). Moreover, since his letter of March 14, 2008, Bishop Duncan has made clear, both in responses to questions put to him in litigation within his diocese and in his recent letter to the House, that he does indeed support the proposed amendments to the Diocesan Constitution referred to above and a purported "realignment" of the Diocese of Pittsburgh with the Province of the Southern Cone.
3. Presentation to the House of Bishops
As stated above, I intend to bring this matter before the House at its forthcoming meeting in Salt Lake City. Prior to the business meeting on September 18, I shall ask my Council of Advice to hold an informal evening meeting to "investigate the matter" pursuant to Canon IV.9(1) at which members of the House can offer views and participate in a discussion concerning Bishop Duncan's conduct. While Bishop Duncan has unfortunately announced that he will not attend this meeting of the House, his supporters may at this hearing offer factual and opinion material as to why he has not abandoned the Communion of this Church.
As stated above, the House will be asked whether or not it will consent to Bishop Duncan's deposition at the business meeting on September 18, when there will be opportunity for further discussion. At that time, the House may, by majority vote of those present, grant or withhold its consent or decline to vote until a later time. In that regard, some have suggested that a vote not be taken until a later meeting of the House after the forthcoming Convention of the Diocese in early October, when Bishop Duncan's intentions and actions can perhaps be viewed more clearly.
At this meeting there may be raised the question whether, under Canon IV.9, the House may proceed to grant or withhold its consent to Bishop Duncan's deposition on the ground that the three senior bishops have not consented to his inhibition. It is the position of my Chancellor, after reviewing the apparent intent of the canon and consulting several other chancellors and former chancellors, as well as the opinion of the Parliamentarian of the House, that 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. The consent of the three senior bishops, they opine, was intended to be sought only on the matter of whether or not the bishop in question should be inhibited pending the proceeding before the House, and that any ambiguity in the language of the canon should be resolved in favor of the ability of the House itself to vote on this matter. In their view, and in the language of the canon, it is my "duty ... to present the matter to the House of Bishops" regardless of whether the bishop in question has been inhibited.
I concur with this advice, and that will be the ruling of the Chair. Any member of the House may appeal the ruling of the Chair, which may be overruled by a two-thirds vote pursuant to House Rule XV, p.192.
4. The Required Vote to Consent
There may also be raised at this meeting the question of whether consent to the deposition of a bishop who has been certified to have abandoned the Communion of this Church must be by a majority of bishops present at the meeting at which the matter is presented or, on the other hand, by a majority of all the voting members of the House whether or not in attendance. Canon IV.9(2) states that the vote to consent must, first, take place at a "regular or special meeting of the House" and, second, be "by a majority of the whole number of Bishops entitled to vote." My Chancellor and the Parliamentarian of the House have both advised me that the canon means that the vote must be by a majority of all the bishops who are at the meeting at which the vote must be taken and who are entitled to vote. Their view is based on their conclusion that the language of the canon may be ambiguous, but that it should be interpreted to give practical effect to the stated direction by the General Convention that the vote must be taken at a meeting ofthe House. This direction differs from other provisions in the Constitution and the canons where votes by a majority of all the members of the House are required but that voting may be by ballot~, Art. 11.6 (consent to resignation of bishops); Canon IV.3(21)(c) (consent to doctrinal presentment of bishops). The Chancellor has informed me that this canon was amended in the 1870s and again in 1904 to make clear that the vote had to be taken at a meeting of the House, presumably so that all who would vote on such an important matter could hear the factual presentations and arguments on both sides of the question. He also has pointed out that by 1904 the number of members of the House who were not entitled to vote was growing, as suffragan bishops, whose election and ordination were being permitted for the first time in our history, were nevertheless not given the right to vote in the House until the 1940s.
Finally, the Chancellor has noted with respect to the requirement that the vote be taken at a meeting of the House that most meetings of the House are not attended by a majority of all the voting members of the House. Thus, in the last several Triennia, while a majority of all voting members of the House were present at the meetings held in conjunction with a meeting of the General Convention, such a majority was not present at most of the interim and special meetings.
And, at those interim and special meetings where a majority was present, the majority was only by a bare handful, so that under an opposing reading of the canon, a vote to consent to the deposition of a bishop would have had to have been virtually unanimous. My Chancellor advised me that the votes to consent to the depositions of Bishop Davies, the resigned Bishop of Fort Worth, in 1993, and Bishop Larrea, the Bishop of Ecuador Central, in 2004, were cast at interim meetings of the House at which no account was taken of the absent members and, indeed, less than a majority of all the voting members of the House appear to have been present.
In these circumstances, I concur with my Chancellor and the Parliamentarian that any ambiguity in the canon should be resolved in favor of making this important provision work effectively and that the discipline of the Church should not be stymied because a majority or nearly a majority of voting bishops are no longer in active episcopal positions in the Church and their attendance at meetings is hampered by age, health, economics, or interest in other legitimate pursuits.
That will be the ruling of the Chair, subject to appeal as discussed above.
I urge your prayerful reflection on these matters as you prepare for our meeting in Salt Lake City, and I remain
Your servant in Christ,
Katharine Jefferts Schori
Comments:
I look at it this way: Schori is telling Bishop Duncan, and every other bishop who dares to publicly disagree with her, to “keep your mouth shut, or I will silence you.” She’s telling that he’s automatically guilty without giving him either a fair trial or a forum in which to state his views without facing the condemnation and wrath of a dictatorial woman claiming to be a “bishop.” If anyone deserves an inhibition and deposition, it’s Katharine Jefferts Schori! |
I had hoped this would not take place now, and am very distressed by the leadership role taken by one of the churches in the diocese in this matter. That particular church has had a history of ignoring the rest of the diocese for many decades, unless there were a particular agenda being pursued. At the opposite pole theologically, another large, wealthy church has been equally removed from considering the rest of the diocese. Hard not to call powerful churches at either end of the spectrum bullies. |
This memo from the Presiding Litigator and her lackey lawyer is almost beyond belief. This is a totally gross distortion of the plain language of Canon IV.9 as so many have previously written about on Stand Firm. As I recall, the most detailed and scholarly work was done by the Anglican Curmudgeon here,here, and here. If you have any doubt about the railroading being attempted here by Schori, Sauls, Beers, Bruno and others, do read this superb analysis. I know that others (jamesw and ??) have also written extensively making the same points. The point is that this is not some complex provision of Canon law. I spent a number of years doing legislative drafting and I can assure you that this language is simple, straightforward and clear—and it should disgust every member of TEC to have Schori attempt to pull this off. I certainly hope that this is a time when ++Howe and many others will stand up and be counted in loudly and publicly objecting. In my opinion, their objections should begin now—well before the meeting so that as much pressure as possible can be brought to bear and that everyone (including the religion media) will recognize to what depths the “all-inclusive” TEC has gone to rid themselves of orthodox leaders. |
It will be interesting to see if any of the “Windsor Bishops” stand to oppose this in any substantial way. #4 You are correct about who should be deposed. The process for inhibiting her should have started long ago. She may not have abandoned the communion of the organization, but she has abandoned the faith. Thanks to milk toast members of the house of bishops, we have reached a point where Duncan, Iker, Ackerman and any others who dare take a stand will be hung out to dry while KJS- walks unchallenged. Shame on our HOB for such a lack of fortitude, intestinal or other. |
I think this is beyond the pail. How dare she take an action before Bishop Duncan. My trust level of any thing she says or does is at rock bottom. It is one thing to attempt to maintain the property which she correctly (in my opinion)has the right to do, but it is another to act so duplicitous. If she really felt her actions against such as +Duncan or +Scholfield were honorable she should want to face them in a Church trial, letting all sides speak on their positions. This is cowardly, disingenuous, and dishonest. This is a question a lawyer I guess, but isn’t it illegal to unjustly cause someone to lose their job? |
From my Not a Lawyer seat, I am hoping a couple who are lawyers will comment an issue. It has been my experience that in a court battle any ambiguity in a document goes against the party that crafted the document and that they will revert to the meaning a plain reading provides. All you legal eagles..... |
If anyone deserves an inhibition and deposition, it’s Katharine Jefferts Schori!Heart (#3), I hate to have to tell you this, but Mrs. Jefferts Shori cannot be inhibited or deposed. Those disciplines can only be exercised on a priest or bishop. Since she is a woman she cannot be a priest, and since she is not a priest she cannot be a bishop (let alone Primate of the TEC, as she claims). |
I wrote a few lines to the Church; but Diotrephes, who loves to be first among them, declines to recognize us. Therefore, when I come, I shall not forget his conduct in ridiculing us with his wicked tongue. Not content with that, he not only declines to recognize our Brothers himself, but actually prevents those who would, and expels them from the Church. (3 John 1:9-10) |
For her to read the canons in such a what that makes it easy to depose a bishop from his/her life’s work is really over the top. If a majority of bishops eligible to vote aren’t present during the interim meetings, maybe you can’t depose anyone during those meetings. Maybe those meetings don’t really mean a whole lot, either. |
Let me know if you’ve heard this one before (from 1 Kings 21) about a similar property-grab: So she wrote letters in Ahab’s name, placed his seal on them, and sent them to the elders and nobles who lived in Naboth’s city with him. In those letters she wrote:Later in the chapter, Elijah prophesied that: “And also concerning Jezebel the LORD says: ‘Dogs will devour Jezebel by the wall of Jezreel.’I recommend reading the whole chapter and seeing how the Lord feels about the whole situation! |
Is there a legal fund we can contribute to so as to find a lawyer who can actually read the canons the way they are written? Seems like we do not need much of a lawyer as they read plain enough to me. All we need is to mount a dispute to the illegal path that KJS is trying to take. The problem seems to be that no one does that. I know, I know. It is all politics. But still, the meaning seems so clear. This is like reading Animal Farm. |
Jackie, 13, typically plain meaning of the language in question is the first thing that a court considers. Where the plain meaning is not clear, courts consider a number of other things. The rule of construing a document against the drafter is one rule of construction. In this case, I’m not sure that rule applies, and there are others. I lean toward the conclusion that the canon is not ambiguous and that it means a majority of all, not just those present. But a court is extremely unlikely to get involved on that point, I think. Whatever your views of the substance of the actions taken here, I think the procedural approach of this letter is a positive. It lays out in advance the issues and the rationale for thePB’s interpretation and rulings, and it clearly states what needs to be done to overturn her rulings. If there is some reliable account of any objection that may be made, and if the House has recorded roll call type votes on the deposition and on the rulings of the chair rather than voice votes, we will at least have achieved transparency in what is happening. |
BY THE GRACE OF GOD I HAVE KNOWN MANY SERVANTS OF CHRIST, MS SCHORI, AND YOU ARE NO SERVANT OF CHIRST. PRAYER FOR BISHOP DUNCAN: THANK YOU LORD THAT THE ANGEL OF THE LORD ENCAMPS AROUND BISHOP DUNCAN AND ALL THOSE WHO FEAR HIM AND RESCUES THEM. (Psalm 34:26) THANK YOU LORD THAT NO WEAPON FORMED AGAINST (HIM) WILL PROSPER AND EVERY TONGUE THAT ACCUSES (HIM) IN JUDGEMENT, YOU WILL CONDEMN. THIS IS THE HERITAGE OF THE SERVANTS OF THE LORD, AND THEIR VINDICATION IS FROM YOU, LORD. IN THE NAME OF JESUS CHRIST. AMEN. (ISAIAH 54:17) |
Jackie, 24, reasonable people can disagree, but I do not think you’re right or that a court will ever consider whether +Duncan was properly deposed. Barring a change in the law fromSerbian Eastern Orthodox Diocese v. Milivojevich (US 1976), civil courts don’t consider whether ecclesiastical discipline was proper under the rules of the church. |
Sadly, DavidH is correct. This is not a Civil Court matter. Most do not release that Due Process is not a part of our Constitution and Canons (see the efforts to revise Title IV). I also doubt that nearly any of the so-called orthodox, traditionalist, Windsor bishop will do a thing. They didn’t last time. Plus, like last time I bet they will not even allow a roll call vote.....it will just be a voice vote and no names recorded as to how anyone voted! Also, it is clear that Harold Lewis is leading the way and is happy to be so helpful to TEC. I believe he has purple fever. Sad that matters have come to this. Bishop Dunce I stand with you and you are in my prayers. |
I’ve been a Piskie for 47 years now, give or take nine months. Tomorrow just may be my last visit to an Episcopal Church. Why? Well, although I am just a lay person, someday I just might be called to the diaconate. As a deacon, someday I just might be called to the priesthood. As a priest, I might someday be called to the episcopate. As a bishop, I might someday be charged with some trumped up charge for something my diocese might do in the future. To save Our Lady of Litigation the trouble of deposing me before any of this happens, I think I’ll just take my marbles and go play in another sandbox. Katie, you can’t fire me. I quit. I am ashamed to have any association with this organization. |
[3] heart, The parallels are too abundant, and too abundantly clear, that she is as much anyone’s “servant in Christ” as another figure in the history of salvation, namely that personage who came strongly to my mind when I read this memorandum, that great high priest, Caiaphas. In point of fact, the parallels are, in my mind, sufficiently strong, that I would have very few qualms about addressing her so to her face. Reading this memorandum today served, for me, as a clarion call that I no longer belong within TEC. The self-serving deceitfulness of her opinions, and the obseqious sycophancy of her so-called Council of Advice and Chancellor, are marks of such a thoroughgoing lack of moral and intellectual integrity that they make formal affiliation with TEC, as it has come to be, more of a disgrace than this old Naval officer will tolerate. I am heartened that I asked one of my closest friends, a Roman Catholic, about the rosary and he presented me with one shortly before my departure to sea. I will probably continue to lurk here, and perhaps even offer observations, as my wife is not yet fully aware of all that has transpired, and therefore is not ready to cross the Tiber with me. And my prayers will be with you. Blessings and regards, Martial Artist |
I praise the Lord that I am part of a parish that has left TEC. We (over 3/4 of the congregation) could take the actions of the PB and the TEC any longer. We did not leave suddenly, but after much prayer and study felt that things had gone too far. That was almost a year ago. Isn’t it so lovely to be able to revise the canons of the church to suit one’s agenda. The heretic woman raves on! May the HOB look at the real picture and not the one being painted by the PB and her cohorts. |
This is not a matter of Bishop Duncan disagreeing with our Presiding Bishop. If Stand Firm faithful have been following his career and public statements over the past 3-5 years, you will have applauded statement after statement ridiculing and demeaning the Episcopal Church. Watch your copies of “Choose This Day” again and then decide if Bishop Duncan was affirming his submission to the doctrine and discipline of the Episcopal Church. Don’t get me wrong. Bishop Duncan and I have been friends since the time he followed me as Episcopal Chaplain at the University of North Carolina—and I wish him well in his continuing religious journey. There comes a time, though, when he needs to be honest about his commitments—a time to move on to a denomination in which he can exercise his commitment to Jesus Christ with pride. |
So in your eyes, this is a good thing, Tom? Sort of like the mother bird kicking the baby bird out of its comfortable nest so he can learn to fly? It’s all for +Bob’s own good, in the end? Unbelievable… By the way, do you have a similar recommendation for those in orders whose “religious journey” puts them at odds with the canonical requirements of baptism before communion? I mean, yours is such a wise and compassionate course that I think you ought to bless even more bishops with it! |
Sad to say, but I find no surprise here, in the tack taken by the PBess, or the timing of the same. It has been forecast and broadcast for months now. This is only Kate’s version of Sherman’s March to the Sea .... and she and her merry band of litigators and PC goons, will loot, burn & pillage any diocese or parish that stands in the way of her goals. This month, +Bob Duncan is Atlanta and I suppose that next monthy, +Iker will be Savannah, for the troops are in motion. She needs to get +Duncan in the crosshairs of her scope and pull the trigger, before he can take DioPitt out of TEC. After he and the diocese is gone, all her actions would then signify is the value of pounding sand. These are the steps she believes she needs to bully TEO into taking. Fire him now and immediately appoint an interim toadie to occupy the see. That’ll put the cat among the pigeons right enough .... and keep the property in TEO’s hands. The success of failure of the PBess and her plan of ill will depends on whether or not, +Bob has a plan of action already in place, to meet this eventuality. We shall see. |
Seems like a pre-emptive strike to me. They’re pretty sure what +Duncan will do, so it’s best to remove his capacity to do it. Sort of like taking out an enemy before they can do you harm. Wait a minute, sounds like the Bush Doctrine to me. Maybe the PB has had a conversion experience as part of her “journey.” Fr. Darin Lovelace St. Paul’s, Durant |
I truly believe, this person (masking as a PB and Christian)is Satan doing his/her work.....The long history of Episcopal secular priorities will soon be trumped by the Lord. CS Lewis said it best: “All that we call human history--money, poverty, ambition, war, prostitution, classes, empires, slavery--[is] the long terrible story of man trying to find something other than God which will make him happy.” |
Of course it is a pre-emptive strike. It will be followed immediately (likely hours, not weeks) by illegally deposing the standing committee and installing an illegally appointed puppet regime that will change the locks on every church in the diocese. This will be followed up by leveling abandonment charges against +Iker and +Ackerman. I think they will hold off on depositions against +Lawrence and +McPherson until next year. They will probably just let +Howe retire- I seem to recall that he is not far from it- and replace him with someone intolerable to most of his diocese. It will keep on like this for another 7 years. The 7 year time period not being governed by the PB’s remaining term, but by the number of years left in which TEC can expect to have a total membership of greater than 1/2 million. |
You can bet that the elected Pittsburgh standing committee will be toast sometime this month. KJS is going to do to them what she did in California. I wonder who the newly appointed bishop will be. You can bet that the newly appointed standing committee will be toadies from the parish that precipitated the deposition of +Duncan. TEC becomes worse by the minute. Any bishops who participate in the nullification of +Bob ought to be brought up on charges immediately. They are the ones who will be guilty of abandoning the communion. |
Tom (#33) - Once again you gloss over the hi-jacking by the leadership of The Episcopal Church. I would agree with you that those who no longer wish to follow 2,000+ years of teaching and the current mind of the Anglican Communion need to find employment elsewhere. Afterall, it is the only honest thing to do. |
Today marks the beginning of a novena for the House of Bishops at Lent & Beyond. Other prayers are also present, including a blessing for our enemies. |
I am aware of the “ban’ on posting links to other blogs here, but can’t figure out any way to draw the “powers that be” to “The Kraalspace (Dr. Mabuse).. Please either bring it forward or advise all to read. Its a scary post, about the dark and evil abroad in the world just now. Its called “Dark Hours”, which we are in, so many ways. Please read it an pray for all, especially TX and +Duncan. Grannie Gloria |
Grandmother, #46, I went and read that blog post you mentioned. Yes, it’s scary. I think the main concern is that all of this was prophecied. It’s all very clear in the Bible. Matthew 24, Revelation, Jeremiah, Daniel, and Ezekial all have very important information for us right now. The problem is that nobody is realizing what is happening because nobody is really paying attention. Jesus told us to “be alert” to the signs of the end. The signs are here in full force. The beast is rising in Europe (The EU is pulling together into a single government comprising 10 nations). The harlot (the Roman Catholic Church) is riding the beast. The pope and cardinals are traveling around the world working at bringing people back into the Roman church from all the “daughters” of the Roman Catholic Church. The Anglican Communion is one of the daughters. RW has been having talks with the pope for years trying to join the daughter back with the mother. There are other denominations having the same talks with the pope. Just look at how many Anglicans right here on SF are talking about going to Rome. They are buying right into satan’s plan. We are to “come out” of the world. We are to be separate from the world which satan rules. The Roman Catholic church has always been, and will always be, based on paganistic ritualistic beliefs and practices. Anyone who is truly Christian will not even remotely affiliate with the RC church or any of its daughters. This has been the biggest deception on earth; satan’s work at its best. I pray for all who just don’t see what is happening before their very eyes. I urge you all to wake up now and see where we are in prophecy. The earthquakes, pestilences, famines, droughts, wars, are all clear signs well described in Scriptures. The rising up again of the Holy Roman Empire and its government controls in Europe are all prophecied in Scriptures. THEY ARE HAPPENING NOW!! Wake up, folks! Read your Bibles. It’s all there in black and white. |
Mugsie1, I too see evidence that we are in the end times, and take Biblical prophecy seriously. I don’t doubt your sincerity in looking for God’s guidence in current circumstances. But I would be reluctant to believe that a particular set of contemporary events are signal that the end is upon us. You should read some of the impressive analysis that once tied the rise of Nazi Germany to the end times and identified Hitler as the anti-Christ. Almost every Pope has been called the anti-Christ by their enemies. On the other hand, many Roman Catholics believed that the anti-Christ would be a son of Martin Luther. Turn on the TV, and you can still find a televangelist speculating that King Juan Carlos is the one. If anyone has ever had grounds for a slander suit, it’s Carlos!). I will remain a Protestant, but in this time of moral relativism and spiritual decline by mainline denominations, I am very grateful for the Roman Catholic Church and its Catechism. The spiritual warfare facing each of us is clear enough without reaching for conclusions that are not supported by Scripture. |
I think a “Fr. Wes”, asked a question about who was on the “lawyer committee”..... It can be found at “LENT and BEYOND”, Jill Woodriff’s site listed above. Here is what she posted: Bless your enemies September 13, 2008 The lawyer-bishops in the House of Bishops have recommended that the HoB depose Bishop Robert Duncan. The members of the task force are Bishops Jon Bruno, Mark Hollingsworth, William Persell, Stacy Sauls, and Dean Wolfe. Bishops Marc Andrus, Philip Duncan, and James Mathes participated in the discussions of the Task force. Bishop Sauls is the chair. Our Father in heaven, We bring to you in prayer David Booth Beers and his law firm, Presiding Bishop Schori and her staff, and Bishops Bruno, Hollingsworth, Persell, Sauls, D. Wolfe, Andrus, P. Duncan, and Mathes. In simple trust we commit them into your hands. We thank you that you love them more than we do and understand their every need. Do for them, O Lord, what we cannot do, and what you see is most for their good; for Jesus’ sake. Amen. From: Lent & Beyond. |
She needs to get +Duncan in the crosshairs of her scope and pull the trigger, before he can take DioPitt out of TEC.You all don’t get it...We love +Bob in Pittsburgh, but he’s not the reason we want to re-align...Shori and her predecessors are for their undefined religion. Even if +Bob is not in charge of convention we will still vote, and I pray succeed, to realign! |
What an honor for Bishop Duncan to be persecuted for standing for the Truth of God’s Word and for defending His Church from the marauders currently in power in TEC! It would be a true disgrace to be complicit with KJS and TEC in all of this. Right now, though, I’m so mad I could spit. Rather than boil over with anger, hatred and evil myself… I am going to use the powerful prayers just posted over at Lent and Beyond. May the Lord defend His Church and His Name. Now unto Him that is able to do exceedingly abundantly above all that we ask or think, according to the power that worketh in us, Unto Him (alone) be glory in the (His) Church by Christ Jesus throughout all the ages, world without end. Amen Ephesians 3:20-21 |
The legal situation in addition to the links to Curmudgeon’s posts at #8 Hanks above was originally and succinctly put by Chancellor here which appears to be the point that the PB is trying unsuccessfully to work her way around. So: 1. She did not get the votes of the 3 senior bishops to inhibit or proceed to a vote to depose; 2. She does has not secured the paperwork to bring the deposition matter to the HOB for decision; and 3. She does not have [and does not intend to make any attempt to get] the required canonical majority to pass the deposition under Canon Title IV 9(1). I think we now understand your ‘polity’. You make it up as you go along. |
Mugsie, I am tempted to ask what church you are in, since I think we can eliminate any variant of Catholicism or Anglicanism just based on your post. While I appreciate your prayers, there have been many attempts to save me from Anglo Catholicism in the past, and I suspect that your attempt will also fail. Although, at the current rate, the ABoC may just convince me to give up on the “Anglo” part. |
Oh and digging up two prior depositions which she says were also un-canonical [as originally mentioned by ‘Mark Harris’ - who is Mark Harris by the way?] sounds like an argument that ‘we got away with it before and we reckon we can get away with it again’. Guess whether Mr Beers was Chancellor to the PB at the time! |
Please remember that it was members of the diocese, led especially by one parish in the diocese, which presented the charges; they initiated them, not the PB. She could have chosen not to act, I think, but the initiative was not hers.Celinda, While indeed the PB does say that in her letter, it is a patent lie. A few disaffected people did bring canonical charges against +Bob Duncan, but parishioners, or even clergy, are in no position to bring a charge of abandonment of communion. They are not trying him on charges related to any perceived misconduct within the diocese. In fact, they are not trying him at all. He has been “star chambered” based on the opinion of some of his colleages in the HoB. If a dozen parishioners and clergy could bring such charges, every bishop in the HoB would be charged tomorrow with abandoning the communion of the Church. In the case of at least 50 of them, it is obvious. |
Schori said, “In these circumstances, I concur with my Chancellor and the Parliamentarian that any ambiguity in the canon should be resolved in favor of making this important provision work effectively and that the discipline of the Church should not be stymied because a majority or nearly a majority of voting bishops are no longer in active episcopal positions in the Church and their attendance at meetings is hampered by age, health, economics, or interest in other legitimate pursuits.” Im other words, who cares what the Bishops say. We’re going to depose Duncan because we hate him and what he stands for… The uncompromised Gospel of Jesus Christ. |
Old Lady, whatever temporary bishop Mrs Schori imposes upon the diocese will have no say as to whether or not the delegates vote to leave TEC, since it is THEY who will make that decision....not the bishop! A bishop doesn’t RULE a diocese....he is merely its Chief Pastor. The people WILL leave....or at least the MAJORITY of them will, and Bishop Duncan will lead them. Whoever that bishop is will have a tough time finding people to sit in the pews....IF he can keep the churches open! Any way you look at the situation, TEC is in VERY deep trouble. It’s already too late to reform them, because the die has been cast, and there will be no turning back. |
Pageantmaster (#63) thanks for adding the link to Chancellor’s summary of the illegal manner in which the ++Schofield and ++Cox depositions were rammed through the HOB. Dean Munday put together an excellent summary that pulls together and has links to some of best writing done by Stand Firm folks following the ++Schofield and ++Cox depositions. Take a look. It’s well worth your time if you want to understand just how evil and heartlessTEC and 815 have become. The outrageous gall of Der Fuehrer Schori in putting this memo out just astounds me. It violates every sense of fairness, due process, and integrity. If she can’t comply with her own rules, this is nothing less than anarchy. |
Jackie, I’m no canon lawyer, so I’d have to refer you to another person on this blog who IS. As far as I’M concerned, ruling it out of order or voting to refer it for further study at a later date would accomplish nothing. But of course, I’m not resident in that diocese. How about it, Anglican Curmudgeon? What do YOU say? |
#72 Hanks Thankyou for that link to Dean Munday’s post. I was turning over what was missing from this letter compared to others and it seems to that she has given up all that touchy-feely guff about only following the leading of the Holy Spirit in this matter. I have to say, abandoning so much canonical procedure to try to railroad this through has an air of panic. Can it be that she fears that the Narnian snows have begun to melt? I wonder if the HOB will follow blindly like Bozos again? |
I may need travel $$$$$ assistance 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 about the crisis in our church. 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. 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 that you believe strain the boundaries of our rules. Comments are the opinions of visitors, and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of Stand Firm, its board of directors, or its site administrators.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Let me know if you want me to continue....