Thursday, July 17, 2008

Some not as happy as others at Lambeth

Anglicans United are not as happy at Lambeth:
Some would say there was little reason for optimism. We learned yesterday that The Rt. Rev. John-David Schofield’s invitation was withdrawn last week, as were the invitations of two bishops from Recife, Brazil. All three are now under the Most Rev. Greg Venables of the Southern Cone. It seems that they, like the “irregularly consecrated bishops of CANA and the AMiA” in the states, will not be recognized. This leaves little doubt about the future for other clergy and bishops who leave TEC and hope to remain part of the Communion. It looks like any intervention into another Province will be denied acceptance, be they priests, parishes or dioceses transferring to a foreign bishop. Those whose only desire was to remain Anglican within the Communion now stand outside those vast boundaries.


Read AU thoughts on the opening day here.

29 comments:

Kurt said...

“This leaves little doubt about the future for other clergy and bishops who leave TEC and hope to remain part of the Communion. It looks like any intervention into another Province will be denied acceptance, be they priests, parishes or dioceses transferring to a foreign bishop.”--Anglicans United

Yes indeed, it leaves little doubt!

Beryl Simkins said...

Well, I for one, hope that is the case. Perhaps this is one way to curtail the interloping into provinces. It is a step in the right direction, I believe.

David said...

And Anglicans United expected what, exactly ?

But of course, the GAFCONites have got it right. So why worry if you're in communion with heretical organizations like TEC ? Or, deep down, don't they have the courage of their convictions ?

So you do stuff that you know has consequences, and then - surprise! consequences occur. ::shrug:: I have a real hard time feeling sorry for people in situations like this...

Leonardo Ricardo said...

"Interlopers" must stop interloping and their pals who welcome them and cover for them, must face reality and face their defects and face the truth about their fear/anger and hatred of others at The Body of Christ...hanging together to support major discrimination/persecution and marginalizing at Church, while pretending nothing is amiss about being a selective Scriptural con artist is the wrong kind of spiritual and emotional support ...covens of hate/fear-mongers are doomed from the very first nail driven through Gods COMMANDMENT to "love God and love one another!" Love "one another" doesn't mean to exclude the human beings that are considered "lower than pigs"*

*Archbishop Akinola or Nigeria

Leonardo Ricardo said...

sorry "lower than pigs" is attributed to Akinola of Nigeria and so is his equally brilliant/vile insight regarding the children of LGBT Christians/other as those children are ALL "Hooligans."

To think this man, Akinola, is granted a visa and allowed into ANY civilized country is amazing to me...but apparently the King of Jordan PREFERS to say NO to damaged INTRUDERS who instigate crime of hate, including acts of atrocity and cruelty that are done in the name of a God which which would endanger Muslims/Christians and most ALL fellow human beings.

Padre Mickey said...

From what I recall, the Bishop of the fake Diocese of Recife, (whom Padre Xico calls "the OTHER Bishop Robinson") wasn't invited in the first place, along with the CANA and AMiA bishops. Presiding Bishop Venables claimed that +JDS decided on his own not to go; he didn't mention that +JDS's invitation had been rescinded. ¡Qué intersante!

Padre Mickey said...

I just read Ms. Wetzel's post, and, like many folks on her side of the issue, she seems to be just a little bit delusional about how much power her group actually holds outside of their own little club.
OCICBW. . .Perhaps I'm the delusional one; it wouldn't be the first time.

susan s. said...

Well, I think she's just the tad bit whiney in a couple of places. Wasn't it HST that said if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen?

Bonnie said...

When I read this from Ms. Wetzel's report, my reaction--pure disgust--was: Oh Good Grief! It made me want to start chanting SCHISM NOW! The histrionics are wearing very thin.

"Some would say there was little reason for optimism. We learned yesterday that The Rt. Rev. John-David Schofield’s invitation was withdrawn last week, as were the invitations of two bishops from Recife, Brazil. All three are now under the Most Rev. Greg Venables of the Southern Cone. It seems that they, like the “irregularly consecrated bishops of CANA and the AMiA” in the states, will not be recognized. This leaves little doubt about the future for other clergy and bishops who leave TEC and hope to remain part of the Communion. It looks like any intervention into another Province will be denied acceptance, be they priests, parishes or dioceses transferring to a foreign bishop. Those whose only desire was to remain Anglican within the Communion now stand outside those vast boundaries.

This decision alone may be enough to force schism."

Ed Salmon's presence can only spell trouble.

Dusty in the San Joaquin said...

‘We learned yesterday that The Rt. Rev. John-David Schofield’s invitation was withdrawn last week, as were the invitations of two bishops from Recife, Brazil. All three are now under the Most Rev. Greg Venables of the Southern Cone’

These words are the strongest I’ve heard yet. Is there some document that supports “Invitation withdrawal” ? So far the documents tend to support JDSs voluntary withdrawal.

dr.primrose said...

I was wondering whatever happened to Episcopalians United for Reformation, Renewal and Revelation. They used to be one of the biggy conservative groups 20 years ago.

They've apparently transmorgified into Anglicans United. But they've certainly been keeping a low profile in recent years. Todd Wetzel was the mover and shaker in this group for a long time.

I wonder if anyone is involved with this group these days other than the Wetzels. Anyone know?

Bonnie said...

Dusty--I can think of a scenario under which both statements could be true.

If you remember the Lambeth invites were issued about a year and a half in advance.

When JDS tried to take San Joaquin out of TEC, November of 2007?, he may have then declined the Lambeth invite expecting that he would be reinvited as a So. Cone bishop by Cantaur but for whatever reason and very recently Cantaur declined to invite him and the statement Venables made went to that invitation. Just FWIW.

dr.primrose--It seems to me that I just recently read something about that group having to do with some of them being accepted as laity in the RCC. I'll try to find that.

Ann said...

I thought her report showed that maybe our thoughts about the real message from ABC were correct. And that the rest was spin.

Ann said...

Steenson talks about swimming the Tiber here. Of course he has his TEC pension to ease his trip.

James said...

Bonnie @ July 17, 2008 6:49 PM

There is no way in hell that David Schofield ever considered NOT going to Lambeth until he got the kick in the teeth by the ABC. If you knew David, you'd fully understand that. He was, is and always will be the bloody BISHOP of JS, thank you. If he ever gets a notion into his mind, it is fact and if "you" don't like the new truth, you'll pay for questioning him.


Rowan's act told all the GAFCONites how the cows eat the cabbage.

We just have to sit back and see who falls on what side of the Prime Meridian. :)

What I really want for christmas (well other than to live that long LOL) is to have the DVD of the moment he found JDS was not king of the universe. I can picture it all in my mind, but I just want the DVD to watch over, and over, and over again.

One must feel sorry for him, though. He put all the eggs and hends into one basket -- his winning because is is JDS -- and Rowan ran over the basket with a steam roller. "Oh, the humanity!"

Bonnie said...

James--First, so glad you are back and want you to know I have been reading your blog and keeping you in my prayers.

I can see your point and you know the man personally. All comments I have seen go to his monumental ego and I don't believe he has been described as being the truthful one.

Now if I don't go to bed, I won't make it until tomorrow morning. Night all.

James said...

Bonnie et al;
I hope that myh post to Bonny didn't come across as condescending; it was not meant to be pedantic in any way.

Thanks for the prayers.

JCF said...

Those whose only desire was to remain Anglican within the Communion

{snort}

I believe AU means, "those whose only desire was to remain poofter-free"

Doorman-Priest said...

I find it hard to feel sympathetic.

I'll continue to try.

Kurt said...

“When I read this from Ms. Wetzel's report, my reaction--pure disgust--was: Oh Good Grief! It made me want to start chanting SCHISM NOW! The histrionics are wearing very thin.”--Bonnie

Right on, Bonnie!

textjunkie said...

It looks like any intervention into another Province will be denied acceptance, be they priests, parishes or dioceses transferring to a foreign bishop.

Well, golly gee. Wouldn't that be nice...?

Of course, as has been pointed out before, being invited or not invited to Lambeth is not an official recognition of inclusion in or exclusion from the Anglican Communion. It's at the ABC's discretion. But it is certainly being interpreted that way on both sides.

David said...

Dr. Primrose asks, I wonder if anyone is involved with this group these days other than the Wetzels. Anyone know?

Heh. Like that organization Radner+ was involved with ? Which was really just "a few guys and a website" ? ;)

Wouldn't be surprised at all if this also 'twas a great deal of sound and fury, signifying nothing (or very little).

PatrickB said...

Ann, I'm not sure why you're bringing up +Steenson, but it's a real loss that he left TEC (he was the bishop who accepted me into the church 4 years ago or so), as he has a truly pastoral soul. He wasn't personally comfortable with women's ordination, but worked with and licensed women in the Diocese, brought in bishops from outside the diocese to ordain them when necessary, and I always thought it was a pleasure when he visited our (quite liberal) congregation.

To be honest, +Steenson was in an impossible position in DioRG. For example, one rumored conversation I heard of was when someone from our congregation asked him why he didn't attend ++KJS's elevation in D.C. He apparently said it would send a bad message people in the diocese if he attended and when it was said that *not* attending sent a bad message to us, his response was supposedly: "Yes, I know, but you'll forgive me." Finally, we were very lucky to have him as the compromise candidate as opposed to whom the right-wingers were supposedly pushing originally: Martyn Minns.

It's a shame that +Steenson left, but he left the TEC responsibly, resigning his bishopric first and without trying to take the silver or anything else. Good luck and God's speed from one of your former flock, +Steenson.

Ann said...

PatrickB - I brought it up in response to Bonnie's comment about clergy becoming RC. I found it at a web site lauding him for giving up his $75,000 salary to become a poor RC (of course he still has his hefty TEC pension)

Ann said...

re: the pay cut here

David said...

I'm with Patrick. I may not agree with many of +Steenson's positions, but he left honorably. And as for his pension, well - he earned it, and the law says it's his. Got no problem with that either.

(As for the website lauding him for becoming a "poor" RC, that's just more of the endless, rightwing spin. If his past behavior is any indication, I imagine +Steenson would be embarrassed about that, too.)

airedale said...

It will be most interesting to see if this has any effect on the plans of Pittsburg and Ft. Worth.
We here in FTW have been assured many times that a defection to the Cone would still leave the dio. in good stead in the WWAC. Seems that may not be so.

Ann said...

I am not saying he did not "earn" his pension - just commenting on the blog.

David said...

Ann,

Yeah, I know :)

I was just sorta getting a general feeling of +Steenson being a little "bashed" here in general, and wanted to be clear that it's the people who're using him as a conservative talking-point who deserve the bashing. Like I said, I think +Steenson himself is an honorable guy, even tho' I don't share his religious viewpoints.

Maybe I was just being overly sensitive ;)