A letter from the Presiding Bishop to members of the Standing Committee of the Diocese of Pittsburgh. A response from the Standing Committee to the Presiding Bishop follows below.
(via email)
October 9, 2008
The Rev. Geoffrey Chapman
Mr. Kenneth Herbst
Dr. Theresa Newell
Mr. Wicks Stephens
The Rev. David Wilson
The Rev. Karen Stevenson
Ms. Gladys Hunt-Mason
Dear Sirs and Madams,I am writing to you because I have been informed that you held positions on the Standing Committee of the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh prior to and/or during the most recent Convention of the Diocese in October 2008. It has come to my attention that in the past year you have taken actions in support of an attempt to take the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh out of the Episcopal Church and into an affiliation with the Province of the Southern Cone. I understand that these have included supporting amendment of the Diocese’s Constitution and Canons and attempting to organize as the Standing Committee of an entity that identifies itself as a Diocese of the Province of the Southern Cone. These actions directly conflict with the Constitution and Canons of the Episcopal Church.
Canon I.17.8 of the Episcopal Church provides that “[a]ny person accepting any office in this Church shall well and faithfully perform the duties of that office in accordance with the Constitution and Canons of this Church and of the Diocese in which the office is being exercised.” In light of your recent actions, I find that you have been and are unable to well and faithfully fulfill your duties as members of the Standing Committee of the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh under Canon I.17.8. Accordingly, with this letter I inform you that I do not recognize you as members of the Standing Committee of the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh.
I regret the decisions that you have made to attempt to take the Diocese out of the Episcopal Church and the necessary consequences of these actions. I give thanks for your service in the past, and pray that it may once more be a blessing to the Diocese. I remain
Your servant in Christ,
Katharine Jefferts Schori
A Response to the Presiding Bishop:
October 16, 2008
The Most Rev. Katharine Jefferts Schori
The Episcopal Church
815 Second Avenue
New York NY 10017-4503Dear Bishop Schori,
The statements contained in your October 9, 2008 letter to the members of the Standing Committee of the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh are not authorized by the Constitution and Canons of the Episcopal Church and are not authorized by the Constitution and Canons of the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh.
In particular, and without limitation, the Constitution and Canons of the Episcopal Church and of our Diocese give you no authority to “find” anything relating to the Standing Committee nor do they give you authority to “recognize” anyone, including authority to “recognize” any one as the ecclesiastical authority of the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh. Indeed, they give you no authority to “find” anything regarding any Diocesan Standing Committee. Thus, your “recognition” of anyone as ecclesiastical authority of a diocese is of no canonical effect.The only reason we are the ecclesiastical authority for the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh is because of your illegal “deposition” of Bishop Robert W. Duncan. Your effort to take advantage of this illegal action by following it with a subsequent illegal action (i.e., seeking to “recognize” members of a diocesan standing committee despite the fact that you have no jurisdiction or authority to do so) is wholly improper.
Finally, I stress that despite your illegitimate attempt to challenge our proper role as the ecclesiastical authority of the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh, we hold no ill-will toward those parishes of the Diocese that are now seeking to form in Western Pennsylvania a new diocese affiliated with The Episcopal Church. The Diocese of Pittsburgh stands ready to work with these parishes to reach a fair settlement of all claims and/or disputes regarding property.
Sincerely,
The Rev. David D. Wilson
President
Standing Committee of the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh
You go Fr. Dave!
That response by Fr. David Wilson <b>Smacks!,/b> with, about, and full of truth. That had to hurt! But, Schori is right on que with her non-recognition of the Standing Committee…next will come the new puppet bishop and his puppet Canon to the Ordinary and then a faux Special Convention. I think she is goig to have to follow through the same faux exercises as she did here in San Joaquin so as to show consistency!
ODC - I think we should call her puppet regime Vichy Pittsburgh.
Well done, Fr. Wilson and the rest of the Standing Committee that just realigned with the Southern Cone. You called her bluff.
The hypocrisy and arrogance of the PB seem boundless. She is attempting to declare the Standing Committee illegitimate on the grounds that they acted in a way contrary to the Constitution and Canons of TEC, when she herself ignores or even flouts them whenever she deems necessary. How ironic. How sad. How outrageous.
I’m proud of the Standing Committee. “Courage breeds courage.”
David Handy+
So nice that she and 815 have the money to make and support their own personal diocese and bishops. Hope she starts a lot of them for their own entertainment. Cheers
Obviously, she thinks she is some sort of archbishop or popess. However, a good chunk of the world doesn’t “recognize” her as anything other than a laywoman.
While I personally have no substantial objection to WO (even though it hasn’t been accepted by the modern Patriarchs), she certainly is setting a bad example. I may have to rethink this. Perhaps TEC is sede vacante.
It would be interesting to review the letters that went back and forth in the eras of the various antipopes. At one of those times, there were reigning popes in Rome, Avignon, and Pisa.
Excellent response, Fr. Wilson. Hang tough!
Dear Kate,
You may plug your ears and stamp your feet all you want. Bob Duncan is still my bishop and David Wilson is still my temprorary ecclesiastical authority. And the plural of madame is mesdames; the gentle ladies of the standing committee are not running houses of ill repute and should not be called madams. I do however believe that you may find an episcopal house of ill repute located at 815 Second Avenue in New York.
Pittsburghers—the urge to send Katie one of the last remaining buttons is almost overwhelming.
Atta girl, Tara!
The Presiding Heretic is one of the best non-biblical (in both sense of the term!!) arguments against WO I could imagine.
Dear Father Wilson,
Thank you and may God bless you for having the courage to say what, for reasons of foolishness or cowardice, 90 of the bishops of TEC have not said.
Dear Mrs. Jefferts Schori,
Why don’t you just say the words “All those who recognize +Robert Duncan as the Bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh have abandoned the communion (small c) of ‘this’ church (again, small c).”
Go ahead, make my day.
I am sure the HoB will back you up in illegal excommunications (from your open communion church), since they are already in so deep with the illegal depositions and the illegal removals of standing committees. Nowhere in the constitution and canons does it say anything about anyone needing to be in communion with the PB.
—————————————————————-
Unless I completely misunderstand the Gafcon communique, more Anglicans recognize the authority of +Robert Duncan than that of KJS. Clearly, the “discipline” of TEC holds little significance for 10 Anglican primates. That is, 10 who have rejected the purported deposition of +Bob Duncan in writing. I think we can add several to that, by all reports. And let’s not forget an Archdiocese in Australia, and several in the CoE and 2 (at least) still in TEC (although that might only be for a few more weeks).
Ralph (6) - Is that popess, or popette, regional accent pronouncing it ‘pup-pette’?
And, yes, BRAVO, Fr Wilson! Excellent letter. Pgh has a good SC chairman.
w/ prayers.
#10 Bo, you took the words right out of my mouth!
Dear PB Schiori,
Speaking on behalf of the Worldwide Christian Fellowship of Believers, we find you and the Episcopal Convention to be no longer the official representative of Anglicanism in the United States of America, on the basis of Canon John 3:16, which requires a living Faith in Jesus Christ, and some semblance of adherence to the historic Faith, paid for by the blood of the Martyrs, taught by the Apostles, and Preached for over 2,000 years. You are therefore relieved of your position, as is the Episcopal Convention. We are pleased to appoint the Right Reverend Robert Duncan as Primate and Presiding Bishop, and the organization known as the Common Cause Partnership to be the true and recognized expression of Authentic Anglicanism in the United States of America.
Your Servants in Christ,
The Worldwide Christian Fellowship of Believers
Well done Fr. Wilson. But since Bishop Duncan is still the valid authority in the diocese and he was never deposed, he still is the ecclesiastical authority there, not the standing committee.
Perhaps The Rev. David D. Wilson should have written this:
Dear Madam,
I am writing to you because I have been informed that you hold positions in the Episcopal Church. It has come to my attention that in the past year you have taken actions in support of an attempt to take the Episcopal Church out of the Christian tradition and into an affiliation with Planned Parenthood. I understand that these have included supporting amendments and interpretations of the Constitution and Canons and attempting to organize as the Standing Committee of an entity that identifies itself as the United Nations. These actions directly conflict with the Constitution and Canons of the Episcopal Church…..
Etc etc.
To KJS,
Your weapons have no effect on me.
DW.
What an excellent letter by Fr. Wilson. When the new province comes into being soon with Bob Duncan as its leader, well, I suppose faithful Anglicans everywhere will be treated, in some cases subjected, to another round of this tantrum-ing notched up a few levels.
The problem is, #17, that these heterodox are absolutely sure that they are doing God’s will - that God is on THEIR side. Just read the piece in the latest New Directions magazine that Cristina Rees wrote. We are in parallel universes, it would seem.
Good shot, Tara #8. I could find only one dictionary online which showed “Madams” as a proper plural. “Mesdames” is the traditional and preferred form. Certainly common usage would think of Madams as you call it. Can any lawyers tell us if this is common usage in law-speak? It looks uneducated at first blush, and given what she’s called them, blush is the right word.
She certainly is being consistent - and also engaging in a huge power grab. I had no idea that the Presiding Bishop was invested with anywhere near the authority to single-handedly oust members of standing committees.
Dear Katherine,
Look behind you, is there anyone still following?
Such a leader you are…..........
Great response letter from the Standing Committee, be certain the vast overwhelming majority of Christians support you.
“Scorched Earth” Schori also wrote onetime that everyone in office in the church is entitled to a trial. Bishop Duncan knows how evenhandedly that statement was applied.
This exchange seems more like crossing “Ts” and dotting “Is” then anything else. TEC believes the standing committee involved is a renegade and needs to make clear that it is not responsible for any of its actions. For example, should this group incur liabilities, like responsibilities to employees, or get sued by someone who is injured by one of its clergy, TEC is not responsible. By contrast, the SC involved is stating that TEC has no responsibility or authority over them. Both sides are stating what are the essential points of their disagreement as to where “authority” rests, at the diocesan level or the national church level. On the ecclesial side, that might be a decision by the 4 instruments of communion if either group decides to give it “authority” On the communion level, it’s interesting that TEC’s position seems to be that it is the highest authority, the same position taken by San Joaquin and Pittsburgh relative to TEC. On the secular level, the decision will surely be in the US courts.
The VA cases seem to turn on who or what is “the church”, or, more precisely, “the religious society” involved. Judge Bellows seems to have given credence to the argument that the “society” involved was the “Anglican Communion”...capital “A” capital “C”....and 57-9 applied to this. But, absent 57-9 in most states, the top of the hierarchy may well be acknowledged as TEC’s general convention vs. the “anglican communion” or its various dioceses. Interesting times ahead….
As with Tara and Katherine above, I’m somewhat bemused by the PB’s failure to use the correct form of address. I would that such a letter was reviewed by several people over at 815 before being sent.
That no one who saw it before it was sent knew how to address it speaks volumes about 815. The battle is not just heretics vs Christians, but class vs crass.
If our priests went to finishing school instead of seminary, we’d probably be a lot better off.
EmilyH, it’s clear the dueling letters between the two Standing Committees are as you say, making legal lines clear from each side. What is unclear, as it was in San Jaoquin, is what canonical authority Jefferts Schori has to involve herself in revoking recognition. She might have such authority after the next GC, but she doesn’t have it now, according to canon law experts who post here.
Could we get scanned copies of the actual letters for printing and posting on parish bulletin boards?
Please continue to pray for us here in Pittsburgh. The Enemy is riled at the show of faithfulness by us here, and there are many who are under all sorts of attack. Pray for God’s protection and for His joy inside our struggles.
Thank you.
No one goes to church to worship lawyers. No one. Even TEC loyalists are are beginning to question the behavior of the P.B and her allies.
If Mrs Schori could have her way, Episcopalians would worship HER!
If Mrs Schori could have her way, Episcopalians would worship HER!
I believe that is part of the Goddess liturgy being proposed for the next prayer book revision.
Lest you think I as kidding in 32, you can download it here:
http://www.episcopalchurch.org/41685_60501_ENG_HTM.htm
It does note that this is not an official liturgy….yet.
Other “liturgical resources” may be found here:
http://www.episcopalchurch.org/41685_42126_ENG_HTM.htm?menupage=42020
#32. Regarding the links to inclusive religions: Bleech. What rubbish. “Blessed be” is a common expression of the priestesses of Wicca. So TEC is “imagining” liturgies to blend Christianity and Wicca.
So stick a fork in it gas bag Presiding Heretic.
As far as “madams” being used instead of “mesdames”... IMHO it was purely intentional.
32,
Makes the Marion Issues seem rather slight doesn’t it?
EmilyH, what hierarchy? Is that like the clothes the empress isn’t wearing?
What a delightful exchange:
BeerKat et. al: (hands over eyes) “I can’t see you, I can’t see you, therefore you do not exist!”
DioPitt SC: “Your ability to see us, or not see us, is irrelevant, seeing is not part of your job description.”
BeerKat et. al: (fingers in ears) “La la la! I can’t hear you, I can’t hear you!”
DioPitt SC: “I can’t believe anyone elected this woman to anything!”
BeerKat et. al: (hands over mouth) “MMmphff, fllldlld! Mmmfpphhff!”
DioPitt SC: “My brothers and sisters, can you now see why it’s time to go?”
I just crack myself up!....
KTF!...mrb
I have been scratching my head ever since they “elected” KJS a so-called “bishop,” and especially since they made her the so-called “Presiding Bishop,” and I keep asking myself “What in God’s name were these idiots thinking about?”
#33, well, that certainly was frightening! And just a tad too ‘girlie’ for me.
Do you think it a bit ironic that they have red flames licking up at ‘contents’ from the bottom left side of the site?
“And now, straight from the pits of hell….” some of the words I cherish most, twisted into a mockery.
I’m not sure if this makes me more sick, or sad.
Pray tell, what does “share their voices” mean in plain english?
It makes me sick to my stomach (the female liturgies) and I am a woman. I can only imagine what God thinks. Why are women threatened by a male God? I don’t get it.
The SC for Pittsburgh responded well to KJS. I am sure that the SC’s for Quincy and Fort Worth will do equally well.
I detect the hand of one Wicks Stevens, also on the Standing committee and one heck of an attorney in that very excellent letter signed by David Wilson. Way to go to all of the outstanding SC in Pittsburgh! You are in my prayers as you contemplate your next move.
Katherine @ 27. I think your money statement is the opinion of the canon lawyers who post here. Then too, the issue will not be strictly ecclesial. Property is involved.
EmilyH, so what you’re saying is that TEC’s priorities are property/profit, rather than the ethics and laws of the church?
Mari, ethics and laws of the Church are meaningful only in that they can be manipulated in order to accomplish the objectives of Katharine Jefferts Schori, her friends in the House of Bishops, and the lobby groups controlling General Convention….thus ensuring that they get their way, and seeing to it that all opposition is stifled. Why else would Schori have attempted to depose faithful bishops who dared oppoe her if she knew that she’d be able to do as she pleased?
The irony: An ABC who refuses to wield the power he has been given, and a PB who tries to wield power she has not been given. A fine kettle of fish.
Mari, Cynnydd… No, I am suggesting that property is a concern of both sides. Had property not been an issue, the Va congregations members could simply walk away. The same is true of San Joaquin, Pittsburgh etc. +Duncan could have simply resigned and those who chose to have followed him, simply chosen to do so. I realize that his argument is that he and his group are the “real anglican” presence in NA and should be acknowledged as such, as is TEC’s, which is acknowledged as such. At one point, GS correspondence I read even suggested that Duncan et al. simply do so. +Duncan in his Nov 2006 memo to the GS specifically noted his intent to obtain its oversightand retain property.
EmilyH - To walk away and leave property to the apostate, heretical church that is TEC would be unfaithful stewardship of what the LORD has provided.
#48 EmilyH, you conveniently chose to ignore my point in my last post. Please stick to the content. And I agree with Gordy.
I am reminded of one of my favorite lines from the movie Labyrinth...
“Through dangers untold and hardships unnumbered, I have fought my way here to the castle beyond the goblin city to take back the child which you have stolen. For my will is as strong as yours, and my kingdom is as great. You have no power over me!”
I could modify that just a little, to make it even more apropro to the situation at hand. But I won’t. ::grin::
It makes me sick to my stomach (the female liturgies) and I am a woman. I can only imagine what God thinks. Why are women threatened by a male God? I don’t get it.
It makes me sick to my stomach, also… but please note that God is not male as we would think of it. He created both male and female in his image. God is only male in the incarnation of Christ. Otherwise, God would encompass both male and female. But we use masculine language for God because traditionally masculine language does encompass both the male and the female (while feminine language is exclusively female) and because the ideas which are conveyed at points are culturally considered masculine ideals. It’s not the feminine language itself that is bothersome, for the Scriptures describe God with some feminine terms (wisdom, for example) as do the mystics, Anselm, all while being thoroughly orthodox (though in our culture thanks to so-called feminism the feminine language now sounds a bit flakey). The problem is two fold… the first is that the feminine language disenfranchises the masculine (not, as is popularly believed the other way around) and more so the problem is in the remainder of the surrounding theology.
Blessed be, my tuchas.
But we use masculine language for God because traditionally masculine language does encompass both the male and the female (while feminine language is exclusively female) and because the ideas which are conveyed at points are culturally considered masculine ideals.
God is neither male nor female, but as C. S. Lewis said, “God is so masculine that all creation is feminine by comparison.” He creates, we are created. He initiates, we respond. The Church is described as ‘the Bride of Christ’.
All human beings have both masculine, i.e. initiating, and feminine, i.e. responsive, traits; nevertheless, we’re all feminine compared with God. The masculinity of God doesn’t imply that men and women aren’t equal in His sight, or that one sex or the other is somehow more like God. Nonetheless, the use of masculine (as opposed to male) language is not merely conventional when applied to God—it says something very important about His nature as revealed in Scripture. If we supposed that He were the responder and something else the initiator, we’d have an entirely different religion. That is what’s wrong with the feminine-language liturgy, at bottom—it brings in a completely alien theology.
This picture of masculinity and femininity in itself isn’t merely cultural, as it is basic to every civilization from the Egyptians and the ancient Chinese to ours. It needn’t lead to disenfranchising anyone—we’re all in exactly the same relation to God, namely complete dependence and contingency.
Cheers,
Phil Hobbs
Absolutely right on. Perfect.
Ya’ll are behind the times. Masculine just means “male chauvenist pig”. Feminine means “God-breathed”. Are you saying that you agree that God is a male chauvenist pig? How dare God create our finances in such a mess! God should be paying my living so I can retire to a life of ease sprinkled with pixie dust at the higher standard of living to which I wish to become accustomed.
If we supposed that He were the responder and something else the initiator, we’d have an entirely different religion. That is what’s wrong with the feminine-language liturgy, at bottom—it brings in a completely alien theology.
Thanks for spelling this out like this, Phil Hobbs. And also for pointing out the obvious - that we’re all in the same relation to God, no matter whether we’re male or female.
Hats off to the Rev. David Wilson for a really excellent letter that calls attention to the ways in which the pb is arrogating power to herself and “authority” she does not have but is seizing.