Total visitors right now: 94

Click here to check your private inbox.

Welcome to Stand Firm!

Bishop Frade Has Evidently Unpacked His Tinfoil Hat

Thursday, July 24, 2008 • 5:00 pm


From here:

July 23, 2008

Brazilians are not welcome!

This morning started especially early for me, because I had to be at the Big Top to get ready to be part of the Eucharistic celebration. Today was the Diocese of Cuba’s day to celebrate, and the bishop of Cuba invited me to help to distribute the bread. (As you know there are three bishops in Cuba, one diocesan and the two suffragans whose consecration I attended last summer. One of the suffragans is a woman who is married to the dean of the cathedral in Havana.) It was a very joyous celebration that managed to wake up everybody under that tent. It was fun to see the Archbishop of Canterbury clapping to the Cuban tune. I am sure that he would do much better with Mozart.

Our Bible study became quite animated in a different way when we began to discuss issues dealing with sexuality. One of the conservative bishops who is in my group started putting down the Americans, both church and government. There is no question that America is resented around the world for our presence in Iraq; the animosity in many countries towards the actions of our government exacerbates the already strained relationships in our Church.

The issue that brought forth our friendly discussion was evidently a mistaken understanding of what the conservatives think is our unjust reaction to the machinations of the bishop of Pittsburgh. The information this bishop got at a meeting of the Global South bishops at which Bishop Bob Duncan was present was that Duncan was probably going to be disciplined because he is a conservative. He omitted telling them that he is breaking the vows he made at his ordination and consecration. We were able to clarify that neither he nor anyone else gets disciplined in our church for beliefs, but in the case of Bishop Duncan he is bound to be disciplined for disregarding the promises he made when he was ordained deacon, then again as a priest and then as a bishop. We have in our hands more than enough evidence that he is trying to take possession of what is not for him to take. The evidence shows that he is following the path taken by Bishop John David Schofield from the Diocese of San Joaquin, who has also claimed what is not his to take. The Episcopal Church is trying now to recover the funds and property that the deposed bishop of San Joaquin illegally put in his own name and that of a dubious corporation he created in order to transfer funds and property.

Another thing that is quite interesting is how the misogynist and homophobic lobby are trying to give the impression that the Global South is of one mind, and that all churches in the region agree with the position of excluding the Episcopal Church. Take the case of the Brazilian Episcopal Church, which was preparing to attend the meeting of the Global South, but was uninvited, because the Church in Brazil, as well as the Mexican Episcopal Church, supports the American and Canadian churches.


The Plot against the Archbishop of Canterbury


Today to my amazement I realized that there are at least three bishops who have refused to receive communion from his Grace the Archbishop of Canterbury. One of them is the bishop of Argentina, Gregory Venables, Primate of the Province of the Southern Cone. I wonder if they are planning to overthrow centuries of tradition and get rid of the Archbishop, or if they are trying to revive the Donatist heresy.

As you can see our time here is becoming more interesting, so I am asking for you to continue praying. I am sorry that I have to share some of these things, but I want you to get an idea of how some individuals and groups are trying to manipulate the people and the press.

This afternoon we had the first hearing dealing with the Windsor Report. It is still too early to give a report, but the first voices were raised both in favor and against.

For the first time I got to visit the Marketplace, and rediscovered how expensive things are in the UK. Everything seems overpriced, and with our weak dollar you cannot buy anything.

Tonight Diana and I went to hear Bishop Gene Robinson’s presentation to the bishops. There were about 150 bishops from all over the Anglican Communion present to hear him give his testimony and describe his walk with Christ. He was very well received by all the bishops and spouses present.

Well, it is past 11 p.m. and I will go to bed early tonight. Tomorrow we have to wake up early again in order to go to London. The day will start with a march in support of the Millennium Development Goals (MDG) that will end at the Lambeth Palace. This palace has been the London home of the Archbishop of Canterbury for centuries and will serve as a lunch venue for about 1,375 bishops and their spouses, plus many of the staff serving the Lambeth Conference. The final stop is at Buckingham Palace where we will have tea with the Queen and Prince Philip. I don’t know how many members of the Royal Family will be present, but I will let you know. This is going to be our third time meeting the Queen, and I can tell you that it is a wonderful experience.

+Leo

Hat/tip:  Tom Dennis


56 Comments • Print-friendlyPrint-friendly w/commentsShare on Facebook
Comments:

We were able to clarify that neither he nor anyone else gets disciplined in our church for beliefs,

And there is the problem.

[1] Posted by James Manley on 07-24-2008 at 05:06 PM • top

It seems also that Bishop Frade has made his choice.

[2] Posted by Floridian on 07-24-2008 at 05:14 PM • top

He made his choice LONG ago….he just got around to coming clean about it!  His comments about Bishops Duncan and Schofield are entirely uncalled for, and he knows it!

[3] Posted by Cennydd on 07-24-2008 at 05:25 PM • top

Interesting when he said that over 150 Bishops from all over the Communion went to hear Gene Robinson.  Do the math.  I’m sure nearly all the American Bishops were there, so that is probably 80% of all the Bishops there.

[4] Posted by Husker on 07-24-2008 at 05:37 PM • top

“Neither he nor anyone else gets disciplined in our church for their beliefs.”  Unfortunately, he’s right about that.

[5] Posted by Husker on 07-24-2008 at 05:40 PM • top

“...he is breaking the vows he made at his ordination and consecration.”

“I wonder if they are planning to overthrow centuries of tradition…”

“I want you to get an idea of how some individuals and groups are trying to manipulate the people and the press.”

Is Leo Frade a complete idiot or has he just been certified irony-proof?

[6] Posted by Jeffersonian on 07-24-2008 at 05:46 PM • top

Bishop Frade said:-
“Today to my amazement I realized that there are at least three bishops who have refused to receive communion from his Grace the Archbishop of Canterbury. One of them is the bishop of Argentina, Gregory Venables, Primate of the Province of the Southern Cone.”

Does anyone know if this is true?

Chris Baker
Durham UK

[7] Posted by chorale on 07-24-2008 at 05:52 PM • top

What is he doing during communion - counting heads? How would he know?

[8] Posted by oscewicee on 07-24-2008 at 05:55 PM • top

#7, whether it’s true or not, the big question is this? Were the TEC apostates also part of the service? If the answer is yes, then Venables did the right thing. A Christian can’t share a table with an apostate when observing the holy sacrament of communion. It doesn’t matter who is distributing it.

I’m gathering this tidbit was regarding the Eucharist that RW presided over at the official beginning of the conference. Is this the case? Someone please enlighten me if you have the facts?

[9] Posted by Mugsie1 on 07-24-2008 at 05:59 PM • top

This type of reasoning in church circles used to be called “cant”. It is a shame to see Bishop Duncan called to task regarding his ordination vows. I thank God for his witness. At least we know who are friends are and aren’t in this instance.

[10] Posted by Adam 12 on 07-24-2008 at 06:07 PM • top

#8 “What is he doing during communion - counting heads? How would he know?”

What is he doing? - stirring!

Makes you feel all warm listening to these Christian US bishops doesn’t it.

[11] Posted by Pageantmaster ن on 07-24-2008 at 06:12 PM • top

LOL!! You’re right, Pageantmaster. I’m afraid there is a lot of stirring going on.

[12] Posted by oscewicee on 07-24-2008 at 06:16 PM • top

Since when is receiving Holy Communion a requirement?  Each baptized Christian is to search their own heart and determine if they are spiritually fit to receive the sacrament and act accordingly.

Interestingly when Leo Frade was Bishop of Honduras he more than willing to accept the all the financial assistance and personell help the evangelical mission agency SAMS pumped into his diocese now he has totally embraced the opposite.  He always struck me as the commensurate opportunist and a company man through and through.

[13] Posted by David Wilson on 07-24-2008 at 06:16 PM • top

This fellow was too long in Cuba.  Secret plots to overthrow the glorious leader and loyality to the party at all costs.  Hate anything and everything American, except its $$.  This guy has it down.

[14] Posted by Elizabeth on 07-24-2008 at 06:20 PM • top

I’m flabbergasted at this bishop’s understanding of eucharistic theology.

As has been pointed out there are a variety of reasons why these three bishops may have chosen not to receive communion besides refusing to receive it from ++RW.

There is more to the eucharist than the bishopocentric view of the universe permits.

[15] Posted by James Manley on 07-24-2008 at 06:32 PM • top

#13 David Wilson
Thank you! Well said. One of the many reasons why the GS Primates didn’t attend Lambeth was because they could not in good concience partake of Holy Communion with those they are out of Communion with. If only all Christians practiced this observance of our Lord’s precious sacrifice of His body & blood and not make a mockery of it! That is sacred food and not to be taken lightly nor irresponsibly. None of us has the right to judge who decides for themselves why they are not able to partake, that is between them and God!

[16] Posted by TLDillon on 07-24-2008 at 06:33 PM • top

Hate anything and everything American, except its $$.

I think he even took on the weak dollar, now that you mention it.

[17] Posted by James Manley on 07-24-2008 at 06:33 PM • top

Where the heck do people get the idea that the debate about sexuality has something to do with Iraq?

[18] Posted by AndrewA on 07-24-2008 at 06:37 PM • top

What is also reasonably clear from Bishop Frade’s comments is that having Rowan’s stamp of approval under their belts and having been to the Queen’s for tea that they intend to return to their old tricks of deposing 80 year old bishops and ethnically cleansing their church.

Shame on you TEC bishops.

[19] Posted by Pageantmaster ن on 07-24-2008 at 06:45 PM • top

the bishop of Cuba invited me to help to distribute the bread

Ummmmm. It has been my upbringing to believe that after the consecration we don’t refer to the Body of Christ as “the bread”. Well bishop, what is your belief about the Eucharist?

[20] Posted by Fisherman on 07-24-2008 at 06:52 PM • top

We were able to clarify that neither he nor anyone else gets disciplined in our church for beliefs

That just jumps right out at you….he seems to be forgetting that +Schofield & + Cox were disciplined for their beliefs….guess he was thinking of Pike, Spong, etc. who certainly weren’t.

[21] Posted by Henry on 07-24-2008 at 06:52 PM • top

You know, a tinfoil mitre would look pretty cool.

[22] Posted by Newbie Anglican on 07-24-2008 at 06:58 PM • top

Ahem.  In all fairness, no one has been disciplined for their beliefs that I know of.  They have been disciplined for ACTING on their beliefs, and that discipline has taken the form of being fired after they already quit.  Now, if Duncan has played things straight until he got deposed BEFORE he left TEC, he could then say argue, as the senior bishops that refused to consent to his inhibition argued, that he can’t be deposed for abandoning communion when he hadn’t abandoned anything.

But now that Duncan has gone full steam ahead and asked to be recognized as a primate of a new province before he had the good graces to leave his current province, I fear he has made a strategic error.

[23] Posted by AndrewA on 07-24-2008 at 06:59 PM • top

Bishop Michael Nazir-Ali’s explains:
http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/14664/

Two separate altars have been set up at the Lambeth Conference in Canterbury, in a bid to get round the proviso. “But the Bishop (Bishop Michael Nazir-Ali) told Lapido Media: ‘Lambeth itself is a Eucharistic gathering, for the bishops gathered around the Lord’s table teaching the common faith. I don’t think it’s right to set up separate altars.’

[24] Posted by Betty See on 07-24-2008 at 07:04 PM • top

We were able to clarify that neither he nor anyone else gets disciplined in our church for beliefs

Whew!  That’s all right then. smile

[25] Posted by Catholic Mom on 07-24-2008 at 07:06 PM • top

Don’t you wonder how that came across to his listeners, Catholic Mom?

[26] Posted by oscewicee on 07-24-2008 at 07:09 PM • top

You know what?  Friends call me naive about this, but I truly think there are a certain number of bishops that fall into the same theological category as pew-sitters….i.e. they are not malevolent or evil, they are just ignorant——with very little idea about what the issues are, and what the Bible teaches, and what other Christians really think about.

I am serious.  Frade sounds just the same as many of my friends who have no idea about what’s going on in the Episcopal church, outside the walls of our cathedral.  Not only do they not know, they don’t want to know.  Yes, it is shameful for a Bishop to be this ignorant, but his words and actions serve only to highlight his ignorance, and somehow it doesn’t seem as evil as, say, that of Robinson or Schori.

[27] Posted by heart on 07-24-2008 at 07:18 PM • top

If Bob Duncan is being disciplined for violating his ordination vows, then more bishops of TECUSA need to be disciplined for violating their baptismal covenants.  If you don’t believe in the Virgin Birth or the Resurrection of the Body or the Trinity or you change the Apostle’s teaching then you are violating your baptismal covenant.

YBIC,
Phil Snyder

[28] Posted by Philip Snyder on 07-24-2008 at 07:19 PM • top

But now that Duncan has gone full steam ahead and asked to be recognized as a primate of a new province before he had the good graces to leave his current province, I fear he has made a strategic error.

AndrewA,
Please post the exact request by Bishop Duncan to be recognised as a primate of a new province? I have not read nor heard that request coming personally from Duncan anywhere! I think you have made an error!

[29] Posted by TLDillon on 07-24-2008 at 07:24 PM • top

Um! AndrewA…..No where in that article does it say that Bishop Duncan is requesting to be the primate of a new province! Good try, but no good!

[31] Posted by TLDillon on 07-24-2008 at 07:43 PM • top

The intention of the CCP Executive Committee is to petition the Primates Council for recognition of the CCP as the North American Province of GAFCON on the basis of the Common Cause Partnership Articles, Theological Statement, and Covenant Declaration, and to ask that the CCP Moderator be seated in the Primates Council.

[32] Posted by AndrewA on 07-24-2008 at 07:46 PM • top

Andrew A,
That is not Bishop Duncan doing the requesting and it certainly doesn’t say Primate! I truly think you are reading more than what is truly there!

[33] Posted by TLDillon on 07-24-2008 at 07:51 PM • top

ODC, I hope you are right, but why should a bishop in TEC diocese have a seat on a Primate’s Council?  Shouldn’t that be reserved for, well, primates?

Also, I tend to take anything from CCP as having Duncan’s Stamp of Approval on it, just like I don’t think anything comes out of 815 without being vetted by BeerKat.

[34] Posted by AndrewA on 07-24-2008 at 07:55 PM • top

Andrew A &ODC;,

The reference states “The intention of the CCP Executive Committee is to petition the Primates Council for recognition of the CCP as the North American Province of GAFCON on the basis of the Common Cause Partnership Articles, Theological Statement, and Covenant Declaration, and to ask that the CCP Moderator be seated in the Primates Council.”

It’s a matter of nomenclature and further structural coalescence that has yet to occur, so I think we ought to keep our powder dry.

[35] Posted by Athanasius Returns on 07-24-2008 at 07:58 PM • top

Oh BTW, this is classic.  Strangly enough, Ackerman is saying almost exactly what I said some time ago.

LAMBETH: Episcopal Bishop says Cancel Episcopal Convention-for UN goals

By Hans Zeiger in Canterbury
http://www.virtueonline.org
July 24, 2008

CANTERBURY-A leading orthodox bishop of The Episcopal Church has proposed canceling the 2009 Episcopal Church General Convention in order to fund the United Nations’ Millennium Development Goals (MDGs).

Following the Thursday march on London by over 600 Anglican bishops and their spouses in support of the MDGs, the Rt. Rev. Keith Ackerman, Bishop of Quincy, said that “there should be no General Convention this year, and all the money for the convention should be sent to fund the goals.”

Ackerman furthermore called for The Episcopal Church to “cancel all meetings that require face to face and conduct nothing but video conferencing.” He said that the American wing of the Anglican Communion should “donate its money to churches that would be positively affected.”

Though leaders of The Episcopal Church have stated their commitment to the MDGs and made their biggest stand yet in London on Thursday, Ackerman has doubts that The Episcopal Church has yet made a true commitment.

“If the church is absolutely, totally committed to these goals, there are three things it needs to do,” Ackerman said.

“First, place the goals in the context of the Gospel itself.

“Second, leaders must make the necessary changes in their own personal lifestyle so that they can make their own commitment to model what God wants done.

“Third, the church must corporately find a way to fund this.”

In response to Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori’s invitation to African bishops to join her for drinks at a Canterbury reception (despite the Sudanese bishops’ abstinence from alcohol), Ackerman offered a specific MDG funding proposal. “Do not invite the Sudanese to a reception. Cancel the reception and give the money to the Sudanese church.”

END

[36] Posted by AndrewA on 07-24-2008 at 08:03 PM • top

AndrewA,
We do not know for sure if they, the CCP, are going to automatically seat Bishop Duncan in that manner or if there will be a type of selection/voting procedure. One step at a time my brother, one step at a time! Parience!

[37] Posted by TLDillon on 07-24-2008 at 08:10 PM • top

Andrew A -
I would not assume that +Bob Duncan has made a strategic error.  I think he knows exactly what he is doing, and will steadfastly continue to lead as God so directs.  Just because YOU do not see at this point in time how his actions will encourage and unify the orthodox has no bearing on what +Duncan obviously sees very clearly. The continuing emergence of a North American orthodox church and a primates council that can lead the orthodox globally has a profound effect on the bishops at Lambeth, and the timing makes sense to me.
Don’t underestimate the wisdom of this godly Bishop!
Carrie

[38] Posted by cityonahill on 07-24-2008 at 08:13 PM • top

Seat, Voice, and Vote…..I think they are just asking for “seat” at this time…..could be wrong…just wondering.  The U.S. House of Representatives gives “seat” to the representative of Washington D.C.  Don’t know if she has “voice”, but know she doesn’t have “Vote”

[39] Posted by Dee in Iowa on 07-24-2008 at 08:13 PM • top

Andrew A’s post in #36 is a hoot!  Did Ackerman REALLY say all that? No General Convention - What a dream!
Was there any response? Or was it said tongue-in-cheek? (or just being cheeky?)

LOL

Carrie

[40] Posted by cityonahill on 07-24-2008 at 08:20 PM • top

ODC, patience is exactly what I would urge on CCP.  Their end goal is right.  It is the timing and wording of this annoucement that worries me.  Also, there are severe problems with CCP BEING the New GAFCON Province as long is it has many members, including Duncan and the majority of the the Network dioceses, still in TECCCP may INCLUDE as a member a new province forged from the various existing Global South entities, but unless they want to kick the likes of Mark Lawrence and Bishop Love to the side, it can not BE the new province. 

But I already said all of this in another thread, so I suggest that any discussion is taken to that article rather than continued here.

[41] Posted by AndrewA on 07-24-2008 at 08:27 PM • top

Don’t you wonder how that came across to his listeners, Catholic Mom?

I assume it came across pretty much as he intended— “We don’t need no steenkin’ dogma.  But mess with our rule book (or our interpretation of our rule book) and you’re toast.”

[42] Posted by Catholic Mom on 07-24-2008 at 08:28 PM • top

#36 and #40—-What gives?

[43] Posted by heart on 07-24-2008 at 08:29 PM • top

Maybe the good bishop forgot a couple of things when he wrote this missive.  First Bishop Schofield was never properly deposed, he knows, we know it, and the rest of the TEO knows it.  Secondly, this Bishop forgot also that the Presiding Bishop is continually persecuting anyone and I do mean anyone orthodox.  She has ordered the suit of 11 congregations in Virginia, and a number in Ohio, not to mention the situation in Georgia, and California.  So far she is spending tons of money on litigation, and I wonder if she is getting a good return on her investment.  The Virginia court now has twice handed the Diocese of Virgina and TEO a major defeat, and one can only wonder and pray that the judge hands them another sound defeat in the fall.  So Bishop Frade is mistaken on a number of accounts.

[44] Posted by seminarian on 07-24-2008 at 08:41 PM • top

AndrewA @ 41 you wrote:

Also, there are severe problems with CCP BEING the New GAFCON Province as long is it has many members, including Duncan and the majority of the the Network dioceses, still in TECCCP may INCLUDE as a member a new province forged from the various existing Global South entities, but unless they want to kick the likes of Mark Lawrence and Bishop Love to the side, it can not BE the new province. 

  Your point is well-taken.  But throw +Stanton in to the mix as well.  Last summer when I watching the live-streaming of the CCP organizational meeting, I was quite amazed to see the articles presented for acceptance on the first day.  Wantland, a canon lawywer,  was there as well as +Duncan.  The articles as proposed by Wantland and +Duncan would have over-ridden the TEC accession clause.  +Stanton jumped in and pointed this out.  Neither +Duncan or Wantland,who certainly knew it, (heck, I knew it!) mentioned it.  It was only because of +Stanton’s intervention that the articles were rewritten to allow TEC diocese’s accession to take precedence.

[45] Posted by EmilyH on 07-24-2008 at 08:57 PM • top

Regarding ordination vows, Bishop Frade:

—Bishop Swing participated in a Gaia mass in 1995 that included the Communion of the Elements—earth, air, fire, and water.  Witches who leave covens report that they pray to the spirits of earth, air, fire, and water.
—Bishop Charleston as President and Dean of Episcopal Divinity School hosted a guided meditation for students and faculty by a Tibetan Buddhist Lama.  The Lama wrote, “ . . . the Dharma is the communication of the unconditioned through a Buddha’s mind and body . . . “
—Bishop Warner found Rev. Redding’s declaration that she is both a Muslim and an Episcopalian to be “exciting”.  (Luckily, Bishop Wolf was not so easily seduced by political correctness.)
—Bishop Spong’s heresies are legion.
—Bishop Bruno decommissioned the Great Commission and ritually lowered Jesus from his position in the Christian creed, making him equal to a thousand Hindu gods.

Those are just the bishops.  We have become the church of do-it-yourself theology and do-it-yourself liturgy.
The failure of the House of Bishops to apply the canons and constitution regarding doctrine, accompanied by the application (and misapplication) of the canons and constitution regarding church order and property, says that the HoB values church order and property more than it values God’s truth.

[46] Posted by Jill Woodliff on 07-24-2008 at 09:02 PM • top

Bp Frade said:

. . . the Church in Brazil, as well as the Mexican Episcopal Church, supports the American and Canadian churches.

That is true.  It is also true that the Church in Brazil and the Mexican Episcopal Church are financially dependent on TEC.

[47] Posted by Jill Woodliff on 07-24-2008 at 09:06 PM • top

How sad! No, it is more than sad. It is pathetic how a grown man of reasonable intelligence can be so confused.

[48] Posted by Alice Linsley on 07-24-2008 at 09:11 PM • top

This I can say as Leo’s former roommate the year he arrived at Asbury College:

Leo was an evangelical Methodist
Leo was a recent graduate of the Methodist High School [in Matanzas?]
Leo knew/knows his Bible.
Leo took his personal relationship with Our Lord Jesus so seriously that he often fell asleep in our closet in prayer interceding for his family stranded in Castro’s Cuba.
Until Fidel revealed his Communist agenda, Leo was pro Castro and a strong social justice advocate,—very Wesleyan.
The highlight of his young life had been hitch-hiking a ride with Che Guivera in his roadster from Matanzas to Havana.
Leo rescued a large boatload of Cubans during the boat lift the right way at great personal cost.
Leo became an active Cursillista Spiritual Director and served as the Episcopal Advisor to the National Committee.
Leo began his missionary apostalate with a heart on fire for bringing souls into the Kingdom of God. Many was the time he placed his life on the line—and yes he made very effective use of all the resources SAM’s and others provided to grow an indigenous Episcopal Diocese of Honduras. That was his call.

I disagree [and believes he knows it] with every position +Leo has taken above on biblical morality, ecclesiology and sacramental theology. Now, he’s a great TEC bishop in Lambeth . . . and has wandered far from his Wesleyan Anglican roots. Do not take +Leo lightly. I love and pray for +Leo Frade.

[49] Posted by Bob Maxwell+ on 07-24-2008 at 09:33 PM • top

Infamy! Infamy!

They’ve all got it in for me!

[50] Posted by Derek Smith on 07-24-2008 at 09:41 PM • top

I remember the good bishop’s letter to the diocese after he voted in favor of Gene Robinson’s consecration. He wrote that he hadn’t been able to make up his mind until he was walking into the convention center to cast his vote. He said he saw a group of young people, set up outside the building, voicing their support for Robinson; and this convinced him to vote in the affirmative. When I read this, the word flabbergasted doesn’t even come close to how I felt. 40 years of ministry, and this is the sum total of how you discern theological truths? I made a copy of the letter and took it to my rector, so that we could discuss it before morning prayer. I told my rector that this man had to be either a liar or a fool. His response was more loving and less judgmental as we both cried into our prayer books that August morning.

[51] Posted by Abishai on 07-25-2008 at 12:31 AM • top

Frade:  “the misogynist and homophobic lobby .”  Thanks for engaging in the listening process, sir.

[52] Posted by Katherine on 07-25-2008 at 12:36 AM • top

Re: Frade’s less-than-prayerful decision for Mr. Robinson:
Mr. Henry Parsley of Alabama is almost worse.  He voted against the consecration (almost had to do so because of an orthodox cathedral he’s attached to) , and almost immediately verbally recanted and backtracked, minimizing the importance of what had happened, etc. and did everything within his power to divorce himself from that vote.

[53] Posted by heart on 07-25-2008 at 04:39 AM • top

#51, I read that same letter and was crying with you. . . and many others.

[54] Posted by Bob Maxwell+ on 07-25-2008 at 10:25 AM • top

AndrewA asked:    Where the heck do people get the idea that the debate about sexuality has something to do with Iraq?

Did you not notice that not very subtle effort by Frade to BLAME BUSH!  Here’s what he wrote:

There is no question that America is resented around the world for our presence in Iraq; the animosity in many countries towards the actions of our government exacerbates the already strained relationships in our Church.

Translation:  The only reason these foreign bishops don’t like TEC is because of George Bush and his decision to go into Iraq.  It has absolutely nothing to do with our arrogant defiance in consecrating VGR and ignoring the authority of Scripture.

[55] Posted by hanks on 07-25-2008 at 01:53 PM • top

Cuba is not a free country it is a Communist, Atheist Dictatorship.
When he refers to the United States, It seems to me that Bishop Frade says the things that are necessary to say in order that he and his church can survive in Cuba.

[56] Posted by Betty See on 07-25-2008 at 03:44 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 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.