Monday, February 13, 2012
SC blu cat lady on All is Well™ in New Jersey: # 1 Underground Pewster, You are right. In fact Bishop Skilton has told me that he has a couple of parishes up that way. Anyway,…
tjmcmahon on Ladies and Gentlemen, I give you Katherine Ragsdale, Dean of EDS: Fr. Van, not to be argumentative, but I think, given that this is a Christian blog, you misuse the term “gracious”.  I assume what you…
midwestnorwegian on Planned Parenthood Accused of Fraud: “Murder Inc.” just living up to its moniker.
cennydd13 on Ladies and Gentlemen, I give you Katherine Ragsdale, Dean of EDS: I despise what she stands for, Fr Van.
FrVan on Ladies and Gentlemen, I give you Katherine Ragsdale, Dean of EDS: If one listens to the interview, I still think the Dean seemed reasonable. I saw nothing that should create the vitriol and hatred she seemed…
Ross Gill on Presenting The Vagina Monologues - in church: It’s actually quite depressing knowing that these people passed through some Episcopalian seminary, and this is the best they could come up with. Looking for…
H. Potter (aka Martial Artist) on Planned Parenthood Accused of Fraud: To her (extremely limited) credit, Sanger was actually thoroughly opposed to abortion, and publicly spoke out against it. The opposing position of Planned Parenthood was…
H. Potter (aka Martial Artist) on Presenting The Vagina Monologues - in church: [6] Looking for Leaders, You wrote This told me all I needed to know about the state of Religous edcuation in the Ep. church. Not…
H. Potter (aka Martial Artist) on Presenting The Vagina Monologues - in church: Well, I see from this [emphasis added] The idea that women should sensor their words and temper discussions … that our friends to the North…
Jackie on Planned Parenthood Accused of Fraud: In her own words.
Jackie on All is Well™ in New Jersey: Actually, it is my understanding that many dioceses require that any diverted or directed income be counted as well as funds from an outside source…
Judith L on Planned Parenthood Accused of Fraud: Margaret Sanger’s bigotry is on the record and very much a part of her motivation to push birth control and sterilization.  She did not want…
H. Potter (aka Martial Artist) on All is Well™ in New Jersey: [16] Jackie, Actually, there is a way in which to accomplish the removal of “income,” by which I refer specifically to fungible income (cash receipts),…
Looking for Leaders on Planned Parenthood Accused of Fraud: Jill, have never heard of this, but this seems to be explosive information.  I’m sure those that report on these links are relegated to the…
Looking for Leaders on Planned Parenthood Accused of Fraud: SC Blu, I’m shocked as in “Casablanca” shocked.  Saracsm alert on DefCon 5.
jamesw on What Compromise? This Policy Leaves Religious Liberty in Peril and Planned Parenthood Smiling: On this general topic, there is a most excellent article over at the National Review by George Weigel titled The Libertine Police State.  In it,…
SC blu cat lady on Planned Parenthood Accused of Fraud: #1 Really? You are shocked that the government is bilked out of millions by various companies or other entities charging for services not rendered or…
Jill Woodliff on Planned Parenthood Accused of Fraud: Looking for Leaders, I recommend the documentary Maafa 21.  The documentary exhaustively researches the eugenics movement, and from there points out persons affiliated with the…
Looking for Leaders on Planned Parenthood Accused of Fraud: I’m SHOCKED!!  On another note, in the comments at the other site, there was alot of talk that Sanger (founder of PP) was motivated to…
The Little Myrmidon on Lo He Comes With Clouds Descending: The choir is actually singing the words from the 1940 hymnal at the last line of the first verse: “Christ the Lord returns to reign.”…

Welcome to Stand Firm!

Want to advertise on Stand Firm? Click here for rates and info

Why only Robinson?

Wednesday, May 23, 2007 • 6:04 pm

Following on from Sarah’s great post I made the following comment:

Bishop Robinson has not received the acknowledgment of being a bishop of the Anglican Communion. When he states “While I appreciate the acknowledgment that I am a duly elected and consecrated Bishop of the Church. . . “ it is the Episcopal church for which he was consecrated bishop, as Kearon made clear in his statement: “according to the canons of the Episcopal Church”.

This is key, in my understanding. What it does is raise the real issue - not Robinson’s presence but the presences of all those who agreed to his consecration. They should be covered by the same ban.

Why?
Well, does anyone remember this from the Windsor Report?

134.  Mindful of the hurt and offence that have resulted from recent events, and yet also of the imperatives of communion -  the repentance,  forgiveness and reconciliation enjoined on us by Christ - we have debated long and hard how all sides may be brought together. We recommend that:

  • the Episcopal Church (USA) be invited to express its regret that the proper constraints of the bonds of affection were breached in the events surrounding the election and consecration of a bishop for the See of New Hampshire, and for the consequences which followed, and that such an expression of regret would represent the desire of the Episcopal Church (USA) to remain within the Communion
  • pending such expression of regret, those who took part as consecrators of Gene Robinson should be invited to consider in all conscience whether they should withdraw themselves from representative functions in the Anglican Communion. We urge this in order to create the space necessary to enable the healing of the Communion. We advise that in the formation of their consciences, those involved consider the common good of the Anglican Communion, and seek advice through their primate and the Archbishop of Canterbury. We urge all members of the Communion to accord appropriate respect to such conscientious decisions

Given the relentless onward push of TEC how can they be honestly said to have expressed the necessary regret?

To only bar Robinson would be to ignore the actual problem - there were a large number of bishops who assented to and took part in the consecration of Robinson. If Robinson is not to be at Lambeth then they should not be either.


10 Comments • Print-friendly • Print-friendly w/comments • Share on Facebook
Comments:

Absolutely.  If those who did assist in the consecration of VGR do go to Lambeth, it tells us a great deal about their own integrity.

[1] Posted by El Jefe on 05-23-2007 at 06:19 PM • top

It seems that every opportunity ++Rowan Williams has to clarify things and bring things to a halt, he simply makes things worse and prolongs the turmoil!  At some point along the way, if this keeps up, the Archbishop of Canterbury is simply going to become a useless vessel as the Primates struggle to bring all of this to a close on their own without even hearing a wimper from him.  And it that is what it will take, then so be it for one particular Instrument of Unity.

[2] Posted by David+ on 05-23-2007 at 06:35 PM • top

We urge this in order to create the space necessary to enable the healing of the Communion.

And since when is a rapist interested in “space for healing”?

No, a rapist only has one thing on his mind, and he WILL NOT QUIT until he’s finished.  Or beaten away.

You guys are being raped by a thug who has no other interest except his own sexual satisfaction.

[3] Posted by Marty the Baptist on 05-23-2007 at 06:39 PM • top

David+, think of the rape victim who… only struggles “just so hard”...  I mean you want to resist, but you don’t want o be murdered in the process… 

This man has a historical legacy to consider!  He’ll lie there and take it, if he has to…

imho

[4] Posted by Marty the Baptist on 05-23-2007 at 06:47 PM • top

I agree.  Actually, it would be more appropriate not to invite those who assented to the election of +Robinson and then consecrated him than it is not to invite +Robinson himelf.  After all, the main problem with ECUSA is what it teaches (and what it doesn’t teach), not that its bishops are sinners.

[5] Posted by Father Will Brown on 05-23-2007 at 08:08 PM • top

Amen, father wb.  Invite the godfather, but don’t associate with the trigger man.  Invite the generals, but don’t be seen with the soldiers.  Bp Robinson is merely acting out what he and most of the other bishops are preaching.

[6] Posted by Cousin Vinnie on 05-23-2007 at 10:49 PM • top

TEC expressed regret in a resolution passed at the last GC. Robinson himself is nor properly covered by paragraph 133, the one before 134 quoted above.

[7] Posted by ruidh on 05-29-2007 at 07:51 AM • top

The proper question is why did he not invite Robinson? The answer is not because he thinks Robinson has caused great division, but rather that it takes the limelight away from the fact that he invited the rest of the Americans. This comes after he said he would decide with the primates. This is a preemptive strike to diffuse the date of Sept 30th. After that date, he would have been much less politically able to invite the American bishops. Sure, he mentions the possibilities of withdrawing invitations but that is not as easy as not issuing them in the first place.

Why did he invite the American bishops? Because he wants them there! Also, by doing so he tacitly dis-invites the Africans who have long said they will not participate in another Lambeth to go over, again, the issues that were decided at the last and were ignored by the TEC. Imagine the outrage if he had not sent invitations to Orombi and Akinola? But that is essentially what he has done without the political fallout. Very clever.

What surprises me is the way the discussants hold on to the belief that the ABC is favors the orthodox or, in the least, is trying to be even handed. He would, if he had his druthers, be on the side of the heterodox every time. Let us recall the evidence:

1 - His early writings, markedly fully inclusive.
2 - The delay of the report of the ABC’s handpick committee that found the TEC was mostly Windsor compliant. It had been completed for several weeks or months prior to the DeS meeting, but the ABC delayed its release to the beginning of the meeting, trying to set the tone in favor of the TEC. (Fortunately, the GS primates’ strength overcame this obstacle.)
3 - The ABC’s essay that said that conservatives were misreading Romans 1 and the “I am the way,...” verse.
4 - And now the early invitations, which is nothing but a big Christmas gift in May to the arrogantly defiant TEC bishops, VGR aside.

No, the ABC is pointedly on the side of the TEC. No even-handedness here. The only time he sways to the right is when he is shoved there by the GS.

[8] Posted by rob-roy on 05-29-2007 at 08:40 AM • top

“Absolutely.  If those who did assist in the consecration of VGR do go to Lambeth, it tells us a great deal about their own integrity.”

Not only does it tell us a great deal about the integrity of those ECUSA bishops,  it very clearly reveals the ABC’s own lack of integrity.  I completely agree with rob-roy’s post.  He wants ECUSA there, and Robinson’s lack of an invitation obscures the fact that probably 60 or so bishops of ECUSA should not have received invitations.
Robroy’s list is also telling.  In every step ABC has attempted to favour the Americans and it is only clarity of visionof primates like ++Orombi, ++Venable, ++Akinola, their insight, and great determination to be faithful to the gospel, that has thwarted his many efforts.  ++Rowan’s seeming reputation of an even-handed lack of bias is rapidly slipping.  However, he is in an impossible position with regards to his own Church.  It would be hypocritical of him to discipline ECUSA and not the CofE.and, for that matter, the CofCanada where a great fudge has been perpetrated and others including Brazil.
Sad, sad days. However, regardless of all this, the Lord is still with us and in that we must be ever trusting and thankful.

[9] Posted by Bill C on 05-30-2007 at 08:06 AM • 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.