ENS: Eight Bishops agree to serve as “Episcopal Visitors” (+Howe, +Stanton, +Lillibridge among them)

Ah, the traitors unite to help “wage reconciliation.”

So this is the Vichy regime, eh?  Well, let’s have a little honesty with the treachery, at least: there are no dioceses that I know of that have “requested this provision” of having “episcopal visitors” that are still beholden to Mrs. Schori.  Those listed here have requested “episcopal visitors” that are not so beholden.

This, of course, begs the question: Exactly who are they going to visit and why? My walking shoes are looking better and better.

the snarkster

So far, the comments seem like whining and freaking.

And not an Anglo-Catholic among them

It falls far short of Dar and it is under the direction of +KJS. The remaining APO dioceses will not buy it. Nor, I think, will, at least, the fed-con GS primates.

I think it’s unfair to call them traitors. I imagine they are trying to do something to save their/our church. For agreeing to do this, they will probably incur the wrath of both “sides” - and I think it is too little and much too late.

How does this solve any problems?

I don’t think the term ‘traitor’ is one that shyould be in any of our minds at this time.

How about “collaborators”?

Well, the Anglo-Catholics have seen something like this before—+KJS announced this strategy at that staged media gathering after Dar es Salaam when she connected GLBT to WO—“a pause from full speed ahead, but a little push her and a little there and pretty soon our opposition will retire and it’ll be policy.”

This “episcopal visitor” should be a no-go for any diocese that is truly Biblical. As long as the Episcopal church has a primate who is not Christian, then no Biblical diocese should have oversight in any way, shape or form that leads back to that primate.

This one has just been struck down in my opinion. I pray the Biblical bishops will do the same.

Mugsie

None of these eight impress me as the sort of bishop I would want to confirm <s>my</s> any children.

I know Bishop Howe and know of Bishops Stanton and
Wolf.  I am very grateful for this development.

KJS has always thought this was okay, I don’t see why this is presented as something different just because she named people.
It’s really rather insulting when you think about it as she obviously thinks this is about her so if a parish doesn’t need to actually see her then everything is okay. It’s not about her but what she and TEC have decided to stand for.
Changing the messenger doesn’t make the news any better.

People please.  This ‘episcopal visitor’ issue will not even make it to consideration by the Primates until the HOB clear the two, non-negotiable statements: 1) no ordinations of ss bishops and 2) no blessings whatsoever of ss unions.

If I were a betting man I would say that neither of those will get affirmed in the next few days.

Well, Jake seems to be ecstatic about it which should tell us all we need to know about it.

the snarkster

Jayanthony, I pray you are right. It will physically sicken me to see this hoax of a “episcopal visitors” joke go anywhere.

I second Newbie’s comment, oscewicee.  How about “collaborators?”  It’s accurate, isn’t it?  Giving the Anglican Christians in ECUSA’s gunsights what they have already said about ten times they don’t want isn’t going to “save the church” - especially when their choices include John “Submit to ECUSA or my Legal Team Will Destroy You” Howe and Dorsey “Reasserters are Patently Un-Anglican” Henderson.

I seriously doubt that the dioceses of Pittsburg, San Joaquin, Quincy and Ft. Worth will hop on this 815 bandwagon that is but a facade for DEPO.

I see several less committed ACN bishops now siding against several fully committed ACN bishops. The fence sitting days are over.

“I think it’s unfair to call them traitors. ”

I’d concur, in many ways I’m an institutionalist myself, so empathize with these bishops. I’m bless that I have zero power so I could move on more readily. I think it’s a bad plan, but I’m not so quick to vilify those who agreed to be in it.

This sure answers many questions I’ve had in my mind from the ACN meeting and recent +Howe letters. I do think we’re seeing a season where FiFNA folks¹ may take the baton for a leg or two of this race set out before us.

¹ They must because the election of +KJS last year leaves them little room - sometime that came be the best motivator - the Cortés motivational school if you will.

Isn’t it amazing that +Howe, +Henderson, and +Wolf made the cut?  Reckon there are any more nice surprises?  Why is she bothering with this ruse?  Does she really think that +Duncan et al will fall for this?  Yeah, sure they will——when donkeys fly.

Jake:

So that’s the alternative to the Primates’ Primatial Vicar plan. Most likely the House of Bishops can live with it. And it will probably satisfy a majority of the Primates.

One down, two to go.

I hope for TEC’s sake that this is a first part of a larger modified PV plan. If this is all there is to the alternative then it’s meaningless. DEPO was offered prior to DES, it was rejected then by all including the majority of Primates and there is no reason to see it being accepted now. So nothing is “down”  unless down means failed to comply.

+Dorsey Henderson’s bridgebuilding materials have been revealed in the Bishop’s Report he attempted to disassociate himself from. 

I see no recognizable specifically Camp Allen person on the list, but I admit possible error and would be glad of correction.

It has the appearance of a sop, however.

She seems to think that reasserters will be satisfied by simply having a moderate or reasserting bishop to come and perform ceremonial duties.  She does not recognize that what is needed is real oversight by someone who is committed to historic orthodoxy.  We reasserters do not want to be overseen by a false shepherd, but by a true one.

Traitors? Collaborators? Vichy references? Good grief.  It’s so tiresome.  We are called to be lovers of people, not lovers of causes.  These bishops are our brothers and sister in Christ.  Don’t like what they are doing, fine, say so, but do it in a manner worthy of our Lord.  Some bishops on this list have worked too long and hard in the trenches to receive these casual and easy dismissals.

What bishops are absent from this meeting?  Duncan, Iker, Schofield,
Ackerman?  Any others?

Right on, AnglicanXn. Let us all pray for the Lord’s intervention here to protect the truthful.

We clearly don’t have all the details - including what the eight bishops have agreed to do.  Perhaps KJS told each of the eight “we are proposing something along the lines of AEO - would you be willing to help out?” and these bishops may have agreed to that.  We don’t know, so let’s save the name calling till we are sure about things.

If all that this is, is what the ENS story suggested - i.e. the named bishops can have a cup of tea with a few ACN diocesan bishops, and can participate in DEPO if the liberal diocesan approved - then this plan is certainly DOA.  No questions.  It is simply the current system of DEPO with eight named bishops.  There is nothing at all given from TEC in such a plan.  I am not yet convinced that this is all there is to it.  I would not be surprised if, in the end, the substance of the PV/PC plan of DES is not reintroduced in everything but name.  As others, including Gregory Cameron, have pointed out, TEC’s HoB has badly mischaracterized the plan and held it up to be something it is not.  The real DES plan could be reintroduced (albeit under a different name) and I could see TEC bishops saying “well, now there is a compromise” not realizing that the new plan is really just what DES called for in the first place.

However, as of yet, nothing has been agreed to.  As Jay Anthony points out, this plan only really takes on any importance at all if TEC can give the necessary assurances on the two major points first.

This looks like a slightly more lenient form of DEPO.

Stanton is already doing this for Ft. Worth “dissidents”.  It’s mildly interesting that it’s not working the other way:  It shows that this is not going to work for everyone, otherwise Iker would be on the list (ie., for Dallas “dissidents”).

“Episcopal visitors?”  This shows she does not understand the seriousness of the problem in any shape or form.  This almost sounds like something out of the Onion.

If tribute still goes to 815 to support its un-Bbilical agenda, who cares if there are 8 “nice” bishops who are willing to confirm kids.  What does that do for anyone?

Are these bishops supposed to be visitors to liberal churches in orthodox dioceses or orthodox parishes in liberal dioceses?

Widening Grove, I agree that name calling is not appropriate. However, these bishops are NOT our brothers and sisters in Christ of they don’t accept the authority of His Word. To reject the Word of God is to reject God, Himself. No true Christian can allow leadership over them by any false teacher. That’s the bottom line!!! I don’t care how hard these bishops may have worked in the “trenches”. If they have not worked in the Word of God, then they are not bishops under God, but false teachers promoting the evil of Satan. We cannot join them in their “cause”, but only fight the battle of Christ to refute their teachings and keep clear of them.

I thought about the term quislings.  Of course I also pictured all eight dressed like the Wicked Witch’s flying monkeys in the Wizard of Oz.

Then I came upon a better concept, these are 815’s kapos.

They are the Cambridge, Scroop and Grey of our times.

RSB

Is it possible, these 8 could be for the “reappraisers”?  or the progressive, seems to me they would ALL fit the bill nicely, seeing as none of them “seem” to have taken a stand on either side of the fence?

Grannie gloria (currently stuck in Norfolk VA , sans bookmarks, email addresses, and a even decent computer). 

Looking at SF to keep us posted tho, thanks guys.

I have a question: We were told that the Camp Allen bishops emerged from their most recent meeting with an agreed strategy to push for Dar. What happened to that? Doesn’t this essentially break with that commitment? Why or why not?

WG,

we are called to love God first, and Jesus tells us that we do that through obedience to his commands, and then we are to love others. Sometimes obeying the first and greatest commandment means conflict and, sometimes, that conflict appears to contradict the second commandment. In any case, I agree that disagreements need to be expressed in less offensive ways. I fall short too sometimes.

Granny, if they are on the “fence” at all, then they are not acceptable as leaders of the sheep in Christ’s Word. They MUST be fully repentant and reborn in Christ to lead his lambs. There are no compromises, or halfway points in the truth. Either you believe and follow Him, or you don’t.

Thanks Matt, you said it beautifully. We are warriors for Christ. He never told us it would be a picnic, but to fight for the truth at all costs.

If I may without anyone taking offense, I think most of the comment miss the mark.  This cannot be the entire proposal, because such “visitors” would only be necessary for parishes in revisionist dioceses.  In other words, another form of DEPO.  It does not at all address the “primatial vicar” question for orthodox dioceses, which was another of the Dar requirements.  So we should not fault this for what it is not, since by its very nature it cannot be that. 

One can only assume that this proposal is part of a package that will somehow address the other jurisdictional question raised by Dar, the “primatial vicar.”  It must be, because if it is not—if this is it—it will do nothing to prevent entires dioceses from walking away, and will do nothing for parishes in nominally orthodox dioceses such as Central Florida, where Howe is already bishop but has a number of parishes that want to leave anyone.  I just can’t believe that these bishops, even though I have a low opinion of their collective intellectual capacities, could be that dumb.

Everybody relax. This is only 815’s opening bid. The negotiations haven’t started, and the bottom lines are not yet revealed. However, my gut tells me that 815 will never agree to a true Primatial Vicar, answerable to the Primates, not to the Presiding Bishop.

Just when I start to think things finally had hit bottom, we go a little deeper…...

I think “mugsie” has a really good point.

Keep praying…

I believe Duncan+, Iker+ and Ackerman are present. I also think they will depart soon after the ABC concludes his presentation. if not before.

I agree with the “everyone relax” sentiment.  Remember how horribly bleak Tanzania looked for the first few days?  It was really, really bad.

Relaxation is no excuse for not paying attention, though.

Actually, what I found most interesting was the ad on the right hand side of the linked page—the one that says “The Episcopal Church Wants You”, and calls for nominations for Executive Council, Standing Committees, etc.  The ad directs applicants to respond to a website run by none other than Louie Crew.  That says a lot about who holds the real power in the church.

Sorry. Got my +‘s in the wrong place.

Id rather not say, it’s not that they are dumb, but that they seem to uphold Satan at a higher regard then God. If it was God they wholly loved and worshipped, then they would never allow their names to stand for this. Let’s wait and see how this all unravels, but what I’ve read so far states that this is KJS’s idea of APO for all dioceses who don’t want to deal with her. Like someone said above, it’s not about her, but about the false teaching of the church as a whole. She just hasn’t grasped that. She’s the leader of the heretics in the church and is clearly not a Christian in her own public declaration of faith.

Matt:  My reaction to the ENS story is that this simply cannot be the complete picture of the AEO plan.  If Stanton and Howe (both ACN bishops as well as CA bishops) folded this quickly on oversight, then there is no hope for anything.

I frankly think that KJS canvassed some bishops who might be interested and willing to participate in an unspecified AEO plan which might be hammered out at the meeting, and is now posting those names.  I believe that the names are being posted for a specific reason, and that that reason might not be the one most of us think it is.  FWIW, I think that the names may be posted to “soften up” the liberal bishops to an AEO plan.

I might be wrong, but I would very surprised if KJS attempted such a brazen rejection of the Communique this early and was supported in this rejection by leading ACN bishops.

Some deep breaths may be helpful here…

N,B & S,

Yes, but there ++Peter put his foot down, here its ++ Rowan and the PSC.  All things are possible, but the odds are not in our favor.

RSB

Comment by Jim Naughton on Episcopal cafe:

I don’t want to overreact to this, but it would seem that the conservative bloc in the House has been split. If Jim Stanton, founder of the American Anglican Council, John Howe, former rector of Truro and “Windsor bishops” Gary Lillibridge, Michael Smith and Geralyn Wolfe have accepted the model of alternative primatial presence being offered here by the Presiding Bishop, then the hardline separatists like Duncan and Iker have been marginalized.

I would agree with him that “it would seem” so and I think this announcement is meant to do exactly that, make people THINK that a “split” has happened. But that is not necessarily so.

From the announcement:

Robertson said all have agreed to serve as official “episcopal visitors” (the lowercase adjective referring generally to bishops and their ministries rather than the church’s denomination), or to provide “Delegated Episcopal Pastoral Oversight” (DEPO)

“OR”  It’s clear there are a number of these 8 who would not accept being just “visitors”. They accepted with the provision that they are acting with Primatial Authority. It is still DEPO but I think some of the Bishops would say that KJS’ authority stops at her delegating her authority to them. In any case this wasn’t a “hey this is the answer” idea that’s for sure.

I think overall this is mostly a PR move.

There are some good people on the list, but I can’t take it seriously if +MacPherson isn’t buying it.  He’s the truest “Windsor” bishop, IMO, as he engaged (and had his diocese engage) the whole process as written.
I don’t like all of the over-the-top WWII allusions on this thread.  More apt, I think, is a comparison to an Italian town in which the chief Rabbi, once a year, had to let the town’s Bishop kick him in the rear end.  Sad but sacrificial for the good of people he cared about (and certainly more Christ-like, symbolically, than the Bishop!).
Look, if things plow ahead, it just makes it clear that those desiring unfettered Christian orthodoxy must leave TEC.  Any of us who stay will have to ape the Rabbi and endure regular humiliation.

Rocks, let’s see how this all unfolds. For me, there can’t be any oversight in any way, shape or form (no matter how distant) from KJS. She is plainly not a true Christian and is not qualified in the Lord’s eyes to lead his flocks on any level.

RSB—I hear you.  But I also don’t think the last word on this is going to come at the conclusion of the meeting in New Orleans.

N, B, & S,

Saddly, I believe you are right.  so instead of making the decision, pulling out the saw and taking the leg off, our good doctors of theology will patch it up and let it fester once again.  The gangrene will kill the paitent eventually, but, well, no one had to amputate.

RSB

Note that the ENS story is internally inconsistent.  The eight episcopal visitors are first described as implementing DEPO, which provides an alternative to the local diocesan bishop:

Robertson said all have agreed to serve as official “episcopal visitors” (the lowercase adjective referring generally to bishops and their ministries rather than the church’s denomination), or to provide “Delegated Episcopal Pastoral Oversight” (DEPO), an option provided by the House of Bishops’ March 2004 statement “Caring for All the Churches” and a concept affirmed by the General Convention in 2006.

Later they are described as substitutes for the Presiding Bishop:

The Presiding Bishop’s invitation to the eight bishops “offers opportunities for dioceses to have an episcopal visitor other than herself,” Robertson said.

I doubt the plan, whatever it is, is that incoherent.  There must be more to it.

I’m not trying to butt in here as an elf, but I see several comments that are very incorrect:

1. Lawrence Wells writes:
What bishops are absent from this meeting?  Duncan, Iker, Schofield,
Ackerman?  Any others?
To my knowledge all or most Network bishops are present.  I know +Duncan and +Iker are definitely there.

2. dw stroud wrote:
I see no recognizable specifically Camp Allen person on the list

+Wolf was at the first Camp Allen meeting.  +Lillibridge helped ORGANIZE them!  +Howe & +Stanton are not only Camp Allen, but Network.

Initial thoughts:
—- This does not constitute treason nor (in itself) collaboration.
—- Nor does it do much to solve the larger problems.
—- I doubt many orthodox congregations would take comfort from Bps. Lillibridge and Henderson.

This is what Jim Naughton would like to believe:
“If Jim Stanton, founder of the American Anglican Council, John Howe, former rector of Truro and “Windsor bishops” Gary Lillibridge, Michael Smith and Geralyn Wolfe have accepted the model of alternative primatial presence being offered here by the Presiding Bishop, then the hardline separatists like Duncan and Iker have been marginalized.”

I hardly believe this is the case since the primates are solidly behind the bp.s he names as marginalized.  Second, how is it that two Network bishops signing on to an 815 proposal marginalizes the rest of the Network?  This sounds more like hopeful thinking on Naughton’s part since he gives not one shred of evidence to support his supposition.

“She is plainly not a true Christian and is not qualified in the Lord’s eyes to lead his flocks on any level. “

excuse me, I think your arrogance is showing.
Romans Chapter 2

Righteousness:

Jesus: And who do you say that I am?

+KJS: Well J., I think you are one of several, if not many, expressions of the divine.  I mean if you want to go around with that “I am…”  line of yours that’s your business, but I believe that puts God in a very small box.

RSB

NB&S;& others have it.  Don’t confuse the opening gambit as the end of the chess game. 

Comments here remind me too of the early Dar news.  Seriously, if you can’t stomach the sausage making, you might want to log off or merely lurk for a couple of days.

Loved this morning’s Gospel from the lectionary. 
http://bible.oremus.org/?passage=Matthew+5:1-10
What a day for the Sermon on the Mount.  Let’s all follow the Lord’s command and bless the meek and peacemakers wherever we find them. And, blessings to all who are poor in spirit & those who mourn.  For whatever reason.

Peace, lots of it,

Reading the rest of the ENS story is worthwhile.  As stated:

Jefferts Schori’s invitation to the eight bishops seeks to delegate the first of three primary canonical duties of the Presiding Bishop, that of visiting each of the Episcopal Church’s 110 dioceses during each Presiding Bishop’s nine-year term….
The Presiding Bishop’s invitation to the eight bishops “offers opportunities for dioceses to have an episcopal visitor other than herself,” Robertson said [the Presiding Bishop’s canon, the Rev. Dr. Charles Robertson].
“This gives dioceses the pastoral guidance and care they need while remaining faithful and loyal members of the Episcopal Church ,” he said [my emphasis]. “It is also the Presiding Bishop’s hope that at some point in the future she would be invited to visit these dioceses.”

How bizarre.  The PB farms out her task of “calling on” diocesan bodies because she’s not welcomed by all of them.  No mention of Primates’ plan for Primatial Vicar.  And a very different plan than that for PV, too, since the oversight and accountability for “episcopal vistors” structurally ends with ++KJS. 

Is there some Anglican history to that phrase “episcopal visitor” of which I am unaware?  It doesn’t imply something as weighty as, say, apostolic oversight.  Frankly, the term reminds of me of slang once used by tween-aged girls to inform their friends that they were “after the manner of women,” as in, “Hey, I’ve got my visitor.” [Sorry if I’m being too earthy for this crowd.]

Seriously, if you can’t stomach the sausage making, you might want to log off or merely lurk for a couple of days.

Thank you MS!!!

I am suspicious of anyone who claims to be able to see through God’s eyes.  But I always keep in mind:
“1 There is therefore no excuse for you, those of you who judge your neighbour; for by judging your neighbour, you also condemn yourself; for you that judge are practising the same things. 2 And in regard to those who practice these things we know that the judgment of Alaha is in accordance with truth. 3 And those of you who judge those who practise these things, while practising them yourself, do you think that you will escape the judgment of Alaha? 4 Or will you abuse the riches of his kindness, and his long suffering, and the opportunity which he gives you? And do you not know that the kindness of Alaha should lead you to repentance?”

Righteousness,
“arrogance” is what those who don’t accept God’s Word as truth like to call our proclamation of the “truth”. I’m not offended in the least. If anything, I wonder if I hit a sore spot. If so, there may be hope for you yet.

What I said here:

“She is plainly not a true Christian and is not qualified in the Lord’s eyes to lead his flocks on any level. “

is the truth. I heard KJS, herself, state publicly that she believes that there are “many paths” to salvation. That is NOT Biblical “truth” but heretical “lies”. Jesus says very clearly that “only through Him” can we find salvation. (John 14:6 - I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one can come to the Father except through me.) Those are the words you need to know and believe, my good friend, if you want salvation and eternal life.

If you don’t like my direct statements of faith in God’s Word, then you might want to ask yourself just why that is. Whenever I hear direct statements of faith in God’s Word come from others I find that so wonderful. It shows me I have another wonderful brother or sister who is truly a child in Christ.

I stand behind what I said earlier in the thread. KJS (with her current statement of faith) is not qualified to lead any of God’s children. Now, if she was to repent and truly accept Jesus as her one and only Savior and the only way to salvation, then I would alter my opinion on that. But, as it stands right now, no way!!!!! She doesn’t accept the authority of Scriptures and the whole church she leads is teaching those lies right now. That is heretic, apostate, and wicked, and satanic, and whatever else you want to call it. BUT, it is not the “truth.”

Mugsie

As someone who was confirmed by +Coleridge, I take exception to and rebuke the blanket judgment and name-calling going on about these bishops.  It’s disgraceful.  We might have specific complaints about each one, but the condemnation is uncalled for.

That said, I agree that the proposition is wholly inadequate, at least for those like me, stuck in a revisionist diocese.  (And I assume for the APO dioceses as well.)  The HoB DEPO plan has already been dismissed as inadequate, so why bother appointing DEPO bishops?  The CT6 could have already had +Coleridge as a DEPO bishop; it was the system that was unsuitable, not the man.

I can only speak knowledgeably about B. Lillibridge. I can assure you he is no “traitor” and also is no “collaborator”. Per the comment “they are only trying to do something to save their church”........right on at least in his case. Any orthodox diocese who doesn’t care for oversite from the PB would be lucky to chose him. He has no truck with the “new theology” of TEC and has since consecretion fully supported each parish and each individual parishioner’s right to designate whether the portion of their diocesan appointionment going for outreach would go to TEC or to mission work outside the diocese. The diocese didn’t win any friends at 815 with that decision and the decision to reduce the outreach portion of the budget to 3+% of which only a small portion ultomately went to TEC after the designations were tabulated. Seems many on this blog are quick to judge but slow to listen. Obviously, any compliance with the Dar Communique is going to require much more then this but it could be the start of a miracle. They do happen with God’s Grace.

Thank you, DT. Miracles do indeed happen in God’s grace, and that’s what we are all praying for right now.

Connecticutian:

Shall we be nice then?  OK, given the opportunity to hold the PB’s feet to the fire and cring TEC back to some sort of orthodoxy one or more of these bishops folded like cheap suitcases.

In +Howe’s case he has continually written about waiting to see what could be worked out in this meeting.  He seems to have cut his onw deal before the meeting even started.

You may take offense, sir, but these bishops are surely giving it.

RSB

For the person who asked about the history of the term “episcopal visitor,” I believe all of the Religious Communities have one.  You know, all the nuns and monks that most people forget we even have (personally, I love ‘em).  I think the religious communities have a long history of having said episcopal visitors come in to act as their bishops.  But it is my understanding that the communities still fall within the jurisdicition of the diocesan bishop for that area.

At least that’s the way it seems to have worked in Southern Ohio, where the Community of the Transfiguration has an episcopal visitor, but their chaplain is under the ecclessiastical authority of the Bishop of Southern Ohio.

If I’m wrong about this, some one please correct me.  I’m wondering if the proposal of the day is based on the system of episcopal visitors which serve our religious communities.

Righteousness,

I am suspicious of anyone who claims to be able to see through God’s eyes.

You know what? So am I! God has revealed to us in His Word who is qualified to lead His flock. KJS’s own public statement of faith has clearly disqualified her to lead the flock according to God’s Word.

“1 There is therefore no excuse for you, those of you who judge your neighbour; for by judging your neighbour, you also condemn yourself; for you that judge are practising the same things. 2 And in regard to those who practice these things we know that the judgment of Alaha is in accordance with truth. 3 And those of you who judge those who practise these things, while practising them yourself, do you think that you will escape the judgment of Alaha? 4 Or will you abuse the riches of his kindness, and his long suffering, and the opportunity which he gives you? And do you not know that the kindness of Alaha should lead you to repentance?”

As for judging, was I judging my neighbour when I quoted her own words and then stated that “in God’s eyes” she is not qualified to lead his flock? God has revealed to us in the Scriptures what is truth, and what is not. She is not qualified to lead his flock (with her current personal statement of faith). I have certainty of that. God is very clear in the scriptures about false teachers. The whole epistle of Jude is dedicated to that. KJS and any other clergy who teach what she teaches are false teachers. We are warned about them, to be on alert for them, and to refute their teaching with the “truth.”

So, I stand by what I said above. She can’t (in her current statement of faith) lead any of God’s children. She is not qualified according to the scriptures. So, as to the topic of this thread, she cannot delegate any DEPO, or APO that ultimately leads back to her.

I’ll be watching closely to see how this all unfolds. I pray that a miracle is in the works and that God, somehow, in all His almighty power, will free us from TEC’s current direction and teachings.

Mugsie

Doubting Thomas, Connecticutian, MS and others – Respectfully, I see little panic or lack of stomach for sausage-making in the comments here.  What I’m reading is criticism - of the plan, of some of the people and of the judgment of the people in being involved in the plan.

I believe that criticism to be fair game – and fair.

Admittedly, this is a small part of the final picture, but keep in mind that we’re not reacting to a rumor.  Though it may not ultimately be accepted by the HOB, this is a real plan.  It’s sourced to ECUSA’s house organ, which explicitly tells us:

- This is Mrs. Schori’s plan;
- These eight bishops have agreed to participate in her plan (which is collaboration, by the definition of the word);
- The plan is limited to DEPO, which was long ago rejected by those that actually need alternate oversight, or even the lesser function of just showing up in each diocese to say hello sometime over the next eight years;
- Mrs. Schori expects to be invited to every diocese anyway;
- Acceptance of the plan means loyalty to the Schori/Beers-led ECUSA.

Honestly, the judgment, or at least awareness, of any bishop that agreed to participate in this scheme has to be in question.  A cursory examination of the news over the past four years, let alone the discussion with bishops actually seeking oversight that should have happened prior to proposing something, would have made it clear that this is a waste of time.

Does this protect anybody if GC09 passes a resolution requiring gay “marriages” to be celebrated in all dioceses?  Does it protect anybody’s witness in terms of having to answer for leaders that don’t think it matters if you place your trust in Jesus or the Buddha?  If Pittsburgh signed on, would it protect the diocese if David Booth Beers told Mrs. Schori to depose +Duncan?  No, no and no.  I know it, you know it, and Brookhart, Henderson, Howe, Lillibridge, Smith, Stanton, Wolf and Coleridge know it.  So, we have a responsibility to offer our opinions.  I don’t mind watching sausage being made, but if they’re making apple chicken and I want hot Italian, I need to speak up before they fill the casing.

Thanks for your post, Phil. I respectfully agree.

Mugsie

Friends,

If you have not guessed, the SF crew is otherwise disposed so we cannot monitor threads as closely as we generally do. This one seems to be veering into dangerous territory. It is just fine to criticise the plan and the participants of the plan for their participation. But the criticism must not be of the person but of the persons actions. If you think it is a betrayal of some kind to participate in this plan, fine, but express that without ad-hominem.

Second, it is important to recognize that it is very early yet. We do not know the details behind the participation of various Camp Allen bishops in this plan. Until we do, again, it might be good to keep the powder dry. We do not know precisely what they were asked to do or how they were asked to do it.

I want free flowing debate…not diatribe.

Be careful. Warnings are in the offing…

I have suspected for sometime now that Stanton would act in this way.  For all his talk, yes, TALK, his actions show his true colors.  He’s a company man, through and through.

Reconciliation here is merely the act of staying in a locked room with an aggressive contagion.

Bah.

From Babyblue:

Also learned that some of those eight bishops did not know that they were going to be announced by Schori as DEPO Revisited. Schori did not take any questions, just announced the eight bishops and moved on. John Howe did know about it and mentioned at the Windsor Bishops meeting last night. But apparently there are others who did not know.

It’s pretty clear this release from ENS is inaccurate and premature. At best there has been discussion. This was either a puff piece to garner good press or a trial balloon but it doesn’t seem to be serious IMHO. Maybe it is KJS’ resolution to be debated along with the 4 others that have been mentioned.

I take the points that (1) it is early days and (2) especially that we should be praying.  But Naughton, in my opinion, spells it out pretty clearly.  The words “alternative primatial presence” in his post seem to indicate that (1) KJS is the Primate and none others will be allowed here and (2) this is about presence, not oversight.  Please let me know if/why I’m mistaken.

I’m still praying for a miracle!

Heres how I think it went:
Schori calls the eight bishops individually and asks if they would serve as some sort of DEPO if agreement can be reached.
Faced with an offer they can’t refuse, all respond yes, and all ask what about the details?
Schori responds we will handle that later. Thank you for your willingness to serve.
Schori issues exclusive press release to ENS.
Mission accomplished.

Grandmother aka Granie gloria writes:

Is it possible, these 8 could be for the “reappraisers”?  or the progressive, seems to me they would ALL fit the bill nicely, seeing as none of them “seem” to have taken a stand on either side of the fence?

Grannie gloria (currently stuck in Norfolk VA , sans bookmarks, email addresses, and a even decent computer).

I skimmed through the comments to see if someone would comment this way. I rather thought these could fill the role for those oppressed in the dangerous five dioceses. One of my first thoughts was that some of the people need some episcopal relief!

Sorry you’re “stuck in Norfolk”

SVa1

Folks, hang on! We’re still waiting to see how they address DES requirements. They can revive DEPO, ALPO, and the GoGos, but unless it meets DES requirements, then its the end of the road.

Mugsie,

You wrote, “Widening Grove, I agree that name calling is not appropriate.” Uh, the name is Widening Gyre. Are you calling me names?

Next up, you wrote, “However, these bishops are NOT our brothers and sisters in Christ of they don’t accept the authority of His Word. To reject the Word of God is to reject God, Himself.  No true Christian can allow leadership over them by any false teacher. That’s the bottom line!!!” Uh, to quote the late great 20th Century Theologian Lloyd Dobler, You Must Chill!  Do you know any of the Elite Eight? Have you read anything by or about them?  I think it’s a bit over the top to start accusing this group of rejecting the Word of God (which is what you have impliedly done in your little rant).  We get that you don’t like the plan, fine.  But don’t let your zeal get in the way of your compassion. 

And I kinda think Matt is really agreeing with me more than he is with you with his whole watch what your saying post.  Peace.

The_Elves (or elfs, as in the proofs of Tolkien before he corrected them?),
thanks for the information :

2. dw stroud wrote:
I see no recognizable specifically Camp Allen person on the list

+Wolf was at the first Camp Allen meeting.  +Lillibridge helped ORGANIZE them!  +Howe & +Stanton are not only Camp Allen, but Network.

I hereby promise to no longer use Sarah’s elf recipes…..................
except on very special occasions.

Thanks for the reality check Matt. As you said, it’s very early in the process and all we know is the names of the participants but nothing about the process. The readers seem to have so much pent up frustration and anger (certainly understandable after the last 4 years) that anything remotely resembling the handy work of 815 or the PB lights everyone’s fuse! The point is that several on the list of eight are solid Windsor bishops who have pledged themselves to remain fully constituent members of the Anglican Communion and who do not deserve the blanket condemnation being heaped upon them. Take a deep breath. It’s going to be a long 7 days!

As I commented <a >over here</a>:

Bishop Jefferts Schori’s invitation to the eight bishops seeks to delegate the first of three primary canonical duties of the Presiding Bishop, that of visiting each of The Episcopal Church’s 110 dioceses during each Presiding Bishop’s nine-year term. The Presiding Bishop’s other two principal canonical roles are to “take order” for ordaining and consecrating bishops, and to oversee certain disciplinary actions as needed.

This is a complete non-starter, of course, since a primary concern of the <acronym title=“The Windsor Report, a communion-wide attempt to address the Episcopal crisis”>Windsor</acronym> (not to mention Network) bishops is to escape <acronym title=“Episcopal Church headquarters at 815 Second Ave, New York, NY”>815</acronym>’s threats and legal/canonical harrassment—as the Dar arrangement provides.
<acronym title=“Episcopal Church headquarters at 815 Second Ave, New York, NY”>815</acronym>’s chutzpah would be unbelievable, except that we’ve seen so much of it over the last few years that we’ll—or at least I’ll—believe nearly anything…
<hr width=40%>
The best advice here is to chill.  We know that at least one of the bishops on the list had no idea he’d appear there; his inclusion was apparently based on an answer to a casual question some time ago as to whether he was willing to help out orthodox congregations.  815 is desperate to split the orthodox camp (which admittedly may not be a great challenge); let’s in any case not help Beers/Bruno along by jumping to conclusions.

Widening “Gyre”,
I apologize. I must have typed your name wrong. I had no idea I did that. Thanks for bringing that to my attention. By no means was I calling you names. I actually had to stop and think “widening grove”?? Where did I type something like that?

As to your comment about knowing the “elite eight”, no, I don’t. However, I do believe that if they consent to any part of the plan that has been publicized so far, then I have serious concerns about their abilities to accept and convey the truth of the scriptures. Here is what I said “However, these bishops are NOT our brothers and sisters in Christ IF they don’t accept the authority of His Word. To reject the Word of God is to reject God, Himself.” The key word in my phrasing was “if”. IF they don’t accept the authority of His Word, then they are not true brothers and sisters in Christ. That is the truth. That in no way condemns any of the 8 bishops mentioned on KJS’s list. It only expresses a concern about what they MAY believe and whether they are going to defend the truth or not. Nothing else was implied there.

I’ve also stated a few times in other posts that I’m waiting to see how this unfolds. I don’t know any more about this than what I’ve been able to find publicized today. I have no idea if this is KJS’s idea of APO, etc. Like everyone else out there, I’m dependent on the press, and I’m waiting for verification of the facts.

I won’t comment on who Matt agrees with. Only he knows the answer to that.

Peace! (couldn’t get the smileys to work here)

Righteousness:

What is Alaha?????

Bill

And regarding Righteousness’ comment about not judging KJS’ relationship with the Lord, R.S. Bunker says it perfectly:

Jesus: And who do you say that I am?

+KJS: Well J., I think you are one of several, if not many, expressions of the divine.  I mean if you want to go around with that “I am…” line of yours that’s your business, but I believe that puts God in a very small box.

Hang in there Mugsie!   

Thanks Bill C. I’m trying. Trying to juggle lots of things today and still keep up with the developments is a daunting task. The Lord is with me so I know I’ll learn what He wants me to learn today.

Many blessings to you!

Mugsie - you aren’t the only one not to get the smileys working.  BUT if you type in some of the ususal ones old-style without spaces some of them come through

Like ; - ) without the spaces becomes which is our favorite!

Test!

Didn’t work. Oh well. Smiles to you all anyway

Yeah, it worked!

Love you guys!

Thanks!

It seems they both came through in the end.

Thanks Lakeland Two!

You’re welocme! 

Bishop Howe is my bishop. Oh, say it isn’t so! This is why he’s said some of the things recently? I hope the Standing Committee stands its ground at the next meeting in Central Florida. I just can’t see this.