In re: Bishop Duncan's address at Nashotah House, I am intrigued by his use of the phrase "Recovery of an Anglican Magisterium." I suspect he really means the invention of one, though I'm happy to be corrected.

Primarily, have Anglicans ever used the term "magisterium" outside of ecumenical conversation, so can we truly recover something that is not part of our discourse? At any rate, the word doesn't appear in the index of Sykes' and Booty's "The Study of Anglicanism."

Second, the Bishop rightly explains Hooker's ordering of Scripture, Reason, and Tradition, but then says Scripture is to be interpreted 'in the plain sense.' That's not part of Hooker's famous quote from Laws, Book 5, 8:2. Rather, Hooker says, "What Scripture doth plainly deliver.. . ." I can understand that a bit differently.

Third, while he appeals to Scripture as the ultimate magisterium, he defends his support for the ordination of women by appealing to the magisterium of the Global South bishops. (Paraphrasing, "They agree that there are two integrities, so it's OK.) Thus, the Global South are the Magisterium rightly interpreting Scripture and declaring the boundaries among which differences can co-exist. Apparently Lambeth's decision was not the final word for the Bishop. Interesting.

Finally, I'm also intrigued with the absolute fascination Bishop Duncan and his cohorts have for the BCP 1662. That hasn't been the governing book for the United States since 1789 (or even earlier). So, did we start our path to error by embracing the Scottish prayer of consecration? Is the 1928 the epitome of ultimate apostasy and the '79 beyond the pale? I suspect not.

There is as much twisting and turning in these remarks as the Bishop and his cohorts accuse their liberal counterparts of.

Oh, and don't even get me started on the divorces present amongst conservative bishops calling for division and an end to the generosity of GC 1973's acceptance of divorce.

Dirk C. Reinken

I found the words "unifying" and "authentic" bemusing. It is unifying to ask for alternative oversight i.e. to form an alternative? "Authentic" infers that the existing church is not and that only their interpretation is.

Again we look at a move to stifle diversity and claim that this being done on legitimate "unifying" tenets.

Much more palatable than contemplating that they are "high control" freaks who like things their way. Or else they will sabotage and slander that which does not grovel in its flattery to their "perfect" paradigms. Most especially, if it is going to encourage women or other souls to defend themselves.

There is, after all, the possiblity that they might have to actually work to keep the house in order e.g. help with the dishes, childcare, environment, the poor, the alien, the afflicted. Completely unsuitable for the "perfect" vessels of the truth and glory of God.

"So, did we start our path to error by embracing the Scottish prayer of consecration? Is the 1928 the epitome of ultimate apostasy and the '79 beyond the pale?"

I believe that the 1928 BCP was not well received by more conservative Episcopalians, and that one of the targets was the prayer for social justice included at the end of the book with other prayers for different occasions. It was found to be 'socialist' in content.

So I guess we have fallen far, far from the perfection of 1662.

I await with interest the use of this book and its prayers for the monarch - now Elizabeth but eventually her son and his wife, once mistress, divorced...

From the Dio Pittsburgh's Standing Committee Resolution (submitted to their dio convention, for action):

"WHEREAS, the Bishop and Standing Committee of the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh recognize that the 75th General Convention of the Episcopal Church has elected to walk apart from the Anglican Communion through its failure to submit to the call, the spirit or the requirements of the Windsor Report"

This is what leaves me gobsmacked. Who the heck is the Diocese of Pittsburgh, to have the *authority* to make such a (false!) "recognition"? :-0

As a member of the Diocese of Pittsburgh for nigh on 35 years, I am appalled by what this Bishop has done to a perfectly good Episcopal Diocese. It has become, in the words of a member of the ECUSA higher echelon, "a cult". If you could see how some of these people adore this Bishop, it would make you ill. It has made me ill, on many occasions. Please keep us in prayer, thank you!

Sue

Wrote Sue Boulden: "As a member of the Diocese of Pittsburgh for nigh on 35 years, I am appalled by what this Bishop has done to a perfectly good Episcopal Diocese."

I, too, am appalled by what the so-called Network bishops have done to the Episcopal Church, creating division... division... division. If it is not the inclusion of gays and lesbians in the Church, it is the ordination of women and their election to key offices in the Church, PB Katharine Jefferts Schori in particular, and/or the Prayer Book authorized by General Convention.

30+ years ago I was a priest in a diocese bordering on Dallas/Fort Worth. We used the 1928 BCB, which Dallas/Fort Worth despised as 'unacceptable', preferring instead the Anglican Missal. Deja vu...

Either clergy, including bishops, accept the authority of thee General Convention or, for the sake of honesty and personal integrity, leave for another more acceptable denomination, of which there are many out there; BUT don't attempt 'to steal the franchise'. That is being utterly dishonest. Hence I have no respect whatever for Bishops Duncan, 'spikey' Iker, Keith Ackerman, John David Schofield et al. The sooner they leave the better off all of us will be.