Comments: APO document published

I read the 'evidence' for their unhappiness with the PB-elect, and all I can see in her answers to questions, her comments, that they cite with averted eyes and quivering hearts, is evidence that she stands firmly in the progressive center of TEC.

She's for inclusion of all of God's children, for feeding the hungry, caring for the homeless, prisoners, the ill - WOW! What a shock! Are the quivering hearts all for keeping food from the hungry, water from the thirsty, keeping the homelsss out of shelter? Is THAT what they mean by their so-called 'orthodoxy?'

And she probably didn't cite Dame Julian in her sermon because she thought educated Episcopalians would recognize the source.

My late mother would look at that document and say, what a lot of prissy old women they are!

Posted by Cynthia Gilliatt at Saturday, 9 September 2006 at 6:04pm BST

This is wonderful!
The list of “allegations” against the American PB-elect is the best thing I’ve read since “1066 and All That” when I was eleven and it seems to be written in a similar vein – but, wait a moment ……. Perhaps this is itself a spoof! A spoof written by Fr Jake or Salty Vicar to pour opprobrium on the dissident bishops of TEC and make them appear witless and feeble – I do hope not!!
If it is the real thing - I can only imagine the guffaws of laughter coming from a study deep within the ancient walls of that fortress palace on the South bank of Father Thames.

Posted by Martin Reynolds at Saturday, 9 September 2006 at 7:18pm BST

Call it "chromosomal politics".

The PB-Elect doesn't have a Y chromosome. She believes that faithful Episcopalian *couples* may have 1, 2, or none.

On this basis, does the APO minority demand its effective independence, from the democratic (and Godly!) polity under which they were constituted as *Episcopal* dioceses... :-(

Posted by J. C. Fisher at Saturday, 9 September 2006 at 7:20pm BST

It certainly puts conservative criticism of the document ECUSA presented to the ACC in Nottingham in a new light :-)

Posted by Simon Sarmiento at Saturday, 9 September 2006 at 8:00pm BST

And what do you suppose they would think of that radical document, the Magnificat? Oh well - the left-wing unorthodox ramblings of another mere woman, I guess.

Posted by Cynthia Gilliatt at Saturday, 9 September 2006 at 8:09pm BST

I especially love how one of their two quotes from +KJS that they label "On B033" is from an interview for The Witness in April -- months before B033 was so much as a twinkle in +Dorsey Henderson's eye!

Posted by Sarah Dylan Breuer at Saturday, 9 September 2006 at 8:13pm BST

Wow. The list of the PB-elect's quotes sure is damning...nothing like theologically sound, reasonable, mature reflection to make someone look like a heretic.


Posted by Aaron at Saturday, 9 September 2006 at 9:24pm BST

True, Simon – quite true!
I take it all back!!

Posted by Martin Reynolds at Saturday, 9 September 2006 at 10:06pm BST

This all so very odd -- a rejection of the authority of the Genereal Convention of The Episcopal Church as legally constituted from its inception. Dioceses are not independent entities that can (or cannot) be in communion with Canterbury apart from The Episcopal Church. They are part of The Episcopal Church whose authoritative body (i.e., the Genrral Convention) creates, divides or suppresses them. Diocesan property is held in trust for the national church (just as parishes do not own their property as individual congregations).

One would think that somebody in these dioceses would know these basic facts.

Posted by Prior Aelred at Saturday, 9 September 2006 at 11:48pm BST

I haven't seen such pearl-clutching since the Joan Crawford marathon on American Movie Classics!

Posted by New Here at Sunday, 10 September 2006 at 12:08am BST

I like how the citations list is almost entirely online resources. And frankly, we all have a limited understanding of the Reign of God, "Eye has not seen, nor ear heard what the Father has prepared for those who love Him."

Posted by Caelius Spinator at Sunday, 10 September 2006 at 12:13am BST

It is nice to have a detailed, explicit list published - (but IS this absolute and comprehensive? Classical? Orthodox enough to stand unaltered, even for nine years? A veritable Malleus Maleficarum?) - of all the various alleged ways the PB-elect does not meet new conservative muster.

Otherwise, who would have guessed that she was anything other than a gifted, intelligent woman, with a big big heart and a big big mind, chosen ever so prayerfully and ever so wisely to lead us by the GC delegates? Imagine, hoodwinking all those intelligent, caring people at GC - including all the new conservative TEC bishops who voted for her as PB. It would boggle the common sense mind if it were not so palpably, obviously, conservatively replete with what comedian Stephen Colbert calls, Truthiness.

I am looking forward to looking back on all this, nine years or so from now. You know, when all the new conservative predictions that TEC will become nothing but a New Age Coven of pagan believers have been put to the slightly longer test.

You go girl. If these people dislike you so much, you must be doin somethin right.

Posted by drdanfee at Sunday, 10 September 2006 at 1:57am BST

Earlier this evening I posted an excerpt from these documents to the Episcopal Voices of Central Florida website.

Several people have asked to see the evidence that the document titled "Concerns About the Presiding Bishop" is real. They also wonder whether the Bishop of Central Florida is in fact connected with it. I hope that some on this list will be able to provide answers to that question.

I have also given them a link to the "Connecticut Six" website, on which the document originally appeared, and I will post this question on other websites which have linked to the document.

Posted by Charlotte Pressler at Sunday, 10 September 2006 at 3:36am BST

“ …submitted to what the Anglican Communion has taught.”

How is this? The Anglican Communion is not a legal subject, nor has it ever been a teaching body.

“Are the seven dioceses, all Network Dioceses, “constituent members of the Anglican Communion?””

Every time the word “constituent member” is used, there is deceptive word-play at work:

Nowadays 38 Anglican church Provinces, formerly (mostly) British Colonies, around the world _constitute_ the Communion of Anglican churches.

These 38 churches/Provinces (and only these 38) may be called _members_ of the Anglican Communion of churches.

Of the 38 Provinces or churches, 4 are _constituent members_ which is that they f o u n d e d the Anglican Communion in 1867, agreeing upon the first Lambeth Conference to be held that year (incidentally, the Communion only just was an Anglican-Lutheran Communion, for the Archbishop of Upsala was invited but declined).

The 4 _constituent members_ of the Anglican Communion are the Church of England and the Canadian church, its daughter (which was made a church organization of its own that same year, upon the change of status of Canada from British Colony to the Dominion of Canada), and the Episcopal church of Scotland and its daughter church the American Episcopal church.

These 4 churches (and only these 4) are the _constituent members_ of the Anglican Communion. No one else.

“Are the seven dioceses, all Network Dioceses, “in communion with the See of Canterbury?””

It follows from the above, that the 7 Network dioceses (along with all other Anglican dioceses) are not _members_ of the Anglican Communion in their own right, nor are they immediately “in communion with the See of Canterbury” but only mediately, through being dioceses of their own church/Province.

I follows equally, that the 7 Network dioceses are not immediately _members_ of the Anglican Communion, but only mediately, as long as part of their Province, one of the 4 _constituent members_ of the Anglican Communion of Churches.

Posted by Göran Koch-Swahne at Sunday, 10 September 2006 at 7:35am BST

Of their concerns with the PB, item lists #2 and #4 made me snort my Scotch! How very.....well, two faced. As to her not sharing a commitment to the Archbishop's vision of a covenant, well, I get the feeling she's in the majority on that one.

Posted by Ford Elms at Sunday, 10 September 2006 at 10:15pm BST

Having reviewed Appendix C, let me say how very happy and impressed I am that the bishops of the church, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, had the discernment to choose this remarkable women to head our church -- we are truly blessed.

How can people refuse to see that this is the Gospel of Jesus that they are rejecting? It truly baffles me!

Posted by Prior Aelred at Sunday, 10 September 2006 at 10:54pm BST

I think it's quite interesting that the report wants to begin with the Baptismal Covenant, especially since most Anglicans don't know it at all, and those who do know it (including the Church of England, where it is used in Common Worship) don't use it in the same way. I've reflected on that on my blog at and at Since the Common Cause statement put forward by the Anglican Communion Network focuses on the 1662 Book of Common Prayer, which certainly did not include the Baptismal Covenant, wonder at the choice. It seems to suggest that they indeed want to both inside and outside the Episcopal Church, as do their comments on Consitution and Canons.

They seem to establish a hierarchy among the clauses of the Covenant. They especially want to separate "Apostolic teaching and fellowship" from its expression in "seeking and serving Christ in all persons." Most of us would not see them as separate at all. Today's epistle in the Lectionary of the 1979 Prayer Book was from James: "Show me your faith apart from works, and I by my works will show you my faith." That seems apt in the face of trying to separate the content of faith from seeing it expressed in the world. But that is the consequence of separating the clauses of the Covenant, rather than seeing them as integrally related.

Posted by Marshall Scott at Sunday, 10 September 2006 at 11:39pm BST

It also appears to me that the Seven Bishops have not been listening very carefully to the Archbishop, who has said time and again that he will do nothing -- and feels he _cannot_ do anything -- outside the existing legal structures of the existing churches; hence this call for a meeting among those who can actually try to make some make-do effort under the Sir Humphrey-like watchful eye of a representative from England.

Speaking of which, this all does seem to resemble a lost episode of Yes, Minister in its own perverse way; particularly the tortures suffered by the English language in the efforts to twist ++KJS's language into the vilest heresy (worhty of schism), and to nuance the already highly nuanced prose of ++Rowan into a stark declaration of independence.

I still pray for a good outcome; and do not think the Dissatisfied Seven have done themselves any service with this Appeal to an authority who has already said, "Who set me to be a judge or arbitrator over you?"

Posted by Tobias Haller at Monday, 11 September 2006 at 12:08am BST

I'm about to reiterate my earlier appeal. The liberals and moderates of the Diocese of Central Florida absolutely refuse to believe that their bishop, John Howe, had anything to do with the "Appeal to the Archbishop of Canterbury." They believe it is an Internet hoax. They insist that their bishop would never, never say such things.

I have tried in vain to convince them that the "Appeal" is a real document and that their bishop really signed off on it.

So: could some of you usually reliable sources say something that might convince them otherwise?

I am of course intrigued as well as baffled by their response -- the term "Stockholm Syndrome" comes to mind.

Posted by Charlotte Pressler at Monday, 11 September 2006 at 1:49am BST

Wow! Thanks to the CT Six for convincing me that I will TRULY love having this woman as my PB! What a magnificent summary of all that I believe and stand for, in both the spiritual and temporal universes! I wonder how similarly pleased the ABC will be with this list of.....whatever? Certainly sounds like the way he used to (?) express his own convictions. Thanks CT Six!!!

Posted by Jeremy at Monday, 11 September 2006 at 4:32am BST

Really there are only 3 constituent members of the Communion. The "Church of England in the Dominion of Canada" (now the "Anglican Church of Canada") did not come into independent existence until 1893, the first Canadian General Synod. In 1867 Anglicanism in the new Dominion of Canada consisted of the Province of Canada (Ontario, Quebec and the Maritimes) and the Province of Rupert's Land (the West), both overseas provinces of the CofE.

Posted by Jim Pratt at Monday, 11 September 2006 at 4:07pm BST
Post a comment

Remember personal info?

Please note that comments are limited to 400 words. Comments that are longer than 400 words will not be approved.

Cookies are used to remember your personal information between visits to the site. This information is stored on your computer and used to refill the text boxes on your next visit. Any cookie is deleted if you select 'No'. By ticking 'Yes' you agree to this use of a cookie by this site. No third-party cookies are used, and cookies are not used for analytical, advertising, or other purposes.