8/13/2004 9:06:51 PM
CHASM The five retired bishops scheduled to meet with Frank Griswold's Council of Advice over their "irregular" Ohio confirmations have cancelled the meeting. Seems Frank didn't want any outsiders to attend and the five bishops don't much care for star chambers:
Friday, August 13, 2004
Dear Bishop Griswold:
We, the undersigned bishops, regret that the meeting we had jointly arranged with the Council of Advice, to take place on 13 August, is not possible due to your refusal to have this be an open meeting with a small number of non-participating observers present. We feel strongly that a meeting of this importance should not be held in secret. There is a history of closed door meetings in the House of Bishops. Our distrust of closed meetings on vital issues, as well as our assessment of the gravity of the current crisis in this Church, compelled us to insist that our meeting with your Council of Advice include non-participating observers. We believe this planned meeting was a significant opportunity to establish clarity on core issues which are dividing our Church. We deeply regret that this meeting now will not take place.
We had hoped for an opportunity at this meeting to discuss the radical departures of the Episcopal Church from the Faith and Practice of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. We have tried fervently for many years to have an open and honest discussion in the House of Bishops about these departures from our historic Faith and Practice, but to no avail.
We regard these departures from the Faith, and their ramifications in the life of this Church we love, to have culminated in the actions of the General Convention of 2003. The most serious departure from the Faith at this recent Convention occurred when the House of Bishops refused to affirm the historic Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral of 1886, 1888, in a motion that was put forward to encourage the faithful members of this Church. We felt that it was imperative that the people of this Church be reassured that we the leaders of the Episcopal Church still believe:
(a) The Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, as “containing all things necessary to salvation,” and as being the rule and ultimate standard of the faith.
(b) The Apostle’s Creed, as the Baptismal Symbol; and the Nicene Creed, as the sufficient statement of the Christian faith.
(c) The two Sacraments ordained by Christ Himself - Baptism and the Supper of the Lord - ministered with unfailing use of Christ’s words of institution, and of the elements ordained by Him.
(d) The Historic Episcopate, locally adapted in the methods of its administration to the varying needs of the nations and peoples called of God into the unity of His Church.
(Quoted from pages 877 & 878 of the Book of Common Prayer)
Sadly, this resolution (B001) to affirm this historic statement of our Faith and Practice lost on a vote in the House of Bishops: 84 - No, 65 - Yes, 8 Abstentions. It is difficult to understand how bishops could vote against the faith they swore to uphold at their consecration. It has been reported that bishops did this for political reasons. If this is true, then this is in pitiful contrast to our predecessors who stood for the Faith, even in the face of death.
As a consequence of this action, as well as others at the 2003 Convention, along with other departures from the Faith in recent years, there is confusion and dismay among many faithful Episcopalians. The Episcopal Church has been declared out of Communion or in impaired Communion with the majority of our Anglican family. Thousands of people feel they are “like sheep without a shepherd”. Large numbers of clergy, congregations, and individuals have felt compelled by their conscience to leave the Episcopal Church. Still others remain but find themselves unable in good conscience to accept the pastoral care and Episcopal ministry of their diocesan bishops.
And yet, many bishops seem more concerned about Canons than about the Faith of the Church. Many bishops are taking stringent actions to punish clergy and congregations for being loyal to the faith in which they were nurtured for many years. We do certainly believe that Faith and Order are integral parts of one reality. However, the role of Order is to preserve, protect and defend the Faith of the Church, not just the territory and increasingly arbitrary actions of bishops. May the Lord have mercy on us!
We earnestly believe that our Lord Jesus Christ is calling the Episcopal Church to repent for abandoning much of the Faith “once delivered to the saints”. We pray that you, as our Presiding Bishop, will lead us all by your own repentance, as called for by most of the Primates of the Anglican Communion, so that this Church will repent and return to the Lord.
Yours in Christ Jesus,
The Rt. Rev. C. FitzSimons Allison
The Rt. Rev. Maurice M. Benitez
The Rt. Rev. William J. Cox
The Rt. Rev. Alex D. Dickson
The Rt. Rev. William C. Wantland
Posted by Christopher S. Johnson - 25 comments
Submitted by Chris on 8/13/2004 9:48:50 PM
|
|
Hmm, I won't hold my breath waiting for Griswold to justify his request that the meeting be held in private. Does he ever give press conferences where the media can ask him such questions?
|
Submitted by Dcn. Michael D. Harmon on 8/13/2004 10:09:12 PM
|
|
This is a statement of serious courage and faith. God still providing faithful bishops around which the faithful may rally.
|
Submitted by Sasha on 8/13/2004 11:13:49 PM
|
|
Bravissimo to those true shepherds & bishops of the faith!!! At least they knew better than to give the least possible opportunity for spinners to manipulate anything, which is what would have happened if the meeting were held without observers.
|
Submitted by Ken on 8/13/2004 11:50:53 PM
|
|
I don't know. One of them could always wear a wire, so if claims were later made...
|
Submitted by Mark on 8/13/2004 11:57:11 PM
|
|
Wow! How often do you find both a brain and a spine under the same mitre?! And to think that for a day or so there were five such bishops all in the same church building. When was the last time that happened - at Nicaea?
God can work miracles with five faithful bishops, I know He can.
|
Submitted by David+ on 8/14/2004 9:44:17 AM
|
|
Given Griswold's track record, especially with the Global Primates, I'd also insist on outside, neutral observers. And I pray the number five begins to grow into 10 and then 15....
|
Submitted by Southern Methodist on 8/14/2004 12:20:10 PM
|
|
I guess to fear God, you've got to believe in Him first. These five obviosly do. It's easy to despise those in the Church that have lead it astray, but just think what the consequenses of it will be. Even with the amount of soiled rags that I carry, I wouldn't want to be in their shoes...or as you folks would say "pointy hats".
I've often thought that "blasphemy of the Holy Spirit" was mainly for those that misled the Church.
|
Submitted by Gayle on 8/14/2004 2:52:54 PM
|
|
I know 3 of those 5 bishops and I respect them all. My concern is that they are retired bishops, some are quite elderly. Aren there any younger bishops of faith wi.th a brain and spine under the mitre left in ECUSA
|
Submitted by Duane on 8/14/2004 4:18:40 PM
|
|
I can think of some Catholic bishops that I'd like to depose and replace with these brave men.
|
Submitted by Sasha on 8/14/2004 4:38:18 PM
|
|
Ken, if a wire recording was used, the revisionists could then argue "entrapment" as well as saying that not everything was necessarily recorded - there are all sorts of tricks one can claim. When impartial witnesses are also present, it's much harder then to fight back.
|
Submitted by Sasha on 8/14/2004 4:48:15 PM
|
|
Duane, I've no doubt that you're right - alas, it seems that almost ALL Western Romanist and Protestant seminaries (presumably the Orthodox seminaries are so small and few that in this way - combined with their theological rigourousness - they've been able for the most part {not entirely - IIRC there was an Ukrainian Orthodox bishop of a minority sect who participated in VGR's "consecration"...:-( :-( :-(} to escape) are infected with these ideas. That's why we're getting such bad clergymen (and women, who I suspect almost certainly ought not to be there in the first place - it seems that those who are there have joined for the wrong reason whereas those who are worthy of joining {and I know of at least one such} don't care to do so!!)!!! Given that seminaries are usually affiliated with universities (which in this day and age are especially Godless, God-Hating and God-forsaken!!!), it's no surprise... [Perhaps as many as 80% of seminary teachers ought to be fired or worse...]
|
Submitted by bwk on 8/14/2004 6:17:19 PM
|
|
Bravo to the Ohio 5 !!
It is so refreshing to my spirit to hear bishops speak plainly, truthfully and straight forwardly. It is of course well known that bishops move diagonally. One is never sure which direction they are actually going. I was beginning to believe it was a genetic orientation thing necessary to become a bishop. These 5 break the mold. Praise the Lord!
|
Submitted by Mark AC on 8/14/2004 9:00:27 PM
|
|
Gayle-
I certainly can't speak for anyone officially, but I suspect that it is no accident that only older (that is, retired) bishops took part in this confirmation. If a sitting bishop did that, the revisionists would be able to bring him to trial for that violation of the canons. They would most likely love to have the chance to pick off a few of the orthodox bishops that way. Retired bishops could be brought to trial, too, but there's not much that a church court could do to them.
|
Submitted by Mark AC on 8/14/2004 9:01:13 PM
|
|
Gayle-
I certainly can't speak for anyone officially, but I suspect that it is no accident that only older (that is, retired) bishops took part in this confirmation. If a sitting bishop did that, the revisionists would be able to bring him to trial for that violation of the canons and removed from his diocese. They would most likely love to have the chance to pick off a few of the orthodox bishops that way. Retired bishops could be brought to trial, too, but there's not much that a church court could do to them.
|
Submitted by Ken on 8/14/2004 10:12:57 PM
|
|
Sasha -
I was being ironic, or maybe even sarcastic. At any rate, the intent was to be darkly humorous.
|
Submitted by J. Scott on 8/15/2004 1:34:12 AM
|
|
I suspect that it is no accident that only older (that is, retired) bishops took part in this confirmation.
Or this slapdown. Where were their alleged spines before they retired and the liberal wolves were dining regularly on mutton and lamb?!
|
Submitted by Sasha on 8/15/2004 2:04:05 AM
|
|
Mark AC and J.Scott: the very fact that only retired bishops can truly speak their minds and be truly orthodox in E"C"USA tells one everybody about in what state that cult (it's no longer deserving to be spoken of as a church or a denomination!) really is as far as Our Lord is concerned - just as bad as Laodikeia (even Duncan and the others - as well as the retirees - would be better off to renounce the group completely and let it die of its own putrefaction!), i.e., good for nothing!!! [Luther and the others knew how impossible it was for the Romanists to reform without first being shaken up by schism and war (including, sad to say, the Sack of Rome - only then did the nincompoop absentee "bishops", "cardinals", etc. start taking their jobs seriously, which then they truly did!).]
|
Submitted by John W. Cox on 8/15/2004 9:27:47 AM
|
|
Personally, I think this is a stupid decision. To outsiders, it will just look like the five are being obstructionists looking for an excuse not to meet, or for that matter, not wanting to be accountable for their actions. A courageous decision would have been entering the lion's den.
Nothing would have prevented them from taking notes of the meeting and, if they wanted, holding a press conference immediately afterwards.
|
Submitted by Duane on 8/15/2004 9:40:15 AM
|
|
Sasha,
It seems that diocesan seminaries (seminaries run by the diocese) are for the most part in good shape, the tragedy in the Catholic world is the decline of the great orders like the Maryknolls and the Jesuits. The Maryknolls had a priest become Daniel Ortega's right hand man and both they and the Jesuits seem infected with liberation theology. The Jesuits have devolved from "The Pope's Marines" into the Keystone Kops.
|
Submitted by Ken on 8/15/2004 1:01:49 PM
|
|
There is some reason to think the 1992 visitation of American Catholic seminaries actually did some good, at least based on anecdotal evidence. The negative data is anecdotal as well, so who knows. Time will tell.
It seems to me the Jesuits are sort of "bi-polar": either the Keystone Kops or men like Fr. Fessio. Certainly the Jesuit colleges are a disaster, at least in the U.S. One word: Georgetown ...shudder...
|
Submitted by Duane on 8/15/2004 2:44:50 PM
|
|
Ken,
good point; Men like Avery Cardinal Dulles and schools like Fordham are a credit to the Jesuits, while Georgetown is horrible. Some student organizations tried to get the crucifix removed from each classroom.
|
Submitted by Sasha on 8/15/2004 10:20:11 PM
|
|
Ken, regardless of your attempt at humour, I'm too aware of the wiles of those Antichrists who pose as revisionists - there's no way those 5 real bishops would have done any good to themselves or anybody else by meeting with them. As to what the Catholic orders have become: isn't that again a function of the universities? [I didn't know about diocesan seminaries - can those be completely independent of university organizations?] As in the Reformation, it sure sounds that the Jesuits need to be regenerated...:-(
|
Submitted by Sasha on 8/15/2004 10:28:48 PM
|
|
With regard to that last sentence: I meant that "as in the Reformation with the traditional orders (Benedictines, Augustinians, Dominicans, Franciscans), it sure sounds that the Jesuits need nowadays to be regenerated." Also, yours truly has never heard of the Maryknolls - can somebody please enlighten me about them?
|
Submitted by Puzzled on 8/16/2004 2:04:19 PM
|
|
The Maryknolls carried AK-47s and shot Christians in Nicaragua during the Communist dictatorship.
|
Submitted by Philip on 8/19/2004 6:34:49 PM
|
|
John W. Cox, please ask yourself, why does the PB want to have a star chamber meeting? Why does he not wish the discussion to be seen clearly by non-participants?
Holding a news conference after the event is really not of much use, as the media will probably get it wrong anyway and the PB will obviously have his own counter-conference, putting his spin on the thing.
There is no good reason that I can think of, that would justify the star chamber approach the PB wants and the fact that he wants that sort of a meeting, merely in my mind lets me understand that he is afraid of responsibility and even more, of accountability.
Philip
|