Comments: Lambeth invitation for Jerry Lamb

Excellent news indeed that the legitimate Bishop of San Joaquin has been invited to the Lambeth Conference. Obviously, Canterbury recognizes only one Anglican province in the U.S.A.--TEC, Abp. Venables misrepresentations notwithstanding.

Posted by John Henry at Monday, 2 June 2008 at 6:38pm BST

John, I fear that you misunderstand -
Archbishop Rowan finally has accepted the maxim that, however close we keep our friends, we must keep our enemies closer.... ;-)

Onward and ... one way or another.

Posted by Chris Baker at Monday, 2 June 2008 at 10:51pm BST

If it is true, then it would suggest that Canterbury doesn't support those who insist that Bishop Schofield has not been deposed due to a lack of bishops at the spring TEC HoB meeting.

Has Canterbury publicly expressed an opinion on the situation with Bishops Cox and Schofield before this?


Posted by Jon at Monday, 2 June 2008 at 11:13pm BST

Bishop Cox would not be on Canterbury's radar for Lambeth since he doesn't have jurisdiction in any province.

The Anglican Communion website lists Bishop Lamb as the provisional bishop of San Joaquin, USA.

The AC website does not list a diocese of San Joaquin in the Souther Cone Province.

Posted by Dirk Reinken at Monday, 2 June 2008 at 11:44pm BST

Today, the Living Church claims that both Lamb and Schofield are invited to Lambeth. Go here:

for the full story.

Posted by jnwall at Tuesday, 3 June 2008 at 2:33pm BST

Certain websites maintain that ++Rowan Cantuar has not withdrawn Bishop Schofield's invitation to Lambeth. There may be two Bishops of San Joaquin recognized as such by His Grace, which seems to make a mockery of His Grace's earlier stance going back to ++George Carey's, which didn't recognize the legitimacy of AMiA's bishops on US soil.

Posted by John Henry at Tuesday, 3 June 2008 at 5:45pm BST

The word from Schofield's spokesman is that his invitation has not been retracted,

Posted by John B. Chilton at Tuesday, 3 June 2008 at 5:57pm BST

"The word from Schofield's spokesman is that his invitation has not been retracted."

Isn't that special?

Meanwhile, the canonically legal and legitimately elected, consented to, and consecrated bishop of New Hampshire is not invited. Ptui.

Posted by Cynthia Gilliatt at Tuesday, 3 June 2008 at 8:08pm BST

The Scofield story is very clear that he accepted his invitation BEFORE he disqualified himself by the act of schism.

If his invitation has not been withdrawn (which may or may not be true), it would be primae facie evidence that Rowan Williams is incompetent.

Frankly, throughout the process, it has become evident that Rowan Williams couldn't organize a bad smell out of a skunk's backside.

Posted by Malcolm+ at Tuesday, 3 June 2008 at 9:51pm BST

"John-David Schofield has actually been transferring both real property and investment accounts (the latter held by Merrill Lynch) to non-Episcopal entities, including specifically a new corporation known as the Anglican Diocese Holding Company"

Unambiguous THEFT (grand larceny?). Is "Thou Shalt Not Steal" no longer in the Southern Cone version of The Ten Commandments?

Lord have mercy!

Posted by JCF at Tuesday, 3 June 2008 at 9:55pm BST

If the ABC doesn't want to appear chronically inconsistent to the entire world, perhaps this would be the right time simply to do what he should have done in the first place: Invite every bishop in good standing in each of the provinces of the Communion, yes, even those claiming jurisdiction where they shouldn't and those whose very existence is anathema to some.

The idea that one person - or his (someday perhaps, her) support staff - can decide symbolically who is Anglican enough to attend the tea party is outdated at best. There's nothing wrong with the symbolic role of "primus inter pares," but a unilateral approach to invitations to a shared Instrument of Communion reflects much more "primus" than "pares."

Posted by christopher+ at Wednesday, 4 June 2008 at 1:29am 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.