Comments: more legal trouble for Bishop Duncan

You can bet your bottom dollar that in the legal fees , Bishop Duncan will not be using any substantial ammount of his own savings.

By the way is Bishop Schofield still invited and going to Lambeth?

Posted by Robert ian Williams at Wednesday, 9 July 2008 at 10:55pm BST

@Robert Ian Williams:

To the best of my knowledge, Schofield was not uninvited, therefore the invitation still stands, and he accepted the invitation.

Posted by Walsingham at Wednesday, 9 July 2008 at 11:25pm BST

A analysis of the legal procedure is given here:

Posted by robroy at Thursday, 10 July 2008 at 12:25am BST

I advise caution with "The Living Church, it has not always proved itself trustworthy.

Posted by Göran Koch-Swahne at Thursday, 10 July 2008 at 6:29am BST

The Church Times this week, in a story that is still only for subscribers, says:

TWO BISHOPS claiming their right to the see of San Joaquin have accepted invitations to the Lambeth Conference.

Posted by Simon Sarmiento at Thursday, 10 July 2008 at 6:44am BST

I think all of these Bishops involved in this fracture from the Episcopal Church have forgotten exactly what they were hired to do. In my opinion, their duties are rather limited to confirmation and ordination. Any of their actions that bring disharmony within their diocese are not within their job descriptions.

Posted by Junie Smith at Thursday, 10 July 2008 at 12:44pm BST

"what they were hired to do."

But they weren't "hired" to do anything. The episcopate is not a job like bank manager, it is a vocation from God, recognized by the ecclesia as manifested in that diocese. If you see Holy Order as just another job, then many of the people involved in this are not going to accept any other argument you make. If you recognize a bishop as something other than what the rest of do, that's fine, many Christians in other traditions would agree with you. Even some within Anglicanism might feel the same way, but you can't expect people who believe a bishop to be as I described to give much weight, at least in the Anglican context, to your position, since we don't seem to be using the same language.

Posted by Ford Elms at Thursday, 10 July 2008 at 5:58pm BST

"Let 'em all go, just give us the money."

Posted by Joe at Thursday, 10 July 2008 at 8:59pm BST

"Let 'em all go, just give us the money."

Can't find this in the one piece I can open, so I assume this is just your take on the situation. Of course, you are aware that the principle of church property not belonging to the parish is not exactly some new liberal sheme to oppress the True Christians. It is an ancient principle that reflects our understanding of what the Church is. Now, if you have a adopted a relatively new and innovative ecclesiology, fair enough, but we haven't done that, so whether or not you think a parish owns its building(s) is immaterial. You are an innovator in that instance, and it makes no difference that this innovation was first introduced 500 years ago in a radical and innovative redefinition of what Christianity is.

Posted by Ford Elms at Friday, 11 July 2008 at 5:55pm 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.