Statements from Connecticut [Both sides the CT 6 Issue]

Is the bishop of Connecticut a “Kissing Judas”? The author and scholar, Os Guinness, has recovered Soren Kierkegaard’s 19th century stinging rebuke of the Church’s leadership and applied it to many in the current Episcopal House of Bishops. These bishops have kissed the Lord with their vows and betrayed Him for the silver currency of contemporary culture. They have separated themselves from the Abrahamic religions of Orthodoxy, Judaism, and Islam. They have acted in opposition to 4000 years of Judeo-Christian tradition and departed further from Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, and Classical Protestantism, as well as defiantly violated the expressed will and commitment of the world-wide Anglican Communion.

Bishop Andrew Smith has repudiated the faith he swore to at his consecration when he voted against Resolution B001 at General Convention in 2003. Bereft of the faith which alone establishes true unity in the Church, he now attempts to impose unity by uncanonical coercion against six faithful clergy in his diocese. Since Bishop Edward Fowler put John Bunyan in jail for 11 years in the 17th century there has scarcely been such an example of brutal and unconscionable ecclesiastical tyranny.

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
The Rt. Rev. Milton L. Wood, Jr.

Statement from the Bishop of Connecticut

The Rt. Rev. Andrew D. Smith, bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Connecticut, recently mailed letters to clergy, wardens, vestry of six congregations in the Diocese that requested Delegated Episcopal Pastoral Oversight last spring. In response to a number of inquiries he has received for comment, the bishop has released the following statement:

The six parishes asked for Delegated Episcopal Pastoral Oversight (DEPO) last May. When it was offered, the expectations they had were different from what the church can allow. In the time since then, we’ve made no progress in the understanding that DEPO is what the church can offer. My clear desire is for the clergy and parishes to remain in communion and for us to continue to serve Christ together.

[And in the comments posted on the latter was the following explanation: --sionnsar]

“…we’ve made no progress in the understanding that DEPO is what the church can offer.”
Because the Bishop has ignored our requests for explanation. For example, this was written to the Bishop in November 2004: “We wish you to know that we fail to see how any of the terms spelled out in our letter of May 27 conflict with any of your “episcopal responsibilities of the canons.” We therefore respectfully request that you clarify for us in writing your understanding of the canonical character of our differences as a prelude to any conferences aimed at attaining, as you phrase it, “closure on the question before us.””
“My clear desire is for the clergy and parishes to remain in communion and for us to continue to serve Christ together.”
And he’s decided that the best way to facilitate that is deposition.
Comment by Connecticutian

Dear sitetest,

Wow, the statement signed by the six bishops is about the most blunt, least "diplomatic" thing I've ever seen by an Episcopalian, with exception of Bishop Griswold's insane meanderings about who is and who isn't the devil.
What's the upshot of a statement like this? It seems to be almost an open declaration of war.

Thank you for your insight! I am glad I am not the only one who saw this. This was so un-Anglican I was shocked... well, maybe not shocked, but very surprised and left wondering what is going on. But I think you may have named it accurately -- an open declaration of war. One that goes beyond Griswold's mutterings...

I was at his consecration. Techincally, he never swore the traditional oath. He asked the congregation to say it. I thought it was bizarre then. I understand it now. My wife who has a true gift of discernment, said she felt evil there.

Sigh. I remember comparing the '28 and '79 consecration services when Robinson was consecrated -- and realizing he could be (honestly) consecrated under the '79 but not the '28. Awareness comes in different ways...

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.