Skip to comments.An Interesting Interview of Bishop Duncan
Posted on 09/19/2006 6:03:11 PM PDT by sionnsar
Over at Stand Firm, I came across this very interesting interview of Network Leader Bishop Duncan.
This online video is a ministry of AnglicanTV.org
The interview contains some interesting tidbits about the failed New York Summit. Two things stand out.
First, I find it disturbing that the Archbishop of Canterburys representative to the summit hadnt even bothered to read the petition asking for APO. That is incredible and begs the question: Does +++Rowan take the expressed need of orthodox North America dioceses and parishes for relief seriously?
His creating the Panel of Reference in such a manner that it has become a glorified circular file for petitions for relief and now this glaring omission by his representative is disconcerting. I sincerely hope Im being alarmist, but still. . . .
I suspect Im not the only one looking askance at +++Rowans attitude toward petitions for relief. Frankly, I would not be surprised if the Archbishop is told by certain Primates in February, Enough! If you dont take action to relieve the faithful in North America, we will!
Second, speaking of action, the interview makes it clear to me that Network action on behalf of beleaguered parishes under revisionist bishops may be coming soon. There is Bishop Ikers bold statement at the summit mentioned near the beginning of the interview that this was the last meeting about process he planned to attend and that after this, its action.
+Duncan drolly notes that after +Ikers statement, the nature of the meeting changed.
Then watch Bishop Duncan beginning about 18:30 into the video. He pretty much says that now that the Windsor Report has been rejected by the Episcopal Church, the Network is no longer obliged to follow its restraints should parishes ask him or +Iker for help. He looks to me like a man who intends to take action on behalf of isolated orthodox parishes.
Methinks things are about to get even more interesting.
Begging the question means you assume the question is true. But then you go on to imply that you think the question is probably false. It is somewhat confusing to follow your argument. But I suppose that does reflect the state of affairs in the Anglican Communion--confused.
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.