Posted on 11/13/2007 7:02:03 PM PST by Huber
November 12, 2007
The Most Rev. Katharine Jefferts Schori 815 Second Avenue New York, NY 10017
Dear Katharine,
I have received your letter of November 8th and am rather surprised by your suggestion that I have somehow abandoned the communion of the church and may be subject to ecclesiastical discipline. Such a charge is baseless. I have abandoned nothing, and I have violated no canons. Every year at our Chrism Mass, I very happily reaffirm my ordination vows, along with all our clergy, that I will be “loyal to the doctrine, discipline, and worship of Christ as this Church has received them.” (BCP, pages 526 and 538)
It is highly inappropriate for you to attempt to interfere in the internal life of this diocese as we prayerfully prepare to gather in Convention. The threatening tone of your open letter makes no attempt to promote reconciliation, mediation, or even dialogue about our profound theological differences. Instead, it appears designed to intimidate our delegates and me, in an attempt to deter us from taking any action that opposes the direction in which you are leading our Church. It is deeply troubling that you would have me prevent the clergy and laity of this diocese from openly discussing our future place in the life of the wider Anglican Communion, as we debate a variety of proposals. As you well know, the polity of this Church requires the full participation of the clergy and lay orders, not just bishops, in the decision making process. It grieves me that as the Presiding Bishop you would misuse your office in an attempt to intimidate and manipulate this diocese.
While I do not wish to meet antagonism with antagonism, I must remind you that 25 years ago this month, the newly formed Diocese of Fort Worth voluntarily voted to enter into union with the General Convention of the Episcopal Church. If circumstances warrant it, we can likewise, by voluntary vote, terminate that relationship. Your aggressive, dictatorial posturing has no place in that decision. Sadly, however, your missive will now be one of the factors that our Convention will consider as we determine the future course of this diocese for the next 25 years and beyond, under God’s grace and guidance.
In closing, let me be very clear. While your threats deeply sadden us, they do not frighten us. We will continue to stand firm for the unchanging truth of the Holy Scriptures and the redeeming Gospel of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, whatever the costs. I shall continue to pray for you, as I trust you will pray for me, in the difficult days ahead.
Faithfully in Christ,
The Rt. Rev. Jack Leo Iker Bishop of Fort Worth
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Presiding Bishop’s letter
8 November 2007
The Rt. Rev. Jack Iker The Episcopal Diocese of Ft. Worth 2900 Alemeda Street Fort Worth, TX 76108
Dear Jack,
As you are undoubtedly aware, it is my view that recent amendments to your Diocese's constitution violate the Constitutional requirement that the Diocese maintain an "unqualified accession" to the Constitution and Canons of the Episcopal Church. I have now reviewed several proposed constitutional amendments that will be considered at your forthcoming diocesan convention. It is evident to me that several of these proposed changes would further violate the Church's Constitution, while some other proposed changes would undo the problems created by the earlier amendments. It is clear from your public statements and from what I understand your position to be regarding these matters that you endorse the first set of changes. Your statements and actions in recent months demonstrate an intention to lead your diocese into a position that would purportedly permit it to depart from the Episcopal Church. All these efforts, in my view, display a fundamental misunderstanding of the relationship between The Episcopal Church and its dioceses.
I call upon you to recede from this direction and to lead your diocese on a new course that recognizes the interdependent and hierarchical relationship between the national Church and its dioceses and parishes. That relationship is at the heart of our mission, as expressed in our polity. Specifically, I sincerely hope that you will change your position and urge your diocese at its forthcoming convention to adopt the proposed amendments that will bring the Diocese's constitution into agreement with the Church's Constitution and Canons.
If your course does not change, I shall regrettably be compelled to see that appropriate canonical steps are promptly taken to consider whether you have abandoned the Communion of this Church -- by actions and substantive statements, however, they may be phrased -- and whether you have committed canonical offences that warrant disciplinary action.
It grieves me that any bishop of this Church would seek to lead any of its members out of it. I would remind you of my open offer of an Episcopal Visitor if you wish to receive pastoral care from another bishop. I continue to pray for reconciliation of this situation, and I remain
Your servant in Christ,
Katharine Jefferts Schori
The High Priestess continues to demonstrate a delusional state.
Even if she is being advised by Chancellor Beers, she is still a pig for listening to him.
Everything she says and does makes me VERY glad that we shook the dust of the Episcopal Church from our sandals in 2003. Good riddance.
Are you planning to ping it to the list?
Traditional Anglican ping, continued in memory of its founder Arlin Adams.
FReepmail Huber or sionnsar if you want on or off this moderately high-volume ping list (sometimes 3-9 pings/day).
This list is pinged by Huber and sionnsar.
Resource for Traditional Anglicans: http://trad-anglican.faithweb.com
Humor: The Anglican Blue
Speak the truth in love. Eph 4:15
Sort of a shame that the bishop and his fellows didn’t accuse that woman of heresy and convene an ecclesiastical trial. Its about time the fat hit the fire here.
Trial would be a good idea, but I’m not sure there’s a proper venue for that anymore in ECUSA—most of the hierarchy involved would be on her side, wouldn’t they?
This entire crisis of the last four years isn’t about homosexuals being welcomed in ECUSA — they already were in large numbers. And it isn’t about conservative or orthodox members being “forced” to welcome them and be at the rail of communion with them.
Instead it was about getting rid of othodox or conservative members and clergy and allowing homosexual clergy to indulge themselves openly without censure. It is about substituing enlightement values for Christian virtues.
The bishops had known from prior years of the possible train wreck. They avoided it by knowingly brushing such issues under the rug. The clergy at large (leftist in majority) wanted their brothers and sisters to have liscense (they called it liberty) and drug the largely leftist layity representatives along the enlightenment path.
What they didn’t expect was a few bishops and a significant number of clergy at large to revolt from their enlightenment ideology or for the first homosexual bishop to behave like such an lush and self-centered fool during his election and subsiquently.
While the rot of heresy shoots through the entire ECUSA ediface, there are enough bishops of an “orthodox” mindset to convene a panel. I’m not suggesting that the trial be any “fairer” than what +Iker and some of the others could expect from the heresiarchs calling the shots in ECUSA.
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.