Of bastard bishops and hypocrisy

If you'd like either a good laugh or to make your blood pressure increase a bit, you must check out the tirade released 30 June from Texas.

It purports to be a "response" to a letter sent by the legitimate episcopal authority of the Episcopal Diocese of Ft. Worth, the Rt. Rev'd Edwin F. Gulick, Jr. to schismatic clergy warning them that they are in danger of deposition for abandoning the discipline of The Episcopal Church (TEC).

What the document really is, however, is a revelation of how ill the author is. The document opens,

In recent days I understand that all of you have received two threatening letters from representatives of the rump diocese. The first is a letter from The Rt. Rev. Edwin F. Gulick, Jr., the Bishop of Kentucky, in a capacity he claims as the “Provisional Bishop” of the rump diocese, threatening to inhibit and then depose you if you do not recognize his authority over you as your bishop. The second is a letter from Jonathan Nelson, legal counsel for the Gulick-led group, addressed to our vestries, treasurers, and finance committee members, as well as to all our vicars and rectors.

Notice the "Christ-like" tone of the letter from the opening sally. The use of "rump" is a deliberate, albeit juvenile, attempt to insult the legitimate episcopal authority and the legitimate Diocese of Ft. Worth. Unfortunately, this sets the tone for the delusional Schofieldesque missive. The document is worth a read for many reasons.

In a letter that is supposed to be both a scathing condemnation of the dishonesty of TEC, the insignificant sharper bastard (definition 2) bishop tells boldfaced lies.

The Bishop of Kentucky has no ecclesiastical authority to act within the Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth, first and foremost because the Diocese has realigned with another Anglican Province in communion with the See of Canterbury, upholding and propagating the historic Faith and Order as set forth in the Book of Common Prayer.

One would think he'd have learned from Schofield's mistakes. But here are the facts, again.

The Episcopal Diocese of [Insert name] did not realign. A bastard group found a dishonest presiding bishop who was happy to violate his own province's canons and constitutions and grant them a false sense of security in the hopes of receiving stolen goods. They are not affiliated with any province that is in communion with the Sea of Canterbury. If they mean ACNE, I mean ACNA, that is a bastard organization not in communion with the See of Canterbury or the Anglican Communion. Yawn.

In the 30 June "letter", we find this protestation of his legitimacy:

We challenge the allegation that the realignment of the Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth with the Anglican Province of the Southern Cone constitutes an abandonment by us of the “Communion of this Church”, pursuant to PECUSA Canon IV.10.1. We have made no “open renunciation of the Doctrine, Discipline, or Worship” of the Church, nor have we sought formal admission into any religious body not in communion with the Church. Upon our ordinations, Holy Orders were conferred upon us in the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. Although we do not consider ourselves affiliated with PECUSA, we do intend to continue to exercise the obligations, duties, rights and privileges associated with the Holy Orders that were conferred upon us.

On 12 November 2007 the same man said:

Our plan is not only to disassociate, then, from the Episcopal Church, but to officially, constitutionally re-affiliate with an existing orthodox province of the communion that does not ordain women to the priesthood.

On 22 June, just mere days ago this same man hosted a "convocation" that created a bastard organization posing as an "Anglican Church." Not only did he host it, but according to Duncan, he was a major player therein:

The delegation representing the Diocese of Fort Worth is among the largest, with six clergy and six lay representatives, all of whom were elected according to our diocesan canons in the last two diocesan conventions. The Assembly is unicameral, so the delegates will be seated with Bishop Iker, rather than in a separate body, as is the arrangement at General Convention.

On 30 June from his own pen

Although we do not consider ourselves affiliated with PECUSA, we do intend to continue to exercise the obligations, duties, rights and privileges associated with the Holy Orders that were conferred upon us.

Yet, to paraphrase him, Who says I abandoned TEC? That' a dirty rotten lie. Just tell me who said that! "Put 'em up, put 'em up! Which one of you first? I can fight you both together if you want. I can fight you with one paw tied behind my back. I can fight you standing on one foot. I can fight you with my eyes closed. Oh, pullin facts on me, eh? Sneaking up with truth on me, eh? Quotin my own words, eh? Why, I'll... Ruff!"

But it gets better. He asserts that he was never a bishop of TEC. No, he was and is ordained/consecrated by the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church (OHCAC). Again, the facts prove him a liar.

The vow bishops take at their consecration is found on page 513 of the Book of Common Prayer make that crystal clear:

In the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, I, N.N., chosen Bishop of the Church in N., solemnly declare that I do believe the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments to be the Word of God, and to contain all things necessary to salvation; and I do solemnly engage to conform to the doctrine, discipline, and worship of The Episcopal Church. (emphasis mine)

Conform ... Discipline ... doctrine of what? The Episcopal Church. Note that the words OHCAC do not appear in the vow he made to God, the congregation, and the diocese for which he was consecrated. He was consecrated by, in, and for The Episcopal Church.

Fr. Jake put it succinctly here

While the people ask for the candidate to be consecrated "a bishop in the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church," it is the Episcopal Church to whom each ordained bishop is accountable for the oath of conformity.

Roman bishops are accountable to Rome; Orthodox bishops are accountable to their branch. No one is consecrated a bishop by the OHCAC. Not even the Archbishop of Canterbury. His ordination/consecration was from the Church In Wales and The Church of England.

In fact, Anglican orders are nul and void in the rest of the OHCAC. No Anglican Rite presbyter can preside at the altar of a Roman or Orthodox church. Period. If this bastard bishop fled to Rome or Constantinople he would be a lay person (so we know that is not going to happen!).

And, we can bet the farm that he would scream bloody murder if anyone suggested +Robinson, +Andrus, ++Jefferts Schori and +Bruno are bishops of the OHCAC. The hypocrisy never ends.

Finally, he has to play the Ace of Spades in the schismatic deck of cards - "poor, persecuted me."

We very much regret the fact that this matter is being placed before secular courts. We would much prefer a negotiated settlement among brothers and sisters in Christ who have been separated from one another. However, we are fully prepared to make our case in a court of law and will do so when the time comes ... With God’s guidance and grace, we shall defend our churches, our faith, and our property against these unjust claims

I'm sure he does regret that the US legal system is involved in the case. He knows he will lose in court and be declared legally a bastard bishop and a pilferer; and that his "diocese" is illegitimate and forced to return the stolen property. Schofield learned that lesson in California and schismatics learned it in New York. They will learn it in Texas, too, and eventually in Virginia.

None of their plans are working out. The AC didn't roll over and play dead, They haven't been recognized, the courts haven't sided with them, their numbers are continually dropping, the ABC didn't kiss their rump. Their only resort is to scream "foul" loudly enough in the hopes that someone, somewhere, somehow, will listen to them.

If you take time to read the bastard bishop's "letter," make sure to note the link to a letter from a non-existent person. There is no Archbishop Venables (and man, do they love those titles - makes them think they are a church, you know), that's another wee lie from the pen of a bastard bishop. Oh, I almost forgot, see if you can spot the lie from the pen of Venables.

- - -

On an unrelated matter, a reader pointed out to me that 1 July was the one year anniversary of TTLS. In that year we've had 183,074 unique visitors. Who'd have guessed that.

It is also the anniversary time of The Grapevine, Off Topic, Friends of Jake, Fr. Scott, and several other Fr. Jake children. Mazel tov everyone.