PEP has concerns
Progressive Episcopalians of Pittsburgh (PEP) asks whether or not the statements made at the House of Bishops' meeting make adequate provision for people such as themselves: progressive believers who are being marginalized in Anglican Communion Network dioceses:
Of particular concern to PEP, however, is the fact that the episcopal visitors plan makes no provision for connecting to the wider Episcopal Church loyal Episcopalians in dioceses (such as Pittsburgh) that have requested “alternative primatial oversight.” “Many of us celebrated the election of Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori,” explained PEP board member and blogger Dr. Lionel Deimel. “Should our bishop accept an episcopal visitor, those of us who have been most vocal in support of our church would be isolated from it and subject to even less respect within our diocese than we are now.”
The full statement is found here.
I'd say PEP is right to be concerned. The leadership of TEC has not done enough in the way of providing a connection to the larger church for those in dioceses like Pittsburgh.
I hope that something is in the works to provide pastoral care for the progressives in Network dioceses.
June Butler
Posted by GrandmèreMimi![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.episcopalcafe.com/lead/nav-commenters.gif)
|
September 28, 2007 11:07 AM
Sounds to me like the time is now for PEP, and Via Media Fort Worth, and folks in San Joaquin and elsewhere to appeal for DEPO. No, it won't be all the jurisdictional protection they will eventually need, but it may well establish precedent on which they may build. And if the relevant bishops refuse to cooperate, they have demonstrated the hollowness and mendacity of their own demands.
Marshall Scott
Posted by mscottsail![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.episcopalcafe.com/lead/nav-commenters.gif)
|
September 28, 2007 1:53 PM