Am I missing something?

[alixtii]

New York Times: We should point out that you were deposed from ministry of the Episcopal Church by the presiding bishop, Katharine Jefferts Schori, after you threatened to have your diocesein Pittsburgh secede.
Robert Duncan: That was a year ago, but what’s interesting is that virtually no one in the Anglican world accepted that sentence. Within two weeks of being deposed, I was received at Lambeth Palace in London by the archbishop of Canterbury, who continues to consider me a bishop. (Source)

Of course he's still a bishop. It's disingenuous to imply that ++Schori or anyone else would think anything else. ++Schori stripped him of his position within the Episcopal Church. I don't know of anyone who thinks that she would have the authority to strip him of his position in the historical episcopate, and to imply otherwise strikes me as downright dishonest.

But I don't actually know how ++Schori or anyone else sees things, or how the canons of the church are actually written. (And I don't care enough about canon law to look into it.) So I could be wrong.

Comments

I don't usuall chime in on this sort of stuff...

[essene.livejournal.com]

As I understand it, no single individual has the power to strip any of them (priest, bishop, or otherwise) of their "title" - that can only be done by the house of bishops or general convention. However, he is effectively unable to practice as a priest or Bishop in the US due to his being deposed, so he might as well NOT be one. And most of the priests--who are not a part of churches creating the schism--I know consider the Archbishop to be an ass with no balls (see Nigeria), so his opinion isn't exactly worth much in the US.

One of my best friends is a priest in the Pittsburg diocese, and holy cow did Duncan make a mess out of things.

From what I know of the facts, the man should be in jail.

If you're really and truly interested in the whole "canon-law" of it all, I can ask one of my many priest friends (what happens when you tie your wagon to one--you get to know many many many more than you ever thought you would)...or my girlfriend (who is also a priest).

Re: I don't usuall chime in on this sort of stuff...

[alixtii.livejournal.com]

However, he is effectively unable to practice as a priest or Bishop in the US due to his being deposed, so he might as well NOT be one

I'm not sure what you mean by "practice" here. Obviously TEC as an organization can take away from him all the Earthly authority that they gave to him, so may well not be able to, say, perform legally valid weddings. That leaves open the question of, say, whether such sacraments would be valid in the eyes of God. My understanding (which is not completely firm) is that TEC can take away all the power they've given him, but not undo his consecration, so he would still maintain a certain degree of spiritual authority as a result of his place in the historic episcopate, and TEC should recognize any bishops whose consecration he took part in as having valid apostolic sucession (in the same way they recognize, say, Benedict XVI as having valid apostolic sucession). But I would be interested in finding out if I'm wrong.

Re: I don't usuall chime in on this sort of stuff...

[essene.livejournal.com]

When a priest or a bishop is "defrocked" which is what happened to him; the marriages, baptisms and other sacraments that he ALREADY perfomed before he was deposed, are still valid.

However, any he has done after his being deposed are NOT. As his consecration HAS been effectively undone permanently within the TEC. (from the point of his deposition on)

The above there is what my pocket priest (who is on the phone with me by matter of coincidence when I opened up your response to my comment) said after I read the post and subsequent exchanges to her--isn't that nice how that worked out.

If you want the actual canon that verifies any of this, I can ask her that later...

Re: I don't usuall chime in on this sort of stuff...

[essene.livejournal.com]

My earlier comments of the "mess of things" and being "in jail" are actually in reference to the former bishop of Pennsylvania--who I accidentally confused with Duncan.

But the 1st paragraph still applies.