Reading this reminded me that witnessing the rise of “Genetically Modified Marriage” and its “legitimation” by TEC is something of a replay of the Church’s decision to accept a warped, sin-sickened view of non-Christian native peoples in the late Medieval world. In both cases greed and cultural captivity are at the heart of the decisions—though clothed in sanctimonious and pseudo-theological palaver.

Trying to make friends with sin is never the way to live and share the Gospel.  My contact with First Nations Christians has made this abundantly clear.

This is why Starfleet created the Prime Directive!

‘Shori’ and ‘pastoral’ should not be used in the same sentence unless to point out that they are mutually exclusive.

If the Episcopal Church wants to repudiate a papal decree of the fifteenth century then what actions does that repudiation imply. One wouldn’t want to think to was just words. Does it mean that 815 is now attempting to persuade Episcopal churches to return lands that once were Native. The lands held by Trinity, Wall Street for example? Does it mean that 815 will now be investing more deeply in the Pine Ridge Reservation (which has the second lowest life expectancy in the western hemisphere. Only Haiti is lower.) and financially supporting the 9 Oglala Sioux congregations they tried to close in 2008?

Ah yes, we inch ever closer to TEC and “who cares” becoming inexorably linked forever.  My standard response now whenever anyone tells me they belong to TEC is to lightly touch their arm, furrow my brow with a look of great concern and say “I’m so sorry.”

Obviously an issue she cares about - but it’s unclear precisely what she is saying.

Thank you Saltmarsh Gal. Anyone have any idea of what Schori’s letter us supposed to mean?

#4

I think Trinity Wall Street will just make a contribution to Elizabeth Warren’s campaign to wipe the slate clean of any doubts arising from the doctrine of discovery.  Then they can get on with their mission.

For the record I would like to express my profound indignation at the sack of Constantinople in 1204.

would it not make more sense to address the obvious problems that confront the native populations in North America on a present basis, rather than anchoring this initiative in opposition to conquests that are half a millenium behind us?  The old Way Back Machine is a very unreliable conveyance.

“Today our understanding of mission has changed.”

Boy howdy, she sure nailed that point.
One searches her letter in vain for any reference to the Gospel. Oh wait, there is that “healing brokenness” thing. Okay, then let us hear the words of the Apostle Peter, “The time has come for judgment to begin with the household of God” (1 Peter 4:17)

I’ll believe she’s serious when she volunteers to give the 815 Church headquarters property back to the Lenape Indians who got cheated out of Manhattan island by the Dutch.

Oh the irony.

#‘s 6 & 7:  I think she’s speaking a sub-dialect of Mayan.

Is she nuts?

I am offended by the English treatment of the Scots in 1746.  We need a rematch.

I object to the Norman invasion in 1066 and the imposition of feudalism.  This in turn made bishops (horribly encouraged in the Roman manner after the Synod of Whitby with the suppression of the Godly Celtic kind) even more imperial and elitist until we arrive at the present manifestation of episcopal overlordship in TEC.  Sounds to me like the pot calling the kettle something derogatory.

Re # 15
Being a legitimist (and therefor a Jacobite) I heartily concur.

#15/17 Can there have been a more depraved, drunken and debauched dynasty than the men of the House of Stuart?  James I bright but immoral; Charles I untrustworthy, disloyal to his supporters and politically arrogant and inept; Charles II flambouyant and notoriously unchaste; James II arrogant, out of touch and persecuting, and his son, ‘Bonnie’ Prince Charlie who died a lecherous disappointed old soak - what a wretched bunch.  Even the Scots were glad to be rid of them.

However, the women, Mary II and particularly Anne were pillars of rectitude, and Christian charity; Anne in particular endowed many of the hospitals and churches of London and in particular through ‘Queen Anne’s Bounty’ financially secured the ministry costs of the Church of England, something that successive mismanagement by the Church Commissioners has not managed to completely undo.  We remember with kindness this gracious and charitable Christian lady with her statue outside St Paul’s Cathedral, looking over the churches she had helped so much.

Of course, AO, should you so wish, you are at liberty to put a Stuart on the throne of the United States, if you can persuade your countrymen of their doubtful merit; but we will stick with the stodgy and unintellectual Germans who do what they are asked with dutifulness and dignity and some style - that is all that we ask of them.

I hope also that the Presiding Bishop will take the opportunity to convert 815 into a genetic breeding station with the aim of permitting great “herds of North American bison” to return to the great open plains of Central Park and enabling the native peoples of Manhattan to resume their traditional way of life.

May I also say, how deeply distressed I am by the destruction by colonial Italy of the City of Jerusalem in AD 70.

Y’all had me so curious about the letter I deceided to end my lunch break by reading it. I don’t think it is quite as obtuse as some of you seem to think.  Its purely a leftist political diatribe.  I will concede that I do not understand how she eqautes bison with Indians, but she is, afterall, a zooligist. I am reading this more as a precursor for GC when she will demand all the Jews be removed from Israel. I concede, again, citing Amos is a bit odd since Moses and Aaron weren’t exactly welcomed by the native indignous peoples, but no one ever accused KJS of being logical.

BTW—When are we in SC going to get reparations for the burning of Columbia in 1865?

Actually it has just occurred to me that a lot of people in SC would argue the reparations should be for the Army to come back and burn it down again, particularly when the legislature is in session.

When is she going to issue a pastoral letter on the Atonement and the Gospel of the Risen Christ? 

Oh, I forgot, “we come to our experience of God through the holiness we see in other human beings”—that “foot of the Cross” thingy is way too early-Church. 

Re # 18
Pageantmaster

#15/17 Can there have been a more depraved, drunken and debauched dynasty than the men of the House of Stuart?  James I bright but immoral; Charles I untrustworthy, disloyal to his supporters and politically arrogant and inept; Charles II flambouyant and notoriously unchaste; James II arrogant, out of touch and persecuting, and his son, ‘Bonnie’ Prince Charlie who died a lecherous disappointed old soak - what a wretched bunch.  Even the Scots were glad to be rid of them.

However, the women, Mary II and particularly Anne were pillars of rectitude, and Christian charity; Anne in particular endowed many of the hospitals and churches of London and in particular through ‘Queen Anne’s Bounty’ financially secured the ministry costs of the Church of England, something that successive mismanagement by the Church Commissioners has not managed to completely undo.  We remember with kindness this gracious and charitable Christian lady with her statue outside St Paul’s Cathedral, looking over the churches she had helped so much.

Of course, AO, should you so wish, you are at liberty to put a Stuart on the throne of the United States, if you can persuade your countrymen of their doubtful merit; but we will stick with the stodgy and unintellectual Germans who do what they are asked with dutifulness and dignity and some style - that is all that we ask of them.

You are joking right? Let’s see. James I was the longest reigning British monarch never to fight a war. He is responsible for the translation of the Bible which bears his name and he made efforts to mitigate the anti-Catholic laws left in place from Elizabeth’s bloody reign.

Charles I is the only man ever canonized a saint by the Church of England. True, he was a poor statesman and soldier. But he was a great and kind hearted man deeply devoted to his God and family. He died less for his crown and politics than for his defense of the catholic tradition, especially the doctrine of apostolic succession which was anathema to Cromwell and his round-head thugs.

Charles II ended the long nightmare of puritan and low church dictatorship in Britain and restored some sense of sanity to a country where saying “Merry Christmas” had become a public offense. He fought (unsuccessfully) for religious tolerance and treated all but the ringleaders of his father’s regicide with mercy. He was certainly a bon vivant and did not live an ideal lifestyle. But he meant well even if his policies were constantly being thwarted by the damnable Whigs. It was Charles great misfortune that the Queen was barren and he was stuck with the Duke of York for his heir. But that’s the way things work in a monarchy, as he himself noted when addressing the Whig parliament. Charles II finest moment.

James II.. what can one say. He was not possessed of a great temperament but in the end that wasn’t what mattered. He was deposed for one reason and one reason only. He was a Catholic who had managed to produce a male heir who was certain to be raised Catholic. His reign was too short to draw any conclusions beyond that.

Queen Mary and William were usurpers whose rein was blessedly also not very long. Queen Anne was competent but also deeply troubled in her conscience. Many historians believe that towards the end of her reign she had resolved to name James III her heir but she died before being able to confirm this. Such a move would have set her against the Whigs who had rammed through the Act of Settlement.

The gentleman from Hanover, George I, was 51 in the line of rightful succession. But he was Protestant and that was all that mattered. He never bothered to learn more than a few words of English and devoted much of his time to the governance of Hanover. He took up openly with mistresses and had his wife imprisoned for the last 30 years of her life even forbidding visits from their children. He died in Hanover during one of his frequent trips there.

George II was estranged from his father to the point where he refused to attend his funeral. He supported Walpole, whose corruption was infamous even by the standards of the 18th century, for much of his reign. He staunchly opposed any relaxation of the laws against Catholics and Jews. When his wife (for whom he supposedly had feelings despite having a string of kept women) lay dying, she urged him to remarry. “No” the great romantic replied. “I will have mistresses.” In 1760 he died while sitting on the royal throne (the other one).

Of George III I have nothing bad to say. He was a great king and the madness that eventually overtook him was a tragedy both for him and Britain. Alone among the Hanoverians, I hold George III in very high regard.

George IV on the other hand was IMHO the worst British monarch of the last five hundred years or so. He was a lecherous, gluttonous, drunken, narcissistic lout. His treatment of his wife only looks favorable when compared with Henry VIII. He may not have been a British Louis XIV who bankrupted his country, but it was not for want of trying. One could pile all of the personal vices of the Stuart kings together and George IV would still have them beat. At the time of his death, public support for the monarchy was at an historic low that has never been equaled to this day.

The best that can be said for William IV is that he was not as bad as his older brother. But his personal life still makes the Stuarts look pretty good. His reign was also mercifully short.

Queen Victoria (the last of the Hanoverians) began her long reign on a good note. She was young and popular and with the help of her husband, Albert of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha she reigned well and wisely for the first quarter century or so. Britain also prospered during this time and the standing of the Royal Family rose dramatically under the influence of the stiffly correct Prince Consort who insisted that the family be a role model for public morality. Unfortunately for the Queen and Britain Albert died in 1862. The Queen suffered a mental breakdown from which she never fully recovered and withdrew almost completely from society for the rest of her life. She abandoned virtually all of her royal duties and left governing entirely to her ministers. Due to her long reign her heirs had little choice but to follow the precedent. Making matters worse she intensely distrusted the Prince of Wales and refused him any responsible role or even the right to represent her at state ceremonies which she generally refused to attend.  It was only in the last two decades of her life that she made even very rare appearances such as for her coronation as Empress of India and her Diamond Jubilee parade.

Edward VIII was a playboy with more mistresses than all of the Stuarts put together (though not as bad as George IV). He obsessed over the minutia of social etiquette and made a point of granting honours and titles to his friends and wealthy industrialists whom he greatly admired. That aside however, he was a competent monarch and served particularly well as an ambassador of good will to a number of countries such as France, with whom Britain sought improved relations. Alas his lifestyle had left him in poor health even before his accession (he nearly died on the eve of his coronation from appendicitis). He expired after less than 10 years as king having been mostly locked out of any policy discussions by his ministers.

George V and George VI were both wartime monarchs who performed their duties admirably. The brief intervening reign of Edward VIII was a different story. Edward was (yet another) playboy king, feckless and self centered. But unlike his playboy grandfather who understood his duty and for the most part fulfilled his obligations, Edward repaid his country for all of the benefits he had been raised with by openly shacking up with a married woman (previously divorced) and demanding the right to marry her. Thank God the government stood its ground and refused its consent (perhaps the only time I can applaud a pack of politicians telling their sovereign off). The rest is of course history and Edward went off to ignominious exile during which he found time to express his admiration for the Nazis.

So on balance, yes, I will take the Stuarts warts and all. But more important is a principal. The Stuarts were the rightful royal house of Britain. What’s the point of having a monarchy if you can change royal houses anytime you happen to disagree with the King? The issue is royal legitimacy. The Stuarts had it and the Hanoverians did not, unless you hold that Parliament had the right to disqualify fifty men and women from the line of succession before George I solely because of their religion.

There was nothing “glorious” about the events of 1688. Sacrilegious treason is still sacrilegious even if it is successful.

“What’s the point of having a monarchy if you can change royal houses anytime you happen to disagree with the King?”

Nobody changed royal houses “anytime they happened to disagree with the King”. Dynastic change occurred because of MAJOR upheavals in British society, which the relevant kings could not manage effectively.

“The issue is royal legitimacy. The Stuarts had it and the Hanoverians did not, unless you hold that Parliament had the right to disqualify fifty men and women from the line of succession before George I solely because of their religion.”

Oh please. Do you have any idea of how the Stuart dynasty came to power? It was about as legitimate as every other dynasty, no more and no less. 

And yes, Parliament CAN decide who is king and was doing so as early as the tenth century AD.  Parliamentary choice pre-dates dynastic succession in British constitutional history.

The first “Stuart”, James I, was a descendent of Henry VIII who only took the throne because the three dynastic lines named in the Succession to the Crown Act 1544 (35 Hen. VIII c.1) had all died out.  Hereditary entitlement was acknowledged to be subject to Parliamentary fiat well before the Stuarts came to power.

James I ruled wisely, paying due attention to popular will as his predecessor Elizabeth I had done, and therefore kept his throne (and his head). Whilst he privately believed in the continental notion of ‘divine right of kings’, he didn’t push it.

His son didn’t have his ability and paid the price. In turn, of his two sons, one had the ability and one didn’t.

And yes, religion is a legitimate reason to depose a king IF it becomes a major issue for society as a whole .  After events like the Henry VIII succession crisis, the persecutions of Mary I and the Spanish Armada, English and Scottish popular will would no longer tolerate subordination of the English church to a bishop in Rome, just as it had not done so in the days of John I.  Anyone who wanted to be Monarch of England had to pay due respect to that wish if they wanted to keep their crown on their head, and/or their head on their shoulders.  Charles II understood this; James II did not.  The latter therefore joined the rather long list of English kings over some 1600 years who have lost their thrones through political miscalculation.

#24, I should add that I agree with you that there were plenty of instances of effective government shown by the Stuart dynasty (just as there were by preceding and succeeding dynasties).

What a lovely, informative thread this has become.

True. On that score at least, we can agree that KJ Schori has done us a service!