February 27, 2017

January 30, 2009

Anglican Communion Institute: Is The Renunciation of Orders Routine?

Another crispy pointing out of the facts about the Presiding Bishop’s strategy and about Bishop Scriven’s “renunciation,” from the ACI, from which website the below is excerpted.  Make certain you truck on over and read the entire short piece.

Defenders of the Presiding Bishop are scrambling to re-interpret her extraordinary action of depriving a bishop of the Church of England of the gifts and authority conferred in his ordination and removing him from the ordained ministry of The Episcopal Church.  For example, the group supporting the Presiding Bishop in Pittsburgh stated that “[t]his is a routine way of permitting Bishop Scriven to continue his ministry.”  In the strange world of TEC, renunciation of orders has become a routine way of continuing one’s ministry.

But it is not routine.  Indeed, it has not been used for those transferring from TEC to another province in the Anglican Communion until the Presiding Bishop began what resembles a scorched-earth approach to her opponents within TEC.  Not surprisingly, in the past such matters have been handled by letter.  One can see the evolution of the Presiding Bishop’s “routine” policy in the treatment of Bishop David Bena, who was transferred by letter by his diocesan bishop to the Church of Nigeria in February 2007.  A month later, the Presiding Bishop wrote Bishop Bena and informed him that “by this action you are no longer a member of the House of Bishops” and that she had informed the Secretary of the House to remove him from the list of members.  That was all that needed to be done.  A year later, however, as her current strategy emerged, she suddenly declared in January 2008 that she had accepted Bishop Bena’s renunciation of orders using the canon she now uses against Bishop Scriven.  In other words, if this is now sadly routine, it has only become routine in the past year.

Not only is this not routine, it was not necessary.  As we pointed out in our original statement, Bishop Scriven ceased to be an Assistant Bishop in TEC and thereby ceased to be a member of TEC’s House of Bishops the moment Bishop Duncan was deposed.  This was a constitutional disqualification imposed on Bishop Scriven by Article I.2 of TEC’s constitution.  Canonically speaking, he ceased to be a bishop in TEC at that point. His original status as a bishop of the Church of England was not thereby affected, of course, and upon requesting and receiving an honorary role in the Diocese of Oxford that became his formal diocesan home.  All that was necessary in January 2009 was for TEC to conform its records to this fact.

Share this story:

Recent Related Posts



I trucked on in to the ACI website. (I do own a truck).
Here is what I believe the response from KJS would be to this latest communication from the ACI.  “So, what of it”? Since we are about to stop the world for the Superbowl, let’s use this analogy. ACI/CP remain on the field playing defense. They have never had possession of the ball but are not really trying to score anyway. They just want to keep KJS from scoring.  KJS owns the field, game officials (Bishops) and makes up the rules as the game progresses. ACI keeps pointing out infractions to the officials and (like professional wrestling now) the officials weren’t looking when the infraction occurred. Some of the fans are screaming at the officials and many are leaving the stadium. CP will stay in the game because quitters never win and winners never quit. KJS will win the game and a protest will be filed with the league president (you know who). The wild card team from the other league is reported to have a good offense and intends to make the playoffs next year. This may not help anyone else but I understand things better.

[1] Posted by Fr. Dale on 1-30-2009 at 08:07 PM · [top]

I suppose the question Dcn Dale is what the owners of the other fields think about the way the game has been brought into disrepute?  Stay tuned for next weeks exciting game, as they say.

[2] Posted by Pageantmaster ن on 1-30-2009 at 08:33 PM · [top]

Unfortunately I think the League Commissioner is going to keep mum on the matter.  Maybe we should make Roger Goodell the ABC.

[3] Posted by Big Chief on 1-30-2009 at 11:00 PM · [top]

I renounce you all.
I Canon do if we want to.
There is nothing you Canon do about it.

[4] Posted by martin5 on 1-30-2009 at 11:00 PM · [top]

It never ceases to amaze me that the Communion has tolerated this woman for as long as they have.  She is a conniving and scheming megalomanic power-grabber of the first order, and how anyone could fail to understand that is a complete mystery to me….and I’m sure to others.

[5] Posted by Cennydd on 1-30-2009 at 11:17 PM · [top]

Clergy move back and forward between TEC and the COE all the time (a number every year). Are all TEC clergy from now on going to be seen as having renounced their orders when they move to England? What happens if and when they move back to TEC - what is the canonical process by which orders are re-acknowledged?

It has been stated that this process has been the normal one used when clergy leave TEC for another Province of the Communion but as the ACI rightly note that is simply not true.  It is more or less unprecedented until last year. My question is whether it will now be used for all clergy moving from TEC to the COE?

[6] Posted by driver8 on 1-30-2009 at 11:19 PM · [top]

I suppose the question Dcn Dale is what the owners of the other fields think about the way the game has been brought into disrepute?

The other field owners don’t let their teams play the Piskies anymore, and have even declared open season on the Piskie player roster.

It never ceases to amaze me that the Communion has tolerated this woman for as long as they have.

She is a monkeys paw, and she will be unceremoniously dumped just as soon as she has obtained all of her puppet masters’ objectives.

[7] Posted by The Pilgrim on 1-31-2009 at 05:27 AM · [top]

As some day it may happen that a victim must be found,
I’ve got a little list — I’ve got a little list
Of Episcopal offenders who might well be underground,
And who never would be missed — who never would be missed!
There’s the Assisting Bishop of Pittsburgh who wants to tell you about God —
And the prehistoric Christians, and the smells and bells brigade
Eighty year old bishops and Evangelicals I can ditch
And the interfering Englishman who thinks that I’m a bitch
They’d none of ‘em be missed — they’d none of ‘em be missed!

[8] Posted by Pageantmaster ن on 1-31-2009 at 07:21 AM · [top]

#7 The Pilgrim,
“She is a monkeys paw, and she will be unceremoniously dumped just as soon as she has obtained all of her puppet masters’ objectives.”
Who is the “Holy Man” that has put his spell on her and is her puppet master?

[9] Posted by Fr. Dale on 1-31-2009 at 08:40 AM · [top]

Ah, Pageantmaster, that’s just what we needed.  A little Gilbert and Sullivan to start the day.  I feel better already.

[10] Posted by Ann Castro on 1-31-2009 at 09:06 AM · [top]

And who are the puppet masters?  Well, let’s see….there’s “the Enforcer” to start with, and then…..

[11] Posted by Cennydd on 1-31-2009 at 10:37 AM · [top]

There is no discipline for those who are issuing discipline. How can anyone expect KJS and those who are mastering her strings from behind the puppet curtain be disciplined when there is none for them….only for those of whom they target! The ABofC along with a majority of Primates could, (if they really wanted to,) choose to not recognize TEc and KJS if they had a back bone to do so but so far….there has been no evidence of any backbones in the WWAC of Primates to kick TEc and KJS to the curb and remove them from the WWAC! Yes! GAFCON was a good thing and remains so but is nothing compared to basically telling TEc and KJS that they are no longer a part of the WWAC due to their lack of practicing what they vowed to uphold and the long list of violations that keep occuring!  So it remains business as usual! Enjoy!

[12] Posted by TLDillon on 1-31-2009 at 11:34 AM · [top]

It’s my understanding that there is no formal provision in the Anglican Communion for expelling errant provinces, so therefore, they can’t kick TEC out.  I think the best thing they can do is to snub them, ignore them, and not sit at the table with them….however effective that may be.

[13] Posted by Cennydd on 1-31-2009 at 12:42 PM · [top]

Since Schori and Company have, in effect by their actions, told us conservatives that we’re persona non grata….even though they claim otherwise….that should apply to them.

[14] Posted by Cennydd on 1-31-2009 at 12:47 PM · [top]

And the TEC bishops just sit there and take it. Not one objecting to KJS making a mockery of the Constitution and Canons of their “Church”.Shame.

[15] Posted by bradhutt on 1-31-2009 at 02:37 PM · [top]

As ACI has issued its scathing reviews of the PB just before the Primates’ next meeting, and as the PB and head of the Canadian church have been asked by the ABC to describe the difficulty their actions promoting homosexuality have caused their churches and the Communion, the Diocese of Toronto has just stated it will forge ahead with same sex blessings/marriage.  At least two members of ACI teach at the University of Toronto.  I hope the Primates take note of this in-their-face pursuit of provincial “autonomy.”

[16] Posted by Seen-Too-Much on 1-31-2009 at 03:00 PM · [top]

15   Bradhutt, let’s see just how far Kate pushes the envelope after the next General Convention. 

Everyone has a breaking point, when their patience is exhausted and they get pushed over the edge, and I wonder just how much longer it’ll be before they get tired of her shenanigans and toss her out on her bum. 

Even these bishops have at least some conscience, and are concerned, or at least they should be concerned that she’s destroying what’s left of their Church!

[17] Posted by Cennydd on 1-31-2009 at 03:18 PM · [top]

15 and 17.
I am sure TEC bishops are used to it by now.  After all, 88 of them were willing to openly violate their vows just because she told them to.
The more pressing issue at the moment for TEC is that she also made a mockery of the canons of the Church of England. Bishop Scriven was consecrated bishop by the then current holder of the See of Canterbury, and while the canons were extensively modified in the Reformation, the canons on ordinations and consecrations were not modified to say that someone elected by the general convention of TEC can depose a bishop consecrated by the man who sits in Thomas Becket’s see and wears St. Augustine’s ring.  And while there may be some controversies ongoing within the CoE, it is difficult to imagine that any English bishop sees the “acceptance of renunciation” as valid, and anything other than a grave insult to the Church.

[18] Posted by tjmcmahon on 1-31-2009 at 03:29 PM · [top]

13- The Anglican Consultative Council could indeed expel TEC, although it might take the equivalent of a constitutional amendment.  Such has happened before though, I believe (correct me if I am wrong here folks, on my laptop working from memory) in the case of Sudan (I think)in the 1990s when the government took over the Church and replaced bishops and clergy who did not agree with the government’s politics.  The “official” Church of Sudan lost its place in the Communion and was replaced by the current Church, essentially by action of the Archbishop of Canterbury in association with the ACC and the Primates.  I am not sure if Lambeth passed any resolutions or not, but the ABoC determined who to invite and who not, based on his assessment of who the “real” Anglican bishops of Sudan were.
  I would not expect anything so dramatic in the short term.  I do wonder if KJS’s tenure on the JSC might not be cut short, however.  As I understand, she has said she will be leaving the Primates meeting early in order to make her date in Fort Worth.  Perhaps she is just planning ahead, better to appear to be leaving voluntarily rather than have it be obvious that you were asked to leave. Clearly, the ABoC did not schedule this meeting at her convenience. If the CoE recommendations on the St. Andrew’s draft of the Covenant are adopted (much less, say, Nigeria’s or Southern Cone’s), in all probability TEC would never sign and that would effectively remove them from the council’s of the Communion.

[19] Posted by tjmcmahon on 1-31-2009 at 03:49 PM · [top]

Someone I was talking to about this absurdity said the PB is trying to provoke the ABC to take sides now since TEC is on the way out of the Anglican Communion, having declared they won’t sign an Anglican Covenant, etc.  But this doesn’t make sense, does it…..?  Could she possibly think she has some leverage over the ABC, so she attempts to defrock a COE priest and bishop to get the COE and the ABC to do something?  It doesn’t make any sense to me.  Does anyone else have a view?  It just seems too stupid not to be deliberate;  but if deliberate, what can she possibly think she will gain by it?

[20] Posted by Seen-Too-Much on 2-2-2009 at 01:54 AM · [top]

Why the HOB’s (especially the Windsors [what a very bad joke they turned out to be]) tolerance of the PB’s Machiavellian machinations?  That’s the better, but equally unanswerable, question.  Truly, the only feasible answer is collusion.

[21] Posted by Athanasius Returns on 2-2-2009 at 04:53 AM · [top]

I certainly don’t know, AR.  The HOB seems so indifferent for the most part that I think most of them just think if they shut up and don’t get noticed, that their little island will be safe.  I really think most of the HOB don’t care a flying fig what the PB does or doesn’t do.  They think she won’t bother them as long as they don’t bother her.  I truly believe this is the dominant attitude of most TEC bishops.  I am willing to believe that there are exceptions and some genuine heart breaking agonies among decent bishops, but I think most of them just think the PB is irrevelant to their jobs and is not worth any effort, one way or another.

[22] Posted by Seen-Too-Much on 2-3-2009 at 12:57 AM · [top]

Registered members are welcome to leave comments. Log in here, or register here.

Comment Policy: We pride ourselves on having some of the most open, honest debate anywhere. However, we do have a few rules that we enforce strictly. They are: No over-the-top profanity, no racial or ethnic slurs, and no threats real or implied of physical violence. Please see this post for more explanation, and the posts here, here, and here for advice on becoming a valued commenter as opposed to an ex-commenter. Although we rarely do so, we reserve the right to remove or edit comments, as well as suspend users' accounts, solely at the discretion of site administrators. Since we try to err on the side of open debate, you may sometimes see comments which you believe strain the boundaries of our rules. Comments are the opinions of visitors, and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of Stand Firm site administrators or Gri5th Media, LLC.