March 1, 2017

September 26, 2011

More Fruit From The 2009 General Convention—Central Ecuador Leadership Resigns

Just a little background that, oddly, is not offered by ENS’s article and which I posted in a comment over at T19’s thread on this:

Back in 2009, a delegation from Central Ecuador presented a resolution to the General Convention concerning the bishop election process, [in which the candidates from Central Ecuador were rejected by the search committee and only out-of-diocese candidates were allowed to stand] and alleging gross violation of the canons in regards to the actions of the Executive Council and its then interim bishop:

Three of the six members of the bishop search committee had resigned over the search process, at which point apparently the canons required that the three substitutes should be appointed to the search committee.  Those subs were not appointed and after much wrangling the interim bishop cast the deciding vote at a diocesan convention [because of a tie] to ask the TEC HOB—that’s right,  the incredibly corrupt and incompetent TEC HOB—to elect Central Ecuador’s bishop, which the TEC HOB then happily did.

2/3 of the Central Ecuadorian Standing Committee rejected the election of that bishop and asked the TEC House of Deputies to please please not approve the election.  Three of the four deputies from Central Ecuador also did not support the election or the process.

This was a very heartwrenching scene on the floor and these people from Central Ecuador spoke in several venues at the General Convention.

As you can see by this thread, their request was given all the due moral consideration that our General Convention could muster in both a morning and afternoon session—that is, trivial, shallow, decadent, and incoherent—a committee studied the claims and determined that all was well with the process:

You can see more of the charity and courtesy accorded the Ecuadorian delegation by our HOD here:

There’s an article reporting on the outrage by the interim bishop and the bishop-elect of Central Ecuador regarding the uprising in their diocese over at The Living Church:

Note the helpful words of the interim bishop:

Bishop Ramos stated the Committee on Consecration of Bishops had given Fr. Ruiz its unanimous consent, and urged the bishops to support their choice. Central Ecuador verged on falling back into the “dysfunctional system” and could regress to “where we were before,” unless the bishops stood firm.

And now—here we are.

It’s two years later for poor Central Ecuador.

And quite shockingly—all the leadership, including the “elected” [by our HOB] bishop has had to resign.

Who could have guessed that the people—who had rejected the election results—could *possibly* have held on to their rejection for two whole years?

And oh yes . . . here’s Bishop Ramos’s name on the list of bishops who participated in Gene Robinson’s consecration:

Nice job, HOB.

Nice job, HOD.

Nice job, 2009 General Convention.

So just a reminder here.  The choice of bishop for the Diocese of Central Ecuador by the Episcopal Church’s House of Bishops and agreed to by the Episcopal Church’s House of Deputies at the 2009 General Convention was rejected by 2/3 of the then Standing Committee of Central Ecuador, 3/4 of the convention deputation, and at least half of the Standing Committee.  You can read T19 comments on this over here.

And yet this diocese has had to carry on for two more years, and now the Standing Committee has had to resign along with all other diocesan leadership and yield “its authority to the presiding bishop” of TEC, Katherine Jefferts Schori, who has turned right around and appointed another revisionist bishop, one Victor Scantlebury, as the diocese’s interim.  You can read T19 comments on this sorry escapade here.

And so, the beat goes on.

What could possibly go wrong?

Share this story:

Recent Related Posts



It is so sad to see everything that the Diocese of Ecuador has been through.  What a broken, dysfunctional place, and so much of it is the result of being under TEC’s thumb.  I have hope for them, but only if they join a different province.  How about a new Province of the Andes which would include Peru, Bolivia and Ecuador?

[1] Posted by Hindustaaniwalla Hatterr on 9-26-2011 at 12:18 PM · [top]

Well, what could possibly go wrong, at least from the point of view of Anglicans, is that a substantial number of the faithful in the Diocese of Central Ecuador, might decide that there is already in their neighborhood a church whose Bishops are, while still imperfect humans and sinners, preferable to the revisionists that will now be constantly shoved down their throats by TEC.

Of course, that church being the Catholic Church, I would tend to view that sort of choice, should it come to pass, not as a bug, but as a feature.

Pax et bonum,
Keith Töpfer

[2] Posted by Militaris Artifex on 9-26-2011 at 01:38 PM · [top]

#1, concerning a new Province of the Andes.  This is now under active discussion - at least for those of us in the Southern Cone (Peru and Bolivia).  However if Ecuador were to become part, or even part of Ecuador, it would mean cutting themselves off from the TEC $$$s that come their way.  Logic and mission in fact would suggest that Ecuador be a part of the envisaged province - however these not seem to apply often in Church matters.

[3] Posted by Ian Montgomery on 9-26-2011 at 02:17 PM · [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.