Presiding Bishop Plans to Try Bishop Duncan before the Lambeth Conference

Which explains the ‘rethink’ over invitations. 

In other worrds, the schism is complete and the new liberal Church of the West (including the CoE) is born.

When the candiddates were announced for Presiding Bishop I said of the then Bishop of Nevada;

“This is the most subtle and dangerous of all the candidates”

There is very little that has transpired to change my mind about this statement.

It seems once more that we’re in the evening of the “Nacht der langen Messer”.  You know, I don’t know of anyone since the Pharoah of Exodus who has been as keen on stomping out a move of God as is KJS. 
Perhaps the HOB should reconsider changing their institutional name from TEC, to TLC (The Litigating Church).

Presiding Bishop Plans to Try Bishop Duncan before the Lambeth Conference

When I first saw the headline, I thought, “Way Cool! Maybe she’ll also attempt to try Archbishop Akinola ‘before’ this gathering of bishops.” But no, Schoria law will not be attempted in the main tent, only in the circus side show they call TEC.
The Rabbit.

Matt, is there a link to the source of this carnival news, perhaps a video or transcript?
The Rabbit.

no link it comes from us. This is our report

“Plans to try” implies presentment and trial under Canon IV.1 and following, rather than proceeding under Canon IV.9 (which was attempted but necessary consents not obtained).  They’re going to decide on a plan in April and have a presentment, trial, and possible appeal completed in time to depose him by May??  Did they say what offenses would be charged?

Questions, Fr. Matt.  There is a discrepancy between the headline and the body of the report.  Is she going to attempt to depose him without a trial, and, if so, does that mean waiving the “required” inhibition period?  Is this because she could not get the three senior bishops to agree to the inhibition?  Or is she going to try him in an ecclesiastical court?  And, if so, what will be the charges?

Mike “try” was my word, not theirs. She will try to move for his deposition before May which could in fact mean use or reuse either of the sections of canon 4 to which you refer. My guess is that it would be IV.9 again, but I don’t know. More will be known about this on Monday

This is terrific news! The remaining half-ounce of Schori’s credibility will disappear.

+Schori must have been encouraged to move ahead by the complete lack of opposition at the HoB meeting to the irregularities in her deposition of +Cox.  (She sat on the charges for over seven months to wait for a meeting of the HoB where ++Williams would not be present.)

This is becoming more and more like Warsaw, or the Reign of Terror.  Those who did not speak against the first outrages soon found themselves the targets of subsequent ones.

I thought that the two out of three senior bishops already failed to approve bringing charges of abandoning communion. 

I hope that the soon to be Anglican Diocese of Pittsburgh already has plans for what to do if Duncan gets the boot before they can vote themselves out.

Matt, some weeks back there was extensive discussion about the fact that Canon IV.9 requires that after the Review Committee recommends deposition of a bishop for abandonment of communion, the PB can proceed to inhibit (the first step in deposition) only “with the consent of the three senior Bishops in” TEC.  In the case of Bishop Duncan, they did not consent.  This requirement comes from the clear language of Section 1 of the Canon and it is important that we continue to raise the point of this requirement before a deposition can go to the HOB for action under Section 2.

I appreciate TJ’s reference to Schoria Law—because it is only under such an oppressive regime that the Holy Polity can be ignored or rewritten to meet what she and Beers want.  But let’s make it clear that an attempt to proceed with deposition of ++Duncan is absolutely contrary to the canons, absent the three senior bishops’ consent.

IMHO, the PB has been bluffing on this and hoping no one would notice that the three senior bishops’ consent is a missing piece.  Unless something has changed with regard to their consents, it will take a straight-up, in-your-face violation of the canons for this to proceed to deposition of ++Duncan.  Is she capable of that?  Probably, but it will set a new low if she does.  Certainly something far less than the “daring charity” the HOB is claiming on the day they deposed ++Schofield and ++Cox.

“Presiding Bishop Plans to Try Bishop Duncan before the Lambeth Conference”

Upon first reading this headline, I felt a wild hope that KJS would have the Lambeth Conference conduct the trial. After all, “trial before X”—-e.g., Festus, Herod, or Judge Wapner—-can mean that X conducts the trial. But that would, of course, be too good to be true.

What’cha wanna bet that the discernment process for the Dio of Pittsburgh is made easier?

Br_er Rabbit said:
But no, Schoria  law will not be attempted in the main tent, only in the circus side show they call TEC

Okay, that’s a keeper. 

Shoria law.

Heh.  Heh.

Hanks #15 - why don’t you ask SJ about the disregard of Canons.

“Is [KJS] capable of that?”—-Hanks [#15]

Absolutely. The question is whether she and Beers believe she can get away with it.

Ann,

I would have liked to ask those questions. What we know is that in april she will poll the HOB regarding moving his deposition forward to May. Those are the details we have.

Here is what I surmise

I believe that she is expecting a letter from +Duncan in the next few days in keeping with her request here:

““I would, however, welcome a statement by you within the next two months providing evidence that you once more consider yourself fully subject to the doctrine, discipline and worship of this Church,”

This would provide her with reason to change the timing of this:

<blockquote>“Pursuant to the time limits stated in Canon IV.9, the matter will not come before the House of Bishops at its next scheduled meeting in March 2008, but will come before the House at the next meeting thereafter…”

The next meeting is in September.

This would answer Mike’s question above. She is probably planning another IV.9 move based on perhaps a letter from +Duncan in answer to her earlier request. Whatever his answer I think she feels sufficient support to move forward with a deposition now.

sorry blockquotes were too long

...hanks I would think, unfortunatelym she might have the support of the three now that +Duncan has missed this Hob meeting in favor of a Gafcon meeting

Matt, that’s the bluff which I think was contained in her letter to ++Duncan.  When she asks for an answer in two months, it suggests that the period to answer under Canon IV.9 has begun to run.  But that ignores the lack of consents.

I regard this is business as usual.

This is a new stage.  The liberals have taken TEC and are reshaping it in their image.  The terror is to wipe orthodoxy out of the Church and ensure compliance.

This is the control and use of a Church that has been assimulated.  The GS is starting the first steps of forming a new denomination.  This is not the last few stages of the old game. This is the start of the new game - bringing the new ‘theology’ of TEC to Lambeth to assimulate the West, especially the CoE.  This is just clearing the ground in advance.

TEC is now a new religion controlled by the PB.  Se is now preparing to invade the rest of the West.  With Williams help and ;sleeper bishops; in the CoE who will arise at Lambeth, a new creed will take over the Western Communion.

The laity, however, will go elsewhere and the institution will have a brief period of total victory and endorsement by government.  The Western ‘Church’ will then become an irrelvance and either a GS Church will take over or the Communion will evaporate and there will be less denominations in Christianity.

Alas, a lot of persecution from the Church and by secular government for the faithful in the meantime.

The question is whether she and Beers believe she can get away with it.

With the present HOB, I think the Terrible Two can pretty much call for beheadings and burnings at the stake without a whimper of opposition.

Such a push might have less to do with Lambeth invitations than trying to establish a precedent for getting bishops out of the way on a schedule faster than that needed for departure of a diocese.  But trying to proceed under IV.9 without the consents would be a transparent violation of what the canon requires.

Of course, if you think this is harsh, you wait until the secular authorities join in with TEC as their template for an inclusive Church.

“The TEC/CoE are inclusive and tolerant and they are Christians!  So if you don’t behave like them, you go to prision!  Don’t tell me your religion does not allow what we define as inclusivity because we have the TEC/CoE showing you can!!”

Yeah, the fact the Western Church prays to Bhuddha will not register.

Matt, I understand your point.  If there is a change on the consents, there’s a new ball game.  However, the Canon says the two months starts after the bishop has been inhibited, and that can’t take place until the consents have been given—the time the clock starts running.

It’s all terribly evil and totally lacking in the charity they claim.

okay, lets say the PB gets a letter this weekend. Then she gets consents and inhibits

then we are in the may timeframe easily

Pittsburg will leave PECUSA whether en mass or piecemeal, parish by parish. There is nothing 815 can do to stop it. They (PECUSA) are living on borrowed money and borrowed time. All they can do is go further in debt before failing and decide how foolish they want to look trying to save a sinking ship. These are desperate attempts that will fail. They can’t depose Duncan legally or canonically for that would be double jeopardy. If Beers says that double jeopardy doesn’t apply he becomes the Taliban legally and morally. Granted he may cause a change of plans (like all parishes joining the CANA seperately one night altogether and then reforming as a diocese there) but that is about all he can do, and depending on how he does it inflame passions so much that other parishes that wouldn’t have gone had Beers not acted this way follow from ajoining dioceses creating a greater net loss for PECUSA. Beers is looking into a black hole beaconing him and he is blinded by his queer sense of righteousness. Step a little closer Dave to get a good look at “Being and Nothingness”.

Paul B, thanks, but it originated from another commenter at SF whose handle escapes me.
The Rabbit.

Unfortuantly is Duncan is removed from office before the diocese votes to make leaving official, any Anglican Diocese of Pittsburgh formed will have no legal claim on the resources and property currently owned by the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh.  I’m sure that, far more than Lambeth invitations, is the motivating factor.

I hope Duncan, his standing committee, his clergy and laity leadership already have plans in place on things like where congregations will meet and and how to start rebuilding financial resources that TEC can’t touch.

We shall see if the Queen is able to capture Bp. Duncan and assimilate him into The Episcopal Collective as her very own Locutus.

Just saw the following resolution apparently adopted yesterday by the HOB and it seems somehow relevant to their desperate actions to depose any orthodox in sight:

Resolved, that the House of Bishops expresses its dismay at President George W. Bush’s veto of the bill banning torturous interrogation techniques such as “waterboarding.” As followers of the One who said,  “Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who abuse you…do to others as you would have them do to you.” (Luke 6:27-28, 31) we find this method of interrogation morally unacceptable and call upon members of Congress to override this veto.

It’s so good to know of their concern for the terrorists.

Wow, the devils minions sure a busy bunch of boys and girls this week. Of course ,vileness like this againet Bishop Duncan was expected, but still it is no less offensive. I would like to pull a Rev. Jeremiah Wright,(see post about Barack’s pastor) regarding TEC, but I’ll refrain. God will clean out the pit of filth known as TEC. This is the beginning of the big fire works, and eventually resurrection of some sort, so let it begin.

May the Lord bless and protect Bishop Duncan as he faces the devil and all his evil works, standing firm in the cause of Christ. For we face not flesh and blood, but principalities and powers.

Hopefully +Duncan will call an emergency diocesan convention right after Easter.  He can move faster than the bureaucrats - especially because our allies in the heroic Camp Allen Brigades will probably provide covering fire by procedurally mucking up the process and fouling Schori’s timeline.  Because they’re on our side, just from the inside - right?

OK, everybody can stop laughing now.

Proving once again the cherished “listening process” involves the revisionists/Integrity talking and everyone else agreeing only. Take any step to attempt the silencing of the voices of opposition.

I would like to pull a Rev. Jeremiah Wright

Oh, Jihadi, go ahead.
The Rabbit.

Well, if all it was was a bill banning waterboarding, I would actually agree with them.  I also agree with McCain that waterboarding is not good.  However, what it was was a bill placing an extremely restrictive standard that was originally designed for use by professional soldiers against other professional soldiers.

(New York City, USA, March 13, 2008)

The HoB of the TEC today approved the establishment of the Committee of Inquiry herein after called the Inquisition to investigate and punish the violations of Schoria law within the organization.  “All violations of Polity will be pursued and severely punished to the end of the defendant’s resources.  The inquisitors have been selected and are even now in the hottest spots of anti-Schoria activity.  We ask the support of all the people under our care to report these subversive activities to Inqusition Headquarters at 815.”  Roman Carpathia PR director.

My point was not really about waterboarding, but about the hypocrisy of their concern for terrorists on the same day they depose two godly bishops using a procedure that has zero due process.  It’s all about their liberal agenda—both in and out of the church.

Isn’t this an attempt to head him off at the pass?  Wouldn’t that trial be before the next Pittsburgh convention and thus he wouldn’t be able to preside?

What is interesting about this tidbit is not only the news itself, but that it does not seem to have been picked up by anyone else—at least none that I can find. Congratulations on the scoop, StandFirm. I agree with Jihadi, this could be the beginning of the big fireworks—the proverbial last straw—as it will lead to outrage both among many faithful Episcopalians and among the Primates and bishops of the Communion. In one sense, this gesture that is intended by its very timing to be punitive, couldn’t be better timed. If it actually happens, it could tank Lambeth altogether.

On the other hand, I wonder whether the “polling the house” bit might be aimed at going over the heads of the three and appealing to the whole house. If the poll comes back overwhelmingly for a May gathering and deposition, then she could come back to the three and say, “look, you are not at all representing the mind of the house…”

Unfortunately, the rules in Pittsburgh appear to me leave little wiggle room to leave TEC early:  Changes to the Canons must happen at an annual meeting (not a special meeting), and the annual meeting must happen in October or November.  I’m not a lawyer, so perhaps they can be read more creatively.

It seems fairly obvious what the PB is doing if you just work back from her goal:  no Pittsburgh vote to leave TEC in 2008.  To prevent that she must ignore the written Canons and Constitution of TEC (done), eliminate +Duncan (soon to be done), and, most importantly, replace the Standing Committee of DioPgh with stooges.  Once +Duncan is out of the way the standing committee is the “presiding ecclesiastical authority” and could allow the motion to confirm the changes to the Canon to come to the floor of the convention whether Bishop Bob is sitting in the big chair or not (and if forced to put someone in the big chair, they are supposedly the ones to pick).

So, an obvious motivation for the early deposition of our good bishop is to allow enough time for the machinations and legal wrangling necessary to at least somewhat legitimize the removal of the standing committee for abandonment of communion before the convention.  We already know she has claimed the power to dismiss standing committees for not fighting secession hard enough from San Joaquin.  At the very least she hopes to throw the convention into such a disarray of litigiousness that the motion can’t be brought before GC 2009 slams the door shut.  I don’t think she cares that many of the individual churches in the diocese will attempt to leave in the aftermath as they are much easier legal pickings as opposed to a diocese as a whole.  Besides, the more orthodox churches that leave, the stronger the revisionist remnant will be against the misguided orthodox remnant.

I am not enough of a parliamentarian to know:  can a motion to leave TEC be brought in front of the convention if the “Standing Committee” and the “bishop” don’t want to allow it?

(BTW, I would really REALLY like it if someone showed me I was being paranoid)

I think Bishop Duncan would have been removed before the November meeting anyway.  This does seem to be related to Lambeth.  A good test for the ABC!

The diocese will have to reallign without the Bishop at the helm!  (and they may have the votes to do it!)

RoboDoc - good info - here’s what might have to happen, then, though I admit it’s easy for me to say: Bishop Duncan should step down, now, and transfer to CANA, or wherever.  That leaves the existing Standing Committee to just run the clock out and appoint whoever it pleases to be the next bishop (and the next one, and the next one - as long as it takes for the GCC to give up and consent).

Believe me, the PB would NOT be taking this action if she didn’t have a reasonable basis to believe it would help her with the ABC’s political calculus.

a couple of things:
in answer to #45:  i believe that you can introduce a motion/resolution/canocal(sp?) change from the floor and then you need a 2/3 vote of the convention to hear to said motion..i dont think that would be too hard to get in Diocese of Pittsburgh.

a question: its my understanding of the canons that in order for Ducan to be inhibited, the whole process would have to start over again with the review committee voteing that he abadonned the Commuion, since she didnt get the consents last time the process stop and has to be started again right?

thridly: if she goes through with this transparent abuse and violation of the Constition and Canons i call upon the godly members, lay,priests,and bishops, to charge her under title IV.1.e.h anyone second it?

#49:
Unfortunately, it might be a more dicey thing than you think:  while the first reading of the Canonical change passed the clergy by a 7:1 vote, it only passed the laity by about a 2:1, i.e., 2/3rds vote.  Now, Bishop Bob has mentioned that this disparity might be due to the fact that the diocesan and parish leadership for the last 20 years have done too good a job at sheltering their flocks from the impact of the wider national church issues so the laity haven’t really internalized the absolute need for the realignment.  If he is right, I can’t imagine anything that would push more laity into voting for realignment than the recent and soon to be taken actions of the national church.

My sense last night when no coherent general statement came out of the HOB was that it was a body in disarray.  They had just been rebuffed by the ABC on Gene Robinson, had one diocese leave, two others vote to leave, picked on two 80-year old bishops with personal crises, deposed a sitting diocesan and had nine bishops leave the church in the last year.  ECUSA appears to be an institution in meltdown and all they could come up with were two short statements that manifested episcopal dementia rather than communication.

That sense of disarray is confirmed by this puzzling report.  A number of us have argued ad nauseam that Duncan could not be deposed without first being inhibited with the consent of the three senior bishops.  It has been clear, however, that 815 was going to proceed otherwise and depose without inhibition.  That could now be accomplished at any time at a meeting of the HOB since Schori’s letter to Duncan giving him two months notice was sent out in mid-January.  Why does she need to “poll” the very people she just spent the last week with?  Why didn’t she poll them then?  Maybe she did and wants a do-over.  And why depose before Lambeth?  He probably won’t go anyway unless something big is in the works with the Windsor Continuation Group.  Is this an attempt to be as offensive as possible to the communion?

Reading between the lines of the gibberish that came out of this meeting one senses a body in which the wheels have come off.

#50 Let us most sincerely hope that you are correct in this assessment.

The PB has pushed the boundaries on the canons now three times - first with regard to proceeding with Duncan’s deposition even though she failed to get the canonically required consents for inhibition, and second, dismissing a validly elected diocesan standing committee, and third, in appointing an episcopal presence in a diocese without the consent of its standing committee.

There has been no push back, no consequences for the PB.  It has electrified her liberal base.  From this point on, folks, the canons are merely pegs on the wall for her to hang her actions on.  Expect to see Duncan deposed, and the standing committee given a timeframe in which they will be required to formally renounce any plans to disaffiliate or face removal by the PB.  TEC is sliding quite literally into tyranny.

My recommendation would be for Duncan to transfer to the Southern Cone just prior to any deposition.  Then for the Pittsburgh SC to publically declare loyalty to the doctrine and discipline of TEC “as this Church has received them”, then hold the departure vote in November.  I have long argued that disaffiation from the General Convention does not violate the doctrine and discipline of TEC.

Mark:  I do actually think that part of the North American liberal strategy IS to be as offensive as possible to the Communion and get away with it.  And no, not just to be offensive, but rather as a dare to the Communion to do anything about it.  It is, after all, a classic bully tactic.  TEC knows that if it can be as rude and offensive as possible just before Lambeth, and face no consequences, then it need not worry about any more consequences.

To follow up on jamesw, I’ve seen it reported that anybody (not just clergy) involved with setting up the new Potemkin Diocese of San Joaquin will have to sign loyalty oaths to GCC.  How many existing laity do you think would do that?

Has the irony of this week’s Lenten gospel concerning the trial and judgment of Christ struck anyone else? The clamouring of the crowd gathered for Barabas? The disarray in the HOB described by #51 certainly presents the same image as the majority called repeatedly for “deposition” of true and faithful bishops. Very sad. KJS does a great Pilot.

jamesw,

Most people seem to think that Schori is getting away with her canonical violations.  I thought that maybe she was getting some resistence, at least in the HOB.  Perhaps I’m wrong.

One thing is clear, however.  If the DSJ Standing Committee intends to stake any claim to being the Ecclesiastical Authority in San Joaquin, today’s the day.  The silence is deafening.

#34 Hanks - They’re opposed to torture via waterboarding, but see no problem with prolonged exposure of people’s brains to phrases like “celebrate our unity in the comprehensiveness of diversity” ?

Compare and contrast:
“celebrate our unity in the comprehensiveness of diversity”
with
“worship the King in the beauty of holiness”

btw Mark McCall very interesting post - any thoughts on what does it mean in practice.

Cathy Lou (#58), the mental torture they inflict has been excruciating, but “our response is to name this hurt” and to pray for a   “daring charity and courteous understanding.”

They are masters at tossing in bits of piety while the blade is piercing the heart.  Nothing but a brood of vipers and whitewashed sepulchres.

Pageantmaster #59

First and foremost, they must issue a public statement announcing that they are now the Eccliastical Authority in San Joaquin.  It is probably a reasonable assumption that 815 will not simply say “oh really? We didn’t know that” and back off.  Accordingly, the Standing Committee must be prepared to follow through with other actions, perhaps including some of the following: filing a presentment against Lamb; warning Schori not to come into the diocese on Mar. 29; filing a presentment if possible against Schori; preparing to intervene, probably as a defendant, in the coming litigation between 815 and Schofield; and most importantly acting like an ecclesiastical authority with respect to diocesan affairs.  I would consider scheduling a competing convention on Mar. 29 of those wishing to stay in ECUSA to distinguish themselves from the puppet regime.  Just off the top of my head (which was already a desolate place).

Not to mention that they promise to “name this hurt” and then don’t. Are they going to have special meetings at Lambeth to “name this hurt” and keep us in suspense in the meantime? Can we offer suggestions?

Perhaps Sarah can offer a new prize in a “name this hurt” contest and Chris Johnson can offer coffee mugs and t shirts with the winning entries.

Like the prayer shawls in NO, each of our Bishops can be given a T shirt with the “name this hurt” winning entry, and we can get a group souvenir photo of all of our Bishops wearing their “name this hurt” at Lambeth ‘08.

Sarah? What do you say?

You know maybe it’s just me, but at the end of the day,who the hell really cares what the TEC and the ABC do about anything anyway?  Why all the fuss.  Of the 77 million Anglicans, the American and COE folks make up probably less than 10% percent of the entire worldwide communion and less than 3% are causing all the problems. 
I don’t want to be talking about this stuff for another 10 years so my hope is that the African Bishops tell the ABC and TEC to either get it together or they’re leaving and they’re taking 90% of the team with them.

#61 Mark - thank you for your thoughts on that; for all the squeals of ‘polity’ there doesn’t seem to be much concern for that at the moment from teh PB and there does seem to be a sense of panic and fear - the usual reason for people lashing out indiscriminately.

Here’s how we cradle Episcopalians learned to talk:

“celebrate our unity in the comprehensiveness of diversity”
“celebrate our comprehensiveness in the diversity of unity”
“celebrate our diversity in the comprehensiveness of unity”
“unify our celebration in the diversity of comrehensiveness”
“comprehend the unity of the diversity of our celebration”
“diversify the comprehensiveness of the unity of celebration”

You can pretty much scramble the order of any words we speak and it all means the same thing: Episcopalian Easter Cow Gas.

#61 makes you wonder if the lack of polity is the reason for all the thud and blunder; knowing that the polity does not support what the PB is doing she has decided to brazen it out.

Not much fun being on the standing committee which two bishops have tried to dismiss I would have thought.

So, there’s goin’ to be a fair trial followed by a hanging?  BTW, I LOVE the reference to Schoria Law… I plan on using it all the time!

Bill

Interesting that all this is happening at the ides of March.

[61] Mark McCall,
Exactly—Act like an ecclesiastical authority with respect to diocesan affairs.  Schedule a competing convention on Mar. 29 of those wishing to stay in ECUSA to distinguish themselves from the puppet regime.

#65 Chazaq - LOL - am beginning to get the hang of this -
‘diversify unity’ is of course oxymoronic.

‘I have to live into words in the pluriform contradiction of their truth’ - I think I’ve got it - I really think I’ve got it.

The sooner they depose Bp. Duncan the better!  Then maybe the collaborationists who think there is still a chance to reform TEC will come to their senses and abandon this sinking (stinking?) ship.

If you believe that a diocese can depart from TEC and that SJ was successful in doing so, then it seems difficult to argue that the former standing committee members of the diocese that has successfully departed now must become the standing committee members of a reconstituted TEC diocese.  On the other hand, if you believe the TEC line that a diocese can’t depart (or at least that SJ wasn’t successful in doing so), the standing committee is still in place.  Somehow the positions seem to have gotten reversed, with TEC not recognizing the old standing committee and at least some of the supporters of the departees arguing that, although the diocese left TEC, they left a standing committee behind.

#72

I believe the diocese departed and the purported standing committee has no more authority as an ECUSAn entity than I do.  When 815 calls, that is what I will advise.

They tend to see it differently, however.  And the Standing Committee in particular thinks it has a lawful status.  I am really just arguing in the alternative (an ancient and honorable legal perogative) that if they think this, they better act on it tout de suite or they are history!

#65..chazaq “Episcopalian Easter Cow Gas.”
I finally found something to laugh about

Actually, doing this could backfire for ECUSA if Duncan is deposed before the Pittsburgh convention meets and acts to secede.

1) It would leave the Pittsburgh Standing Committee intact, and it might be harder for ECUSA to “fire” them, rather than suffering the fate of being fired by two provinces.

2) I suspect fewer bishops will go along with a deposition in the absence of the Diocese actually seceding from ECUSA.

I wonder how long it will be before the institutionalists in ECUSA realize that it will be less destructive to the institution to just let people go who want to go, rather than fighting and draining the church of resources and inviting adverse legal precedents, ie, in California.

I will be amazed if all this frantic activity by ECUSA is making a very strong and nauseous impact on the conservative provinces who have generally been separating themselves from the determination of the GENCON primates and their bishops (such as ++s Chew, Mouneer Azis, and a few others.  If I were them, I would be reconsidering my invitation to be at Lambeth.  Of course this is just this Anglican peon’s
thought.

DaveG (#71), although your comment runs afoul of the comment policy not to belittle those who have chosen to remain in TEC, I have to say that I found great truth in your first sentence and rejoice that I share that truth with you.

oops!  I meant “.... is not making a very…”

Then maybe the collaborationists who think there is still a chance to reform TEC will come to their senses and abandon this sinking (stinking?) ship.

DaveG,

That’d be one monstrously humongous maybe, wouldn’t it?  Based on what’s gone on with the HOB over the last few days paired with 815’s growing power putsch, now’d be the time, eh?  I, for one, am NOT counting on sensibility kicking in.

The situation in San Joaquin may not be the same as in Pittsburgh.  In San Joaquin, +Schofield holds title to diocesan property as a corporation sole; last year he filed amendments to the corporate articles which changed its name (to “The Anglican Bishop of San Joaquin” from “The Episcopal Bishop of San Joaquin”).  The Diocese of San Joaquin was just an unincorporated association under California law.  It, too, went through the procedures to amend its bylaws to make it subject to the oversight of the Southern Cone. 

The members of the old Standing Committee are in the position of being attached to no current legal entity, unincorporated or otherwise.  They should take immediate steps to become part of a legal entity with the name of “the Episcopal Diocese of San Joaquin”—-either incorporated or unincorporated.  This would preempt any attempt by the rump convention on March 29 to do so, and would throw a monkey wrench into 815’s plans.  Then, as Mark McCall states, they should start acting as the Ecclesiastical Authority of that Diocese, or they will be swept aside.

If they have their entity (which the Canons unquestionably authorize them to form, as the Ecclesiastical Authority following the deposition of +Schofield), they will then have two legs up on Schoria law: they will demonstrate positively that they have not left TEC, thereby invalidating her “refusal” to recognize them, and they will have standing to bring a quo warranto action against any other body trying to form itself as the Episcopal Diocese (or Bishop) of San Joaquin.  (Such an action challenges in court the authority under which a corporation has been formed, or pursuant to which an officer holds title to an office.)

I don’t know whether +Duncan is also incorporated as a corporation sole, or whether the Diocese of Pittsburgh is incorporated or unincorporated.  The point is to take the appropriate actions under Pennsylvania law to gain legal recognition of the new status while there is a majority to approve the action.  (Again, the question in Pittsburgh will be whether such changes—-even to allow for temporary pastoral oversight—-will require changes to the Constitution and Canons or not.)  +Schofield had to have been planning his moves for at least a year or more, and I am sure that +Duncan must be doing the same.

Mark:  I do believe that the parish of at least one of the priests remaining on the TEC Standing Committee (BTW, I agree with you about arguing in the alternative - I too believe that under Anglican and TEC polity the DSJ had the right to disaffiliate, but if TEC argues no, it should be consistent in its argument) is in the process of deciding to leave TEC.  One parish has decided to remain in TEC.

Dan Martins has suggested (I think it was him) that KJS’s plan in dismissing the Standing Committee members who had not left was part of her plan so that she could turn the diocese over to her flunkies in Remain Episcopal and that she hoped it would so anger the remaining TEC-loyalist conservatives that they would leave.  Everything that I have seen would support this hypothesis.  So my guess is that the remaining six aren’t going to fight this fight because a goodly number will be making the decision to leave.

My guess is that KJS knows full well that even if there is a challenge the liberal sycophants at the levers of power in TEC will support her.  Since there the final interpretation of the canons is left to a political process, everybody knows it will be a political decision.

The Polituro will not permit any criminal charges to stand against the Supreme Leader as she carries out the Party’s plan to cleanse the Motherland of counterrevolutionaries and undesirables.

#71 I agree wholeheartedly with the gist of what you say… maybe this action will finally sway the “fence-sitters”, those who naively believe there is still a chance to save the orthodox episcopal church. Another point… we, in Pittsburgh, could have had this years convention any time after January 1st according to the rules. That will be my bishop’s decision and I will follow my bishop because he is led by the Word of the Lord!!! Please hold ++Robert in your prayers just as you have ++JDS and ++Cox. MY, my how the list continues to grow.

“I thought that the two out of three senior bishops already failed to approve bringing charges of abandoning communion. “

Not exactly.  The three senior bishops do not have that authority.  They do have the authority to determine whether or not, after a cause for deposition under the abandonment canon is brought forward, the bishop should be inhibited pending the house’s decision.  That is what they elected not to do.

FWIW
jimB

Unless you want to actually read the canon.  But why trifle with words.

Gordy, I do not think that is true.  We could have had a convention, a special convention, but not the annual diocesan convention.  That, I believe, must be held in October or November, and it is only that convention which can hold the second vote on the changes to the Constitution and Canons.  Believe me—I keep asking this question and keep getting the same answer.

If +Duncan is deposed before the diocesan convention, he will simply move a few doors down the hall and keep on operating as the hub of common cause, under the protection of (probably) Southern Cone. The Standing Committee is perfectly capable of leading the diocesan convention through the steps needed to withdraw from TEC.

+Schori does not have the authority, regardless of her claim, to dismiss a standing committee. If she claims such authority, she will have to assert her claim through the courts, and that will never happen in time to stop the forward movement of the diocese. TEC has no capability to do anything to stop DioPitts, only to make itself troublesome and put on its own carnival sideshow.

The Rabbit.

Don’t you think this all sounds like desperation?  lf one is confident, one just ignores it and marks someone absent and moves on.  But to follow this trajectory sounds as though there’s real fear - real fear - and the question then is, “what is the Presiding Bishop and the 815 apparatus afraid of?”

bb

I’ve just gotten through reading about the depositions and potential depositions, and to be honest, I’m really upset.  I only discovered the Book of Common Prayer and Anglicanism (from a Southern Baptist background) in 2004, and it wasn’t until this past summer that I decided to become an Anglican.

I love the theology of the BCP, I’ve felt God’s Spirit in the worship of my orthodox, Anglican parish, and for the first time in my life, I’ve experienced the amazing power of Christ’s Presence in the Eucharist.  All these things, from the Christianity of my ancestors… but now I read of all this horrible persecution of orthodox people, and it makes me question my decision to follow the road to Canterbury. 

I looked at the Roman Church before settling on Anglicanism, and I still believe that the Anglican Way is the best combination of catholic, evangelical Christianity.  But all this makes me wonder.

Can someone please convince me that I shouldn’t move on to Rome?

“It’s so good to know of their concern for the terrorists”

Hanks [#34]: Quite remarkable to consider any criticism of the Bush Administration’s torture policies as pro-terrorist.

“Can someone please convince me that I shouldn’t move on to Rome?”—-Diezba [#88]

Although largely sympathetic to the RCC, I could not become a Roman Catholic even if I wanted to. If I were to declare (as one must) that “I believe that everything the Catholic Church teaches is ordained by God,” I would commit perjury.

“Can someone please convince me that I shouldn’t move on to Rome?”—-Diezba [#88]

One word - mariolatry. Go to Mexico when they have the feast of Our lady of Gaudalupe and you will ask, “What does this have to do with Christianity?”

Then go to Anglican TV and see ABp Orombi ( here and here). See Bp Geurnsey here (that should knock your socks off). See ABp Venables here (Wow!).

Diezba #88 asks: “Can someone please convince me that I shouldn’t move on to Rome?” That depends upon why you left your’ Southern baptist church to become an Anglican, and seek yet further. My question is; what exactly are you looking for, or hoping to get from a particular denomination? Since you asked, it seems that Christ gave some simple guidelines. The question of denominations was dealt with by Jesus during His encounter with the Samaritan women at Jacobs well. The woman asks (or perhaps “prods”) Jesus with a question: “Our fathers worshiped on this mountain, but you say that in Jerusalem is the place where people ought to worship.” She’s asking Him, basically, “Which denomination is the “true church”, Jesus?” Jesus gives her his answer during the following exchange: “Our fathers worshipped on this mountain, but you say that in Jerusalem is the place where people ought to worship.” Jesus said to her,  “Woman, believe me, the hour is coming when neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem will you worship the Father. You worship what you do not know; we worship what we know, for salvation is from the Jews. But the hour is coming, and is now here, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for the Father is seeking such people to worship him. God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth.” The woman said to him, “I know that Messiah is coming (he who is called Christ). When he comes, he will tell us all things.” Jesus said to her,  “I who speak to you am he.”

Jesus, while first correcting her concerning where and how worship was to be held under the Old Covenant, tells her something truly radical; there would soon be NO true centralized, physical place where worship was to be held, but that God, who was Spirit, would seek out those who would worship “in spirit and truth”.

The New Covenant worship of which Christ spoke would have two components: Worship in 1) the spirit, and 2) in truth. The first qualification is achieved when the believer is indwelt with the Holy Spirit, and his/her spirit, which was dead to sins, comes alive in Christ. This occurs when we confess and believe that “I, who am speaking to you, am He.” Assuming that you are at that point, Christ then says we must worship in truth. Jesus prays to His Father on behalf of His disciples, and ultimately on behalf of all of His followers throughout the ages, “Sanctify them through Thy truth; Thy word is truth”.

Three things are apparent here for New Covenant worship. 1) Worship is done in the spirit. We are His only when His Spirit dwells in us, and “The Spirit Himself bears witness with our spirit that we are the children of God” 2) a right understanding about God, so proper worship of Him can be conducted, is found in the Word of God, which, according to Christ, is truth.
3) The Samaritan woman rightly told Jesus that “when Messiah comes, He will teach us all things.”  Jesus may have had to correct her about Mt. Gerizim vs. Jerusalem, but He didn’t need to correct her here! We are incredibly blessed to have the word,testimony and truth of Christ and His sent ones-His apostles-to teach us of all things! That’s what its there for. Take advantage of it!

So as you search for a church home, ask yourself: If I make this my worship and church home, will I be nourished there towards the Fathers stated end that I worship Him in spirit and truth? If you seek towards that end, I’d say its a slam-dunk that you will surely find. “If we ask anything according to His will, He hears us, and we have the petitions that we ask of Him.” And it’s surely the Fathers will-His heart- that we worship Him in spirit and in truth.

Irenaeus [#90]:  May I offer a slight, but significant, correction?  The profession of faith is NOT:  “I believe that everything the Catholic Church teaches is ordained by God.”  Rather, it is “I believe and profess all that the holy Catholic Church believes, teaches, and proclaims to be revealed by God.”  (“Rite of Reception of Baptized Christians into Full Communion with the Catholic Church,” The Rites of the Catholic Church as Revised by Decree of the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pueblo Publishing Co., 1976, 1983, par. 15, p. 293.)

jimB:  Read the actual canon in question and draw out a flow chart of what is required in the canon.  There are a series of steps - each step requires an affirmative answer before the next step can be taken.  That is the plain and unambiguous language of the canon.  KJS was stopped at one step (requiring approval of inhibition by the three senior bishops), and so was canonically blocked from moving to the next step.  That is the plain meaning of the canon.

If KJS chooses to ignore the canon, and the TEC ignores this violation, she will get away with it, but no more then the cop who beats you up while laughing in your face and telling you that the judge is his uncle and so he will get away with it.

bb - I think that it is finally dawning on the PB and 815 that they can never win this war.  They can depose bishops, sieze properties and bully people, but they can’t stop people leaving, can’t stop the seminaries from closing, can’t stop the money from drying up. 

It is my opinion that one of the better historical analogies for what is happening is the Peninsular Campaign of the Napoleonic wars made popular in the Sharpe novels.  The French armies marched into Spain and Portugal and had unquestioned military superiority.  They faced the scattered, demoralized, outnumbered and disunited gaggle of Spanish and Portugese guerrilla fighters and a ragtag British army.  But the French just couldn’t win, and meanwhile the French invasion of Russia drained important resources.  As the French got increasingly angry and desperate they resorted to acts of unspeakable barbarity in the hopes of terrorizing the populace into submission.  You know who play the French and who play the ragtag collection of partisans and British.  The invasion of Russia is represented by the pre-existing/non-related numerical demise of TEC (which would have happened even if VGR had never been consecrated).  History repeats itself - you just have to find the patterns.

jamesw, I claim dibs on playing Sharpe in your analogy.

jimB, my reading of the canon in question is that the consent of the three senior bishops is a necessary step before deposition can proceed further. The language of the canon seems to indicate that, as well as the ordinary rules of English grammar. However, there is no recourse to a secular court if the Episcopal Church disregards its own canons and the General Convention is sole final interpreter of those canons.

One of the worst aspects of the Episcopal Church has been its utter willingness to disregard the rules to attain a desired result. With the trial of Bishop Righter, the main point of the argument for not hewing strictly by the rules was that mercy should prevail, not Phariseeism. But now, I do not think you could argue that there is any mercy being shown on the part of 815.

So what good reason can be offered for disregarding the rules? All of the reasons that have occurred to me have seemed rather childish and spiteful. Where is charity in all this? Where is the Golden Rule? Where is Christ?

Pondering whether “Interior Desecration” is the new thing being taught these days.

Two 80 year old bishops, one with a dying son and the other with a wife with alzheimers; a bishop scorned and slandered and now the bishop of Pittsburgh without even bothering with your own canons.

What a shower - its a disgrace to be associated with TEC leaders who on each and every occasion behave in an un-Christian manner.

I suppose we are going to be expected to entertain the House of Bozos here - wonder who draws the short straw.

Mousetalker, the flow chart Jamesw described is exactly how the Canon is written.  And while the PB might choose to ignore that and coerce the HOB into going along, this is just the sort of abuse that will add both backbone and more Provinces to the side of the Global South.  As in the Peninsula Campaign, it’s winning a battle here and there but ultimately losing the war.

Trust in the Lord for He will be faithful.

Chuck ‘em out.

It would appear that there are several layers of actions going on here:
1. The assumption of power by the PB (and 815) that has not been specifically granted by the constitutions and canons (or the intentions of the constitution and canons). If the body of the HOB does not object it becomes the new presumption. Without a judicial branch of government in TEC, there is no one to hold in-check the encroaching power grab by the PB and 815. Some concerned bishops may be staying silent, because they want to see an end to this internal conflict, however, in their silence they are agreeing to a transfer of power from the local level (the bishop and the diocese) to the national level. This may be used against them at a later date.

2. Legal action to support 815’s belief in the validity of the “Dennis Canon.” If they don’t take action when challenged, then they lose a legal argument for its validity. 815 will assume whatever power/authority they need to proceed if not opposed.

3. The continuing harassment of those who oppose the new liberal/inclusive direction in TEC. Warning to those bishops who are institutionalists, but support the orthodox agenda. You may be standing by watching and agreeing to what is being done to +Cox +John-David and +Duncan (will +Bishop Iker be next?). But after they are deposed of, you become the next line of targets.

I believe that this is much bigger than +Duncan and Pittsburgh. This is the reformation of TEC into a new non-biblical (when necessary and when it conflicts with the secular agenda) image. It’s time for “Good Men” to speak out and not remain silent, or you may not have a voice later.

This is the reformation of TEC into a new non-biblical (when necessary and when it conflicts with the secular agenda) image. It’s time for “Good Men” to speak out and not remain silent, or you may not have a voice later.

Thanks garyec.

Does any individual on this blog believe we’ll hear sufficiently and promptly and with great vigor anyone, particularly in positions of competent capacity (yes, I am referring to the ersatz Windsor bishops), speaking truth to power in the Episcopal Organization?  Anyone?  Anyone?  Bueller?  Cue the crickets…

A couple of days ago, the Lord brought to remembrance a song we used to sing the in Presbyterian church where I grew up…I believe He means it to strengthen me in this chaotic time. May it bless you as you struggle (along with me) to process the continuing apostacy and cruelty of TEc.

My hope is built on nothing less
Than Jesus’ blood and righteousness.
I dare not trust the sweetest frame,
But wholly trust in Jesus’ Name.

When darkness seems to hide His lovely face,
I rest on His unchanging grace.
In every high and stormy gale,
My anchor holds within the veil.

On Christ the solid Rock I stand,
All other ground is sinking sand;
All other ground is sinking sand.

His oath, His covenant, His blood,
Support me in the whelming flood.
When all around my soul gives way,
He then is all my Hope and Stay.

On Christ the solid Rock I stand,
All other ground is sinking sand;
All other ground is sinking sand.

When He shall come with trumpet sound,
Oh may I then in Him be found.
Dressed in His righteousness alone,
Faultless to stand before the throne.

On Christ the solid Rock I stand,
All other ground is sinking sand;
All other ground is sinking sand.

YSIC, Merlena

Thanks, Merlena. We have sung that in Anglican churches. Thanks for bringing it to mind. The Solid Rock is our hope, not anything we can do through our own efforts.
The Rabbit.

Somewhere in the above thread, I picked up on a new acronym for our Dictionary and it would be MED, for More Episcopal Dementia. A nicer and, more accurate substitute for the shopworn “BS”.

Now everyone, be sure to take your MEDs.
All Is Well.™
The Rabbit.

John1 #103 - are you saying the TEC is having a problem regulating their MEDs? 

#101 MerlenaCushing - I found this video of Christ the Solid Rock.

Can someone please convince me that I shouldn’t move on to Rome?

Diezba,
It is important, that you be where you can best be the Christian possible, to know and hear and grow to be the best Christian you can be, to honor Jesus Christ, the Father, Son, & Holy Spirit.  If the RCC church is the best answer for that, well then that is your choice.

My perspective would not allow me consider the RCC church myself for a number of reasons. Just a few of those would include:
- elevation of man-made doctrines into equivalence with Holy Scripture
- past protection of child predators in the clergy, and continuing protection of those priests / bishops that protected/enabled those predators; even by the Popes who historically could have “spoken from the chair” and addressed this situation with power and force…  A situation that was finally partially addressed by the RCC due to financial disasters rather than by following the Word.
- worship of Mary / saints
- indulgences
- man made policy against married priests, which has encouraged the formation and empowerment of the homosexual community in the ordained/consecrated ministries of the RCC
- much mischief, from a historical perspective.

But then, that is just my perspective.

I will pray for your guidance towards the church you attend,

Would it be possible for Pittsburgh to open their “Annual Convention” in April and leave it open until November, while still being able to do the business of the diocese and make the decision to re-align with the GS and act on it?  Could this be a way to beat the clock?  Would the canons permit this?

For those in TEC, I’d suggest instead of merely defending your little stone bridges, build one into the enemy’s encampment. If you believe the PB is in violations of your canons and procedures, call her on it. I am sure many here in SF would contribute to a stone bridge building fund (including me - although I have no skin in TEC).

Is there anyone out there who doesn’t get that this is clearly “an eye for and eye” response for VGR and the Lambeth rebuff?  There is no one that crew hates more than +Duncan. 

This is clearly a “get back!”

Because of all these many truly disgusting machinations by ECUSA, a number, (large, I hope) of on-the-fence ECUSAns, many orthodox ECUSAns, and many (pray) middle of the road ECUSAns will again about their decisions to remain in ECUSA, will decide to leave.  I just wish there were more publicity, that spells out loud and clear, about precisely what this liberal cabal is doing.  Specific publicity about their actions against elderly retired bishops such as +Cox, and other names and reasons, names, ECUSAn strategy and motivation, and effects.  Also truthful publicity about the numbers of parishes, numbers of individuals (if possible). Advertising in the NYT, Washington Post, and as many US publications, large and small across the country.  More publicity in the UK, etc.
We in the orthodox blogs and publications know what is going on -but the man or ECUSAn churchgoer in the street or pew doesn’t have the full picture.
If we can raise money to fight for our parishes from 815s litigation
then we can surely mount an advertising campaign that reaches far beyond SFIF, t19 and other blogs that are primarily intended for our discussions.

Guys, lets steer this back on topic. Discussions of Catholicism are not germane.

#110…BC…You make a lot of sense concerning news dispersion. The ECUSATECinc machine can count on much of the laity just not paying attention to diocesan and national news about TEC if it does not seem to touch them directly. An errant bishop on a world book tour from a low population diocese is at most a side show. If the local priest is, for any number of reasons, getting further tied to a corrupt diocese and General Convention, he might not even see it himself or think he will be bypassed in the fire fight. Too bad for the congregation if the priest in charge is actually as corrupt as the national appears to be and goes along with the current shenanigans.

One wonders also whether our aging ECUSA membership has energy to cope with the problems. If 50-60 year olds are taking care of grandchildren and ailing parents and perhaps working full time themselves, getting to church for worship and a bible study or making sure that their little ministry is ok may be about the energy one devotes to church.

Our PB is just following her training as a marine biologist. Big fish eat little fish.

Article II Section 2 of the Constitution of the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh says:

Section 2. For any sufficient cause, occurring after the designation of the place of meeting of the Annual Convention, the Bishop, or, in the case of the Bishop’s inability to act or of a vacancy in the Episcopate, the Standing Committee, may appoint another time or place, or both, for the meeting of the Convention.

Since the time and place of the next Diocesan Convention have been announced, it appears that +Duncan is permitted to change the time and/or place if he wishes to do so.

Pb.  Are you saying that we are lower on the food chain?!  We should be puffer fish and increase our size!

garyec (#99):
Without a judicial branch of government in TEC, there is no one to hold in-check the encroaching power grab by the PB and 815.

Actually, the situation in Pittsburgh is a bit different from the usual, and there currently is a judicial check operating on TEC’s abuse of its canons (in Pennsylvania, at least).  Fr. David L. Moyer of the Church of the Good Shepherd in Rosemont, PA (now a Bishop of the Traditional Anglican Communion) is taking Bishop Bennison to trial in a few months in Pennsylvania civil court for, among other things, violating canonical procedures by deposing him without a trial (by abusing Canon IV.10).  So if +Schori or the HoB were to try something similar with +Duncan in Pennsylvania, there would be precedent for hauling them into court there . . .

Re: publicity and communication.  If I had the time and follow-thru, here’s what I would do:  set up a website with incontrovertible facts and numbers on the situation in TEC and Canada, and not much commentary.  Uninformed laity in TEC could be directed to the site.  It would take some research, but perhaps could be a team effort.  I corresponded with Mousetalker about this for legal cases using a Wiki, but as for everyone, limited time is an issue. 
However, at the least, perhaps it can demolish the old “a few dozen churches have left”/All is Well spin, and the press can be directed to the site for up-to-date numbers.

Categories: 

**List of Priests and Bishops inhibited, sued or disciplined with counts, names, dates and photos.  Include any pertinent factors which seemed to call for mercy at the time, such as dying children, terrified wife with Alzheimers, children with special needs. 

** List of TEC bishops who have gone to Rome.

**Churches or priests being sued by 815 or dioceses with names of the plantiff, dates, and case #s.  See Presbyterian USA table example here.:

**Links to letters asking for source of money for litigation, VA’s line of credit, any mention from HOB of using interest from trust funds, etc.
It would be nice to have a graph comparing approx. amounts spent on litigation with amounts alloted by 815 to MDGs. 
Links to PB’s VA court depostion and transcript of portion where she said she’d sell to be a saloon before she’d sell to original parishoners that have gone Anglican.

**Churches that have taken votes to leave, ideally with vote counts, and where they went.  Lists of churches that have gone to CANA, AMIA, etc.  See PCUSA example table here: Churches voting to leave PCUSA and here.

**Testimonials from former TEC’ers regarding how their repeated requests to be taken off church rolls have been ignored and their numbers stay in “official” counts. 

I know this is ambitious and may be unrealistic (I’m an idea person).  Of course, even just the list of inhibited priests/bishops would be good.

#117 - I even thought that to go so far and say that “Elder Abuse if occurring in the Episcopal Church” and “You Freedom of Speech and Association is Denied in the Episcopal Church” would turn some heads. You have to think like those that have liberal social concerns. Get a bunch of blue hairs together as well as those haters of the terrorist telecom bill and there’d be revolt!

#108, Speaking of Stone Bridges, I’m wondering if anyone would like to give us an up to date report on how the “inside strategy” is coming along”

There’s some activity and commentary concerning Pittsburgh’s status re its diocesan convention here.

If the PB is undermining cannonical procedures (such as the refusal of 3 senior bishops to consent to deposing Bishop Duncan or another), if she is evading cannons that should apply and otherwise ignoring, flaunting, circumventing them, and acting in bad faith towards them, why don’t people act to depose her?  Couldn’t laity in combination with clergy and bishops bring presentment charges against her?  She would have to be removed from appointing any review panels to consider the charges;  how would they get appointed?  If she refuses, could it go to the AC for adjudication?  At minimum, the timing of her railroading others might be thrown off.

Would someone who knows please let me know why this is not worth trying at this point, given her blatant grab for power she really doesn’t have, or has only because no one opposes her with the very cannons she is suppose to uphold and obey, and her clear efforts to fast forward to the Final Solution?

(canon not cannon)

Actually, I think you had it right the first time. 

(Exactly the problem, Christopher Johnson…)

Cathy Lou (105) I didn’t know On Christ the Solid Rock I Stand was being sung anywhere these days. Don’t believe I ever heard it in my 30 years in TEc. Listening to that selection gives me strength today. I put the link in my favorites. Thank you.

Cathy_Lou:  Websites are not enough since the question is how are the ininformed to be encouraged to go to certain websites.  I think that you’d need to go to get the information out through the TV, radio and print media which could then, not only provide information and, interviews, etc but be directed to websites.  Quite a number of newspapers carry stories of local church crises and some are very good and impartial, some are neutral and others or critical or hostile to the orthodox -also many are very poorly informed.  But we only hear about them when they are published on blogs such as this

Our PB is just following her training as a marine biologist. Big fish eat little fish.

The PB might be well-advised to watch this video.

And sometimes, the news is easy to ignore. During one recent week, the local paper had a section leader article concerning a retired, but active, episcopal bishop and his property dispute with next door episcopalian neighbors. In the next couple of days, a local large episcopal parish was “in the news” about demolishing (or not?) a building on their property which had been, and I gather remains, the subject of protests, court hearings, and neighborhood unrest/upset. Another paper had some news about national ECUSA and Robinson and lawsuits. Even though I keep up with this episcopalians-in-the-news stuff, I found it funny that every piece had to do with property. If I hadn’t known better, I would’ve thought, “Do episcopalians ever do anything but dispute property?” Now, if I kept my head buried in the sand, I might’ve thrown up my hands and just ignored it, and attended to my business at my local parish. Perhaps ECUSATECinc is in the trouble it’s in because people have spent years shrugging and cleaning up their own parish grounds.

One big problem I found with last year’s TEC ads campaign was that it looked ok–unless a person was involved in the disputes and knew the story behind the ads. Or had enough interest to ask just why would a national church body have ads for itself in the newspaper. In the New York Times Opinion section, no less! This getting the news out is a tough one. People get so much information for too much of the time that filters are likely in place. And as long as my parish or my rector, etc. are not the subject of the news, Mrs. Schori can be sure that a campaign of all-is-well will have a long run.

I like the ideas thus far posted for getting out more info to the people in the pews. And I have no ideas of how to get more folks interested. At local parishes I’ve visited one thought prevails; “As long as fill in the blank is the rector, I’m not bothering with what those people are doing.”

This important note was just emailed to me from someone who monitors the HOBD list:

“I asked the question at the press conference about Bp Duncan’s case. The answer is The bishops are considering a May meeting to deal with Bishop Duncan’s case.  That is the entire answer.

The history as I understand it:
It could not be done at the March meeting due to the timeline for
depositions. Since the 3 senior bishops did not agree - the case has
to wait to the next meeting—whenever that is.  If you read the
Title IV committees report and recommendations you will see that there is more than enough (as the the committee said) to depose Bishop Duncan.  Bishop Lee and Bishop Wimberley thought that the deposition should wait until Bishop Duncan takes one more action. The Title IV committee (not a bunch of wild eyed liberals btw) and Bishop Frade said enough is enough.

Chancellor (#116):

Thank you for the clarification of the legal situation in Penn. I hope +Duncan can find some defense there.

My concern is on a larger basis. I spent 35 years in a large international corporation and worked in several areas including executive staffs. We had a saying “assume whatever authority you need until someone questions you as to who gave you the authority,” (“it’s better to ask for forgiveness than ask for permission”). Sometimes that’s how you get things done in a large profit-oriented business, but that’s NOT how you lead the People of God. It’s getting harder and harder to tell the difference between TEC and IBM. I would hope that we can still tell the difference between ecclesia (a gathering of believers) and the institution that has adopted rules and regulations that can be used to punished those who do not go along with the corporate policy.

Sad

TEC has entered a period of lawlessness during which canons, etc. will be overridden in order to achieve the results the Presiding Bishop and her circle want. As others have posted, the “remedy” for procedural irregularities and canonical violations is an appeal to a political body, the HoB, that clearly won’t oppose the Presiding Bishop. The Presiding Bishop’s irregular and rough methods will not be stopped by anyone in TEC. The Presiding Bishop’s methods will grow more muscular as time passes.

Keep in mind that the leadership’s goal is to sieze control of assets and the institutions that control assets. People’s feelings, careers, collegiality, pastoral relationships, etc. are secondary concerns, as is the reactions of the pewsitters. Big bucks are at stake, and the leadership of TEC is playing for keeps.

I also think that, in light of the money and property at stake, TEC’s leadership considers the reaction of the Communion to all this to be of secondary importance. I think that the Presiding Bishop and her Executive Council have concluded: we must get control of the assets and the institutions that control them before we can deal with whatever the Communion is going to do. A general marshals his army before turning to face the enemy. TEC is simply doing the same thing.

#129, Of course the person who posted that on the HoBD mailing list is rather firmly in the revisionist camp. It’s funny how one’s perspective changes based upon where in the pew one is seated.

While many are seated to my left, including the above correspondent, there are few that are seated to that person’s left.

Of course, if I ever became a member of the Plymouth Brethren, I’d be known as ‘that freethinker’ within a matter of minutes.

Come the Revolution, I’m going to be second, possibly third up against the wall

“Our PB is just following her training as a marine biologist. Big fish eat little fish”...

Yeah, but to also quote Star Wars, “There’s always a bigger fish”. 

When I grow up I want to be as well-read as jamesw. 

Such lovely Christian behavior, I see, from the supposed “top”...I know another woman like her who ended up mad, stumbling around, and babbling stuff like “Will all great Neptune’s ocean wash this blood from my hands?” 

Pyrrhic victories only, to be sure… 

My prayers are with Bishop Duncan, and I also offer up some for those who have CLEARLY lost their way…

“From this point on, folks, the canons are merely pegs on the wall for her to hang her actions on.  Expect to see Duncan deposed, and the standing committee given a timeframe in which they will be required to formally renounce any plans to disaffiliate or face removal by the PB.  TEC is sliding quite literally into tyranny.”

So much for “NO POPERY!!”

Diocese of Pittsburg particularly concerns me because I have a cousin there.  He (like me) was raised Southern Baptist.  He married a Roman Catholic, and the Episcopal Church became their compromise church.  I’ve visited the parish for their first child’s baptism.  Very contemporary and evangelical.  My stylistic tastes are more Anglo-Catholic, but I’ve done some checking up and the rector is solidly evangelical and conservative in his theology if not his worship style.  I hardly interact with my cousin so I don’t know where he personally stands theologically (behavior wise he was pretty wild in college but being a family man now has no doubt mellowed that out).  However, I really don’t like the idea that his clergy and the bulk of his parish might end up getting booted out of their property.  I don’t think he knew what he was getting into when he joined ECUSA.

Yeah, this lot make Popery look mighty gentle and consistent, don’t they?

116, Chancellor, I think the priest you cite is going to lose, and the fact that there’s a case pending isn’t particularly helpful to +Duncan or anyone else in a similar situation.  You’d need at least a trial court opinion shooting down summary judgment or something.

The reasons these cases are losers are: (1) the civil courts don’t interpret and enforce canon law, (2) ministers have special constitutional and legal status, such that the bias in cases involving them (unless it’s a sex abuse case or some other instance where a third party is bringing suit based on an overwhelming public policy) is for courts to stay out, and (3) there’s no way to remedy the situation (i.e. no court is going to issue an order restoring a minister to his religious position, which then puts the court in a position of control and monitoring of religious leaders).

Today’s lectionary readings are on spiritual blindness.  The accompanying prayers at Lent & Beyond are here and here.

Re 130: 

I work for IBM, and lemme tell ya, they walk their talk a lot better than the GCC.

Cheers,
Phil Hobbs

The TEC style of inquisition is in full force now. We can expect to see more orthodox bishops and priests defrocked for heresy to the new religion of TEC