Man wrote the canons. Man can interpret or change the canons.

Get it?

Good. Now sit down and shut up.

So, who is going to do anything concrete to stop Schori and company?  Rowan; the ACC; TEC HOB?  I think not based on their previous actions.  You don’t bite the hand that feeds you and can depose you.

Nobody so far has done anything that has had any significant effect I can see.  Normal ecclesiastical remedies seem useless and unavailable because of the way Schori and company are running things specifically to suit their agenda.  Anybody out there care to suggest some specific strategies and tactics that can stop this tyranny?

#2, Deprive them of the only thing that seems to mean anything to them: Money.

Celebrate Easter the Episcopalian way: Grill some burgers!

Violation of the canons? Depends on your interpretation. It’s not a violation of Schoria Law.

How come Fr. Snell is worried about what the Episcopal Church does? He’s a priest in a purported diocese of the Southern Cone and therefore not an Episcopalian. Anyhow, the presiding officer of any organization can take any action in the interests of that organization that is not prohibited by its bylaws, or in this case, canons.

Anybody out there care to suggest some specific strategies and tactics that can stop this tyranny?

Numerous tactics and strategies have been (and some are still being) applied.  My suggestions: primary strategy - pray like there’s no tomorrow for souls are at stake; mousestalker is correct - secondary tactic, withhold all funds from TEC itself, the national apparatus.  No matter the number of large endowments under their control, 815 does blanch when funds are short.  No more $$ for 815!  Not.  Even.  One.  Single.  Penny.

Man wrote the canons. Man can interpret or change the canons.

We wrote the canons, and we can change them.

The Rabbit.

My suggestions: primary strategy - pray like there’s no tomorrow for souls are at stake

I like your thinking!! We are a pragmatic people, thus so often reflected in our thinking (which you did satisfy with your secondary tactic), but this primarily is a spiritual battle, we need to remember that, for we’ll never accomplish anything on our own, but God ...

Oldverger: Father Snell and five others (of eight total) of the Standing committee of the diocese of San Joaquin voted not to go with Bp Schofield to Southern Cone. They are Episcopalian. They are the Episcopal standing committee of the Episcopal diocese of San Joaquin. They are canonically the authority of the diocese in the bishop resigns (and his resignation is accepted) or is deposed (Neither of which has happened.)

I was reading over at Fr Jake’s (yeah, I need to stop that) that Jake is warning the liberal Remain Episcopal folks that Father Snell and others might show up at the special diocesan convention and be “disruptive”. The police and security have been informed, and some have issued thinly veiled threats of bodily harm against the true standing committee members. (Oh, they’ll know we are Christians by our love, by our love.)

Jake also gives the line that there has been two recent depositions that was not in accord to canon law, so there is a precedent to violate canon law. Wow. How very twisted.

O God, You are King of kings and Lord of lords.  You are Jehovah-Sabaoth.  We cry out for Your children in San Joaquin who have wandered away from You, listening to what pleases them and abandoning Your gospel.  Open their ears so that they will not be led astray by a false gospel. 
Open their ears to hear the Good Shepherd as He calls to them.  Open their eyes to distinguish the hireling from the faithful shepherd. 
Raise up faithful shepherds who speak with boldness the reality of the death and resurrection of Jesus.  Raise up faithful shepherds who proclaim that Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life.  Raise up faithful shepherds who will lead Your people into Your arms of love. 
We cry out, Lord.  We cry out for a church enfolded in Your love.  Amen.

Folks, pardon me if I get get just a tad bit defensive here, but we’re NOT a “purported diocese.” We are the Anglican Diocese of San Joaquin, or more properly the Diocese of San Joaquin in the Anglican Church in the Province of the Southern Cone of the Americas.  As such, we are recognized by our Archbishop, ++Gregory James Venables and the House of Bishops of that province.  We neither need nor want KJS’ recognition. 

If she wants to violate her Church’s canons, then her General Convention and House of Bishops should deal with that problem forthwith.

She also said she would personally convene the March 29 special convention at which Bishop Lamb’s nomination was to be ratified. The agenda for the special convention also calls for undoing the constitutional changes approved during the annual convention last December.

If she gets away with this every diocese in the USA better be fearful of the same happening to them. What would stop her from coming in and changing any constitutional changes she deems fit to in any diocese that makes changes to their constitution she feels that are contrary to her understanding of how she wants a diocese to operate?

“Any action taken during that meeting will have no force or effect in the Diocese of San Joaquin.”

So who is going to tell her and these interlopers and RE people that what they have done means nothing? It’s like telling us and Bishop Schofield that our moving to the So. Cone means nothing! These people are going to press forward with their agenda and the only thing that will drive a point home would be to say You are wrong, you acted against the C & C’s of this Church and the C & C’s of this diocese. Then bring KJS and her coherts up on presentment charges. Now will that happen.....? I’d say there is a bigger chance of ++Rowan Williams booting TEc out of the Communion first! IMHO!

Gentlepersons,
In response to this “Oldverger: Father Snell and five others (of eight total) of the Standing committee of the diocese of San Joaquin voted not to go with Bp Schofield to Southern Cone. They are Episcopalian. They are the Episcopal standing committee of the Episcopal diocese of San Joaquin. They are canonically the authority of the diocese in the bishop resigns (and his resignation is accepted) or is deposed (Neither of which has happened.)”
If Fr. Snell and his compatriots are Episcopalians, who is their bishop? It can’t be John-David, because (a) he has resigned, (b) he has been deposed, and (c) he is under the authority of the Archbishop of the Southern Cone. The see of the Episcopal Diocese of San Joaquin is vacant.
They are a part of the group that violated the national “accession” canon, are they not? If so, they have already violated their fiduciary duty to the Episcopal Church by this ultra vires act.
Oh, yeah, that old ultra vires thingy! Might be that is what this is all about, and they think a little CYA is a good idea?

#5 oldverger,
You are incorrect and need to get your facts straight before speaking of things you boviously really know nothing of. Fr. Snell has not seceded to the So. Cone with the majority of us here in San Joaquin. Fr. Snell and the good people of St. Columba have done and said nothing either way. They are operating in status quo as they were before both Conventions. Thus he has every right to speak out.

#9 robroy.
That number of Standing Committee members is shrinking as Fr. Richard James and his vestry of St. Paul’s Visalia voted just recently to go to the Southern Cone. Fr. Mike McClenaghan and his vestry of St. Paul’s Modesto will be voting this weekend to go to AMiA not TEc or the So. Cone.
So the original list of signers on that letter to KJS on Feb. 1, 2008 is shrinking!
J. Snell
M. McClenaghan
R. Eaton
K. Robinson
T. Wright
R. James

You can remove:
Fr. Richard James
Fr. Mike McClenaghan
Now as far as the other three lay people I am not sure just who they are nor which church they belong to. But, I would venture to say that if any of them belong to one of the two churches that have voted to move from TEc, whether it is to the So. Cone or AMiA, their name would be rempoved from this list as well. So it appears that Fr. Snell and Fr. Rob Eaton are two men of God that will need much prayers as their Standing Committee is getting smaller.

As far as Oldeverger is concerned...it appears he/she is very comfortable floating on the river of denial. Have a nice trip!

One Day Closer,
R. Eaton appears to be Robert Eaton, St John’s, Tulare, CA.
I did not find a match for the other two in California. Perhaps they are at the two churches that have left.

Marie at Rez

This is beginning to look more and more like Church government by episcopal fiat from the top down.......something which has been antithetical from TEC’s founding.  I wonder how much longer TEC’s House of Bishops will let Schori & Company get away with it before they act to put a stop to it?  Will they act?

#17 Marie at Rez

Yes I know who Fr. Rob Eaton is and where he is. My bad I forget that no one eles might know. The lay people I am talking about on the list above are K. Robinson and T. Wright.

We must obey the traditions, no matter how new they are.

Prophet, that must be an old tradition you just made up.
The Rabbit.

815:
We must obey the Ancient Customs even if we just now made them up.
Intercessor

#2 - that’s what I keep asking. I am beginning to think no one cares or more likely, they’re asleep in the pews. I think if I was orthodox and still in TEC, I wouldn’t be sitting (unless it was a sit in to block access to the church).

[9] robroy wrote:

Jake also gives the line that there has been two recent depositions that was not in accord to canon law, so there is a precedent to violate canon law. Wow. How very twisted.

I would tend to call that truth in advertising!

Blessings and regards,
Martial Artist

OldVerger:

If Fr. Snell and his compatriots are Episcopalians, who is their bishop? It can’t be John-David, because (a) he has resigned, (b) he has been deposed, and (c) he is under the authority of the Archbishop of the Southern Cone. The see of the Episcopal Diocese of San Joaquin is vacant.

Well, OldVerger, TEC is supposedly governed by something called the Constitution and Canons, and the C&C;should answer our questions.  Let’s try, shall we?  I think the canons demonstrate that you are very much in error that JDS cannot still be the valid bishop of the TEC DSJ.

Has JDS resigned?  Well, he tried to but the canons are very clear that a sitting diocesan bishop must receive approval from the HoB to resign.  The HoB did NOT give such approval.  Ergo, JDS has not resigned according to TEC’s polity.

Has JDS been deposed?  Well, the canons are very clear that a majority of bishops eligible to vote in the HoB must consent to the deposition.  At the last HoB meeting, fewer then half of the eligible bishops attended, so it is quite clear that the necessary consents to the deposition were not received.  Ergo, JDS has not been deposed according to TEC’s polity.

Does it matter that JDS claims to be under the authority of the Province of the Southern Cone?  Well, there are no canons that expressly prohibit JDS from being under the authority of the Province of the Southern Cone whilst also functioning as the bishop of the DSJ.  Sure, there is arguably a case for deposing JDS on “abandonment of communion” (but that is a very questionable case) but KJS tried this but did not receive the requisite number of consents.

So, OldVerger, whether you like it or not, and whether he claims such status or not, Bishop Schofield is very much the uninhibited, undeposed bishop of the TEC Diocese of San Joaquin, and will remain so until he dies, is validly deposed, his resignation is accepted by the HoB, or is validly removed from office by the valid Standing Committee of the Diocese.

May violate canon law? Now thats an understatement if I ever heard one. The PB and her legal advisors are making a mockery of the canons with end runs and making them up as they go along. I believe in the absence of a diocesan bishop who didn’t leave the communion but transfered, the standing committee members who remained are in charge, and by canon law they are authorized to call a convention to elect a bishop but she won’t recognize them. She is desperately seeking a presentment, no, begging for a presentment, will some one please present her and demand her resignation?

Why is anyone suprised at the TEC “end arounds”?  The TEC isn’t interested in the Canons, unless they can be used on their behalf.  Otherwise they are just in the way.  They did an “end around” to get Robinson elected - they believe the “end justifies the means”. 

People like Shori and Beers are the entire reason Canons are needed in the first place - and even with them they “run amuck” like a pack of wild wolves, looking for something to devour.

Do not forget it is Satan that we are really fighting against...He is a liar and is evil - Shori and her gang of henchmen are only poor pawns in this game.

1 Peter 5:6-8 “Humble yourselves therefore under the mighty hand of God, that in due time He may exalt you.  Be sober, be watchful.  Your adversary the devil prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour.”

One thing that I’m sure we’ve all noticed is that KJS has accused +Schofield of “leaving the communion of this church.” Now, I don’t know about the rest of you, but this indicates to me, at least, that she considers him to have left the communion of the only Church which, in her opinion, matters......The Episcopal Church. 

I believe that the time has finally come to recognize that The Episcopal Church has organized their OWN Communion.......effectively separating themselves......figuratively speaking.......from the Anglican Communion......while at the same time claiming that they want to remain. 

Schori and Company’s claim that +Schofield’s resignation and departure from TEC is somehow invalid is, as far as I’m concerned, immaterial.  We voted to amend our constitution, our bishop has resigned from the House of Bishops of The Episcopal Church, and the great majority of us in the former Episcopal Diocese of San Joaquin are now faithful members of the Anglican Diocese of San Joaquin in the Province of the Southern Cone of the Americas.  As such, we are a member diocese of the Anglican Communion.

Schori can deny it until the cows come home, if she wants to, but it’s an accomplished fact, and nothing can change that.

Cennydd,
Spot On! I’m right there with ya brother!

I’m no fan of KJS but she’s still my PB and I’ll give her the respect that due her office although I personally think that recent events call her judgment and leadership skills into serious question.

That being said, Cennyd, she’s still my PB so I have no problem talking about her.  You, on the other hand, and your gillion posts proclaiming how you’ve gone off to the Southern Cone ad nauseum, you still seem to get a kick out of venting your spleen at her as if she still matters to you.  Does she matter to you?  Does she somehow threaten you, now that you’ve followed JDS into Venables’ lap?  Why does she still get under your skin, and the skin of those akin to your way of thinking, if she is no longer your PB?  Crimeny, I bet you are much more familiar with her way of thinking then you are your own new archbishop.

You truly confuse me.

Respectfully, Smuggs, her record speaks for itself, and requires no explanation.  I stand by my bishop 100%.

You may be surprised to learn that I agree.  Her record, especially of late, causes me great frustration.  I don’t want to go off topic, but this is where you and others who have left TEC for other places truly confuse me.  It’s like those who didn’t like President Bush getting re-elected in 2004 and so they moved to Canada and became Canadians.  I get that.  I may not agree with them and I may not follow them, but I get that they’re gone.  What I wouldn’t get is why in the world they would spend so much of their precious time and energy hammering on President Bush when he wasn’t their president any longer?  Why do you care what she’s doing in SJ?  Personally, I still think (and believe me, it pains me to say this) that JDS is STILL the bishop of The Episcopal Diocese of San J.  I wish he wasn’t but he is.  His resignation was not accepted, they botched his deposement, and I have no idea what KJS and Beers are thinking.  But you, on the other hand, aren’t in TEC anymore.  You have Venables as a primate.  So why spend time hammering on your ex-PB and letting her rile you so much?

Smuggs, if I had to guess, I’d say he isn’t exactly looking forward to the lawsuits, which promise to be on epic scale.  Until that is resolved, the SC Diocese of SJ has reason to pay attention to TEC’s schemes.  SJ may have left Egypt, but that doesn’t mean the conflict is over.

Smuggs, I am still a fervent member of this church and KJS’s actions bug me a lot.  I am trying to justify her actions to myself and my family without great success.  I really feel that a fraud is being perpetrated and I am being asked to be complicit.  This whole situation stinks to high heaven and deserves a thorough airing. 

JJK

Smuggs,
KJS is, whether I like it or not, whether I recognize her orders or not, a primate of the Communion and sits on the Standing Committee of the Primates.  Anglicans no longer in TEC have every bit as much right to complain about her actions as do members of TEC to complain about the actions of +Southern Cone or +Nigeria.  So, if KJS stops complaining about border crossings and foreign bishops, and stops suing churches that disagree with her policies, then you might have a case for non-TECers complaining about her.

Although, technically, I remain, much to the consternation of the powers that be in my diocese, a member of TEC, I have it on very good authority that I am both in communion with the Churches of the GS and in communion with the See of Canterbury.

Wow! What a firestorm of protest. Much too much to tackle individually.
But there is one central issue for all of us to consider. A bishop’s vows include being true to the doctrine, discipline and worship of The Episcopal Church, not the Anglican Communion. If a bishop chooses to leave TEC and join some other province of the Anglican Communion, the bishop is welcome to do that. I’m sure that the Southern Cone will be glad to have JDS. However, in so doing JDS has broken his vow to The Episcopal Church, and has been deposed by TEC’s House of Bishops for doing so.
The see of The Episcopal Diocese of San Joaquin is vacant. And that’s a fact.

oldverger is the vow intended to apply to any new belief TEC comes up with? Are bishops supposed to follow TEC no matter where it goes? That’s a pretty risky vow to take these days, innit?

From the TLC article:

“A proposed resolution seeks to insulate Bishop Schori and other participants from legal action by calling ‘for the waiver and /or ratification of any potential defects in notice or other irregularities of calling the special convention’ ‘’ would cause me some real concern, were I still a member of TEC.  It is an attempt to “protect themselves” legally, and smacks of, shall we say, a less-than-honest way of doing things?

You asked, “oldverger is the vow intended to apply to any new belief TEC comes up with? Are bishops supposed to follow TEC no matter where it goes? That’s a pretty risky vow to take these days, innit?”

Since TEC doesn’t have prescribed beliefs beyond Holy Scripture and the Creeds, that doesn’t seem at all risky to me. You having some sort of trouble with one or both of those?

No, oldverger, but I think TEC is having a lot of problem with Scripture and the creeds.

oscewicee, it looks more like you’re having trouble with TEC because of how those are being interpreted by some, but not all, of us. So, much trouble in fact that you are determined that we have to be wrong in order for you to be right.

I didn’t think TEC *had* a “right” anymore. Hard to tell. There is wide latitude in what can be described as Christian - it encompasses everything from Freewill Baptists to the Roman Catholic Church. I admit I’m not sure it encompasses TEC anymore. But in your view, it is not possible for it to get so far from the basic understandings of Scripture and the Creeds that it would be impossible for a priest or bishop to stay? There is nothing so outlandish in the way of belief that a bishop or priest might balk?

OV - your strawmen are in danger of self-combustion.  Check what the “doctrine, discipline and worship of The Episcopal Church” were (and technically still are) when most - and certainly +JDS - of the Senior Bishops made this vow.  Nothing like what TEC (and apparently you) espouse now.  So in fact, his move to the SC (see his letter to +KJS offering resignation from HOB) was required of him because of this vow.  You might also note the TEC’s own formation documents are as a ‘constituent member of the AC’ and they are clearly now in impaired (or completely out of) communion with much of the AC.  By their own actions as confirmed by a unanimous conclusion of the Primates, TEC has ‘torn the fabric’.  As such, the real question is not whether TEC has authority in DioSJ (their own canons speak to that), but does this entity have any authority as a legl entity at all - much less as a Christian Church.

Becareful you do not spoil in your spoils ...

Oldverger - all that I will say about the alleged deposition of Schofield is this - the result was probably the very best result that Schofield and the conservatives could have hoped for vis-a-vis their legal position.

My upset at the abuse of the canonical process stems from my membership in the Episcopal Church.  From both a strategic and a tactical perspective, I believe that General Jefferts-Schori has just committed a blunder of monumental proportion.  But time will tell…

#39, You seemed to require adherence to the Constitution and Canons earlier on. So, according to you, the Episcopal Church requires not only belief in the Creeds and in Scripture, but also in the Canons and Constitution.

Now, since we have seen that belief in either the creeds or in Scripture are not actually required (Bishop Spong is the poster child for this, but many many other bishops also qualify), then adherence to the C&C;is all that binds the Episcopal Church together.

That’s not what any of the older generation iof orthodox bishops signed on for. They have manifestly failed in their duty to defend the faith, the heathen are now in control of the Episcopal Church. But these men are nonetheless still Christian and thought they signed up for service in a Christian church.

So what would you have them do?

You asked, “But in your view, it is not possible for it to get so far from the basic understandings of Scripture and the Creeds that it would be impossible for a priest or bishop to stay? There is nothing so outlandish in the way of belief that a bishop or priest might balk?” You betcha! Here’s the list of those who did and are no longer in communion with Canterbury:
American Anglican Church
American Anglican Convocation

Anglican Catholic Church

Anglican Catholic Church in Australia

Anglican Catholic Church of Canada
Anglican Catholic Communion, Diocese of Southern Africa

Anglican Catholic Church, Diocese of the United Kingdom

Anglican Catholic Communion USA

The Anglican Catholic Diocese of New Orleans

Anglican Church IN America

Anglican Church International Communion
Anglican Church Of America
The Anglican Church of Virginia

Anglican Church Worldwide
Anglican Diocese of the Great Lakes

The Anglican Independent Communion in the British Isles and Europe

Anglican Independent Communion Original Province

Anglican Orthodox Church

Anglican Orthodox Church in Canada

The Anglican Province of America
Anglican Province of Christ the King

Anglican Province of Saint Jude

Anglican Rite Catholic Church
Anglican Rite Old Catholic Church

Anglican Seminary of Virginia
Apostolic Anglican Church
The Catholic Anglican Church

The Charismatic Episcopal Church

Christian Episcopal Church
The Christian Episcopal Church of Canada
The Church of England (Continuing)

Church of England in South Africa

The Church of Torres Strait

Communion of Anglican Missionary Churches
The Communion of Evangelical Episcopal Churches

Diocese of the Holy Cross
Diocese of St Paul the Apostle
Diocesis Misionara Hispana
The Episcopal Missionary Church
The Episcopal Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of America 

Evangelical Anglican Church OF America

Federation of Anglican Churches in the Americas
Filipino Communion of Evangelical Episcopal Churches
The Free Church of England
The Free Episcopal Church 

Free Protestant Episcopal Church
Hawaiian Reformed Catholic Church
Iglesia Catolica Anglicana Sagrado Corazon de Jesus

The International Free Protestant Episcopal Church

La Iglesia Episcopal de Chile
The Episcopal Church of Chile
Igreja Episcopal Anglicana Livre no Brasil
Independent Anglican Church (Canada Synod)

Mariners Church of Detroit

The National Anglican Catholic Church

Old Catholic Communion in North America
The Orthodox Anglican Church

Orthodox Anglican Communion

Province of Convocation of The Restoration Episcopal Churches: Diocese of Saint James
Province of the Transfiguration - Anglican Rite
Reformed Anglican Catholic Church
The Reformed Episcopal Board of Foreign Missions
Reformed Episcopal Church Diocese of the Southeast
Reformierte Episkopalkirche in Deutschland
Saints Cyril and Methodius Church
Servants of the Good Shepherd
Southern Episcopal Church
The Traditional Anglican Church
The Traditional Anglican Communion

The Traditional Protestant Episcopal Church
The United Anglican Church

The United Episcopal Church of North America

haha. We’d need to sort them out into those who left because their beliefs changed—and those who left because TEC no longer believes what it did when they signed on. But don’t mind me, oldverger. I’d rather see your answers to Wilkie, jamesw and mousestalker.

OV, from your comments you must have brown eyes even if you may think you see blue when you look into the mirror.

WOW! I never got much from oldverger’s postings before now! Thank’s for the list...I’ll not have to go and search for any of these in the future since you did all that work and for what? I dunno and don’t care, but hey! Thanks again for the list!

If she wants to violate her Church’s canons, then her General Convention and House of Bishops should deal with that problem forthwith.

And yet...did not Greg violate the canons or consitution of the Southern Cone by allowing the purported Anglican Diocese of SJ to come under its wing?  Ah, yes, they did.  And they admit it.  And they aren’t changing their minds.  How...quaint.

Smuggs,
Can you please produce the actual canon that the Southern Cone violated and their admission in doing so for all of us please.
Thank you!

OOps! Forgot to add...links would be nice, not cut and paste please. Thank you again.

A minor quibble, the Charismatic Episcopal Church has no relation to the Episcopal Church. It’s origins are pentecostal.

The Mariners Church in Detroit was never an Episcopal Church. It was affiliated. It no longer is.

I could go through more there, but what’s the point? The only thing more shocking and harmful than the schismatic tendencies of the wounded consciences are the power politics practiced by the apostate Episcopal pontiffs.

You see, the question that none of the heterodox have ever asked is: If the Church practiced what it formerly preached, then would these splinter groups even exist?

There has been a notable lack of charity towards the losers in every change that the Episcopal Church has undergone in the past fifty years (possibly longer). This tendency has grown even more marked as the church has retreated by from traditional standards of Christian behaviour. (If anyone wants specifics, I will be happy to supply them).

The Episcopal Church has paid the price for its behaviour. It is smaller than it was thirty years ago. It will continue so to pay, as even its leadership has no real hope that the membership will ever stop shrinking.

So going back to your list. If you added in all the members of those churches that split apart in the United States, how much larger would the Episcopal Church be? If you added in all the members who have joined other denominations, what size would the Episcopal Church be?

If half of the children of those who were members in 1978 were members of the Episcopal Church today, how large would it be?

If you do not see the damage that the current events are doing to the Episcopal Church, then let me leave you with this. Imagine a new restaurant opens near where you live. Its exterior is attractive and the menu the owners have mailed to you looks both appealing and affordable. But in a discussion with some neighbours, you find out that they ate there the food was lousy and the service was execrable. Would you likely dine there?

The reputation of the Episcopal Church has been wounded. While not everyone has heard of our current or past woes, many have. And of those that have heard, very very few are willing to give us a chance.

What solution would you offer to the problems in San Joaquin? How would your solution burnish our tarnished reputation? And most importantly, how would it reflect the love of Jesus for you?

There is no space so small that my God can not enter and no expanse so vast that He can not overflow.

Tell you what, ODC, for you...and because it’s Easter...I’ll do both.  And I await, with bated breath, your note of gratitude for the research.  No cost.

http://www.anglicansunited.com/2008/02/switch_to_southern_cone_by_san.html

Article two of the Southern Cone constitution limits membership in the province to dioceses “that exist or which may be formed in the Republics of Argentina, Bolivia, Chile, Paraguay, Peru and Uruguay and which voluntary declare themselves as integral diocesan members of the province.” Article four of the constitution requires that amendments “be submitted to the Anglican Consultative Council for consideration and then to each diocesan synod for approval.”

In a statement given to a reporter from The Living Church, a spokesman for Presiding Bishop Gregory Venables of the Southern Cone said the provincial leadership was aware of the constitutional impediments before voting unanimously to issue its “emergency, temporary and pastoral” invitation to affiliate. “Both the House of Bishops of the Southern Cone and the General Synod decided to go ahead because of the nature of the emergency,” the spokesman said.

Lessee if this helps with the vow business:

Worship: The promise is to use the BCP as it is intended to be used, following the rubrics and other directions. From time to time a new BCP is adopted, and worship changes. And some people don’t want that and leave.

Doctrine: The promise to follow Church teachings; specifically as contained in the Creeds and Scripture. Neither of those are “dead.” The interpretation of them, and particularly of the Gospel changes in every generation and must be interpreted anew in different cultures. It’s been like that for +/- 2,000 years. And some people don’t like new interpretations and leave.

Discipline: Canon law is simply the way in which The Episcopal Church operates. Sometimes canon law is changed by the General Convention and is something that a clear majority of both the HOB and the HOD have agreed on. And some people don’t like new rules and leave.

But, the vows are to be true to those three things, and to follow where the Church leads, believing that the Mind of Christ is best understood in community and not in solitude.

And there are always those who, for whatever reason, want a Church that never changes and never will. It’s a comforting idea, particularly when the world around us is changing so very rapidly, as it is in this first world-wide renaissance. But it can’t be had. Like everything else, the Church is constantly changing to meet new challenges and new ideas and it always will.

Worship: When the prayer book has changed it has not been merely “worship” (if that can be “mere") that has changed - the changes reflect a change in the theology behind the worship. Hence the church does not believe what it did. People didn’t leave in 1978 just because they didn’t want a refreshing change. They left because they saw what was behind the change. How does one take an oath to uphold a worship that changes content and form at frequent intervals. What is here to uphold?

Doctrine: may change in small ways, but it has not changed substantially until the last - what? - 50 or 60 years? We have priests telling us there is no physical resurrection. That is a rather large change. We have a presiding bishop telling us that Jesus is “a vehicle to the divine”. Something new there.

Canon law: has been proven in recent months to be nothing but whatever our Alice in Wonderland PB chooses to say it is today. Which, come to t hink of it, must make it very hard for our bishops to uphold those vows. How do they know what canon law means today? Our “unique polity” is that it’s anything goes at 815. THere is no law. No Scriptural law and no institutional law. How can one take a vow to be true to lawlessness?

oscewicee, as per your comment on the canons, I, too, am no fan of the PB’s actions of late, especially the botched depositions which I wish hadn’t been botched. She may be seeing the case in SJ as an “emergency” and using that “emergency” as an excuse to break canon law to do what needs to be done in an unprecedented situation.  At the same time, as you will note by my post 54 that I made at the very kind bequest of ODC, the Southern Cone also broke their rules using an “emergency” as an excuse to act in what has also become an unprecedented situation.  Both sides are guilty of breaking their own rules; both sides are faulting the other; both sides are wrong.

Let’s fisk #55 and deal with your post point by point.

Lessee if this helps with the vow business:

Worship: The promise is to use the BCP as it is intended to be used, following the rubrics and other directions. From time to time a new BCP is adopted, and worship changes. And some people don’t want that and leave.

Funny how few people left when the 1928 BCP was adopted. Odd that. In fact up to the mid 1960’s there had been only two major crises that led to large numbers of folks leaving. The first was the Civil War and the other was the Reformed Episcopal Church. The former was healed and the second group is still around. So, perhaps it isn’t that things change, it’s what things got changed and how that process (Shades of Griswold!) was handled.

Doctrine: The promise to follow Church teachings; specifically as contained in the Creeds and Scripture. Neither of those are “dead.” The interpretation of them, and particularly of the Gospel changes in every generation and must be interpreted anew in different cultures. It’s been like that for +/- 2,000 years. And some people don’t like new interpretations and leave.

What doctrines are new? I’m really not kidding. Put yourself in the shoes of say, William Porcher Dubose, and tell me what understanding of the Nicene Creed he possessed that St Augustine did not possess? The Didache is pretty darn old, and until very recently, it was thought to be valid by the Episcopal Church as a whole.

The wholesale jettisoning of doctrine, tradition and belief is a largely modern phenomenon. Admittedly such lack of belief did exist at times in the history of the church, but such persons were termed gnostics and heretics and not regarded as Christians.

Discipline: Canon law is simply the way in which The Episcopal Church operates. Sometimes canon law is changed by the General Convention and is something that a clear majority of both the HOB and the HOD have agreed on. And some people don’t like new rules and leave.

True. That is where human law comes from.

But, the vows are to be true to those three things, and to follow where the Church leads, believing that the Mind of Christ is best understood in community and not in solitude.

Which begs the question: What does one do when the church one has been a part of abandons the faith as has been understood down the millenia? One can deny the problem, as some have done. One can argue that it isn’t a problem, as you are doing, but any objective evaluation shows that the Episcopal Church is rapidly shedding it’s Christian heritage.

And there are always those who, for whatever reason, want a Church that never changes and never will. It’s a comforting idea, particularly when the world around us is changing so very rapidly, as it is in this first world-wide renaissance. But it can’t be had. Like everything else, the Church is constantly changing to meet new challenges and new ideas and it always will.

It’s a neat theory, but it doesn’t hold up up to a rigourous historical analysis. It also fails to explain the Roman Catholic Church as well as the various Orthodox Churches.

You see, if Jesus did not rise from the dead corporally, then everything that the church teaches is rubbish. And you are confronted with bishops who belief that he did not. Which begs the question: Why are they even in the church in the first place? It also leads inexorably to the question: What commonality could possibly exist between a believer and an apostate?

I do not think that can be answered other than “They are both carbon based life forms.”

I fear His Justice. I pray for His Mercy.

#57, Smuggs, call me a legalist. If the Southern Cone broke their own rules, then that was wrong. I certainly hope that they will remedy the procedural error.

I’m not in the Southern Cone. That’s not my problem. I even think that Bishop Schofield should no longer be counted as an Episcopalian. As I am an Episcopalian, that is my problem.

To use a sleazy analogy, if I am in the Moose Lodge and the Elks have a procedural kerfuffle, my involvement is nil. If I’m feeling especially kindly, I might lend them a copy of Roberts’. On the other hand, if my lodge disregards its rules, then I have a duty to speak out.

That is precisely what has occurred in this situation. It is all the more important as there are even more depositions looming in the future, and these are for men who seem to wish to remain Episcopalian. For me, it isn’t that I wish Bishop Schofield to be considered an Episcopalian. He doesn’t consider himself one anymore, and that’s good enough for me. It’s that I want those in charge to know that they are being watched and being held accountable.

What Spirit leads you?

Why I feel honored Smuggs!
Thank you so much this is very helpful believe it or not!
And by the way...Thanks for the free ride since it’s Easter! Allelua the Lord has Risen! Alleluia!

The most important thing to remember is that neither ECUSA or even the entirety of The Anglican Communion constitute “The Church”.  Anglicanism has always been, at best a PART of “The Church”, and a minority part at that.  If the Diocese of San Joaquin should not change allegience from one province to another (and, as the Archbishop of Canterbury has reminded us, provinces do not play a central role in ecclessiology) in defiance of “The Church”, Spong and his like should not have ordained those whose lifestyles were incompatable what were then the standards of ECUSA. ECUSA should not defy the standards of the Anglican Communion.  And, above all, even the Anglican Communion can not decide to just complelty cast out thousands of years worth of clear and unwavering Judeo-Christian moral teachings.  If you depart from the faith of the Apostles, you are not making a decision as “The Church” but you are cutting yourself and your denomination (and don’t kid yourself by thinking that the Episcopal Church is anything but a shrinking and minority denomination) off from The Church, become as surely heretical as any Arian, Gnostic or Unitarian.  If you continue down the same lines as the most liberal have gone by playing fast and loose with the Trinity, the Virgin Birth, the Incarnation, and the Ressurection, than you risk ending up apostate.

I think we’re missing something here, with regard to what the Province of the Southern Cone did when they took us under their temporary protection.  Yes, I said TEMPORARY.  While some may question the legality of what their House of Bishops did, I believe that that’s for THEM to decide.  What they did was out of concern for the spiritual welfare of their brother and sister Anglicans in the former Episcopal Diocese of San Joaquin, and for no other reason.  We are thankful for that, and it would be nice to know that others are, too.

Personally, I think it’s time for the second-guessing to come to an end.  What’s done is done!  I voted for the change in our constitution, and for the move to the Southern Cone....and I’d do it again.  We did what we did because we really had no other choice, except to go belly-up and surrender to Schori & Company.....and there was no way that we’d do that.

Cennydd,
You are correct! In fact after Smuggs was so generous in granting me my request of the violation by the So. Cone’s own Constitution, I went back and watched our own convention and then rememebered some Q&A;on this matter during that time. What you have stated above was exactly what one of our own Standing Committee members said and also the fact that AB Venables has no problem with it why should anyone else, especially since they do not belong to that Province.

Everyone is so up at arms over the fact that ++Rowan does nothing sits back and does zip. Factually, he can’t other than tell TEc that their actions from the forward movement on consecrating VGR and their failure to repent at the request of the DES Communique by all the Primates, is grounds to be booted out of the AC. Will he? NO!

So if the Archbishop of the Southern Cone has no problem with a bend in their Constitution to come to the aid of brothers and sisters in need, something no one else (++Rowan)is doing, then who are we to be pointing a finger at them when we as a Province have torn the fabric of the Anglican Communion by ignoring & violating a resolution of the WWAC....Lambeth 1.10 and the list after that one just continues to flow with more violations.

So, you know what.... IMHO it matters not. We are doing great and fine within the temporary shelter of the Province of the So. Cone and we are actually being sought after by others looking to join us. Thank you Archbishop Venables, the HoB of the So. Cone and to our own Bishop, John-David. Let us continue the Lord’s work without fear of those who are hell bent on destruction for a political agenda and political & social acceptance and re-writing the Word of God to fit their life instead of comforming to God and His Word.

Does anyone here know their American history....particularly the year 1941, when Congress was debating Lend-Lease?  Franklin Delano Roosevelt was our President then. 

He was criticized by some isolationist Members of Congress because of his plan to provide Britain with the food and weapons they needed in their war with Germany....soon to become OUR war, too, and this is what he told them:  “When your neighbor’s house is on fire, you lend him your hose to fight that fire.”

Well, that’s essentially what Archbishop Venables and the House of Bishops....now OUR House of Bishops (temporarily), did!  They lent us their hose, so to speak!  And we’re “fighting the fire” with that hose!

I don’t regret one bit for what we did.

Then I guess we all are living in houses with “no regrets.”

I have no regret that JDS was in the process of being deposed.  I do regret that the canons were not followed just as I regret every time the canons are not followed just to suit a person, a church’s, a diocese’s, or a province’s tastes.

Like mousestalker, and like Bishop Howe, I would prefer to see things done correctly.

ODC ~ He is risen indeed! Alleluia!

Cennyd, I cannot help but point out an inconsistency in your statement.  By your own admission, you have no regret with the Southern Cone breaking their canons when it suits your preferences but you have a lot of regrets when the PB does so to suit the Episcopal Church’s preferences.  You can’t have it both ways, can you?

[67] Smuggs,

I am not a party to any of the activities of the two instances of acting contrary to the canons that are under discussion. However, based solely on comments made and not made, it appears to me that most of the TEC extra-, or possibly non-, canonical actions were taken without debate concerning the fact that a proposed course of action by the “house” in question was, in point of fact, not in accord with the canons governing that body. Whereas, the assertion has been clearly made on this thread, that the Synod of the Southern Cone, not only explicitly informed its members that their proposed course of action was contrary to their canons, but apparently engaged in substantial and substantive discussion about that fact prior to taking the action.

I don’t know you, and therefore can not speculate, on whether or not you would find that relevant, but it signals to me differing levels of honesty and transparency between those two bodies, a comparison that does not redound to the moral reputation of TEC.

Blessings and regards,
Martial Artist

Smuggs, it’s not up to you or me to criticize what ++Venables and the House of Bishops of the Southern Cone have done.  They did what they thought was necessary and right.  I’m not going to play the second-guessing game. 

Now, I’m sure that Schori and Company thought that they were doing the same, from their point of view....which I happen to disagree with, as you know.  That’s fine, too....for them.  We’re no longer connected with them, and I personally don’t care what they do.

Let them sue us....we’re ready.  And by the way:  Paine and Fears are representing us, I believe.  If that’s the case, I think we’re in good legal hands.

Well, for the record the reason why I’m concerned about TEC’s irregularies is because they apparently plan to repeat those irregularities in in their actions in regards to +Duncan.  I have a cousin who, with his ex-Roman wife and two young daughters, is attending a thriving evangelical parish in the Diocese of Pittsburgh.  The main reason they joined ECUSA is that it promised to be a bridge between her Catholicism and his Southern Baptist background.  I don’t think either knew what they were getting into.  It grieves me to think they they and their parish will no doubt get caught right in the middle of the next major battleground.

As for me, I was also raised Baptist, but I’ve recently been attracted to Anglicanism.  Unfortuantly, while there are some moderatly conservative TEC parishes I attend on occassion, TEC as a whole as really managed to turn me off.  The use of canonically violations and the promise of stricter canons in the future and other trends make me think that the relativly conservative Anglo-Catholic parishes I like are not going to be far off from being fully assimiliated by the liberal agenda.  I’m trying to decided between Anglican District of Virginia, the Anglican Catholic Church, Antioch, or just staying with the Baptist church of my youth, even though I’ve become really doubtful about validity of congregationalism and memorialism.

One other thing:  The Anglican Diocese of San Joaquin has “affiliated” with the Province of the Southern Cone on a temporary basis until a new Anglican jurisdiction is created in North America. 

Here is my dictionary’s definition of “affiliate:”

1.  To adopt as an associate or subsidiary member or branch of a group or larger organization:  an AFFILIATED MEMBER.  2.  To associate (oneself) as a subordinate or subsidiary.

Our diocese comes under definition 1, I believe.

We were taken under the wing of the Southern Cone under an “emergency and pastoral basis,” and I suggest that anyone who has a problem with this arrangement should take the matter up with Archbishop Venables and hash it out with him....not us.

Well AndrewA,
Jesus never promised his Apostles, nor any disciples, nor any followers (Christians) a road paved with no bumbs, craters, dips, etc… It isn’t suppose to be easy. There is alwasy a struggle no matter what church you belong to. The question really should be do you believe in the one holy catholic and apsotolic church or do you believe that just going to a church and sitting in a pew every Sunday getting a good sermon and then going home is your style with no bumps, dips, craters, etc.. to challenge you and keep you ever ready for the battle that is really coming as foretold in Revelations?

No need to answer on this thread so it doesn’t get veered off. But, just thought I qwould put that out there. Our Christian walk isn’t supposed to be an easy feel good one.

The question really should be do you believe in the one holy catholic and apsotolic church

But the question, for me personally, is how to define that and where such a church might be found.  My Eastern Orthodox brother, for example, would say that by definitional ALL the Anglican groups are hetrodox and schismatic.

Paine and Fears are representing us

It seems to me that when people such as old verger produce lists like #46, what they’re really doing is saying, “Look how well we’ve done at fracturing and destroying the mainstream Christian presence in the Episcopal Church!” Perhaps, upon prayer and reflection, Mr. Verger will see that isn’t cause for gloating.

Archbishop Venerables shows every sign of being a faithful priest and bishop. He represents, (and my apology to the man himself who knows his unworthiness before God), the crowning of what the Episcopal Church received and achieved, for better or worse, along with the Anglican Divines and many other unsung faithful men and women. I commend to your attention the Preface to the Book of Common Prayer (pp. 7-9) authored at the General Convention of 1789.  “...Provided that the substance of the Faith be kept entire...”

One of the areas I haven’t heard anyone commenting on is the legal and fiduciary responsibility the Bishop has over the entire structure of DSJ under California law. I believe this is retained by the DSJ, not 815, and no one in CA has transferred vested responsibility. How is that then this is going unchallenged not only by DSJ(SC) and the state attorney general of CA? Of has DSJ(SC) infact walked away from the legal entity of DSJ as registered in CA?

Festivus, there is no need for DJS(SC) to challenge 815.  They have, at present, control over all the buildings and property of theirs as registered in CA.  It will be 815, through their puppets, that must challenge them.  DSJ is waiting for them to cast the first stone.  No doubt, though, once the Puppet Regime of Remain Episcopal files suit, Remain Episcopal will adopt Lee of Virginia’s lying tactics of refering to themselves as the defendents when they are in fact the plaintiffs.

To quote from a letter from Russell G. VanRozeboom, Chancellor of The Diocese of San Joaquin, date July 17, 2006:

The Diocese of San Joaquin is a California unincorporated association. The California Corporations Code authorizes the creation of a corporation sole for the purpose of protecting and preserving the property of the unincorporated religious association; here, the Diocese of San Joaquin.

Isn’t 815 in fact interfering with DSJ and their obligations under the law? Aren’t they in fact attempting to take property with following a CA legal process?

Smuggs, it’s not up to you or me to criticize what ++Venables and the House of Bishops of the Southern Cone have done.

1) And yet here, at T19, and at Virtue Online you do feel it’s up to you to criticize ++KJS and the House of Bishops of TEC.

2) And if we accept tjmahon’s (spelling?) acceptance of such criticism because KJS is an Anglican primate ("like it or not” ~ his words), then I suggest that my criticism of the Southern Cone’s archbishop falls under that purview.

I’m not going to play the second-guessing game. 

But you do play that game, many times over, in your remarks concerning the motives of KJS and 815.

Now, I’m sure that Schori and Company thought that they were doing the same, from their point of view....which I happen to disagree with, as you know.  That’s fine, too....for them.  We’re no longer connected with them, and I personally don’t care what they do.

Based on the frequency of your posts, and especially the vehement tone you oft times take on Virtue, the second part of the last sentence of your statement is hardly to be believed.

Secondly, in response to your #71, it makes no difference what your dictionary says.  The Southern Cone admitted that they broke their own rules to make an exception in your case and, presumably, will do so in the case of Fort Worth as well.  Why can’t you simply admit that, especially since I’ve provided you with proof, instead of making excuses to imply that they really didn’t do what they admitted they did????

Andrew - they are trying to circumvent the law, not follow it by setting up a shadow diocese and confer the legal right to their org structure. They are in fact trying to claim and take buildings as part of Remain Episcopal. Are you working behind the scenes to stop it? Or do you plan to let it happen - then respond? It seems like the later.

One more comment. If I was in DSJ, I would have a restraining order against KJS, DBB, Lamb, and 815 preventing them from interfering with the operation of DSJ under CA law. If they sat foot on any assest, I’d have them arrested. I can’t imagine some disgruntled, fired CEO of a big company being allowed to go into a branch of his former company, declaring a stockholders meeting and electing a new board of directors. That’d kind of nonsense would be stopped before it got started.

The trouble is in finding a judge willing to issue an arrest warrant.  He’ll want proof.

Cennydd - that’s what the restraining order specifies.

Then that shouldn’t be hard to get......should it?

Don’t ask me, ask your guys in DSJ(SC). Just don’t let 815 beat you too it and kick you off your property.

Gag.  Sorry for the messed up html.  I should stick to plaintext.

Sorry Andrew - somehow I thought you were with DSJ. Somehow I remember people saying the same things about Spong, and before him, Hitler. The only thing that is necessary for evil to succeed is for good people to do nothing.

Meanwhile, down at the Diocesan Office, at the cathedral and out in the parishes and missions, the work of Christ and His Church goes on........

#91 Cennydd,
Amen to that my brother, Amen to that!