Sadly, this has become standard operating procedure, I’d love for a presbyter to request a transfer to a friendly CoE bishop to then transfer to Kenya, Nigeria, Rwanda Southern Cone or Uganda. I’d be curious if 815 is in communion with CoE.

I would wear the Inhibition as a badge of honor.

Can’t you just feel the LOVE?

the snarkster

For what it is worth there is no such thing as transferring to the C of E.  The ECUSA system of letters dimissory does not exist in the C of E.  For that matter i am not sure that it does in any part of the communion that was parented by the C of E.  An English bishop would welcome a priest and grant a license to preach and celebrate and perhaps even receive them somehow (I left the C of E so I only know that procedure) They do not send letters dimissory. They would not ask for them though perhaps a reference that said priest was in good standing.  Under C of E canons letters dimissory are the way by which one bishop ordains on behalf of another.  All said and done there is no way out of Ecusa under the present rules that does not involve residence in another province and thus having letters dimissory sent to that new province.

You only have to look at the travesty by the Bp. of Colorado this month to understand how hostile the Ecusa bishops are to the off shore provinces and their US presence.

I shall personally move physically to another province after my retirement at the end of this year.

#4 what are you referencing in the Diocese of CO this month? I must have missed that. Thanks for further info.

Hey folks—if you could use your PM system to discuss off-topic news, that would be great.

Thanks,

Sarah

Wonder if the Standing Committee vote to inhibit was unanimous?

Very pastoral and reconciling I must say.  Another bozo I expect we will be expected to entertain shortly.

At the time of the Falklands conflict I felt the the then military junta of Argentina did not deserve to run Argentina let alone anywhere else.  The Anglican church deserves better bishops than the TEC junta.  One despairs.

Note how this swift, decisive action came from the same Dorsey Henderson who calls himself a “Windsor bishop” but can’t bring himself to take a stand for orthodox Christianity.
http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/12309/#218826

In acting remorselessly here---even as he dithers and collaborates elsewhere---Bp. Henderson resembles a second-tier teenage bully who fancies himself tough because he tolerates no insubordination from small children.

Inhibition seems to have become a habit with TEC hefty lefty bishops. That’s a horrible addiction to have....but once they have taken the first step in recognizing that they have an inhibition addiction then the recovery process can begin and they can feel the light yoke of Christ Jesus upon their shoulders. Let us pray for this miracle!

The inhibition of 41 bishops by O’Neal of Colorado is discussed at David Virtue’s. Could someone explain how the transfer process of a priest in the TEO to African province used to happen prior to the arrival of the new sheriff in town? Any personal experiences with this?

all of us could/should do better...a bishop is judged by a higher standard...by all of us

RE: “Could someone explain how the transfer process of a priest in the TEO to African province used to happen prior to the arrival of the new sheriff in town?”

RR, prior to 2000 [the founding of the AMiA] the priest physically moved to the African province, and the letters dimissory were faxed or mailed to the African province.

How could O’Neal possible have inhibited 41 bishops?  14 priests maybe, but 41 bishops?

Hey folks—as I asked earlier, please take the off-topic discussions to your Private Message system.

Thanks.

Quite right, Sarah, so of course I won’t take advantage of the thread to ask if this gives a whole new meaning to a reference to VGR as an “uninhibited” bishop…

Please clearify for this ignorant nonconformist about why everyone is so upset by all this inhibition/deposition stuff.  ISTM that if the priest and congregation of St. Christopher’s notified the diocese and Bp Henderson that they were leaving and would no longer be under TEC/DUSC authority then they would not care what pronouncements were made against them.  If I quit, I can’t be fired.  Could all this inhibition/deposition just be a book keeping procedure to clean up the rolls and officially clarify that they are gone and off the record.  Many congregational churches have what they call “the letter” that is transfered from the formor church to the receiving church.  If the receiving church is not in fellowship then no letter is sent although a memo may be sent merely telling that the member has been removed and acknowledged to be gone.  If there is a bad record then probably nothing would be sent. It would be up to the receiving church to decide what credentials would be needed.  Some just take the word of the one leaving.  Many would require re-ordination or even baptism.  So is this all just a method of dismissal or is it just posturing or vindicativeness?  Maybe TEC has no other system to handle this, but it really sounds ominus to outsiders.  Just wondering.

Book-keeping persecution?  Really?

Book-keeping bozos - is this what bishops have come to?

P. M.
Each diocesan bishop has the authority and power to let a priest or deacon leave gracefully - without inhibition and deposition.

The way that this was handled during the Civil War made reunification quite simple. What we’re seeing these days is indeed ominous - (some) bishops behaving badly.