Presiding Bishop Writes To Diocese Of Fort Worth Standing Committee

A tree died needlessly for this pathetic letter! Lord have mercy on this womens soul!

Can just barely make this out on my TRS-80 Model IV, but it looks to be ... yes it is ... a frog come out of the mouth of the Episcopalians’ Presiding Bishop.

What does it say about TEC as a whole when the only Canons we insist on enforcing are those that guarantee the existence of the organization?  Are there no Canons that make even the slightest of theological statements?  None that require Bishops and Standing Committees to protect their congregants from Strange Doctrine?  Heresy? Apostasy? New Thangism?

I find the whole thing rather incredible.  You would think by now I wouldn’t! 

Such an optimist!...KTF!...mrb

This letter is just another piece of evidence that this woman is not Christian: she left out the “Oh, by the way, have a Blessed Christmas.”

I hope KJS’s Christmas gift to the remainders in Fort Worth will be Bishop Bavi Rivera. She would be a perfect fit.

Perhaps we need to sympathize with the PB.  None of her predecessors ever had to deal with dioceses moving into offshore provinces; there is just nothing in the TEC formbook to deal with these circumstances.  Now I think the other day she announced that Bishop Iker had renounced his orders, so now she has found that there is no diocesan authority whatsoever in Fort Worth, and she can move forward to designate some form of receivership for the “stay-behinds.” 
  I have lost track—has she sent this same letter to the Quincy Standing Committee?

“I regret the decisions you have made” to not recognize me.  Therefore, I do not recognize you.  So there!

Hilarious.

<i>The more you tighten your grip, Tarkin, the more star systems will slip through your fingers ...”

Princess Leia, Star Wars

Accordingly, I do not recognize you as the Standing Committee. And her non-recognition means what? That she can replace them by fiat? I don’t think so.

I’m still trying to find that canon that empowers the PB to recognize or de-recognize standing committees.

So, which canons have been violated?

#8 Sweet!  Now you’ve got me thinking ....

Hasn’t she already had herself voted “Extraordinary and Emergency Powers” to deal with the current crisis?  Hasn’t she already amassed a group of cloned warriors, mindless and bent to her own purposes, recognizing and fighting for anyone in authority without any judgement of their own?  Hasn’t she already co-opted legislative leaders to perform at her request?  And hasn’t she already launched a war of attrition against the Anglican Jedi (Iker, Duncan, Schofield, Matt! etc) to have them exterminated as a force in her realm?

Yep, looks like The Empire all over again!

When I started writing that I was laughing…now I’m starting to get a bit scared…..

KTF!...mrb

It could have been worse, or maybe that letter is coming after Christmas.

Neal is right - Canon I.17.8 simply begs the question - what has the Standing Committee done that has violated TEC’s C&C;?  The PB can’t cite a single example.  Neither can the PB cite any canon that authorizes her to recognize or derecognize diocesan standing committees.

Merry Christmas! This letter just goes to show that our bishop and Standing Committee must be doing something right!!!  I guess her New Year’s gift will be the expected depositions for the faithful clergy. Hang in there and keep up the good work!!!

It didn’t stop her in San Joaquin and it certainly will not stop her in Ft. Worth or Pittsburgh….!

Again….someone remind me….who is this woman?

I just finished reading <i>Never Silent<i> by Thad Barnum.  I highly recommend it to one and all. The duplicitous behavior by actors such as Frank Griswold is carried on by KJS.  George Carey’s disgraceful failure to support the truth is carried on by Rowan Williams.  Nothing new here.  This is simply people without a core of faith doing what they do: discrditing the faithful at the expense of the Gospel and in the end it will be their downfall.  My prayers go out to the faithful who remain, for whatever reason, under the authority of the Episcopal Church.

Sigh . . . “there [s]he goes again.”  The Supreme Executive is acting out the role of a Metropolitan once more, reaching (as she did in San Joaquin) into the internal affairs of a Diocese in an attempt to supplant its Ecclesiastical Authority—-something which no Church canon or constitutional provision gives her the power to do. (She may quote Canon I.17.8, but it does not give her the power to apply it. Indeed, the Supreme Executive has no diocese under her jurisdiction, with the exception of CACE (which is not a true diocese), so there would never arise any occasion for her to apply this canon—-unless she was claiming metropolitan power, which she apparently is.)

Moreover, since the Diocese in question is no longer subject to the jurisdiction of ECUSA’s acting metropolitan, this is really just a bad play, with a script written by David Booth Beers. There is no legal entity of any kind at present which can function as an Episcopal diocese in the region of Ft. Worth, so there is no legal way to appoint (or elect, for that matter) a “diocesan Standing Committee” until those remaining Episcopal have formally organized themselves, submitted their appropriate governing instruments to General Convention, and (after some necessary changes to the ECUSA canons and Constitution) have been admitted as a Diocese. That will take—-let’s see—-until GC 2012 or so, if they get moving right now.

But if they choose to act in Beers’s lousy play, all they will get for their efforts is years and years of wandering in the canonical desert, waiting for a final court decision to tell them that they need to start over. Pray for Ft. Worth! The murk of Mordor is about to descend on it!

The more you tighten your grip, Tarkin, the more star systems will slip through your fingers ...”
Princess Leia, Star Wars

Great quote! Only followed next by ...

You are part of the Rebel Alliance and a traitor! Take her away! -Darth Vader, Star Wars

canons canons canons canons canons canons…it’s as if they were now canonized(get it?;-) as Scripture the way they’re bandied about, talked about, and ignored…and yes…she has overstepped them, run past them, invented them, etc…

She’s just doing what she excels at. You have to go with your strengths, after all.

The Episcopal Church: Excelling at non-recognition for over thirty years.

#6. Perhaps we need to sympathize with the PB.  None of her predecessors ever had to deal with dioceses moving into offshore provinces; there is just nothing in the TEC formbook to deal with these circumstances.

Thanks for the morning laugh! None of her predecessors has worked so hard to shatter any notion of church unity. The canons don’t provide for this sort of thing, because nobody would have guessed that a PB would work so hard to foment schism. She will go down in history as the most divisive PB of TEC, and I think her record will hold for many, many years. I just can’t wait for her to issue a statement, speaking out against the Bishop of Rome. It’s inevitable.

Canons to the left of her, canons to the right of her.  Into the valley of herecy rode the PB.

Leave aside for the moment whether the Presiding Bishop has any authority to “de-recognize” a Standing Committee. The Presiding Bishop’s letter makes sense only as a predicate to forming a new standing committee for the soon to be organized rump diocese of Ft. Worth. She is attempting to get around the result that, at the moment, the “Ecclesiastical Authority” in Fort Worth may well be the recipients of her letter.

Don’t bother to look for logic in the PB’s letter. The canons simply don’t address what happens when an entire Diocese leaves TEC, and the PB is trying to fit the facts to a canon not designed for those facts. She is trying to fit a square canonical peg into a round factual hole.

I am reminded of another line from Star Wars: [Tarkin to Vader]: You see Lord Vader, she can be reasonable. [ Then to weapons officer of the Death Star]: Fire when ready.

More bile from the Presiding Bishop.

Amusing, if pathetically not in touch with the LEGAL reality that the entity known IN LAW as the Episcopal Diocese of Forth Worth is not longer part of her particular jurisdiction. Poor dear. She just really needs a dose of something which will enable her to see things as they are, rather than the delusions peddled to her by her advisors. I sincerely believe that she does not understand most of what she does, but rather is acting as a mouthpiece for a group of Grand Vizirs who themselves are flailing about in an unsuccessful effort to figure out what to do.

She couldn’t stomach Rome’s “limitations” and de-recognized them and left the communion of her youth…but I don’t know that Rome would have her back after this stuff…

As pathetic as this letter is; more pathetic still is the complete lack of action on the part of anyone with any measure of authority within ECUSA to take any action against the Presuming Deacon.  With each wild missive she sends forth, she either puts another nail in her coffin, or she successfully grabs a little more power.  History will determine which result will be the outcome.

Mad Potter-
The diocese is a corporate legal entity of the state of Texas, with a legal right to its name.  The name of the diocese is owned by the diocese, not by TEC.  What national or international organization(s) they associate with has not bearing on the legal name.

I think it’s sort of a way of saying…“We’re the same people we’ve always been…YOU’VE changed!!!”  We don’t need to change OUR signs.  Although, I have to say I would change the sign out of personal preference to “Anglican”.  My former TEC parish did what a lot did…“The Church of Whatever or St. Whomever…”, eliminating the need for “Episcopal” without adding the unfamiliar at least in the USA, “Anglican”.

Episcopal means TEC to most people. The fact that it means bishop and is still technically correct will only cause confusion with the real (TEC) Episcopal Diocese that still exists.

Mad Potter,

We’ve been through this before.  TEC’s legal name is The Domestic and Foreign Missionary Society of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America.  As long as Fort Worth is not claiming that name, there should be no confusion.  TEC wasn’t even known as TEC until the last General Convention.  Before that, they were ECUSA, and before that PECUSA (Protestant Episcopal Church USA).  TEC has no trademark or copyright on the name “Episcopal Church” or “Episcopal Diocese.” Indeed, insofar as “Episcopal” and “Church” are generic pointers (like “baseball,” “computer” or “cola”) TEC has no claim whatsoever.  (Coca-cola can claim “Coke.”  They can’t claim “Cola.”)

And, of course, TEC is no more the “real” Episcopal Diocese than is the local Roman Catholic, probably several Orthodox (Russian, Greek), Methodist Episcopal, Lutheran, or other churches in the Fort Worth area that have bishops.

She de-recognized Benedict XVI when she refused to visit with him while he was in the US.  I suspect that he found her de-recognition as important as we do in FW.  Her arrogance cannot be surpassed by anyone.

That is exactly what we are saying - The Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth, acting legitimately through two consecutive diocesan conventions, ended its union with the General convention of TEC. We are not a NEW entity - That will be formed when the group of folks meet up the road from me in early February to swear their loyalty to TEC. The PB was unable to cite a specific canon or constitutional article that we violated in separating from General Convention. It doesn’t exist. There is no canon that says that we cannot do as we have done - and make no mistake, a deed has indeed been done - not some mere attempt which was tried and has now failed.  The Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth is no longer in union with the General Convention of TEC. Full Stop. The PB of TEC needs to wrap her head around that reality. Her continued meddling here is nothing less than the “boundary crossing” of which she has so lately accused others.

Fr Cantrell, the Anglican Church in North America has been called a “new Church,” but it really isn’t.  Rather, we are the rebirth of Anglicanism in this continent of ours, while The Episcopal Church is the symbol of the death of what once was and is no more.

I believe Bishop Wantland copyrighted the name Protestant Episcopal Church or some variant several years ago. Now that he is assisting bishop in Fort Worth, maybe he could lisence the name to them? What a hoot that would be.

And many (many, many, many, many more, that is, than share her recognition problem with the Standing Committee) don’t even recognize Mrs. Schori as clergy.  C’est la vie.

Mad Potter, when you wrote that the name Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth “...will only cause confusion with the real (TEC) Episcopal Diocese that still exists….” You were incorrect. There is NO other Diocese of that name existent except in the minds of KJS and her friends. They won’t even be able to incorporate such an entity in Texas because there is already is one. That some deluded TEC people in leadership like to claim that dioceses don’t leave, people do does not change reality. There is no Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth apart from the present legally recognized entity.

Oh for crying out loud. What-EVER!

I have never recognized Mrs. Shori as a priest or bishop.  So I guess this is just tit for tat (as she sticks her tongue out in my direction!)

Let me add this, Senior Priest:  Unless I miss my guess, aren’t dioceses composed of people?  What happens if all of the people of a diocese left TEC?  Does this not mean that the diocese has in fact LEFT TEC….or am I imagining things?  And this:  If the majority rules, as it does at General Convention, can it not be said that when the majority of a diocese votes to leave TEC, it means that the diocese….by a majority vote….has in fact LEFT?  Would this not be especially true if the delegates went to diocesan convention as instructed delegations from their parishes?

How can one “derecognize” an entity that was never hers to recognize? Holy Mother of Ovenmitts is this all she has to do to fill up her day?
Shalom Kates,
Intercessor

+Jack didn’t start a new diocese MP. He’s preserving the old one before TEC kills it.

It is pointless trying to argue with anyone in TEC.  They know very well why we faithful Anglicans have left.  We’ve explained our reasons time and time again, and we’ve listed them all.  They know why we left….unless they’re deaf, blind, and ignorant.

MP:

I do wonder sometimes why the PB actually interacts with the folks that have left. I would love for someone that understands the details to explain why she bothers.

  From the other side, I would, too. 

Merry Christmas, MP, if I don’t catch you beforehand.

#45. I do wonder sometimes why the PB actually interacts with the folks that have left. I would love for someone that understands the details to explain why she bothers. It looks like housekeeping to me.

Christmas Greetings, MP! Once again, we completely agree on something. I don’t understand it, either. The simplest explanation is that she’s possessed by the devil, who has given her a personal hatred for orthodoxy. Her heretical teachings would support that. Perhaps she is simply a mean, vindictive person on a power trip. The depositions of Bps. Cox and Duncan would support that. Alternatively, she’s just a dense person put into a position over her head, who is consistently acting on exceptionally poor advice.

In any case, I think Santa has a lump of coal for her stocking.

MP, if you’re still reading, just wanted to send you best wishes for a Merry Christmas! We can wrangle again after Christmas.

Mad Potter—yes.  She’s got to have some document to point to that claims that the diocese didn’t leave TEC for the lawsuits.  They’ve gone for the “the diocese can’t leave and so the people who remain are the Real Diocese and should own all the stuff” property argument and they’re going to live or die on that basis.

Should be interesting next decade or so as all of this winds its way through the courts.

No…Santa didn’t give out lumps of coal back in the day…he slapped heretic bishops at the Council of Nicaea.

KJS couldn’t have gotten into the Council of Nicaea as a bishop.

True…especially in those putrid “vestments”...

tj, Neal, james, Chancellor, and Publius (25),

I looked a while back :^]  .....you won’t find the authority she claimed.
Publius’ (and Sarah’s) conclusion is the only scenario that has born out.  To wit, considering the seriousness of the charge, no presentment has ever been made against me.

O, what a tangled web we weave,
Once we practice to deceive.

Lies and deceit create complications, entanglements and conflict.  She’s putting a noose around her own neck. 

Or as the Psalms say, evildoers get tangled in the net they set for the righteous.

If God be for us, who can be against us?
Whom shall we fear?

Stay the course, Ft. Worth.  Look to Jesus.
Hebrews 12:1-4

Fr. Rob,
It doesn’t bother me that TEC feels it must legally disassociate itself from departing congregations. If only to prevent a lawsuit against TEC if someone slips and falls in front of the cathedral in Ft. Worth. It does bother me that the method they have chosen is this personal “I do not recognize” from the PB.  Since the office of the PB has no such authority, and, essentially, she is acting as one person, it would make more sense for the letter to come from the Executive Committee acting on behalf of GC. 
  Of course, it makes no sense in either case to “derecognize” standing committee members who do not leave TEC (as I understand the situation in your case, Fr. Rob).  But looking for rational reasoning in TEC now-a-days is a fruitless search.

OK, enough posting.  May you all have a Joyous Christmas!
TJ

To the Queen of Darkness; what is the sound of one hand clapping?  There is your support! Hear it?