TLC: Canonically Defective Testimonial Alleged in Virginia Coadjutor Request

The standing committee did not use a properly worded canonical request last winter when it sought consent to the election of the Rev. Shannon S. Johnston as Bishop Coadjutor of Virginia, a defect not considered serious enough by Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori to invalidate the election.

They were too busy working on the wording for the CANA law suits

(Regrettably TEC/DioVA must have worded those pretty well, elsewise I’m sure CANA hired sharp enough lawyers that would have filed to them thrown out)

The standing committee did not use a properly worded canonical request

“We don’t think this is a defect.”

The hypocrisy here is simply stunning.  Ignore the canons in one situation, enforce every minute detail in others.  815 opened this can of worms so they shouldn’t be suprised by the scrutiny.

It would be interesting to see a full list of the “number of other dioceses in recent years” and see if there is any pattern in usage of the short form.  Or should we call them Rite I and Rite II approvals?

I have long thought Mrs. Schori and her clacque were updated versions of “The Gang That Couldn’t Shoot Straight” in that they make repeated errors similar to this. D. Boothbeers comes across as marginally competent at best. He seems ill tempered and crudely threatening, which works in small claims court but this Current Unpleasantness is rather more complex than arguements over a defective freezer. Thanks be to God he is the best they could come up with.

I stand in awe once more over the insightfullnes of Dr. Peter and his Principle.

I learned this yesterday.  Does it apply to this situation? 

Never attribute to malice what can be accounted for by incompetence.

But I think the hard-line rejection of Mark Lawrence was malice.

So, is this one of those “yes its a violation of Cannon Law, but not a violation enough” type things like Bishop Smith’s declaration of martial law???

Sometimes there are laws on the books that nobody takes seriously. Example: South Dakota legally permits the public killing of Native Americans, as long as their are three or more (this law is a hold over from settlement times). Now, this would appear to be one of those. All you have to do is copy and paste from the cannons, mail it, there ya go. The odd thing is the selective use of the cannons, not “do we follow the exact words or not” but rather “which exact words will we use” and who desides which exact words are important and which ones are not? Who else but our beloved Presiding Bishop.

This sounds a little bit like Humpty Dumpty deciding the exact meaning of the words he uses, him and no other.

Yours in Christ,
jacob

But I think the hard-line rejection of Mark Lawrence was malice.
Posted by Branford on 07-24-2007 at 09:34 AM

Branford, thanks for sharing your thoughts.  However, there are reasserters in DioSC and elsewhere who would object to you saying so.

Never attribute to malice what can be accounted for by incompetence.

It was posted on another thread last week on SF and I believe it read:

Never attribute to malice what can be attributed to stupidity

In either case, the end result is the same whether it be incompetence, stupidity or malice.

Maybe the better term to use is “implied malice” - malice inferred from subjective awareness of duty or of the likely results of one’s act called also “legal malice, malice in law” I can’t read into the hearts and minds of those at 815 that declared the election void, but the end result had elements of implied malice, especially in light of potential problems with Virginia’s election.

Maybe it’s a nit but I thought canons and canonical instructions could only be changed by General Convention.  Did the shorter consent undergo such an proposal and amendment process, and if so when?

South Dakota legally permits the public killing of Native Americans, as long as their are three or more (this law is a hold over from settlement times).

I no more believe this than I believe the moon is made of green cheese. Care to provide a citation?

Maybe it’s a nit but I thought canons and canonical instructions could only be changed by General Convention.  Did the shorter consent undergo such an proposal and amendment process, and if so when?

Goodness Gracious!  When I read such astute comments as above, I can’t help but recall the pharisees in the New Testament with their equivalent and analogous usage of pharasaical canons and canonical instructions used to judge people and circumstances.

815, TEC, PB KJS, Beers, liberal revisionist bishops and leaders… they are the most amazing and unique atheological mix I have ever had the horror of seeing:  They combine legalistic pharasaicalism and unrepentant heresy into a poison potion of an unprecedented acidic magnitude! 

My heartfelt sympathies for any reasserter, any moderate, and any reappraiser who drinks this foul Kool-Aid.

Shannon Johnston’s illegitimate episcopacy has prompted the following statement posted today at the Diocese of Virginia website:

“A Statement on the Consents to the Ordination and Consecration of Bishop Shannon Johnston

July 24, 2007

The process of requesting and receiving consents is governed by the Office of the Presiding Bishop through various administrative departments. The process of obtaining consents for the ordination and consecration of Bishop Shannon Johnston followed by the Standing Committee of The Diocese of Virginia was approved and confirmed by the general Church. The procedures we followed have been in widespread use throughout the Church for at least a decade. We received over 80 signed consent forms, and our process was confirmed by the act of consecration in a joy-filled service presided over by the Most Rev. Katharine Jefferts Schori, Presiding Bishop of The Episcopal Church.

The people, churches and institutions of the Episcopal Diocese of Virginia are enjoying the first fruits of Bishop Johnston’s ministry among us as we journey together, stewarding our heritage for future generations of the Church.”

Thanks for posting Chazaq.  What a shame that DioSC couldn’t write a similar joyful statement on their website about the consecration of bishop-elect Lawrence.  Oh well.  Too bad, so sad. 

Next time, they’ll obtain the consents for Mark Lawrence.  PB KJS doesn’t want to appear that unfair again, would she?

Truth Unites… and Divides :

The one thing I have learnt from the Episcopal hierarchy is that the rules never apply to THEM.

The one thing I have learnt from the Episcopal hierarchy is that the rules never apply to THEM.

Eclipse, I fully agree with you.  So why then, do so many orthodox Anglicans, orthodox parishes, and orthodox dioceses in TEC assume and expect to be equitably treated by PB KJS and 815?

Hasn’t this assumption been repeatedly tested and found to be faulty?

So then what does this say about the intelligent discernment or lack thereof by Anglican reasserters who naively believe that canons and rules applied to them will also be applied in equal measure to liberal revisionists, and to 815 too?

Can you say…..!

TUAD, based on observed events, I doubt any reasserter expects to be treated equitably by the unjust and tyrannical leadership of the Episcopalians.

Remember that God is doing a new thing.  If scripture can be rewritten with the whim of the church leadership, then it is certainly within their discretion to ignore canon law, procedures at GC, financial improprieties, or any other “triviality” that would detract from the mission.

Be warned if you agree with the mission of TEC.  Tomorrow the HS could do a new thing and you could be on your ear as well.  If you tolerate injustice against someone you disagree with or changing of the rules for your benefit, watch out because that injustice can work against you tomorrow.

Truth Unites… and Divides :

Well, you and me both - however, I think for some of us, we actually have to SEE the Titanic going down into the Atlantic in order to realize the ship is lost. 

I think we all have to come to realizations at different points.  At my church, some of us realized the ship was lost after the 2003 convention, others of us were hopeful that in 2006 things would rebound and ECUSA would repent for its sin.  It was a LONG three years of waiting and working to help others see, but God used that to help as many of us leave in 2006 as possible. 

All of which is to say, it is hard to watch our orthodox brothers and sisters struggle in the inequality, prejudice, and non-repentance of the Episcopal church.  However, I have to believe these things are necessary to help as many as possible to see what ECUSA will NOT change, it is bound for apostasy, and there will be no redemption for those who do not choose to repent. 

So, the blatant inequality of the election of the bishop of VA vs. bishop of SC is only another sign that ECUSA is neither righteous or just.  Hopefully, it will help those still stuck in TEC realize that jumping in a lifeboat is the only option… and to lament those who believed it was ‘an unsinkable ship’.

Hopefully, it will help those still stuck in TEC realize that jumping in a lifeboat is the only option… and to lament those who believed it was ‘an unsinkable ship’.

My sweet sister-in-Christ Eclipse, I don’t disagree, but don’t write it like that!  There is some awful creature called the Commenatrix and she swings a mean axe at those who violate the commenting policies at SFIF.  I’m not sure if your statement violates the policy or not, but I don’t go anywhere near the topic of whether folks should leave or stay in TEC.

Seeing as how there are so many irregularly elected bishops out there in ECUSA, I’m thinking that they can’t be invited to Lambeth.  Wonder which form the DoNV used when it elected KJS? Hmmmmmm. 

After all, if a rule is a rule is a rule in SC, it is in the entire country - or ECUSA needs to admit that it only enforces canons when it thinks it will benefit the liberal agenda and let’s get on with the process of dividing up who wants to be Orthodox and who wants to be <strike>Unitarian</strike>revisionist - sans lawyers, of course.

BillyD you cut me to the quick. Are you at all surprised that such a law remains on the books? Odd things, constitutions are, and we live in an odd nation no doubt about it. I have it on good authority that Alabama has never once removed a single law from the books. Repealed yes, removed, no.

http://www.dumblaws.com/laws/united-states/south-dakota/ here is a link, though you many not accept it. If what you are looking for is a citation from the state constitution I’m afraid it will take me some more time.

Although I was wrong about one thing, it wasn’t 3 Native Americans, it was 5. Hope you don’t mind the error. Oh, and their may be stipulation between public vs private distinctions in regard to happenings on private property…but, that really doesnt change anything of my original point, which was that KJS is selectivly applying the constitution in unconstitutional ways.

Yours in Christ,
jacob

PS: I will see about finding the actual citation in South Dakota laws, but it may take some time. Hope this helps for now.

BillyD, it occurs to me that I may not have been clear on my point. I am not suggesting that people South Dakota start killing groups of 5 Native Americans at a time because there is a law on the books about it. I was simply bringing up the concept of dead laws, which while still on the books, are non-binding. Sure enough today, if you try to exercise said law, you will go to jail, and rightly so. But I was distinguishing between dead laws like the example above, and the canonical request forms for election of a bishop.

It would be appropriate, if the cannons regarding consent forms, were among the dead cannons of the church (and their are some, I believe using 13% abv only wine is among them) and theirfore were overlooked by the PB however, this is clearly not the case, due to their recent exercise by the PB to null and void the South Carolina election.

Does this clarify things any?

Yours in Christ,
jacob

First, Jacob, I never thought you were advocating the “right” to kill Indians or anybody else, either three at a time or in batches of five. My only concern was whether such a law is in effect anywhere in the United States.

I would take anything that the site you referred me to with a large grain of salt. I checked out their section on my state of residence, and found that they list laws that have been repealed. I don’t doubt that at one time there was a law on the books stating that a homesteader could kill Indians - I just doubt that it’s still there.