Total visitors right now: 94

Click here to check your private inbox.

Welcome to Stand Firm!

Clarification of the Response from San Joaquin and a Statement from the Southern Cone

Saturday, January 12, 2008 • 10:23 am


Clarification from San Joaquin and the Southern Cone

As a point of clarification, there is no confusion on the part of the Bishop of San Joaquin or the clergy, people, leadership, and convention of the Diocese of San Joaquin of their status. The claims of the Episcopal Church to have oversight or jurisdiction are not correct. The fact is that neither the Diocese nor Bishop John-David Schofield are part of The Episcopal Church. The Bishop is a member of the House of Bishops of the Southern Cone as of December 8th, 2007. The Diocese is a part of the Southern Cone. Neither the Presiding Bishop or the House of Bishops of the Episcopal Church have any further jurisdiction. Bishop Schofield is no longer a member of the House of Bishops of The Episcopal Church.

A statement from The Most Reverend Gregory Venables, dated January 11,2008:

“As of December the 8th, 2007 Bishop John-David Schofield is not under the authority or jurisdiction of The Episcopal Church or the Presiding Bishop.He is, therefore, not answerable to their national canon law but is a member of the House of Bishops of the Southern Cone and under our authority.

Un fuerte abrazo.

—The Most Rev. Greg Venables, Archbishop of the Southern Cone

 


22 Comments • Print-friendlyPrint-friendly w/commentsShare on Facebook
Comments:

Bishop Schofield is currently a member of both the House of Bishops of the Episcopal Church and the House of Bishops of the Southern Cone, not prohibited by either house.

Oh, come on! This is getting ridiculous. How, in light of Canons of the Councils, can a bishop be a member of two provinces at the same time? Uggg…

[1] Posted by The Common Anglican on 01-12-2008 at 11:46 AM • top

*Hooray for SJ*
Personally, I think 815 should read a little history… perhaps from the Southern perspective about how the Emancipation Proclamation did nothing to free any Southern slaves because Lincoln was no longer considred the president and his decrees were not considered as valid in the Confederacy.  815 can inhibit all they want, but in SJ, there’s a new sherriff in town.  (I know I’m mixing metaphors like a perverted kind of stew!)

[2] Posted by Free Range Anglican on 01-12-2008 at 11:46 AM • top

Bishop Schofield is currently a member of<b> both <b>the House of Bishops of the Episcopal Church and the House of Bishops of the Southern Cone, not prohibited by either house.

Which negates those who claim TEC and the HoB have no authority to inhibit him or depose him since he is no longer a member of TEC.

[3] Posted by Mick on 01-12-2008 at 11:58 AM • top

Which negates those who claim TEC and the HoB have no authority to inhibit him or depose him since he is no longer a member of TEC.

Mick
All this means is that TEC must go through a process to formally remove him from their organization.  But since Bishop Schofield is already gone from TEC, what practical impact will this inhibition actually possess?  Who do you think is going to pay any attention to it?  Other than the residual in TEC’s potemkin DSJ of course.
carl

[4] Posted by carl on 01-12-2008 at 12:09 PM • top

KJS:  “John-David, you’re inhibited!”
J-D:  “Dear Katherine, I left a month ago”

[5] Posted by no longer NH Episcopalian on 01-12-2008 at 12:31 PM • top

Hello, The Common Anglican,

To what Canons of the Councils are you referring in #1 above? Ancient tradition that each bishop is assigned a discrete geographical territory without overlap?  Were there “provinces” as we understand them back then?

[6] Posted by Sparky on 01-12-2008 at 12:58 PM • top

I’ve said this before, I’ll say it again.  KJS inhibiting Bishop Schofield has all the meaning of her inhibiting my Father - oh that’s right, he’s been dead for five years…so go ahead inhibit away!!
One big YAWN coming at yah…......
“We shall overcome some day” and it may be a lot sooner than people think smile
MassPK

[7] Posted by MassPK on 01-12-2008 at 01:42 PM • top

Dual Bishoprics are acutually VERY anglican.  At the time of Henry VIII,  Cardinal Wosley was simultaneously Bishop of Lincoln, Archbishop of York and Lord Chancellor of England.  There have been others - - -

[8] Posted by star-ace on 01-12-2008 at 02:02 PM • top

Matt - doen inhibition remove him from the House of Bishops or is he just an inhibited Member of the House of Bishops.  I think the latter.

[9] Posted by star-ace on 01-12-2008 at 02:04 PM • top

Kendall has posted a clarification from San Joaquin along with a brief statement from Abp. Venables:

http://www.kendallharmon.net/t19/index.php/t19/article/9124/

[10] Posted by Karen B. on 01-12-2008 at 02:07 PM • top

As a point of clarification, there is no confusion on the part of the Bishop of San Joaquin or the clergy, people, leadership, and convention of the Diocese of San Joaquin of their status.

The claims of The Episcopal Church to have oversight or jurisdiction are not correct. The fact is that neither the Diocese nor Bishop John-David Schofield are part of The Episcopal Church. The Bishop is a member of the House of Bishops of the Southern Cone as of December 8th, 2007. The Diocese is a part of the Southern Cone. Neither the Presiding Bishop nor the House of Bishops of the Episcopal Church have any further jurisdiction. Bishop Schofield is no longer a member of the House of Bishops of The Episcopal Church.

Following is a statement from The Most Reverend Gregory Venables (Archbishop of the Province of the Southern Cone of South America) dated January 11, 2008:

“As of December the 8th, 2007 Bishop John-David Schofield is not under the authority or jurisdiction of The Episcopal Church or the Presiding Bishop. He is, therefore, not answerable to their national canon law but is a member of the House of Bishops of the Southern Cone and under our authority.
Un fuerte abrazo.
++Greg?

[11] Posted by bgandenberger on 01-12-2008 at 02:44 PM • top

I love the last line from Abp. Venables,” UN FUERTE ABRAZO,” a strong [manly-like] hug.

[12] Posted by ama-anglican on 01-12-2008 at 03:35 PM • top

to quote the Eagles
                “Already Gone”
Well, I heard some people talkin’ just the other day
And they said you were gonna put me on a shelf
But let me tell you I got some news for you
And you’ll soon find out it’s true
And then you’ll have to eat your lunch all by yourself
‘Cause I’m already gone
And I’m feelin’ strong
I will sing this vict’ry song, woo, hoo,hoo,woo,hoo,hoo

The letter that you wrote me made me stop and wonder why
But I guess you felt like you had to set things right
Just remember this, my girl, when you look up in the sky
You can see the stars and still not see the light (that’s right)

And I’m already gone. And I’m feelin’ strong
I will sing this vict’ry song, woo, hoo,hoo,woo, hoo,hoo

Well I know it wasn’t you who held me down
Heaven knows it wasn’t you who set me free
So often times it happens that we live our lives in chains
And we never even know we have the key

But me, I’m already gone. And I’m feelin’ strong
I will sing this vict’ry song
‘Cause I’m already gone
Yes, I’m already gone. And I’m feelin’ strong
I will sing this vict’ry song
‘Cause I’m already gone. Yes, I’m already gone
Already gone All right, nighty-night

[13] Posted by David Wilson on 01-12-2008 at 05:08 PM • top

As I live—and often struggle to live—a godly life in Christ, and as I continue to read through this blog to remind myself that there are people who are absolutely intent on defending the gospel of Jesus, these words of Paul come to me:
“Brothers, join in imitating me, and keep your eyes on those who walk according to the example you have in us. For many, of whom I have often told you and now tell you even with tears, walk as enemies of the cross of Christ. Their end is destruction, their god is their belly, and they glory in their shame, with minds set on earthly things. But our citizenship is in heaven, and from it we await a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ, who will transform our lowly body to be like his glorious body, by the power that enables him even to subject all things to himself.”
Be blessed
gato

[14] Posted by gatogordo on 01-12-2008 at 08:12 PM • top

My understanding is that a bishop cannot leave without permission.  Just as an ordained person cannot leave one diocese for another without letters of transfer, I don’t believe that Mr. Schofield can leave the Episcopal Church for whatever/wherever without the permission of the HOB.  Consider those bishops who, unlike Steenson, did not request permission to leave for wherever.  They’re probably next and should be.

On another note, I don’t get why conservatives are angry about this.  Did you truly not expect it?  And, secondly, do you truly care?  Is it really going to change anything that Mr. Schofield is doing?  Thus I believe all this blog talk is simply posturing indignation.  If you are truly rid of TEC and think Mr. Schofield is better off, then why harp on the TEC’s processes to no longer be associated with him?  Truly strange.

[15] Posted by Vintner on 01-12-2008 at 09:04 PM • top

I am very surprised that KJS waited until SJ took step two and actually realigned to inhibit Schofield.  By waiting, she lost a lot of ground in the property litigation.  If she had taken him out prior to step two, she could have argued that he wasn’t the bishop and did not have the authority to realign the diocese.  I think she will not make the same mistake twice and will soon act to take down Duncan before Pitt takes step two.

[16] Posted by morningsideanglican on 01-12-2008 at 09:32 PM • top

It really is pretty silly.

[17] Posted by PROPHET MICAIAH on 01-12-2008 at 09:41 PM • top

15 +Schofield has not left the Diocese of San Joaquin. The diocese left ecusa, which is the plain meaning of the diocesan convention. That makes your ‘understanding’ irrelevant.

[18] Posted by Tom Roberts on 01-13-2008 at 03:28 PM • top

16 My last said essentially what yours said in other words, sorry. But your scenario for Schori to ponder has the singular failing: if she inhibits +Duncan prior to realignment, +Duncan simply says “for what?” and shrugs his shoulders. So, he really has to be inhibited in that grey hour between his speech to convention in which he recommends realignment and the actual vote to do so. The timing would have to be exquisite.

[19] Posted by Tom Roberts on 01-13-2008 at 03:33 PM • top

Smuggs, I doubt any orthodox are suprised by the inhibition, just disappointed in a couple of the Bishops that lent their hand to it.

[20] Posted by Going Home on 01-13-2008 at 03:47 PM • top

(20) Who?  Surley not my beloved +Wimperley?

[21] Posted by Wilkie on 01-13-2008 at 08:51 PM • top

Not, surely, WINDSOR Wimperley, Wilkie?!  Not he of the giant “W” emblazoned across his chest and cape?  O say it isn’t so! 

But then again, ....

Formerly in the DioTX now in the DioMO and not sure there is any difference anymore betwixt ‘em.

[22] Posted by dwstroudmd+ on 01-13-2008 at 09:54 PM • top

Registered members are welcome to leave comments. Log in here, or register here.


Comment Policy: We pride ourselves on having some of the most open, honest debate anywhere about the crisis in our church. However, we do have a few rules that we enforce strictly. They are: No over-the-top profanity, no racial or ethnic slurs, and no threats real or implied of physical violence. Please see this post for more. Although we rarely do so, we reserve the right to remove or edit comments, as well as suspend users' accounts, solely at the discretion of site administrators. Since we try to err on the side of open debate, you may sometimes see comments that you believe strain the boundaries of our rules. Comments are the opinions of visitors, and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of Stand Firm, its board of directors, or its site administrators.