Quick: Who’s the Bishop of San Joaquin?

I don’t get it.  Maybe I was busy counting sheep but . . . how can the Anglican Communion call the seat vacant?  What about the Southern Cone and Bishop Venables?

I noticed on the AC site, that today in the Anglican Cycle of Prayer we pray for The Most Revd Gregory Venables.  Yes, Lord, and Amen.  Lead him, protect him, encourage him, strengthen him, for the sake of your Name and your Gospel.

It’s a prophetic move on the part of the ACO.  They are informing us of the both the upcoming actions of the HOB and the subsequent declaration/disinvitation of +John David by ++Rowan.

But that’s ok because we know the game isn’t rigged and the listening process will be fair to all.

No, that is impossible. Must be a misprint. You must still go to Lambeth, because the ABC is on your side. You see the ABC assured Bishop Howe that….

The idiotic thing about this is that the page contains a link to the DioSJ website, which of course has +Schofield as Bishop and ++Venables as archbishop. Why don’t they remove the link, or at least give +Schofield his due?

I would suggest that this represents the ACO’s pre-emptive strike.  Kendall Harmon commented that with Rowan refusing to make decisions, the decisions tend to get made for him.  The ACO is staffed with TEC sympathizers, and so they will try to steer everything as 815 orders.  Rowan’s comments at the recent Lambeth press conference would suggest he will follow the ACO lead, which is unfortunate, as this act - unlike any other - would reveal starkly that Rowan Williams is acting in a very unprincipled manner with regard to the Lambeth invitations.

To date Rowan has declared that he is withholding invitations from bishops who have been consecrated against the mind of the Communion.  This doesn’t apply to Schofield.  Rowan has also declared that he will not withhold invitations from other bishops - including TEC and ACC bishops clearly in contravention of the Windsor Report and Communion norms (i.e. those openly authorizing SSB’s in their dioceses) because he says that it is for the Communion as a whole to determine their status.  Well, the Communion as a whole has not determined Schofield status either, so if Rowan arbitrarily withholds an invitation from Schofield, then Rowan is taking it on himself to determine Communion status apart from a Communion consensus.

Perhaps Greg Venables should be in touch with the ACO to ask them to add and entry for Bishop Schofield and the Diocese to the listing for his Province?  (seriously!)....

The ACO’s website is not a canonical portion of Scripture. Put another way, since when should anyone believe what you read on the web without checking the sources? Agreed that this might be indicative of what certain clerical cliques might wish, but it is not determinative of what the situation actually is.

This situation reminds me of some federal executive agency saying to a state that they have violated the law. The sovereign state has the right to say back, “So What? And who are you to enforce that judgement?” The answer then lies for court judges and juries to decide. But the initial executive ruling doesn’t just get accepted without due process.

It seems to be partially sorted now.  It lists The Rt Revd John David Schofield, but lists his position as   Bishop of San Joaquin (Inhibited).

And the link to the (real) Diocese of San Joaqin is still there, intact.

9 I’d not say it is partially sorted out, except in the sense that everyone is now digging defensive position trenchlines.

Re [10] ... Well at least listing +Schfield by name seems one step better than saying the position is vacant (as [1] implies).

Here is the missing ‘o’ from the Bishop’s name in my last post:  o

They’ve changed it back….

Hahaha, good grief (rolling eyes). The ACO seems as confused as JDS’s PR company! I think I agree with Naab00 above: Leave one slot for the DioSJ within TEC, with him listed as inhibited, but create another under ProvSC and list the “alternative” DioSJ with him as bishop. A first! A bishop listed twice!

14 or, “How can we be two places at once when we are really nowhere at all?”

Yes, Tom.

The reason Canon Kearon walks funny is because he is KJS’s sock puppet. When she shakes her finger, he says all things necessary to please TEc.

The elephant in the room, of course, is whether Schofield will have his invitiation revoked by Canterbury.  I am quite sure that TEC has been lobbying for it, not to mention a revocation for Duncan for his semi-inhibition, and the same any bishop likely to be inhibited before Lambeth (Iker, e.g.) that TEC dislikes.

If the ABC gives in, and he sounded at his press conference that he might well once the autonomous province of TEC has taken its formal actions, I don’t see how that will not be “game over” for efforts to try to get the orthodox bishops to turn up at Lambeth in force.  Which may be a two-fer as far as TEC is concerned.  But I don’t see how Wright’s, Fulcrum’s or the ACI’s arguments for attending will be very convincing if that happens since it will be about as public an announcement as there could be that the ABC has declared his allegiance to whatever TEC wants, and to show the orthodox nothing but the door.  Particularly after the ACI has made such great efforts to have the VGR consecrators disinvited as the Windsor Report would call for, to have Schofield alone disinvited would be to announce their position utterly failed and the Windsor Report the dead letter many already suspect it is.  (Well, I suppose someone could try to sell invitations for the VGR consecrators but not for Schofeld or Duncan as a good communion conservative catholic polity, but I don’t think they’d find many takers.)  Not to mention that it would be so clear a reversal of the ABC’s letter to Howe about the role of the national church between the bishop and the communion that it would call the Archbishop’s role seriously into question.  Again, more than it already is.

Well, for all its putting up a brave front and denigration of Gafcon, Lambeth is certainly seems in a shaky position to me.  It is still incredible to me that the Archbishop has brought things to this point.  Like many, I still want to believe he will pull some magic trick from up his sleeve to keep the orthodox in the communion, but the realist in me confesses that I have no reason to expect he will do so.

Just my opinion, of course.

I noticed on the ACO site that Bennison was not listed as inhibited.  Is he not under an inhibition pending his trial?

not to mention a revocation for Duncan for his semi-inhibition

Now that is some Fresh purgatory….Semi-inhibition. I am sure a canon violation could be found at 815 to forge that nuance.
Intercessor

This looks much like a Kearon run a muck faux pas! Rowan has no more control over Kearon and the ACO than he does over the Anglican Communion as a whole!

Glad to see, ODC, that you were very careful in your first sentence above, with your consonant placement…. (but I got a chuckle by speed-reading it!)

HeartAfire,
Laughter is good for the soul and what ails ya! Glad to oblige!

Can anyone confirm that Trinity Wall Street manages and finances the Anglican Communion Website?

ttp://www.anglicancommunion.org/tour/diocese.cfm?Idind=689&view=alpha

Gee…they sure were not concerned about this Bishop who resigned months ago!
Intercessor

Sorry about the browser cut / paste hassle…it’s Steenson formerly of Rio Grande.
Intercessor

“Who’s the Bishop of San Joaquin?”

Perkin Warbeck? The False Dmitri? Miraz & Prunaprismia? The Dear Leader?

I see that the ACO now lists Bennison as inhibited.  In all humility, I’ll take credit.  If anyone has other ACO updates just give me a buzz.