So the Chancellors of the four dioceses - Pittsburgh, Fort Worth, Quincy and San Joaquin have decided that the Executive Council's resolution on Accession of Dioceses to the Constitution of The Episcopal Church is a "failed attempt to interfere in the internal constitutional processes of their dioceses." Anyway that's what was reported on the Diocese of Pittsburgh site.
Among other things the chancellors objected to the Executive Council making such a resolution since, according to their read, "The Executive Council does not have the authority to make decisions or pass resolutions of this type on behalf of TEC. Furthermore, the Executive Council does not have the right to interfere in internal diocesan constitutional processes. The Executive Council's declaration is contrary to the law and to the historic Anglican faith.”
Actually, the first section of this resolution "reminds the dioceses" of the content of the Constitution, which require "an unqualified accession to the Constitution and Canons of this Church." (Article V, Section 1, the Constitution of the Episcopal Church.) That reminder in hand, the next two sections of the resolution are not making opinion, but stating fact.
It might be argued that the Executive Council has no business stating the obvious. On the other hand, it would appear that the Dioceses in question seem unable to understand declarative statements part of the Constitution of the Episcopal Church.
Were they able to read with understanding perhaps they might have noticed that "unqualified" seems to rule out the following language from the Diocese of Pittsburgh: "In cases where the provisions of the Constitution and Canons of the Church in the Diocese of Pittsburgh speak to the contrary, or where resolutions of the Convention of said Diocese have determined the Constitution and Canons of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America, or resolutions of its General Convention, to be contrary to the historic Faith and Order of the one holy catholic and apostolic church, the local determination shall prevail."
The chancellors, God bless them, make quite a rant of it: "the Executive Council does not have the right to interfere in internal diocesan constitutional processes. The Executive Council's declaration is contrary to the law and to the historic Anglican faith." This is all language just itching for a fight. Of course the fight is already in progress and these accusations are grist for the mill.
As far as I can make out, Executive Council's declaration is not "contrary to the historic Anglican faith." That is a smokescreen. On the matter of "the right to interfere in internal diocesan constitutional processes," making an observation of fact, reminding dioceses of what is written in the Constitution, is no interference, unless one supposes that helping people read is somehow wrong. As to the right to draw the conclusion from the Constitution that limits to the unqualified accession to the Constitution are not allowed, not only can the Executive Council draw such conclusions, so can anyone else. That's the way logic and language work.
It may be that dioceses and their leadership may believe The Constitution and Canons of The Episcopal Church are from time to time "contrary to the historic Faith and Order of the one holy catholic and apostolic church." They are welcome to try to change the Constitution or Canons so that they are more to their liking.
What the chancellors are arguing, however, is that one of the things that is contrary is the notion of unqualified accession itself.
Good luck with that one.