10/04/2008

Concerning the Province of the Southern Cone "receiving" dioceses.

Here is a note from an infrequent but known contributor to this blog in reference to provisions for the Province of the Southern Cone to "receive" a foreign diocese. Thomas is well versed in matters concerning the PSC, having been a member of the clergy there.

Thomas says:

"As I pointed out so many times--

1. There is no canonical nor constitutional provision for the Province of the Southern Cone to receive, accept, or "host" a "foreign" diocese. (Check the C&C translated and available on line courtesy of the Diocese of Fort Worth).

2. The Executive Council of the Province of the Southern Cone has voted to receive the bishop and clergy into their midst "for pastoral reasons"... NOT the institution of the Diocese, as even in the Southern Cone they realize they can't do it.

(Note: A constitutional amendment needs to be approved by the Provincial Synod [I believe it requires 3/4 majority], then be submitted to the ACC for review, and then be approved by each one of the Dioceses. If one of the Dioceses does not approve the amendment, it fails.)

So, whatever the brothers and sisters that decided to remove themselves out the Diocese of Pittsburgh may say, the Southern Cone has not, and cannot receive "a Diocese." Claiming otherwise is either disingenuous or a flat lie. So much so for the "100% Proof Biblical purity" with which they pretend to shroud themselves.

And they, as well as the Presiding Bishop of the Southern Cone, should be called to task on the issue.

Thomas+"

If the Province of the Southern Cone is acting without authority from within its own system what assurance have any of these parishes or dioceses "aligned" with them that they will be afforded canonical protection against abuse within the Province of the Southern Cone. None.

But then they don't really need it do they? No one is staying in that Province anyway, a province whose actions are bound to the increasingly absurd stance of its Primate. The whole thing is simply a way station on trip to bountiful... the land of the truly "orthodox" North American Province recognized by Provinces that care not a fig about relationships with those awful people to the North, including the Archbishop of Canterbury.

The thing is, these Primates do not represent the full Global South or for that matter the "orthodox" Anglicans.

The whole mess is a house of cards.

Still, as Lionel Deimel says
, "I cannot say what will become of Robert Duncan’s dreams of glory. If they are realized, however, the Anglican Communion will, in essence, be destroyed."



27 comments:

  1. Would it be irreverent for people to call those from the Southern Cone 'Southern Coneheads'?

    ReplyDelete
  2. The whole mess is a pack of cards.

    More like a House of Cards.

    Six weeks to the Showdown in Cowtown.

    ReplyDelete
  3. The Pittsburgh Parishes staying include some of the largest parishes in the diocese. Calvary reported 1558 baptized members for 2007 and St. Paul's Mt. Lebanon reported 1223. and Christ Church North Hills 1202. Also in the group of 17 parishes that have formally passed vestry resolutions or taken parish votes are a number of mid-sized parishes including St. Peter's Brentwood (482), Church of the Nativity (305), St. Andrew's Highland Park (417), St. Michael's of the Valley (351). Our figures suggest that the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh in TEC will end up with over 8000 members of the diocese. As for the number of clergy, there were several priest not present who are staying in TEC, so the number is lower than the total clergy we will have. There are also several clergy licensed by not canonically resident who are staying.

    Joan R. Gundersen

    ReplyDelete
  4. Lionel is correct, and, that has been the goal all along. It wasn't just TEC they wanted to destroy: it was the whole communion.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Interesting figures from Ms Gunderson. Of course, this ignores that the laity will now have a choice in Pittsburgh and that if a parish stays with the TEC, parishioners can go down the street to a Southern Cone church. But of course, this works both ways. I think the truth of the matter is that both sides will lose members because of the conflict so counts like Ms Gunderson of 8000 putative members strain credibility.

    Reading Thomas+'s complaint that the Southern Coners aren't following their own rules reminds me of the Pharisees complaining of Jesus's followers not following the rules for the sabbath. It is ironic that rules can be bent for depositions here but need to be strictly followed elsewhere.

    Finally, your readers might be interested in this:

    Rev Jim Simons, of Across the Aisle, had thought the vote would be close - closer than last year’s vote because last year’s vote was just a warm up. Also, last year Bp Duncan had asked people to vote for it even if they were ultimately against the measure because it would give Bp Duncan more leverage with 815. Of course, we must thank the ham-handed “deposition” of Bp Duncan. Even with this folly, Jim Simons+ thought the measure might be defeated.

    So I tracked down last year’s numbers and compared them to today’s (numbers in parentheses are percentages):

    Last year:
    Lay vote: 118 (67) - 58 (33)
    Clergy vote: 109 (82) - 24 (18)

    Today:
    Lay vote: 119 (62) - 69 (35)
    Clergy voted: 119 (75) - 33 (20)

    Pretty similar. A 2 to 1 margin in the laity and 3.75 to 1 in the clergy vote.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Bob of Fremont5/10/08 8:54 AM

    A house of cards, set up and constructed with impunity by a province who refused to listen to the Worldwide AC about its actions at GC 2003.

    As another famous reverend was recently reported as saying:

    "The chickens have come home to roost..."

    So continue not to accept your part in this debacle, continue to refuse to acknowledge that your actions led to the schism, continue to deny that the Bible is the sacred Word of God and we'll just keep leaving and realigning.

    We'll continue to pray for you and all of Christ's church.

    Bob of Fremont

    ReplyDelete
  7. My big question is what do the Bolivians, Chileans, Venezuelans, Argentines, the local indigenous people think about all this? I only hear the English voices and haven't seen anything en español de este asunto.

    ReplyDelete
  8. The Province of the Southern Cone is in communion with Canterbury.

    More Primates have an impaired or strained relationship with TEC's Province than the Southern Cone.

    Any "absurdities" of the Southern Cone have yet to reach the level of tearing the fabric of the Communion. No Windsor, Dar es-Salaam, Dromatine, etc. etc. have had to occur due to Southern Cone issues. Can you find any? Let's get the charges going.

    Back to sweeping up the TEC House.
    Oh, sorry, "all is well", though isn't it? If "all is well", why did we lose 4,500 average Sunday attendance worshipers yesterday?

    ReplyDelete
  9. Reading Thomas+'s complaint that the Southern Coners aren't following their own rules reminds me of the Pharisees complaining of Jesus's followers not following the rules for the sabbath. It is ironic that rules can be bent for depositions here but need to be strictly followed elsewhere.

    Or, put another way, it's ironic that "reasserters" are so vocal about perceived irregularities in interpretations of the ECUSA's canons by the people whose job it is to interpret them, but so lax about ignoring canons and constitution when it suits them. Southern Cone isn't bending their rules, after all, or even engaging in creative interpretation - they are simply ignoring them.

    ReplyDelete
  10. ...continue to deny that the Bible is the sacred Word of God...

    I must have missed that GC resolution.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Fred,

    I thought I was the only one who thought of this. ;-)

    FWIW
    jimB

    ReplyDelete
  12. By the way, why do changes to the Southern Cone Constitution require review by the ACC? Is this a common requirement?

    ReplyDelete
  13. "The Province of the Southern Cone is in communion with Canterbury." True, but schismatic provinces it fosters are not. Robinson Cavalcanti, deposed bishop of Recife, was explicitly denied a Lambeth invitation, although PB Venables has offered him shelter. One wonders if more went on behind the scenes than has been revealed concerning John Mercer Schofield's failure to attend Lambeth on the invitation issued to him before his deposition as bishop of San Joaquin.

    ReplyDelete
  14. I must have missed that GC resolution.

    I can't remember the resolution that said the "orthodox" are exempt from obeying the 9th Commandment, but there must be one.

    ReplyDelete
  15. "1. There is no canonical nor constitutional provision for the Province of the Southern Cone to receive, accept, or "host" a "foreign" diocese."

    So that means the PSC is not prohibited from accepting a foreign diocese either. I bet there are a lot of other things which ECUSA does for which there is no provision in the C&C of ECUSA - such as blessing same sex unions?

    "The Pittsburgh Parishes staying include some of the largest parishes in the diocese. Calvary reported 1558 baptized members for 2007 and St. Paul's Mt. Lebanon reported 1223. and Christ Church North Hills 1202." Very interesting figures Joan R Gunderson, but not particularly relevant. What is the ASA of those parishes, honestly?

    ReplyDelete
  16. Fred, I think the proper term would be cabezas de conos! And I think that ABp Venables would get a chuckle about that. He seems to be a joyous Christian despite the conflict. Something that both sides should strive for.

    BillyD: The clergy of the province of the Southern Cone have made no pretense of following their canons in this matter. They have called it an emergency intervention. I would liken it to where Mark+ was visiting relatives in Fort Worth and came across a disaster area. Now, if he were to start administering last rites to victims without Bp Iker's approval, that would be a violation of canon law. But it would be the right (sorry 'bout the pun) thing to do.

    This is in contrast to the depositions. In the case of Bps Schofield and Bennison, inhibition was sought and obtained. In the case of Bp Cox, it wasn't even sought. In the case of Bp Duncan, it was sought and denied. Still the pretense of following canon law was made. (I am still mystified at why it was done - but not unhappy.)

    Are there any liberals who are willing to state that the "deposition" was a bonehead move? I perceive a fear that if the liberals start to question the PB's heavy handed ways, everything will start to unravel.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Are there any liberals who are willing to state that the "deposition" was a bonehead move?

    I'm not sure I would say "boneheaded," but it's difficult for me to see the benefits of doing the deposition before the diocese's schismatic move. And I have seen at least one liberal blogger pick up on Anglican Curmudgeon's post about "majority of those entitled to vote" meaning two different things for the Duncan deposition and for the property lawsuits.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Not boneheaded, RR, but the wording of the relevant canons definitely needs to be revised so that no question of legality can be raised concerning the deposition of future Schofields, Bennisons and Duncans.

    ReplyDelete
  19. My issue is not with canonical & constitutional procedure either by the SC or TEC.

    My issue is with the lack of candor, disingenuousness (or even flat out lying) by those in Pittsburgh and San Joaquin in pretending that the SC is taking over the bricks and mortar of the diocese(s), when in fact the SC only has agreed to receive the clergy.

    My issue is with those who shroud themselves with the banner of biblical orthodoxy and holiness, and yet bear false witness.

    Thomas+

    ReplyDelete
  20. I bet there are a lot of other things which ECUSA does for which there is no provision in the C&C of ECUSA - such as blessing same sex unions?

    ECUSA doesn't bless same-sex unions, although there are individual priests who do. On the other hand, the action of the Southern Cone was a corporate action of its HoB.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Fred, I think the proper term would be cabezas de conos! And I think that ABp Venables would get a chuckle about that.

    Does he speak enough Spanish to get the joke?

    ReplyDelete
  22. ECUSA is dying a slow and painful death. Watching the internal struggles is witnessing the church's death rattle.

    Honesty would be so refreshing more so than the incessant inanity.

    The national church breaks from the world-wide church, the diocese from the national, and parishes from the diocese. Centuries before, the split from Rome; a millennia and the Orthodox.

    Out of communion with so many - with the majority of those who name themselves Christians. Yet so deeply preoccupied with those you despise.

    I wonder, in a stunning fit of naivete, why each cannot simply leave one another to go in peace to love and serve the Lord?

    Sigh.

    Kevin Hutchison

    ReplyDelete
  23. While you're singing the tired old "numbers" song, Kevin, how to account for the disastrous fall in attendance at Duncan's Pittsburgh cathedral that followed the 2004 retirement of its "liberal" dean, George Werner? The cathedral is now such a financial albatross that signs are the Duncanites may not include it in the pending property-grab attempt.

    2006/2007 statistics for Bishop Ackerman's Peoria cathedral show a 33% drop in membership for that period, accompanied, interestingly & paradoxically, by a 43% increase in income.

    ReplyDelete
  24. > ... disastrous fall in attendance at Duncan's Pittsburgh cathedral that followed the 2004 retirement of its "liberal" dean, George Werner?

    You dispute my point by providing further proof.

    > 2006/2007 statistics for ... Peoria cathedral show a 33% drop in membership ... & ... a 43% increase in income.

    Clearly a sign that the church is, indeed, unhealthy.

    This dispute claimed me as a casualty long, long ago. There is some speck of me that cares, or perhaps is fascinated by the discussion.

    To answer your question, how do I account for it? ECUSA has lost pretension to moral and spiritual leadership.

    Kevin J Hutchison

    ReplyDelete
  25. Spin away, Kevin, spin away.

    ReplyDelete
  26. First off, I admit to having been out of town and much of this may have been addressed elsewhere, if so maybe someone would be willing to catch me up. But I have recently read the following on the GS website re +Duncan:
    "He is a Bishop in good standing in the Anglican Communion, and is guilty only of guarding his people from false teaching and corrupt behaviour as he promised to do. Once more the upholders of the orthodox faith are made to suffer at the hands of those who have introduced new teachings."

    What gave me pause was the GS primates clearly allocating to themselves the right to determine who is and is not a member of the anglican communion. It appears that they have made that decision based on theology and, again, made themselves the determiner of correct theology.

    By contrast, it seemed to me that the determination of membership in the anglican communion was a decision reached by the ACC and it involved churches, not individuals, a matter or polity, organization etc. Again, referencing +Cantuar's advent letter, not all who called themselves "anglican" are... EPfizH

    ReplyDelete
  27. Personally, I look forward to seeing Bishop Beldar.
    Naturally, you would have to put in a liturgy for the Feast of the Moons of Meep-Zor, but that shouldn't be a huge problem.

    ReplyDelete

OK... Comments, gripes, etc welcomed, but with comment moderation but with some cautions and one rule:
Cautions: Calling people fools, idiots, etc, will be reason to bounce your comment. Keeping in mind that in the struggles it is difficult enough to try to respect opponents, we should at least try.
Rule: PLEASE DO NOT SIGN OFF AS ANONYMOUS: BEGIN OR END THE MESSAGE WITH A NAME - ANY NAME. ANONYMOUS commentary will be cut.