Mr. Carey notes Bishop Scriven a bishop of another province while active in Pittsburgh.

Additional confirmation that Bishop Scriven was active in the jurisdiction of The Episcopal Church without permission of the bishop or ecclesastical authority of a diocese of TEC. 
Andrew Carey writing for The Church of England Newspaper and copied to Anglican Mainstream, wrote, 
"After Bishop Duncan’s deposition, Bishop Scriven ceased to be assistant bishop of Pittsburgh and soon announced his return to England to work for a missionary society and serve as assistant bishop in Oxford. So from September until his move to back to England he was no longer officially a bishop of TEC, but a bishop from another province of the Anglican Communion who happened to be living in the United States."
I believe Bishop Scriven was not in any way malicious in his actions and believe the many witnesses that rise to his defense. But Mr. Carey's commentary supports my contention that Bishop Scriven was not a bishop in TEC from September on (or at least from the Diocesan Convention on) and that he had left TEC for another province (Southern Cone or CofE.)  Either way he no longer was empowered to exercise episcopal office in the jurisdiction of TEC or the Diocese of Pittsburgh. On December 9th he ordained someone to the priesthood and he continued for a period of time in the employ of the entity that had aligned itself with the Southern Cone.  
It turns out he did not just "happen to be living in the United States."  Rather he was in the Diocese of Pittsburgh exercising episcopal office.  At some point it became necessary to clearly state that he no longer had the right to exercise the office of bishop in the jurisdiction of TEC.  He also left of his own accord. So he indeed voluntarily resign TEC. He just continued to act in an episcopal capacity within its jurisdiction and without permission of this Church.

Sounds like broken communion and incursion to me.


  1. It is my understanding that when Bishop Henry came to the US he chose to become a bishop of TEC (having a seat in the House of Bishops), not simply an assisting bishop from another Anglican Communion church. When he ceased to be an assisting bishop he still remained a Bishop of TEC, just one without a position. This is not unlike the status of a retired bishop--one does not cease to be a bishop of TEC simply because one no longer holds an active post. I also understand that he never transferred to the Southern Cone. I believe that his service to the non-TEC diocese was as a "consultant" not as an Assisting Bishop.

    Bishop Henry's activities after the October convention included a visit to at least one of the parishes that declared itself as remaining in TEC. I have no idea whether or not he got prior permission from the ecclesial authority of the TEC diocese (the standing committee), but I have not heard that they objected to his activities in TEC parishes during that period.

    Bill Ghrist

  2. I believe that his service to the non-TEC diocese was as a "consultant" not as an Assisting Bishop.

    Consultants do not ordain Anglican priests, bishops do. If he ordained someone in the USA without canonical authority he was acting as a border jumper with usurped authority, no matter how one spins it that he was a good man, acting in good faith!


OK... Comments, gripes, etc welcomed, 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.