tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10326675.post116226576121051354..comments2024-02-15T03:32:25.686-05:00Comments on Preludium, Anglican and Episcopal futures: Union with the General Convention: Calling the QuestionMark Harrishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06871096746243771489noreply@blogger.comBlogger13125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10326675.post-1162521133087784322006-11-02T21:32:00.000-05:002006-11-02T21:32:00.000-05:00Apparently the offensive statement from Forth Wort...Apparently the offensive statement from Forth Worth is as follows:<BR/><BR/>The Church in this Diocese accedes to the Constitution and Canons of The Episcopal Church, and recognizes the authority of the General Convention of said Church <B>provided that no action of General Convention which is contrary to Holy Scripture and the Apostolic Teaching of the Church shall be of any force or effect in this Diocese.</B><BR/><BR/>So there you have it. Fort Worth accedes to the Episcopal Church but maintains a higher loyalty to Holy Scripture and Apostolic Teaching. Shocking! <I>How dare they?</I><BR/><BR/>You know, if Beers really wants to pursue this, I don't think he'll get very fair. I don't imagine many bishops will really be eager to assert accession to the Episcopal Church canons above loyalty to scripture and apostolic teaching. I realize that the words of the canon do say "unqualified accession," but General Convention has not yet seen it fit to declare itself God, and is not likely to do so until at least 2012. It is very doubtful those words were meant in the kind of absolute sense suggested in this discussion -- placing itself above even holy scripture and apostolic teaching.<BR/><BR/>I suppose the Episcopal Church can challenge this first loyalty to scripture and apostolic teaching, and hope they gain enough bishops and deputies to see things their way. But I really doubt it; bishops are not generally stupid, and would at least realize the incredible fallout of such an action, as people realize they must choose between scripture and apostolic teaching on the one hand, and the Episcopal Church on the other. I'm afraid that the Episcopal Church still has too many bishops with good sense, who will say, "We would <B>never</B> ask you to go against holy scripture and apostolic teaching, and we find no problem with this canon." Otherwise, the winners of the outcome would likely be CANA, AMIA, and that pirate bishop from Bolivia you all admire so well. <BR/><BR/>My sympathies for all voices crying out, "Yes, yes! Punish them! Punish them!" But you're going to need a much better basis for doing so than this. The Episcopal Church is not God, and it is not Stalinist Russia. It cannot command absolute fealty. Nor would it find this desirable.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10326675.post-1162393247232690902006-11-01T10:00:00.000-05:002006-11-01T10:00:00.000-05:00I must have failed the word verification last time...I must have failed the word verification last time because I had a post from yesterday thanking Mark for his response that never got posted.<BR/><BR/>Mark, could you add to your comment that actual language from the diocese that gives rise to your concern. That would be helpful for folks to see, in my opinion. Thanks.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10326675.post-1162389242546199632006-11-01T08:54:00.000-05:002006-11-01T08:54:00.000-05:00I assume you mean San Joaquin! Not much chance o...I assume you mean San Joaquin! Not much chance of anyone going after San Diego.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10326675.post-1162355132664288642006-10-31T23:25:00.000-05:002006-10-31T23:25:00.000-05:00"Alternately, three other bishops (presumably with..."Alternately, three other bishops (presumably with jurisdiction) could do so. I think that would make more sense, and be easier as a first step."<BR/><BR/>Lest we forget, +KJS will still be when she becomes PB, a bishop with jurisdiction. She will be ordinary for Europe. If she signs onto a presentment with that as the basis, +San Deigo is gone. <BR/><BR/>FWIW<BR/>jimBJimBhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17312606954135884910noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10326675.post-1162328694376342372006-10-31T16:04:00.000-05:002006-10-31T16:04:00.000-05:00It does seem to me that to act regarding a bishop ...It does seem to me that to act regarding a bishop the PB would still need to take this to the Review Committee of the House. Alternately, three other bishops (presumably with jurisdiction) could do so. I think that would make more sense, and be easier as a first step.<BR/><BR/>I've written (here? elsewhere?) that perhaps the Review Committee did not act regarding San Joaquin because, although the changes had been made to diocesan constitution and canons, the bishop's behavior had not (yet) changed; and a charge of violation of ordination vows would be better served by a specific overt action.<BR/><BR/>I do agree that the PB is not powerless as leader of the structures of governance. I think it is through those structures, as cumbersome as that may come to seem, that we will be best served.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10326675.post-1162327580902475002006-10-31T15:46:00.000-05:002006-10-31T15:46:00.000-05:00Mark,Thanks again for this, and your responses to ...Mark,<BR/><BR/>Thanks again for this, and your responses to the obvious questions: how? <BR/><BR/>I hope this is a sign that ++KJS will, as many have suspected she might, bring greater clarity to where the boundaries of our union as a branch of the Church are. And that there are tangible consequences for stepping outside of them.<BR/><BR/>Bill, thanks for cutting to the chase. Oaths of ordination seem to be really badly strained in some quarters, says my English side. My American side says, hell, they've been broken for a long time.<BR/><BR/>Thank you all for watchful eyes.Rhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07474786207149076221noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10326675.post-1162327151338849912006-10-31T15:39:00.000-05:002006-10-31T15:39:00.000-05:00Yes, non-binding in law. But bound by bonds of aff...Yes, non-binding in law. <BR/>But bound by bonds of affection, perhaps? Who knows?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10326675.post-1162320534844076112006-10-31T13:48:00.000-05:002006-10-31T13:48:00.000-05:00A bishop should rule any such amendment to diocesa...A bishop should rule any such amendment to diocesan constitution and canons out of order on the grounds that it is inconsistent with the Constitution and Canons of the Episocpal Church to which the diocese has already offered unqualified accesssion. National canons always trump diocesan canons, which always trump parish bylaws. That's how it works, people.<BR/><BR/>Lambeth is not a synod, because it passes no canons. It only passes nonbinding resolutions.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10326675.post-1162310087338701542006-10-31T10:54:00.000-05:002006-10-31T10:54:00.000-05:00I would suggest that dioceses which predated the "...I would suggest that dioceses which predated the "unqualified assent" provisions were exactly the dioceses who expected unqualified assent from all the others. Without specific language allowing an exception for preexisting dioceses, the only reasonable interpretation is that the dioceses agreed to submit themselves to the unqualified asset provisions. <BR/><BR/>Similarly with the question of parishes which precede the formation of their diocese. They required assent to the constitutions and canons to parishes which wished to affiliate and so they must be regarded as assuming consent themselves.ruidhhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15713756911507133985noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10326675.post-1162308418021235382006-10-31T10:26:00.000-05:002006-10-31T10:26:00.000-05:00Dear Widening gyre...(I wish I had that name!)...N...Dear Widening gyre...(I wish I had that name!)...<BR/><BR/>No expert, but here is what I think might happen:<BR/><BR/>(i)The PB would notify Executive Council that in the opinion of the Chancellor the required assent to the Constitution and Canons had been removed from the Diocesan Constitution and Canons. <BR/><BR/>(ii)Acting as the General Convention agent, the Executive Council would then vote to notify the diocese that failure to reaffirm assent would mean that the Diocese fails to test of inclusion in the Union which is the General Convention of the Episcopal Church. <BR/><BR/>(iii) The Presiding Bishop would determine whether the Bishop of the diocese in question continued in his or her oath to conform to the Doctrine, Discipline and Worship of the Episcopal Church. If so, that bishop would remain part of the House of Bishops. If not, that bishop would be removed from active membership in the House.<BR/><BR/>(iv) assuming that the diocese did not reaffirm assent, the Presiding Bishop could bring a motion declairing the area in which the diocese was working open to the establishment of a new missionary diocese with a bishop initially appointed or elected by the House of Bishops.<BR/> <BR/>OK...what do I know? But something like that.<BR/><BR/>The point is the Presiding Bishop would bring the matter of assent to the General Convention / Executive Council for decision, with recommendations, and would bring the matter of the bishop's oath to the House of Bishops for decision as to that persons continued membership in the House of Bishops.<BR/><BR/>The PB has a lot of power in this thing, not the power of personal authority, but the power of presiding over the processes in the bodies that tod have this authority.<BR/><BR/>In the end it will require the actions of General Convention / Executive Council AND the House of Bishops to enforce the basis of union in the General Convention / Episcopal Church and to hold bishops to their oaths of conformity.<BR/><BR/>Again...I think something like this is how it might play out, but don't know.Mark Harrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06871096746243771489noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10326675.post-1162307506028969132006-10-31T10:11:00.000-05:002006-10-31T10:11:00.000-05:00finally!finally!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10326675.post-1162304803043091342006-10-31T09:26:00.000-05:002006-10-31T09:26:00.000-05:00From TLC: Mr. Beers concludes his letter stating “...From TLC: Mr. Beers concludes his letter stating “should your diocese decline to take that step, the Presiding Bishop will have to consider what sort of action she must take in order to bring your diocese into compliance.” <BR/><BR/>Mark, given your familiarity with the Constitution and Canons, where in either do we give enforcement powers to the Presiding Bishop? I thought our PB was more figurehead/facilitator/pastor than a president/policeman. I don't mean to suggest there are not ways to handle your "question" but I'm not sure the PB's office has the authority here. Please correct me if I am mistaken about our Constitution and Canons. Thanks.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10326675.post-1162272954312246152006-10-31T00:35:00.000-05:002006-10-31T00:35:00.000-05:00I forget if you need a second to call the question...I forget if you need a second to call the question but here it is anyway: Second!<BR/><BR/>PS - And may I add, BRAVA!SUSAN RUSSELLhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01795717638621668638noreply@blogger.com