tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10326675.post116495614241337760..comments2024-02-15T03:32:25.686-05:00Comments on Preludium, Anglican and Episcopal futures: Did San Joaquin "Change Course?" It appears it at least stepped back.Mark Harrishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06871096746243771489noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10326675.post-70601104421849967292006-12-26T22:35:00.000-05:002006-12-26T22:35:00.000-05:00They diocese has to have two Annual conventions to...<i>They diocese has to have two Annual conventions to change their constitution: those two conventions could of course be on the same day.</i><br /><br />I've heard this asserted several times and I don't believe it. Certain events would need to occur between the two conventions -- the terms of the delegates of the first would need to expire and the new delegates would need to be elected.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01005537995315440769noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10326675.post-1165007337645923592006-12-01T16:08:00.000-05:002006-12-01T16:08:00.000-05:00This doesn't seem to me much of a step in either d...This doesn't seem to me much of a step in either direction from the original proposal. It presumes to elevate a diocese to the level of a province ("a constituent member of the Anglican Communion")and suggests that dioceses and bishops, rather than provinces, mediate "full communion with the See of Canterbury." This is congregationalism with a larger congregation. It doesn't reflect anything I've seen or heard from Canterbury.<BR/><BR/>If an individual diocese becomes "a constituent member" of the Communion simply by saying so, there is no reason not to accept New Hampshire or New Westminster making the same assertion. This may be what leads to a covenant, whether many of us like it or not: a desire to clarify of whom the Anglican Communion is constituted. I suppose many are waiting to see who Canterbury invites to Lambeth (even San Joaquin's schedule allows for that).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10326675.post-1164999575130711172006-12-01T13:59:00.000-05:002006-12-01T13:59:00.000-05:00Anonymous understans what is going on.The extremis...Anonymous understans what is going on.<BR/><BR/>The extremist right in the American Church expects (or hopes) that the Episcopal Church will be expelled or otherwise "seriously disciplined" in some unspecified way at the Primates' meeting in February 2007. But Network dioceses will be excepted from this "discipline"; +Duncan will be recognized as the American Primate. <BR/><BR/>Thus the Network expects to achieve its goal, which has always been to REPLACE the Episcopal Church in the Anglican Communion, through the actions of the Primates at the February 2007 meeting. They think ++Rowan will have to go along with the majority of the Primates, and they think they have a majority of the Primates on their side. (I don't think either is true.) <BR/><BR/>In any case, that is the reason Bishop Schofield has asked San Joaquin to "step back." It's simply a matter of legalities and timing. The schismatics have not abandoned their plans for schism; they've simply made an adjustment in them.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10326675.post-1164973566063256732006-12-01T06:46:00.000-05:002006-12-01T06:46:00.000-05:00They diocese has to have two Annual conventions to...They diocese has to have two Annual conventions to change their constitution: those two conventions could of course be on the same day.<BR/><BR/>The Primates meeting if Feb will establish Duncan as Primate of the US and call on all US "Anglicans" to leave ECUSA. So expect the second convention in early March, and DioSJ to be gone by then.<BR/><BR/>The reason SJ is going first is that the legal situation in California makes this almost no risk for the Network; were Pittsburgh, say, to leave, it's possible ECUSA would win in the courts.<BR/><BR/>Legally, the right move for ECUSA is probably to attempt to take out all the Network/APO bishops immediately, but international pressure means they can only threaten and bluster -<BR/><BR/>so the next offer will be "we'll yet you all go and be a seperate province provided both get to stay in the communion" - but that, too, will be a non-starter.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10326675.post-1164957636814138212006-12-01T02:20:00.000-05:002006-12-01T02:20:00.000-05:00Or why we should wait until the "convention sings....Or why we should wait until the "convention sings. . ."!Rhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07474786207149076221noreply@blogger.com