tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10326675.post7125950625501666682..comments2024-02-15T03:32:25.686-05:00Comments on Preludium, Anglican and Episcopal futures: Kelshaw joins Church of Uganda: Good Luck Uganda.Mark Harrishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06871096746243771489noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10326675.post-75418309284911733132008-02-19T15:04:00.000-05:002008-02-19T15:04:00.000-05:00nom de plume wrote:If that is true in the Episcopa...nom de plume wrote:<BR/><BR/><I>If that is true in the Episcopal Church, then it is true for the entire Anglican Communion.</I><BR/><BR/>Perhaps not.<BR/><BR/>It certainly is true in the Episcopal Church. But if the Episcopal Church relishes its autonomy, it will not insist on its being true for the Anglican Communion.<BR/><BR/>Over the last few years, the Episcopal Church has taken specific actions to distance itself from the Anglican Communion.<BR/><BR/>Why look backwards now?Randy Mullerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12828902739679063909noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10326675.post-36997386449139577172008-02-19T08:08:00.000-05:002008-02-19T08:08:00.000-05:00John B. ChiltonTitle III.12.8(g)states that a bish...John B. Chilton<BR/><BR/>Title III.12.8(g)states that a bishop who resigns remains subject to the canons of the Episcopal Church and the auhority of the General Convention. There are really only two mechanisms for leaving: renunciation and formal transfer with letters dimissory. <BR/><BR/>As a guess, and only a guess, it may be that the manner of Bishop Bena's "departure" was not through the proper channels of transfer to another jurisdiction. Certainly there would be no mechanism for the Episcopal Church to transfer a cleric to CANA, given that they don't (and can't) recognize the legitimacy of CANA.<BR/><BR/>That being the case, then from a canonical perspective, what has he done? He can't have transferred, so he must have renounced his ministry. His claim that this was not his intention does not fit with his action of moving to a body with which the Episcopal Church cannot have any truck or trade. CANA can do what it likes, I suppose, but from the perspective of the Episcopal Church, they cannot recognize Bishop Bena's ministry as valid in any way. Again, ontologically he may still be a bishop, but juridically the effect of his ordination has been rendered null and void by his transfer to CANA. CANA is not a recognized part of the Anglican Communion, whatever Peter Akinola may shout from the hilltops. And so it follows that any orders recognized by CANA are not universally recognizable in the Anglican Communion, of which the Episcopal Church remains a part.<BR/><BR/>All this would be cleaner if there were a clear mechanism to determine that a bishop has renounced his ministry, which I do not see in Title III.12. Perhaps there is a provision elsewhere that I have missed.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10326675.post-36128671554166382792008-02-18T13:13:00.000-05:002008-02-18T13:13:00.000-05:00Mark (and nom de plume) - Bishop Bena appears to b...Mark (and nom de plume) - Bishop Bena appears to be disputing that he renounced even though he left TEC (witness the "clarification of suffragan's status" recently by CANA/Minns). What's going on with that? I'd sincerely like your thoughts.John B. Chiltonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18208312356775869565noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10326675.post-31299011889933850412008-02-18T12:05:00.000-05:002008-02-18T12:05:00.000-05:00No, David Wilson, we should not burn him at the st...No, David Wilson, we should not burn him at the stake. He is, as far as I can tell, still an Anglican in good standing, and still a child of God. And he may be, for all I know, a man of great gifts and talents and faith. <BR/><BR/>He has, however, apparently voluntarily renounced the right to "exercise the gifts and spiritual authority as a Minister of God's Word and Sacraments" and thus it would be inconsistent not to take him at his (canonical) word. How can one renounce the right to exercise spiritual authority and then simply carry on exercising that spiritual authority? Simple answer: one can't.<BR/><BR/>With the greatest respect to Mr Kelshaw, if he has in fact renounced his ministry pursuant to Title III.12.7(a), which I am assuming from Mark's description of the state of affairs, then he cannot be permitted any longer to exercise the ministry he has renounced, or else the Constitution and Canons of the Episcopal Church are of no validity.<BR/><BR/>This is not tantamount to burning at the stake, or persecuting or punishing Mr Kelshaw. Nor is it about a power game as you suggest. It is about letting your "yes" be "yes, your "no" be "no", and your "I renounce my ministry" be an actual and effective renunciation of ministry.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10326675.post-80681467883828440122008-02-18T09:25:00.000-05:002008-02-18T09:25:00.000-05:00I have known Terry and Hazel Kelshaw for over 25 y...I have known Terry and Hazel Kelshaw for over 25 years. Hazel served on my staff in the national office of the Brotherhood of St Andrew before his election as bishop. Irrascible yes, principled yes but cranky and strange are a bit uncharitable. And yes he was the author of a series of "rabbit" books for children. I have an autographed set of them which my grown children enjoyed thoroughly when they were young. They presented gospel truths in ways children could grasp. <BR/><BR/>In response to nom de plume. Perhaps we should just burn him at the stake. It's fast,it's easy and makes such a point about who has the power and is willing to apply it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10326675.post-14289534203739728672008-02-18T08:36:00.000-05:002008-02-18T08:36:00.000-05:00Bishop Kelshaw is still a bishop.andNothing in wha...<I>Bishop Kelshaw is still a bishop.</I><BR/><BR/>and<BR/><BR/><I>Nothing in what will be requried by canon suggests that he is no longer a bishop or no longer Anglican. (See Title III. 12.7-8)</I><BR/><BR/>I disagree, Mark. Title III.12.7(a) says in part:<BR/><BR/><I>...the Bishop is released from the obligations of all Ministerial offices, and <B>is deprived of the right to exercise the gifts and spiritual authority as a Minister of God's Word and Sacraments</B> conferred in Ordinations</I><BR/><BR/>If this is the route taken, then it implies to me that the bishop has been voluntarily laicized. Ontologically he remains a bishop, so your point at the top of my reply is correct - ontologically. But juridically, his ordination is now null and void for all purposes. His status in the Church is that of a layman. If that is true in the Episcopal Church, then it is true for the entire Anglican Communion. (If ordination as a bishop is not just for the Province but for the Communion, cf. the howls about +Gene Robinson, then laicization is also for the Communion.)<BR/><BR/>So, as with the Southern Cone licensing laicized Canadian bishops for episcopal ministry, the same holds for Uganda in this case.<BR/><BR/>Incidentally, there is absolutely no way that a laicized bishop should be permitted under any circumstances to perform confirmations in the Episcopal Church. To permit it is to deny the applicability of the above-quoted canon.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10326675.post-494750637139922772008-02-17T20:29:00.000-05:002008-02-17T20:29:00.000-05:00Is this the same Terence Kelshaw whose publishing ...Is this the same Terence Kelshaw whose publishing credits include "Daring Rabbit", "Rabbit in Danger", and "Foolish Rabbit"?Lapinbizarrehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07686990585795363001noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10326675.post-8291944514663966602008-02-17T17:23:00.000-05:002008-02-17T17:23:00.000-05:00The Diocese of Rio Grande is not taking nomination...The Diocese of Rio Grande is not taking nominations yet. The process of healing and listening (which precedes a search) is still being defined.Paulhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06090720645937634051noreply@blogger.com