(ENS) Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori said January 7 that she will convene a special meeting of the Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth convention on February 7.
Jefferts Schori will ask the convention to elect a provisional bishop for the diocese. The agenda will include the election of lay and clergy representatives for various diocesan leadership positions and adoption of a budget. It will also include approval of governance and organizational resolutions, including ones that would declare null and void certain amendments to the diocesan constitution and canons that were advocated by former diocesan leadership as a means to take the diocese out of the Episcopal Church.
I’m sure that this has been asked before, but by what authority does she call a special convention?
Just what I was thinking.
Time for some Communion discipline of the Presiding Bishop.
TEC is in a bit of a bind here.
Either there is no diocese because the Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth (and its attending parishes and property) is no longer part of TEC or the diocese left and the clergy are still resident in the diocese (assuming that Letters Dimissory have not yet been sent and received).
If the first is true, the TEC can be excused for playing fast and loose with the rules so as to set up a new diocese and diocesan structure.
If the second is true, then the “special convention” is a sham and will not be able to do anything because a quorum of clergy will not be present and the Presiding Bishop has no authority to call special conventions or to replace Standing Committee members.
So, to those who think that “people leave but dioceses/parishes don’t” can you tell me under what authority or canons Bishop Schori is doing this?
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
And please, make those arguments convincing! And please cite those canons word for word.
[blockquote]I’m sure that this has been asked before, but by what authority does she call a special convention? [/blockquote]
I think Ring Lardner put his finger on that one: “‘Shut up,’ he explained.”
SOMEONE in the HOB needs to bring this abuse of power up at the next full meeting and find out when the PB was granted all these special powers to interfere in the actions and conventions of the dioceses. Preferably before the next Gen Con when, in all probability, they may vote her the status of Pope of TEc.
Jim Elliott <>< Florida
So, what do you guys suggest happen? Like it or not, there are people left in Fort Worth who did not wish to follow Bishop Iker out of the Episcopal Church. If I understand what happened over to My West, the diocesan convention up and left the Episcopal Church. Bishop Iker has also said, if I remember correctly, that those who didn’t want to follow him out didn’t have to. So, it seems to my non-canonically oriented brain that sniping at a process to accommodate those folks makes no sense. If not the Presiding Bishop, then who? And why do you care?
We’ve been over this before:
• In Fort Worth (as in San Joaquin), the bishop and standing committee constructively resigned from their positions. (Possibly there are enough standing-committee members remaining in TEC to constitute a quorum; I don’t know the facts on that point.) Perhaps +Iker is still a bishop in some metaphysical sense, but no reasonable person could dispute that he does not hold the office of ‘overseer’ in TEC.
• There are no explicit provisions in TEC’s constitution and canons for dealing with such a situation, probably for much the same reason that most married couples don’t sign pre-nups.
• The PB is ‘doing the needful’ (I’ve always liked that Brit expression), improvising nicely pursuant to her general authority — and responsibility — as “Chief Pastor” under Canon I.4(a). She is also acting pursuant to her duty, under Canon I.4(a)(3), to “consult with the Ecclesiastical Authority [assuming a standing-committee quorum still remains – DCT] to ensure that adequate interim Episcopal Services are provided[.]”
Phil Snyder [#3], suppose that +Iker and the entire membership of the Fort Worth standing committee were to be killed by a comet strike. Presumably you would expect the Presiding Bishop to do pretty much what +KJS is doing now.
Dallasite – what I suggest is that they organize another diocese and stop the legal fiction that the diocese didn’t leave.
D.C. Toedt: If Bishop and Standing Committee were killed (along with 80% of the clergy), the I would have no problem with a special convention. Of course there is not the problem of a quorum since the dead clergy don’t have to attend conventions. If Iker and the SC only are killed, then the resident clergy can be there to constitute a quorum.
Is +Iker a bishop in TEC? No. He is not. He is a bishop in the Anglican Communion, though. I don’t have a problem with a duly called and duly constituted convention reorganizing the diocese of Fort Worth, but what about the clergy? Have Letters Dimissory been requested and received? If not, then (according to the canons) the clergy are still resident in Fort Worth and entitled to a vote. Unlike Bishops, they can’t be deposed by the HoB and Bishop Schori has not authority to recognize or unrecognize them.
I would suggest that all the reasserting clergy show up to this convention and then elect the same standing committee and a new bishop (perhaps Wantland). From my reading of the canons, there is nothing to stop them (unless, as I said before) they have requested and received letters dimissory.
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
Phil Snyder [#10], if I were arguing this in court, I’d respond that all Fort Worth clergy who didn’t disavow the (purported) action of the diocesan convention had likewise constructively resigned, and therefore were ineligible to vote at a special convention.
TEC is collecting to itself at least three dioceses which will have few members and few qualified persons who can adequately do the tasks essential for good order, mission and evangelism. Only Pittsburgh has any functional reality.
Phil, ????? What is fictitious about them not leaving The Episcopal Church? What do you call what they did? And, even if it is simply realigning with another province, how is that NOT leaving the Episcopal Church? It seems to me that the fiction is that they somehow didn’t do so, and is mainly a ploy to try to get a leg up in the upcoming lawsuits. Why should those who chose not to leave have the burden of forming another diocese? Particularly when those who have left have effectively don so already on their own. When I’ve heard him speak of Fort Worth, it certainly sounded to me like he talked in terms of their “leaving.”
I left out a sentence. The last sentence should read “At gatherings at which your bishop and mine has spoken on the topic of Fort Worth, at least when I’ve heard him speak of Fort Worth, it certainly sounded to me that he was talking in terms of their ‘leaving.'”
[blockquote] The PB is ‘doing the needful’ . . . improvising nicely pursuant to her general authority — and responsibility — as “Chief Pastor†. . . [/blockquote]
This– before our very eyes– is how papacies are made. Fascinating.
When Victoria governed the Church the Pope was so ignorant we could hardly stand to have the old man around, but now that we’ve got to be 450, it’s astonishing how much the old man has learned in a hundred years.
It sounds like a border crossing to me.
Marion R., what will be amusing, I’m afraid, is a few years down the road when the revisionist bishops discover this incipient papacy can’t be put back in the bag. She has allowed herself, and been allowed, so much power that I don’t think she or her successors will ever back down from it.
[i] By what authority does she call a special convention? [/i] —#1
My question as well.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
“And why do you care?” —#8
KJS has repeatedly taken mean, vindictive, un-Christian actions (e.g., the purported deposition of Bp. MacBurney) in the name of canonical regularity. They insist that the canons make them do it. Then they disregard or twist canons when it suits their convenience.
If they were at all honest, they would admit that there is no longer a “Diocese of Fort Worth” in the ECUSA and that they are establishing a missionary diocese (which is what they would do if everyone had been struck by a comet or some such nonsense.)
They won’t say that because of the lawsuits and the lawsuits alone.
Almighty and everliving God, source of all wisdom and understanding, be present with those who take counsel in the Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth for the renewal and mission of your Church at their February 7th Special Convention. Teach them in all things to seek first your honor and glory. Guide them to perceive what is right, and grant them both the courage to pursue it and the grace to accomplish it; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.
You forgot ONE IMPORTANT THING, Susan: Stop doing what your Church has been doing, stop expecting those who disagree with you to bow to your wishes, and drop the lawsuits!
[i] Teach them in all things to seek first your honor and glory [/i] —Susan Russell [#20]
Amen to that!
And Lord, please help them to come to believe the gospel.
Who really gives a rat’s max glut what KJS does? She is so yesterday.
The bishop has left the Episcopal church, right? If the clergy want to remain, let them vote.
There should be an Episcopal presence in Fort Worth. Nothing wrong with that. But fund tent-makers before suing for the buildings.
Dallasite,
I mean the fiction that the Diocese of Fort Worth did not leave. TEC maintains that the members and clergy left, but the Diocese of Fort Worth is still in union with the General Convention. +Iker et. al. have certainly left TEC along with the Diocese of Forth Worth. There is no diocese in union with TEC in those counties the formerly composed the Diocese of Fort Worth that amended its constitution to remove the ascession clause. There may be individuals, but the congregations, property, trust funds, vestments, et. al. are all in union with Southern Cone.
D.C. – I would ask to see the letters of resignation. Until the legal forms have been completed, the clergy cannot be deprived of their rights as clergy in TEC. I would argue that their showing up at a special convention is [i]prima facia[/i] evidence that they have not resigned.
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
John #25 – For once we agree almost whole-heartily. I believe that there should be an Episcopal Church presence in Tarrant County and the counties that made up the former diocese of Fort Worth. Now, the question is: are there enough people left to maintain a diocese or should the counties be divided up among Dallas and North West Texas based on who is closer to whom?
In either case, don’t sue and don’t transfer the wealth of TEC to trial lawyers.
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
This course of action seems quite similar to that which was followed in San Joaquin, where the Episcopal remnant welcomed the national church’s recognition and assistance as they gathered together to pick up the pieces and move on. I recognize the bitterness I hear in the comments, and realize that on this site it’s never a bad time to kick the Presiding Bishop around, but in all honesty I can’t understand why anyone would be either surprised or offended. [i]Something[/i] had to be done to comfort and aid the remaining Episcopalians in Ft. Worth. If they are but a few, then they are all the more worthy of pity rather than derision.
When (and if) the lawsuits are filed, then I think you would have grounds for anger and loud complaint. But to object to their reorganization? In Christian charity. . . why?
Philip Snyder [#26] writes: “D.C. – I would ask to see the letters of resignation. Until the legal forms have been completed, the clergy cannot be deprived of their rights as clergy in TEC.”
I said it was a constructive resignation – when you openly declare that you’re no longer part of the Episcopal Church, you’ve resigned your position even if you don’t use that exact word.
It takes the breath away to think that any ‘realigning’ Fort Worth clergy would claim to have standing in TEC or the Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth. In any case, I haven’t heard that any such clergy have done so; it’s been the folks here urging them on, as in, let’s you and them fight.
Ladytenor – I do not object to the reorganization [i]per se[/i] – just to the PB’s grasping for power (she does not have the authority to do this – unless there is no diocese in that geographical area) and that in San Joaquin, the “reoganization” was the first step to filing lawsuits. The lawsuits is what I wish to avoid. If TEC wants to reorganize a diocese in Fort Worth, they should do so. I question th wisdom of doing so. I think the resources could be better used if the congregations that desired to remain in TEC (and Iker has said that they can – without rancor and without lawsuits) were assigned to other dioceses – such as Dallas (for the congregations in Fort Worth and the surrounding cities or Northwest Texas (for the far west Texas congregations.
D.C. – My point (and it’s not on the top of my head) is that their showing up to the “special convention” would be just as valid as the convention itself. Unless called by the Standing Committee and in accordance with the Constitution and Canons of the Diocese that they proport to be, the convention has no authority to conduct business. That includes the quorum requirements of clergy resident in the diocese that the convention proports to be. If they claim the title of “Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth” then the clergy who are resident in that diocese have voice and vote (except the deacons – who have voice, but no vote). As I remember, Iker and company did not change the name of the diocese and they are (pending the upcomming litigation) The Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth.
BTW, I do not believe that the Presiding Bishop has [b]any[/b] authority in either the national C&C;nor in the C&C;of any diocese to call a convention or to discipline the priests and deacons of that diocese or to declare them to have renounced their orders or resigned or whatever. If I am mistaken, please show me where I am mistaken.
As I said in my first post on this subject, her actions only make sense if there is no diocese to have a convention and she is asking for an organizing convention so that the group of people may adopt C&C;and request to join the General Convention.
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
[blockquote] ….I think the resources could be better used if the congregations that desired to remain in TEC (and Iker has said that they can – without rancor and without lawsuits) were assigned to other dioceses – such as Dallas (for the congregations in Fort Worth and the surrounding cities or Northwest Texas (for the far west Texas congregations. [/blockquote]
And that is what was rejected by those who are wanting to stay in TEC this past summer/fall on orders from 815–Leaders of both sides in Ft. Worth met with leaders of Dallas to try to work out an orderly transition, but 815 put the stop to that.
LadyTenor [#28]: In San Joaquin a majority of the standing committee wanted to remain in ECUSA. Yet KJS elbowed them aside, didn’t she?
Susan this is a debate. I feel that putting your contribution in the form of a prayer is somewhat manipulative. If it is your desire why not say so? But why fashion it as devotion on a website- was it so that anyone in disagrement seems mean?
Wow, objecting to prayer! in a religion blog, too. by a priest! The ulitmate in “they ain’t doin’ it right” …but I digress: again, what is the presiding bishop supposed to do, declare martial law? and, why do you care?
Roy III – the Presiding Bishop should follow the Constitution and Canons of the Church. the organization that was part of TEC is no longer part of it; they’re gone. A new organization needs to be formed. There are canons that speak to this. Those canons should be followed. The fiction that “people can leave, dioceses and congregations cannot” has caused much harm to the Church.
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
Irenaeus [#32], in San Joaquin, so far as I’ve been able to determine, no one on the standing committee dissented on the record from +Schofield’s (ultra vires) proposal. Borrowing from standard corporate-law principles, the entire standing committee should be held to have approved the proposal, and thereby to have constructively resigned.
(Lest anyone think I’m banging the ‘constructive resignation’ drum too much, that’s just a fancy way of saying that we’re going to call it what it is.)
Philip Snyder [#35] writes: “… the organization that was part of TEC is no longer part of it; they’re gone.”
I think we’re going to see the courts hold otherwise: Certain individuals left TEC, but the organization — and its property — remain there. (I’m one who thinks the property should go where it can best be used in helping bring people to God; that should be determined on a case-by-case basis.)
Agree with #25 – let her take the lead in helping to form a [i]new[/i] Episcopal diocese in that area to replace the one that, um, er…
[i]left[/i].
#33 – I understand how prayers can be a form of manipulation – using “God language” to package our agenda. But if the person who voices the prayer sincerely does not have that intent? And do we (yes we) not voice similar prayers for the orthodox? (I admit placing that prayer [i]here[/i] felt a bit odd given the context. But then… we do the same thing if I recall.)
Phil, I read D.C. Toedt as saying this is the same situation as if the diocesan bishop and the standing committee were killed by a comet strike, i.e., they ain’t there, just an extreme example to nail down the “ain’t there” part, which they ain’t, you will agree, at least constructively. Could you please give us a citation to the canons, as D.C. did in his presentation at #9, to tell us what the Presiding Bishop is doing wrong, or what provisions she is playing fast and loose with, or what she ought to do? You never really answered that question.
#25 John Wilkins – I heartily agree with you. My remark above about border crossings was made in jest – if a congregation wants to remain in TEC, they should do so – and keep their building. Enough suing already.
My advice to TEC is that if you really believe you preach the gospel, you will let the local congregations choose whether they want to remain in TEC or choose to affiliate elsewhere in the Anglican Communion. This is not weakness, but strength. Consider this wisdom:
[blockquote] 9Two are better than one, because they have a good reward for their toil. 10For if they fall, one will lift up his fellow. But woe to him who is alone when he falls and has not another to lift him up! 11Again, if two lie together, they keep warm, but how can one keep warm alone? 12And though a man might prevail against one who is alone, two will withstand him—a threefold cord is not quickly broken.
— Ecclesiastes 4:9-12 (English Standard Version) [/blockquote]
[blockquote] if a congregation wants to remain in TEC, they should do so – and keep their building. Enough suing already. [/blockquote]
That is exactly what the leadership of the diocese has been saying for well over a year now–but TEC will NOT go for it. They repeatedly turn it down and go for the lawsuits…it’s all about money, power, and control (which, of course, are all intertwined).
#34 if memory serves me Jesus spoke of two people praying, one who did so in sincerity and humility and in private- who was commeneded and one who prayed very publically to gain attention. He was chastised. So God himself, the priest of all priests, objected to a prayer. Thus if it was sincerely meant I apologise. If it was a comment couched in devotional language to add gravitas – then I uphold my right to object.
My prayer is that Anglicans worldwide would get on with the work of the Kingdom which precludes entirely giving the spotlight to heretical and apostate leaders and their supporters.
RE: “Wow, objecting to prayer!”
Oh, no, Roy, the priest was objecting to the trolling comment. Whether it was couched in the rhetoric of a “prayer” or not is not really important.
#45–Who is the Diocese or the parishes but the people???–and when the sizable majority vote to leave, they leave. They are NOT causing the harm or the unnecessary lawsuits…..that is on the minority side. It can not be spun any other way!
If I understand the issue correct. Bishop Iker says the TEC is not a hierarchical Church, therefore has no power over his corporation (the Fort Worth Diocese). But Bishop Iker believes his diocese is hierarchical and that is why he has power over the parish coporations. BTW most parish corporate by-laws state that they belong to the TEC and diocese, however when there is a conflict in the canons, the TEC canons prevail. (Also in affidavits filed by Bishop Iker in a lawsuit in which he was the plaintiff he admitted the TEC (ECUSA) is hierarchical) Someone please help me understand. Sounds like this is a power grab by Bishop Iker. But surely I’m missing something.
Humble Servant [#47]: Bp. Iker probably means that the form of governance established by ECUSA’s constitution does not constitute a “hierarchical church” for purposes of secular law. Mark McCall demonstrated this point in a paper prepared for the Anglican Communion Institute.
Irenaeus #48: I thought of that but the Court in California and probably Texas will apply hierarchical in their analysis. How can Bishop Iker maintain his position in light of these court cases. Mr. McCall’s paper is enlightening but is not the law. Won’t the result of Bishop Iker’s plan be that his followers will be worshiping in rented Churches?
Humble Servant [#49]: During the past year or so, Stand Firm carried an article about the Diocese of Fort Worth’s governing documents, perhaps in connection with a letter by Bp. Iker. Those documents, prepared years ago, took considerable care to protect the diocese against potential assaults by a revisionist-controlled ECUSA.