In a couple of years that have seen some pretty profound bits of stupidity, this is one of the silliest letters I have seen yet. This is as senseless as the actions of TEC in deposing clergy who no longer belong to the denomination.
The majority of Fort Worth’s clergy and laity have decided to realign. That is their right. They have left the Episcopal Church and joined Southern Cone (and eventually the ACNA). I wish them every success as they pursue the Gospel according to their own lights. I would have hoped that they felt the same about the Episcopal clergy and laity who live among them and want to continue their ministries within TEC. I would have thought it obvious that that is their right.
Evidently not. Bishop Iker insists that he continues to be the sole bishop in ordinary of all the Anglicans within the diocesan boundaries, even those who still consider themselves members of TEC. I suppose he will be deposing the loyalist clergy next, even though they deny belonging to his province. At a minimum, he quite evidently intends to fight their efforts to reorganize as a continuing TEC diocese unless they do it on his terms. If they don’t want his episcopal oversight, they can just do without. It is as if we were hearing an echo of the 815 party line that nobody can be an Anglican within their borders without their permission.
When the Diocese of Fort Worth left the Episcopal Church, they lost their standing to rely on the Constitution and Canons. They cannot give up all the responsibilities of a TEC diocese and expect to keep all the appurtenant rights. If Fort Worth does not consider itself bound by the terms of the C&C;, how can it expect to enjoy their protection? Why not cite the Methodist Discipline or the [i]Codex Juris Canonici[/i]? They are just as applicable as the C&C;to resolve a dispute that is now just as external to TEC as it is to the UMC or RCC. I am not aware that Bishop Iker or his Standing Committee have sent letters to the local Methodist or Roman Catholic bishops warning them to stay out of town because their presence would poach on his jurisdiction.
The Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth (Southern Cone) needs to just get on down the road and do what it thinks Jesus wants it to do, while the Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth (TEC) does the same. Both sides needs to sit down like mature adults (if they can’t act like Christians) and work out the property issues without any more of this silly legal posturing and litigation. This BS is giving the Christian Church, to say nothing of Episcopalians and Anglicans, a bad name. Enough already!
Is Bishop Iker kidding? He is not even in TEC by his choice! Why write this as if he is? (at least I thought he tried to move the diocese to that of the Southern Cone).
He writes this because the parishes are still part of his diocese until they take advantage of the generous canon that allows them to leave with their property. Then after they left the Diocese of Forth Worth, they could legitimately invite ++KJS to help them organize a new diocese. As it is, ++KJS is breaking canons yet again.
As completely in sympathy with Bishop Iker and the Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth as I am, I cannot possibly understand why he/they would send this letter. After all, he is no longer under her jurisdiction, so it should not matter to him one way or another what she does. And since she isn’t a bishop in his eyes, anyway, but a layperson….
Brian (#5)–You’ve got it! Exactly!
Dale (#3)–we’ve tried repeatedley to sit down and work it out. TEC put the nix on it. We even passed a Canon in anticipation of this to allow those who wanted to leave the diocese and stay in TEC to do so WITH their property–but NOT ONE of them will even give it a try!!! I don’t see why so many want to dump on +Iker when he is only doing his job!
Ok, this is what I don’t understand and I would very much like someone to explain this to me.
Dioceses and churches are territorial. TEC is the church who’s territorial boundries cover the territory of the 50 states (among other territories). Dioceses are divided up to cover the entirety of this territory, each one having its own bishop. So, there is a territory bounded by other dioceses that has been called the Diocese of Fort Worth that is within the territory covered by TEC.
If a bishop, the standing committee, et al of the diocese then decide to separate themselves from the church and join a new church, then the territory covered by that TEC diocese now does not have a bishop or standing committee. Thus, those members of TEC who have chosen to remain in TEC are now in a territory that does not have a bishop or standing committee.
Dioceses are fundamentally territorial divisions within the church, but one can have overlapping jurisdictions if they are different churches. For example, you could have orthodox bishops covering he same territory if one is Greek Orthodox, one is Russian Orthodox, etc. Same geography, different folks. Reminds me of those clear overlays they use for overhead projectors.
So explain to me again why this is bordercrossing? I truly don’t understand.
#3 Dale Rye
“In a couple of years that have seen some pretty profound bits of stupidity, this is one of the silliest letters I have seen yet.”
Was this what you had in mind?
[blockquote]Dear Gregory,
I write to urge you not to bring further discord into The Episcopal Church. Visiting a special convocation of the Diocese of Fort Worth with the expressed purpose of describing removal to the Province of the Southern Cone is an unprecedented and unwarranted invasion of, and meddling in, the internal affairs of this Province. I ask you to consider how you might receive such a visit to your own Province from a fellow primate. The actions contemplated by some leaders in Fort Worth are profoundly uncanonical. They also prevent needed reconciliation from proceeding within this Province.
I urge you to focus your pastoral ministry within your own Province. May your ministry there be fruitful. I remain
Your servant in Christ,
Katharine Jefferts Schori[/blockquote]
I have mentioned elsewhere that the Presiding Bishop has done exactly what she was complaining of and it looks as though she has received almost exactly the same response as she gave.
#8 – +Iker couldn’t care less about any of that. All this is purely about the property and assets. +Iker is doing everything to maintain the fiction that he is bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth (including holding on to the name) in preparation for his day in court. Of course he wants dissenting parishes to take the ‘generous’ leaving Canon – by doing so they would be admitting they are ‘leaving’ the diocese of Fort Worth to start a new diocese. All to +Iker’s advantage; which is why he’s so mad no-one is falling for it. All this is just legal posturing for a future judge.
Whether you like it or not, every parish and mission in the Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth IS still (currently) under the authority of The Rt. Rev. Jack Leo Iker, as the diocesan bishop. To the best of my knowledge, and from ALL indications, not one single Fort Worth parish or mission is NO LONGER a church/congregation in the entity known as the Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth, and under Bishop Iker.
The entity known as the Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth is in perpetuity, and this bishopric is currently headed by the Rt. Rev. Jack Leo Iker (love him or hate him).
If Schori and her followers want to organize a diocese in this part of Texas, or anywhere else, for that matter, they should follow the process. The provisions of Canon 32 are clear, straight forward and very, very Christian and fair.
Canon 32 amply provides for churches wishing to continue under 815. The godly bishop of Fort Worth is not interested in holding any congregation hostage or forcing any congregation to go along with the Diocese to Southern Cone. The generous provisions of Canon 32 make that abundantly clear.
If the organizers of this new thing new diocese want a diocese in this neck of the wood, they need to either take advantage of Canon 32 or start congregations from the scratch.
I ask: What is stopping these four or five churches from taking advantage of the very, very fair stipulations of Canon 32?
#8 — TEc has jurisdictions that overlap other parts of the Anglican communion, in Europe, Africa and South America. There is written no where that there is a requirement that Anglican jurisdictions follow strict territorial boundaries. I know that you revisionists declared this but it just isn’t so (when did law matter to you anyway). Mrs Schori has gotten her knickers in a twist with the visit of Bishops from Africa to their missions in this country but sees no problem in gallivanting around spewing her heresies. So to cut to the chase, your argument is completely fatuous no matter how hard you press it.
In a couple of years that have seen some pretty profound bits of stupidity, this is one of the silliest letters I have seen yet.
I think something beyond simple silliness si going on here. I think we are entering into the area of delusions or split personality. The +Iker who hasn’t left TEC is still under the canons that the +Iker who has left TEC rejects? I hope that the Southern Cone has a process for removal of bishops whose faculties are in question.
He writes this because the parishes are still part of his diocese until they take advantage of the generous canon that allows them to leave with their property.
So Brian, your argument is that 2 dioceses exist woth one of +Iker’s personalities in the Southern Cone and one in TEC? Well, I suppose it could be argued that the one personality gave the other permission to officiate, so it’s all OK.
we’ve tried repeatedley to sit down and work it out. TEC put the nix on it. We even passed a Canon in anticipation of this to allow those who wanted to leave the diocese and stay in TEC to do so WITH their property–but NOT ONE of them will even give it a try!!! I don’t see why so many want to dump on +Iker when he is only doing his job!
Because if they do follow the local canon, then they would be admitting that the property issues can be disposed of at the Diocesan level rather than under the Denis Canon.
I have mentioned elsewhere that the Presiding Bishop has done exactly what she was complaining of and it looks as though she has received almost exactly the same response as she gave.
That letter was written by a TEC bishop who was trying to protect a TEC Diocese from baing harmed. This letter is from a non-TEC, non-Anglican bishop affiliated with a branch of the Anglican Communion to a TEC bishop. Two different denominations at play here.
The entity known as the Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth is in perpetuity, and this bishopric is currently headed by the Rt. Rev. Jack Leo Iker (love him or hate him).
+Iker has been deposed. He has no ecclesiastical authority to represent anything relating to TEC.
#15–While much of what you write here is just plain wrong, I must especially point one example–+Iker has NOT been deposed. He most likely will be, but it has not happened yet.
BillB,
Forgive me, I am not very familiar with Episcopal/Anglican polity and I truly don’t understand how this works. I am not trying to argue anything. My background is in RC polity, and there is a different understanding about how this works in RC world. What I was asking is that I thought that dioceses were territorial, and I was wanting someone to explain to me why my understanding is or is not correct in this context. I am aware that TEC has jurisdictions in other countries – but that still doesn’t explain why there would not be a territorial understanding of a vacant See of that territory that is in TEC’s territory.
You might want to be less quick to assume malice, when it may be simple ignorance – particularly when someone says they “truly don’t understand.” I don’t understand, and I was hoping that someone could explain it to me. And by the way, I may be ignorant on this, but I am not one of “you revisionists.” As I’d say to my preschooler, that wasn’t very nice.
TEc has jurisdictions that overlap other parts of the Anglican communion, in Europe, Africa and South America.
All agreed to by both ecclesiastical authorities. Therefore, no problem. TEC has no such agreement with Nigeria, Uganda, Rwanda, the Southern Cone, etc.
There is written no where that there is a requirement that Anglican jurisdictions follow strict territorial boundaries.
That is because all faiths with an historic episcopate follow the Council of Nicaea, where it is written that there are territorial boundaries.
Gretta
Your understanding is correct and has been traditionally followed by the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Anglican Consultative Council. The people who argue that Diocese are NOT territorial are desperately attempting to establish some credibility for their argument that they remain a part of the Anglican Communion. Several archbishops and breakaway parish leaders put in writing that those departing TEC members would remain full members in the Anglican Communion. The Archbishop of Canterbury refused to confirm that status and none of the breakaway bishops can prove that they retained invitations to the Lambeth Conference which is is a Council of the Church (or the best facsimile we have)
This is all less confusing if we apply the principles of quantum mechanics. The Diocese of Fort Worth is obviously in a quantum superposition of states. Like Schroedinger’s cat, which was both alive and dead until someone opened the box, the Diocese of Fort Worth is simultaneously in Texas and South America. It must be in Texas, because it is a Diocese of the Episcopal Church in the United States of America. It was, of course, created as (and from) an Episcopal Church Diocese, acceding to the Constitution and Canons of the Episcopal Church, as required by said Constitution and Canons. It must be in South America, because it is a Diocese of the Province of the Southern Cone. According to the Constitution and Canons of the Province of the Southern Cone, only Dioceses in South America can be members of the Province. Also, the Constitution and Canons of the Episcopal Church provide that a Diocese outside the territory of the United States may transfer to another Anglican Province, but no such provision is made for Dioceses within the United States; ergo, the Diocese of Fort Worth must be outside the United States.
Of course this means that Fort Worth itself and the surrounding territory must also be in a quantum superposition of states (unless I have missed something and Texas has actually managed to secede this time). On course by the Copenhagen Interpretation, we may just be operating in parallel universes here (which would explain a lot).
It will be interesting to see what happens when the situation is really observed and the quantum superposition collapses. Will the Diocese of Fort Worth be a new Diocese or a pre-exisiting one–and if so, which one? Will Fort worth find itself speaking English or Spanish (or Portugese?)? Will Texas still be a state? (If not, will George W. get to keep his Secret Service coverage?)
Dale and other revisionists: You have pointed out quite rightly in the past that a bishop can’t simply resign. Ms Schori has stated that she has accepted Bp Iker’s letter of renunciation despite there be no being written communication between them for months. Rather, Ms Schori simply interpreted a comment in newspaper interview of Bp Iker as such a letter. Let us review the constitution and canons:
[blockquote] If any Bishop of this Church not subject to the provisions of Canon IV.8 [b]shall declare, in writing[/b], to the Presiding Bishop a renunciation of the ordained Ministry of this Church, and a desire to be removed therefrom, it shall be the duty of the Presiding Bishop to record the declaration and request so made. The Presiding Bishop, being satisfied that the person so declaring is not subject to the provisions of Canon IV.8 but is acting voluntarily and for causes, assigned or known, which do not affect the person’s moral character, shall lay the matter before the Advisory Council to the Presiding Bishop, and with the advice and consent of a majority of the members of the Advisory Council the Presiding Bishop may pronounce that such renunciation is accepted, and that the Bishop is released from the obligations of all Ministerial offices, and is deprived of the right to exercise the gifts and spiritual authority as a Minister of God’s Word and Sacraments conferred in Ordinations. The Presiding Bishop shall also declare in pronouncing and recording such action that it was for causes which do not affect the person’s moral character, and shall, if desired, give a certificate to this effect to the person so removed.[/blockquote]
Since no written declaration was given, Bp Iker is still the bishop of the Episcopal diocese of Fort Worth in both provinces.
#18 My apologies since you have provided more clarity to your thoughts. The Anglican Communion does not have the Magisterium of the Roman Communion. It is much more akin to the Orthodox Communion. In the case of the Orthodox Communion, especially here in the USA, there are overlapping jurisdictions though that may be in a slow process of change. Because the Monarch of the UK is the titular head of the Church of England, the Mother Church (i.e. Province) in the Anglican Communion, a different approach had to be taken for the polity of other provinces. Unfortunately the Anglican Communion, in its different provinces, has show that a democracy does not work well for the governance of a Church. Due the issues of the heresies being propagated by/through The Episcopal Church, orthodox Anglicans from Anglo-Catholic to Evangelical have had to leave the association of Dioceses that form the General Convention. Some have done it as a complete Diocese which is completely in line with the Constitution and Canons of The Episcopal Church. They have sought pastoral oversight from other Provinces of the Anglican Communion (Uganda, Nigeria, Souther Cone, etc.) on a temporary basis. Now an orthodox province is in formation in North America based upon cited criteria that include a minimum of four dioceses to form such.
Funny but your logic is wrong. Dioceses are created before they join the General Convention. In the 19th century there were areas that were not part of dioceses. In the case of Dallas and Fort Worth, yes there were established parishes under Diocese of Dallas but the Diocese of Fort Worth was created and developed a Constitution and Canons before it became part of the General Convention. Just as you accede to the rules of where you associate ( work and social organizations) so do Anglican Dioceses that join the General Convention of The Protestant Episcopal Church of the United States accede to the General Conventions Constitution and Canons. Do organizations you leave still govern you? Are you forced to work for a company even though you want to quit? That is what Revisionist claim. And you have just done that.
Since no written declaration was given, Bp Iker is still the bishop of the Episcopal diocese of Fort Worth in both provinces.
This argument is the old canard pulled out by those who simply can not accept that choices have consequences. It is a circular argument that says “because something CAN NOT happen, it therefore DID NOT happen.” +Iker appeals to the rules of an organization that has expelled him for renouncing his association with TEC. He wants to take all the property rather than take a stand (have your cake and eat it too). The argument is like this: “a crime is illegal, therefore a crime did not happen.” +Iker is gone. That is a fact. No competing fact exists. Your “principles” are meaningless when they collide with reality.
I write to urge you not to bring further discord into The Episcopal Church. Visiting a special convocation of the Diocese of Fort Worth with the expressed purpose of describing removal to the Province of the Southern Cone is an unprecedented and unwarranted invasion of, and meddling in, the internal affairs of this Province. I ask you to consider how you might receive such a visit to your own Province from a fellow primate. The actions contemplated by some leaders in Fort Worth are profoundly uncanonical. They also prevent needed reconciliation from proceeding within this Province.
I urge you to focus your pastoral ministry within your own Province. May your ministry there be fruitful. I remain
Your servant in Christ,
Katharine Jefferts Schori”[/blockquote]
Since this thread seems to be dividing up along predictable lines, I would note – as one who fully supports the ability and right of the Diocese of Fort Worth to realign with the Southern Cone – that I also find the letter somewhat absurd. The fact that the Presiding Bishop has indulged in similar absurdities is beside the point; I expect better things from those I look to for leadership. Sadly, it looks as if the upholding of right doctrine is going to go hand in hand with this sort of legal posturing for some time to come.
[url=http://catholicandreformed.blogspot.com]Catholic and Reformed[/url]
Seriously, I don’t think this is legal posturing, Jeremy.
It is the position of the Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth that it may realign with another province. It is the position of the Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth that it has done so. It is the position of the Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth that it will not pretend — as 815/Schori is doing — that the Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth did not leave.
So all the communications from 815/Schori will be about a collection of people leaving the diocese. And all the communications from the Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth will be about a diocese leaving.
All of this will be settled, of course, in a court of law. But it is unfair to demand that either side communicate as if their position is inaccurate. [Not that you’re demanding that — I’m just making a general statement.]
On a side note, I have very much enjoyed your comments.
“I think we are entering into the area of delusions or split personality.”
I agree, but the “delusion” rests with those who seem to treat a sectarian body like TE”C” that has certainly departed from the Faith and Moral teaching of the “Nicene Church,” and that does not understand itself to be “The Church” in the manners of the Fathers of Nicaea, can nevertheless invoke the Canons of Nicaea as though they had any relevance whatsoever to its sectarian situation.
“The Confessing Reader” animadverted on this strange delusion here:
If the “Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth” believes it has left TEC, then how can they conclude that ++Katharine needs to be invited into their Diocese? The arguments above all (well, mostly) assume that +Iker and “his diocese” have left, so ++Katharine’s visit is simply the visit of the leader of another denomination.
RE: “If the “Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth†believes it has left TEC, then how can they conclude that ++Katharine needs to be invited into their Diocese?”
The same way that KJS can believe that Venables cannot come to confirm at a departed TEC parish in “her” diocese. ; > )
Further, the parishes in question which she is visiting have not formally or officially withdrawn from the Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth. Now — this is understandable — they are claiming that the “diocese” never left and that they need not withdraw, since they are going to “reconstitute” the diocese.
Both sides will continue issuing communications assuming that either 1) the Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth has withdrawn and that therefore KJS visiting a parish of that diocese is boundary crossing or 2) the Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth has not withdrawn, and in fact resides within those few parishes remaining.
It’s not all that hard to understand.
We can expect years of this kind of communication and it’s fairly simple to understand.
The icing on the cake is the extra style with which Iker communicates his very clear position — and in this instance it’s using KJS’s words from her prior letter to Venables.
So Sarah. Since you believe that +KJS was wrong in sending her letter and that +Iker is being, perhaps, ironic in sending his letter, are you then saying that 2 wrongs do make a right? And are you also saying that we should encourage petty behavior that wastes time and money as some sort of strategy?
Brian is living in the tension with himself, it seems. No problems with self contradictions? He objects when Bp Iker requests for proper procedure be followed to release from ecclesiastical responsibilities???
“If the “Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth†believes it has left TEC, then how can they conclude that ++Katharine needs to be invited into their Diocese?”
Ms Schori asked ABp Akinola not to visit “her territory”. As a bishop of Southern Cone, Bp Iker shares the same rights.
Hypocrisy is hypocrisy. Let’s not whine about precious polity and then disregard it when not convenient. I am pretty sure that if we looked back at the discussion of the DeS accord, we would find Brian’s objections to it violating precious polity.
He objects when Bp Iker requests for proper procedure be followed to release from ecclesiastical responsibilities???
Not sure what that means. I object to the letter being sent at all. +Iker seems to believe that he is a bishop of TEC or a bishop in the Anglican Communion. Neither assertion is true. Therefore, he has no standing to object.
Ms Schori asked ABp Akinola not to visit “her territoryâ€. As a bishop of Southern Cone, Bp Iker shares the same rights.
As a non-Anglican bishop, +Iker has no standing to object. If he is credentialed as a bishop in the Anglican Communion, then he may have an argument. However, that has yet to happen. ++Akinola is a credentialed bishop in the Anglican Communion, as is ++KJS. So the two situations are completely different.
Hypocrisy is hypocrisy. Let’s not whine about precious polity and then disregard it when not convenient. I am pretty sure that if we looked back at the discussion of the DeS accord, we would find Brian’s objections to it violating precious polity.
I have not seen any hypocrisy on the part of ++KJS. She has been consistent in her reading of the polity of TEC. Whether she is right or wrong is a matter for General Convention and the House of Bishops. So far, they believe her to be correct. The true hypocrisy comes from +Iker when he claims no connection to TEC but tries to claim protection under TEC’s polity. Hypocrisy is not being consistent. It is obvious that +Iker is speaking out of both sides of his mouth.
#18 Gretta, don’t worry, trying to understand Episcopalian/Anglican polity from TE”C”‘s application of it is like trying to nail jello to the wall. It means whatever Katherine Jefferts-Schori and David Booth-Beers want it to mean, regardless of the plain meaning of the English text. That’s what they say, anyway! But at least they’re consistent – they interpret the Bible that way, too!
We owe Hopper congrats on achieving the comment hat trick. I’m think I’m glad I didn’t see them!
“Not sure what that means. I object to the letter being sent at all. +Iker seems to believe that he is a bishop of TEC or a bishop in the Anglican Communion. Neither assertion is true. ”
So we have had Schori fiats. Now, we have Brian fiats that fly in the face of established canon law. And Rowan Williams assured Bp Schofield that he was a bishop of the Anglican Communion, so presumably he also believes Bp Iker is a member of the Anglican Communion. But Brian doesn’t think so! And Brian counts more than Rowan Williams.
For those arguing the inanity of the letter, I’d like to repeat my argument from StandFirm. The target of this letter may be less KJS than the revisionist parishes in the Diocese. He seems to me to be giving them notice that they need to choose. If they want to accept KJS as their leader, they’ll have to take the offered withdrawal option that Fort Worth has presented. If they don’t take that option (and they don’t want to take it so they can be part of the lawsuits over property) then officially they are still under Iker’s authority.
Making that statement is not silly. But it certainly is an indirect reading of Iker’s letter. So make of this analysis what you will…
Now, we have Brian fiats that fly in the face of established canon law.
What fiat? What breaks canon law?
And Rowan Williams assured Bp Schofield that he was a bishop of the Anglican Communion, so presumably he also believes Bp Iker is a member of the Anglican Communion.
Actually, +Schofield simply says that his invitation was not revoked. He allegedly chose not to go to Lambeth. There is no proof that the ++Canterbury did or did not rescind his invitation.
But Brian doesn’t think so! And Brian counts more than Rowan Williams.
It would be a sad day for reasserters if my opinion counted at all. My opinion is simply that – no more, no less.
#40 [blockquote] If they want to accept KJS as their leader, they’ll have to take the offered withdrawal option that Fort Worth has presented. If they don’t take that option (and they don’t want to take it so they can be part of the lawsuits over property) then officially they are still under Iker’s authority. [/blockquote]
That is by no means a given. The re-aligning Diocese here in Pittsburgh tried the same thing, but the loyal Episcopal parishes did not take the bait. We took the stand that we were and continue to be parishes of the Episcopal Church in the United States of America, and therefore do not have to take any action at all to remain in TEC. For an example of what one parish said (in advance of the split) see here: [url=http://3riversepiscopal.blogspot.com/2008/09/vestry-resolution-from-st-andrews.html ]Vestry Resolution From St. Andrews Highland Park[/url].
So far, Bob Duncan and the re-aligned Diocese have taken no action to counter this. Nominally, I think they claim that this is because they gave parishes two years to take final action. In reality I think that it is because they realize that they would not succeed. Our parish charter and bylaws state that we are a parish of the Episcopal Church in America. It would take a vote of the parish (a two-thirds vote in many parishes) to change that. Our bylaws also, of course, state that we are a parish of the Epsicopal Diocese of Pittsburgh in TEC (the charter says in the Episcopal Church in Pennsylvania–we were chartered well before the Pgh Diocese was formed from the Diocese of Pennsylvania), but of course there still is a Diocese of Pittsburgh of TEC. I would assume that the parishes of Fort Worth have similar statements in their bylaws and charters. Until those are changed, they continue to be parishes of TEC.
RE: “+Iker seems to believe that he is a bishop of TEC or a bishop in the Anglican Communion. Neither assertion is true. Therefore, he has no standing to object.”
He’s a bishop of the Anglican Province of the Southern Cone. He objects to another Primate interfering in his diocese.
RE: ” . . . . a recent letter received from the Anglican Communion Office leaves no doubt that the Episcopal Church is the only official Anglican presence in Fort Worth.”
Bishop Iker is not claiming to be “the only official Anglican presence in Fort Worth” and indeed I think that he couldn’t care less about being so.
He and the officers of the corporation are claiming that the diocese is The Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth. That is their name. That is their legal name. And they made legal, perfectly understandable, in accord with the corporation’s bylaws, decisions to leave a larger entity.
RE: “Iker and his diocese are certainly NOT the official Anglican presence from the point of view of the Anglican Communion. This being so, one has a right to question what diocese Iker heads.”
Not at all. The two items you mention are unconnected.
RE: “Is any court going to allow a diocese other than one of the Episcopal Church of the United States of America to hold the name of The Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth?”
[blockquote] otherwise they would have made the break cleaner [/blockquote] How much cleaner could it have been??? 80% majority seems awfully clean to me!!! I’m glad you are so confident in the 815 party line, but I think you will be finding out that it is wrong….the EDFW, in it’s entirety until any/all of the parishes who wish to leave it do so, is part of the Anglican Province of the Southern Cone. Period! All this infighting, backbiting, etc. that is going on could be put to a stop in a heartbeat if they would only take advantage of our offer. Problem is, besides 815 giving the marching orders to not do so, some of the parishes know they could not get the vote to pass in their congregations (All Saint’s, for example)!
The proper response from +KJS, of course, is silence.
heh. They just accused her of ‘border crossing’. 🙂
In a couple of years that have seen some pretty profound bits of stupidity, this is one of the silliest letters I have seen yet. This is as senseless as the actions of TEC in deposing clergy who no longer belong to the denomination.
The majority of Fort Worth’s clergy and laity have decided to realign. That is their right. They have left the Episcopal Church and joined Southern Cone (and eventually the ACNA). I wish them every success as they pursue the Gospel according to their own lights. I would have hoped that they felt the same about the Episcopal clergy and laity who live among them and want to continue their ministries within TEC. I would have thought it obvious that that is their right.
Evidently not. Bishop Iker insists that he continues to be the sole bishop in ordinary of all the Anglicans within the diocesan boundaries, even those who still consider themselves members of TEC. I suppose he will be deposing the loyalist clergy next, even though they deny belonging to his province. At a minimum, he quite evidently intends to fight their efforts to reorganize as a continuing TEC diocese unless they do it on his terms. If they don’t want his episcopal oversight, they can just do without. It is as if we were hearing an echo of the 815 party line that nobody can be an Anglican within their borders without their permission.
When the Diocese of Fort Worth left the Episcopal Church, they lost their standing to rely on the Constitution and Canons. They cannot give up all the responsibilities of a TEC diocese and expect to keep all the appurtenant rights. If Fort Worth does not consider itself bound by the terms of the C&C;, how can it expect to enjoy their protection? Why not cite the Methodist Discipline or the [i]Codex Juris Canonici[/i]? They are just as applicable as the C&C;to resolve a dispute that is now just as external to TEC as it is to the UMC or RCC. I am not aware that Bishop Iker or his Standing Committee have sent letters to the local Methodist or Roman Catholic bishops warning them to stay out of town because their presence would poach on his jurisdiction.
The Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth (Southern Cone) needs to just get on down the road and do what it thinks Jesus wants it to do, while the Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth (TEC) does the same. Both sides needs to sit down like mature adults (if they can’t act like Christians) and work out the property issues without any more of this silly legal posturing and litigation. This BS is giving the Christian Church, to say nothing of Episcopalians and Anglicans, a bad name. Enough already!
Is Bishop Iker kidding? He is not even in TEC by his choice! Why write this as if he is? (at least I thought he tried to move the diocese to that of the Southern Cone).
Maybe he has returned!
He writes this because the parishes are still part of his diocese until they take advantage of the generous canon that allows them to leave with their property. Then after they left the Diocese of Forth Worth, they could legitimately invite ++KJS to help them organize a new diocese. As it is, ++KJS is breaking canons yet again.
As completely in sympathy with Bishop Iker and the Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth as I am, I cannot possibly understand why he/they would send this letter. After all, he is no longer under her jurisdiction, so it should not matter to him one way or another what she does. And since she isn’t a bishop in his eyes, anyway, but a layperson….
Brian (#5)–You’ve got it! Exactly!
Dale (#3)–we’ve tried repeatedley to sit down and work it out. TEC put the nix on it. We even passed a Canon in anticipation of this to allow those who wanted to leave the diocese and stay in TEC to do so WITH their property–but NOT ONE of them will even give it a try!!! I don’t see why so many want to dump on +Iker when he is only doing his job!
Ok, this is what I don’t understand and I would very much like someone to explain this to me.
Dioceses and churches are territorial. TEC is the church who’s territorial boundries cover the territory of the 50 states (among other territories). Dioceses are divided up to cover the entirety of this territory, each one having its own bishop. So, there is a territory bounded by other dioceses that has been called the Diocese of Fort Worth that is within the territory covered by TEC.
If a bishop, the standing committee, et al of the diocese then decide to separate themselves from the church and join a new church, then the territory covered by that TEC diocese now does not have a bishop or standing committee. Thus, those members of TEC who have chosen to remain in TEC are now in a territory that does not have a bishop or standing committee.
Dioceses are fundamentally territorial divisions within the church, but one can have overlapping jurisdictions if they are different churches. For example, you could have orthodox bishops covering he same territory if one is Greek Orthodox, one is Russian Orthodox, etc. Same geography, different folks. Reminds me of those clear overlays they use for overhead projectors.
So explain to me again why this is bordercrossing? I truly don’t understand.
#3 Dale Rye
“In a couple of years that have seen some pretty profound bits of stupidity, this is one of the silliest letters I have seen yet.”
Was this what you had in mind?
[blockquote]Dear Gregory,
I write to urge you not to bring further discord into The Episcopal Church. Visiting a special convocation of the Diocese of Fort Worth with the expressed purpose of describing removal to the Province of the Southern Cone is an unprecedented and unwarranted invasion of, and meddling in, the internal affairs of this Province. I ask you to consider how you might receive such a visit to your own Province from a fellow primate. The actions contemplated by some leaders in Fort Worth are profoundly uncanonical. They also prevent needed reconciliation from proceeding within this Province.
I urge you to focus your pastoral ministry within your own Province. May your ministry there be fruitful. I remain
Your servant in Christ,
Katharine Jefferts Schori[/blockquote]
I have mentioned elsewhere that the Presiding Bishop has done exactly what she was complaining of and it looks as though she has received almost exactly the same response as she gave.
#8 – +Iker couldn’t care less about any of that. All this is purely about the property and assets. +Iker is doing everything to maintain the fiction that he is bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth (including holding on to the name) in preparation for his day in court. Of course he wants dissenting parishes to take the ‘generous’ leaving Canon – by doing so they would be admitting they are ‘leaving’ the diocese of Fort Worth to start a new diocese. All to +Iker’s advantage; which is why he’s so mad no-one is falling for it. All this is just legal posturing for a future judge.
Dear All,
Whether you like it or not, every parish and mission in the Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth IS still (currently) under the authority of The Rt. Rev. Jack Leo Iker, as the diocesan bishop. To the best of my knowledge, and from ALL indications, not one single Fort Worth parish or mission is NO LONGER a church/congregation in the entity known as the Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth, and under Bishop Iker.
The entity known as the Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth is in perpetuity, and this bishopric is currently headed by the Rt. Rev. Jack Leo Iker (love him or hate him).
If Schori and her followers want to organize a diocese in this part of Texas, or anywhere else, for that matter, they should follow the process. The provisions of Canon 32 are clear, straight forward and very, very Christian and fair.
Canon 32 amply provides for churches wishing to continue under 815. The godly bishop of Fort Worth is not interested in holding any congregation hostage or forcing any congregation to go along with the Diocese to Southern Cone. The generous provisions of Canon 32 make that abundantly clear.
If the organizers of this new thing new diocese want a diocese in this neck of the wood, they need to either take advantage of Canon 32 or start congregations from the scratch.
I ask: What is stopping these four or five churches from taking advantage of the very, very fair stipulations of Canon 32?
Fr. Kingsley Jon-Ubabuco
Arlington Texas
#8 – exactly!!!
http://new.kendallharmon.net/wp-content/uploads/index.php/t19/article/19492/#323534
Hee hee.
Rich.
#8 — TEc has jurisdictions that overlap other parts of the Anglican communion, in Europe, Africa and South America. There is written no where that there is a requirement that Anglican jurisdictions follow strict territorial boundaries. I know that you revisionists declared this but it just isn’t so (when did law matter to you anyway). Mrs Schori has gotten her knickers in a twist with the visit of Bishops from Africa to their missions in this country but sees no problem in gallivanting around spewing her heresies. So to cut to the chase, your argument is completely fatuous no matter how hard you press it.
In a couple of years that have seen some pretty profound bits of stupidity, this is one of the silliest letters I have seen yet.
I think something beyond simple silliness si going on here. I think we are entering into the area of delusions or split personality. The +Iker who hasn’t left TEC is still under the canons that the +Iker who has left TEC rejects? I hope that the Southern Cone has a process for removal of bishops whose faculties are in question.
He writes this because the parishes are still part of his diocese until they take advantage of the generous canon that allows them to leave with their property.
So Brian, your argument is that 2 dioceses exist woth one of +Iker’s personalities in the Southern Cone and one in TEC? Well, I suppose it could be argued that the one personality gave the other permission to officiate, so it’s all OK.
we’ve tried repeatedley to sit down and work it out. TEC put the nix on it. We even passed a Canon in anticipation of this to allow those who wanted to leave the diocese and stay in TEC to do so WITH their property–but NOT ONE of them will even give it a try!!! I don’t see why so many want to dump on +Iker when he is only doing his job!
Because if they do follow the local canon, then they would be admitting that the property issues can be disposed of at the Diocesan level rather than under the Denis Canon.
I have mentioned elsewhere that the Presiding Bishop has done exactly what she was complaining of and it looks as though she has received almost exactly the same response as she gave.
That letter was written by a TEC bishop who was trying to protect a TEC Diocese from baing harmed. This letter is from a non-TEC, non-Anglican bishop affiliated with a branch of the Anglican Communion to a TEC bishop. Two different denominations at play here.
The entity known as the Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth is in perpetuity, and this bishopric is currently headed by the Rt. Rev. Jack Leo Iker (love him or hate him).
+Iker has been deposed. He has no ecclesiastical authority to represent anything relating to TEC.
#15–While much of what you write here is just plain wrong, I must especially point one example–+Iker has NOT been deposed. He most likely will be, but it has not happened yet.
Henry
OK-removed as a bishop for abandoning TEC
BillB,
Forgive me, I am not very familiar with Episcopal/Anglican polity and I truly don’t understand how this works. I am not trying to argue anything. My background is in RC polity, and there is a different understanding about how this works in RC world. What I was asking is that I thought that dioceses were territorial, and I was wanting someone to explain to me why my understanding is or is not correct in this context. I am aware that TEC has jurisdictions in other countries – but that still doesn’t explain why there would not be a territorial understanding of a vacant See of that territory that is in TEC’s territory.
You might want to be less quick to assume malice, when it may be simple ignorance – particularly when someone says they “truly don’t understand.” I don’t understand, and I was hoping that someone could explain it to me. And by the way, I may be ignorant on this, but I am not one of “you revisionists.” As I’d say to my preschooler, that wasn’t very nice.
TEc has jurisdictions that overlap other parts of the Anglican communion, in Europe, Africa and South America.
All agreed to by both ecclesiastical authorities. Therefore, no problem. TEC has no such agreement with Nigeria, Uganda, Rwanda, the Southern Cone, etc.
There is written no where that there is a requirement that Anglican jurisdictions follow strict territorial boundaries.
That is because all faiths with an historic episcopate follow the Council of Nicaea, where it is written that there are territorial boundaries.
Gretta
Your understanding is correct and has been traditionally followed by the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Anglican Consultative Council. The people who argue that Diocese are NOT territorial are desperately attempting to establish some credibility for their argument that they remain a part of the Anglican Communion. Several archbishops and breakaway parish leaders put in writing that those departing TEC members would remain full members in the Anglican Communion. The Archbishop of Canterbury refused to confirm that status and none of the breakaway bishops can prove that they retained invitations to the Lambeth Conference which is is a Council of the Church (or the best facsimile we have)
This is all less confusing if we apply the principles of quantum mechanics. The Diocese of Fort Worth is obviously in a quantum superposition of states. Like Schroedinger’s cat, which was both alive and dead until someone opened the box, the Diocese of Fort Worth is simultaneously in Texas and South America. It must be in Texas, because it is a Diocese of the Episcopal Church in the United States of America. It was, of course, created as (and from) an Episcopal Church Diocese, acceding to the Constitution and Canons of the Episcopal Church, as required by said Constitution and Canons. It must be in South America, because it is a Diocese of the Province of the Southern Cone. According to the Constitution and Canons of the Province of the Southern Cone, only Dioceses in South America can be members of the Province. Also, the Constitution and Canons of the Episcopal Church provide that a Diocese outside the territory of the United States may transfer to another Anglican Province, but no such provision is made for Dioceses within the United States; ergo, the Diocese of Fort Worth must be outside the United States.
Of course this means that Fort Worth itself and the surrounding territory must also be in a quantum superposition of states (unless I have missed something and Texas has actually managed to secede this time). On course by the Copenhagen Interpretation, we may just be operating in parallel universes here (which would explain a lot).
It will be interesting to see what happens when the situation is really observed and the quantum superposition collapses. Will the Diocese of Fort Worth be a new Diocese or a pre-exisiting one–and if so, which one? Will Fort worth find itself speaking English or Spanish (or Portugese?)? Will Texas still be a state? (If not, will George W. get to keep his Secret Service coverage?)
Stay tuned (film at eleven)!
Dale and other revisionists: You have pointed out quite rightly in the past that a bishop can’t simply resign. Ms Schori has stated that she has accepted Bp Iker’s letter of renunciation despite there be no being written communication between them for months. Rather, Ms Schori simply interpreted a comment in newspaper interview of Bp Iker as such a letter. Let us review the constitution and canons:
[blockquote] If any Bishop of this Church not subject to the provisions of Canon IV.8 [b]shall declare, in writing[/b], to the Presiding Bishop a renunciation of the ordained Ministry of this Church, and a desire to be removed therefrom, it shall be the duty of the Presiding Bishop to record the declaration and request so made. The Presiding Bishop, being satisfied that the person so declaring is not subject to the provisions of Canon IV.8 but is acting voluntarily and for causes, assigned or known, which do not affect the person’s moral character, shall lay the matter before the Advisory Council to the Presiding Bishop, and with the advice and consent of a majority of the members of the Advisory Council the Presiding Bishop may pronounce that such renunciation is accepted, and that the Bishop is released from the obligations of all Ministerial offices, and is deprived of the right to exercise the gifts and spiritual authority as a Minister of God’s Word and Sacraments conferred in Ordinations. The Presiding Bishop shall also declare in pronouncing and recording such action that it was for causes which do not affect the person’s moral character, and shall, if desired, give a certificate to this effect to the person so removed.[/blockquote]
Since no written declaration was given, Bp Iker is still the bishop of the Episcopal diocese of Fort Worth in both provinces.
Should I have said that Bp Iker wears two hats, er, make that two mitres!
And revisionists: remember polity is oh so precious to Episcopalians. Rowan Williams was even invited over to be schooled in Episcopalian polity.
#18 My apologies since you have provided more clarity to your thoughts. The Anglican Communion does not have the Magisterium of the Roman Communion. It is much more akin to the Orthodox Communion. In the case of the Orthodox Communion, especially here in the USA, there are overlapping jurisdictions though that may be in a slow process of change. Because the Monarch of the UK is the titular head of the Church of England, the Mother Church (i.e. Province) in the Anglican Communion, a different approach had to be taken for the polity of other provinces. Unfortunately the Anglican Communion, in its different provinces, has show that a democracy does not work well for the governance of a Church. Due the issues of the heresies being propagated by/through The Episcopal Church, orthodox Anglicans from Anglo-Catholic to Evangelical have had to leave the association of Dioceses that form the General Convention. Some have done it as a complete Diocese which is completely in line with the Constitution and Canons of The Episcopal Church. They have sought pastoral oversight from other Provinces of the Anglican Communion (Uganda, Nigeria, Souther Cone, etc.) on a temporary basis. Now an orthodox province is in formation in North America based upon cited criteria that include a minimum of four dioceses to form such.
#20,
Funny but your logic is wrong. Dioceses are created before they join the General Convention. In the 19th century there were areas that were not part of dioceses. In the case of Dallas and Fort Worth, yes there were established parishes under Diocese of Dallas but the Diocese of Fort Worth was created and developed a Constitution and Canons before it became part of the General Convention. Just as you accede to the rules of where you associate ( work and social organizations) so do Anglican Dioceses that join the General Convention of The Protestant Episcopal Church of the United States accede to the General Conventions Constitution and Canons. Do organizations you leave still govern you? Are you forced to work for a company even though you want to quit? That is what Revisionist claim. And you have just done that.
robroy
Since no written declaration was given, Bp Iker is still the bishop of the Episcopal diocese of Fort Worth in both provinces.
This argument is the old canard pulled out by those who simply can not accept that choices have consequences. It is a circular argument that says “because something CAN NOT happen, it therefore DID NOT happen.” +Iker appeals to the rules of an organization that has expelled him for renouncing his association with TEC. He wants to take all the property rather than take a stand (have your cake and eat it too). The argument is like this: “a crime is illegal, therefore a crime did not happen.” +Iker is gone. That is a fact. No competing fact exists. Your “principles” are meaningless when they collide with reality.
RE: “What an absurd and far-fetched letter.”
Hee.
Hee hee.
[blockquote]”Dear Gregory,
I write to urge you not to bring further discord into The Episcopal Church. Visiting a special convocation of the Diocese of Fort Worth with the expressed purpose of describing removal to the Province of the Southern Cone is an unprecedented and unwarranted invasion of, and meddling in, the internal affairs of this Province. I ask you to consider how you might receive such a visit to your own Province from a fellow primate. The actions contemplated by some leaders in Fort Worth are profoundly uncanonical. They also prevent needed reconciliation from proceeding within this Province.
I urge you to focus your pastoral ministry within your own Province. May your ministry there be fruitful. I remain
Your servant in Christ,
Katharine Jefferts Schori”[/blockquote]
Since this thread seems to be dividing up along predictable lines, I would note – as one who fully supports the ability and right of the Diocese of Fort Worth to realign with the Southern Cone – that I also find the letter somewhat absurd. The fact that the Presiding Bishop has indulged in similar absurdities is beside the point; I expect better things from those I look to for leadership. Sadly, it looks as if the upholding of right doctrine is going to go hand in hand with this sort of legal posturing for some time to come.
[url=http://catholicandreformed.blogspot.com]Catholic and Reformed[/url]
Seriously, I don’t think this is legal posturing, Jeremy.
It is the position of the Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth that it may realign with another province. It is the position of the Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth that it has done so. It is the position of the Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth that it will not pretend — as 815/Schori is doing — that the Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth did not leave.
So all the communications from 815/Schori will be about a collection of people leaving the diocese. And all the communications from the Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth will be about a diocese leaving.
All of this will be settled, of course, in a court of law. But it is unfair to demand that either side communicate as if their position is inaccurate. [Not that you’re demanding that — I’m just making a general statement.]
On a side note, I have very much enjoyed your comments.
“I think we are entering into the area of delusions or split personality.”
I agree, but the “delusion” rests with those who seem to treat a sectarian body like TE”C” that has certainly departed from the Faith and Moral teaching of the “Nicene Church,” and that does not understand itself to be “The Church” in the manners of the Fathers of Nicaea, can nevertheless invoke the Canons of Nicaea as though they had any relevance whatsoever to its sectarian situation.
“The Confessing Reader” animadverted on this strange delusion here:
http://confessingreader.wordpress.com/2009/01/03/the-persistent-oversimplification-of-boundary-crossing-and-the-ancient-church/
when he reproduced on his blog the original version of an article I had published in Touchstone some years ago.
Sarah
If the “Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth” believes it has left TEC, then how can they conclude that ++Katharine needs to be invited into their Diocese? The arguments above all (well, mostly) assume that +Iker and “his diocese” have left, so ++Katharine’s visit is simply the visit of the leader of another denomination.
RE: “If the “Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth†believes it has left TEC, then how can they conclude that ++Katharine needs to be invited into their Diocese?”
The same way that KJS can believe that Venables cannot come to confirm at a departed TEC parish in “her” diocese. ; > )
Further, the parishes in question which she is visiting have not formally or officially withdrawn from the Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth. Now — this is understandable — they are claiming that the “diocese” never left and that they need not withdraw, since they are going to “reconstitute” the diocese.
Both sides will continue issuing communications assuming that either 1) the Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth has withdrawn and that therefore KJS visiting a parish of that diocese is boundary crossing or 2) the Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth has not withdrawn, and in fact resides within those few parishes remaining.
It’s not all that hard to understand.
We can expect years of this kind of communication and it’s fairly simple to understand.
The icing on the cake is the extra style with which Iker communicates his very clear position — and in this instance it’s using KJS’s words from her prior letter to Venables.
Style communicating substance.
Sweet.
So Sarah. Since you believe that +KJS was wrong in sending her letter and that +Iker is being, perhaps, ironic in sending his letter, are you then saying that 2 wrongs do make a right? And are you also saying that we should encourage petty behavior that wastes time and money as some sort of strategy?
Brian is living in the tension with himself, it seems. No problems with self contradictions? He objects when Bp Iker requests for proper procedure be followed to release from ecclesiastical responsibilities???
“If the “Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth†believes it has left TEC, then how can they conclude that ++Katharine needs to be invited into their Diocese?”
Ms Schori asked ABp Akinola not to visit “her territory”. As a bishop of Southern Cone, Bp Iker shares the same rights.
Hypocrisy is hypocrisy. Let’s not whine about precious polity and then disregard it when not convenient. I am pretty sure that if we looked back at the discussion of the DeS accord, we would find Brian’s objections to it violating precious polity.
He objects when Bp Iker requests for proper procedure be followed to release from ecclesiastical responsibilities???
Not sure what that means. I object to the letter being sent at all. +Iker seems to believe that he is a bishop of TEC or a bishop in the Anglican Communion. Neither assertion is true. Therefore, he has no standing to object.
Ms Schori asked ABp Akinola not to visit “her territoryâ€. As a bishop of Southern Cone, Bp Iker shares the same rights.
As a non-Anglican bishop, +Iker has no standing to object. If he is credentialed as a bishop in the Anglican Communion, then he may have an argument. However, that has yet to happen. ++Akinola is a credentialed bishop in the Anglican Communion, as is ++KJS. So the two situations are completely different.
Hypocrisy is hypocrisy. Let’s not whine about precious polity and then disregard it when not convenient. I am pretty sure that if we looked back at the discussion of the DeS accord, we would find Brian’s objections to it violating precious polity.
I have not seen any hypocrisy on the part of ++KJS. She has been consistent in her reading of the polity of TEC. Whether she is right or wrong is a matter for General Convention and the House of Bishops. So far, they believe her to be correct. The true hypocrisy comes from +Iker when he claims no connection to TEC but tries to claim protection under TEC’s polity. Hypocrisy is not being consistent. It is obvious that +Iker is speaking out of both sides of his mouth.
#18 Gretta, don’t worry, trying to understand Episcopalian/Anglican polity from TE”C”‘s application of it is like trying to nail jello to the wall. It means whatever Katherine Jefferts-Schori and David Booth-Beers want it to mean, regardless of the plain meaning of the English text. That’s what they say, anyway! But at least they’re consistent – they interpret the Bible that way, too!
We owe Hopper congrats on achieving the comment hat trick. I’m think I’m glad I didn’t see them!
“Not sure what that means. I object to the letter being sent at all. +Iker seems to believe that he is a bishop of TEC or a bishop in the Anglican Communion. Neither assertion is true. ”
So we have had Schori fiats. Now, we have Brian fiats that fly in the face of established canon law. And Rowan Williams assured Bp Schofield that he was a bishop of the Anglican Communion, so presumably he also believes Bp Iker is a member of the Anglican Communion. But Brian doesn’t think so! And Brian counts more than Rowan Williams.
For those arguing the inanity of the letter, I’d like to repeat my argument from StandFirm. The target of this letter may be less KJS than the revisionist parishes in the Diocese. He seems to me to be giving them notice that they need to choose. If they want to accept KJS as their leader, they’ll have to take the offered withdrawal option that Fort Worth has presented. If they don’t take that option (and they don’t want to take it so they can be part of the lawsuits over property) then officially they are still under Iker’s authority.
Making that statement is not silly. But it certainly is an indirect reading of Iker’s letter. So make of this analysis what you will…
Now, we have Brian fiats that fly in the face of established canon law.
What fiat? What breaks canon law?
And Rowan Williams assured Bp Schofield that he was a bishop of the Anglican Communion, so presumably he also believes Bp Iker is a member of the Anglican Communion.
Actually, +Schofield simply says that his invitation was not revoked. He allegedly chose not to go to Lambeth. There is no proof that the ++Canterbury did or did not rescind his invitation.
But Brian doesn’t think so! And Brian counts more than Rowan Williams.
It would be a sad day for reasserters if my opinion counted at all. My opinion is simply that – no more, no less.
#40 [blockquote] If they want to accept KJS as their leader, they’ll have to take the offered withdrawal option that Fort Worth has presented. If they don’t take that option (and they don’t want to take it so they can be part of the lawsuits over property) then officially they are still under Iker’s authority. [/blockquote]
That is by no means a given. The re-aligning Diocese here in Pittsburgh tried the same thing, but the loyal Episcopal parishes did not take the bait. We took the stand that we were and continue to be parishes of the Episcopal Church in the United States of America, and therefore do not have to take any action at all to remain in TEC. For an example of what one parish said (in advance of the split) see here: [url=http://3riversepiscopal.blogspot.com/2008/09/vestry-resolution-from-st-andrews.html ]Vestry Resolution From St. Andrews Highland Park[/url].
So far, Bob Duncan and the re-aligned Diocese have taken no action to counter this. Nominally, I think they claim that this is because they gave parishes two years to take final action. In reality I think that it is because they realize that they would not succeed. Our parish charter and bylaws state that we are a parish of the Episcopal Church in America. It would take a vote of the parish (a two-thirds vote in many parishes) to change that. Our bylaws also, of course, state that we are a parish of the Epsicopal Diocese of Pittsburgh in TEC (the charter says in the Episcopal Church in Pennsylvania–we were chartered well before the Pgh Diocese was formed from the Diocese of Pennsylvania), but of course there still is a Diocese of Pittsburgh of TEC. I would assume that the parishes of Fort Worth have similar statements in their bylaws and charters. Until those are changed, they continue to be parishes of TEC.
Bill Ghrist
RE: “Since you believe that +KJS was wrong in sending her letter . . . ”
Well — “wrong” would be too harsh a word. Silly, yes. Amusing, yes.
And I find Iker’s letter . . . amusing too — but in, shall we say, a different way. ; > )
RE: ” . . . are you then saying that 2 wrongs do make a right?”
An irrelevant question.
RE: “And are you also saying that we should encourage petty behavior that wastes time and money as some sort of strategy?”
We certainly shouldn’t. Fortunately, Iker’s letter was neither petty — it served a good purpose — nor a waste of time or money.
RE: “+Iker seems to believe that he is a bishop of TEC or a bishop in the Anglican Communion. Neither assertion is true. Therefore, he has no standing to object.”
He’s a bishop of the Anglican Province of the Southern Cone. He objects to another Primate interfering in his diocese.
He’s completely consistent — just as Schori was.
Brian asks what canon law. See the quoted text in #21. I made it bold type so you should not have too much difficulty.
Justice is so near and dear to the liberals hearts! What hypocrisy.
Hopper,
Your comments are replete with misunderstandings.
RE: ” . . . . a recent letter received from the Anglican Communion Office leaves no doubt that the Episcopal Church is the only official Anglican presence in Fort Worth.”
Bishop Iker is not claiming to be “the only official Anglican presence in Fort Worth” and indeed I think that he couldn’t care less about being so.
He and the officers of the corporation are claiming that the diocese is The Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth. That is their name. That is their legal name. And they made legal, perfectly understandable, in accord with the corporation’s bylaws, decisions to leave a larger entity.
RE: “Iker and his diocese are certainly NOT the official Anglican presence from the point of view of the Anglican Communion. This being so, one has a right to question what diocese Iker heads.”
Not at all. The two items you mention are unconnected.
RE: “Is any court going to allow a diocese other than one of the Episcopal Church of the United States of America to hold the name of The Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth?”
We’ll find out. ; > )
[blockquote] otherwise they would have made the break cleaner [/blockquote] How much cleaner could it have been??? 80% majority seems awfully clean to me!!! I’m glad you are so confident in the 815 party line, but I think you will be finding out that it is wrong….the EDFW, in it’s entirety until any/all of the parishes who wish to leave it do so, is part of the Anglican Province of the Southern Cone. Period! All this infighting, backbiting, etc. that is going on could be put to a stop in a heartbeat if they would only take advantage of our offer. Problem is, besides 815 giving the marching orders to not do so, some of the parishes know they could not get the vote to pass in their congregations (All Saint’s, for example)!