We note with concern the petition filed by the Presiding Bishop’s chancellor seeking to intervene in the ongoing litigation in Pittsburgh. The Anglican Communion Institute has posted several articles over the past year critical of actions of the Presiding Bishop which are widely perceived to be contrary to the constitution and canons of The Episcopal Church. In just the past year alone, she has called diocesan conventions on her own authority and held them without proper notice or quorums. She has dismissed members of diocesan Standing Committees without any authority to do so (or any due process). She has repeatedly removed bishops of The Episcopal Church (and the Church of England) without following proper procedures. Actions of the past contrary to the canons are used as precedents for further such actions.
The attempted intervention in Pittsburgh seeks to enlist the civil courts in a new and more serious challenge to the long-standing polity of The Episcopal Church. The complaint proffered by the Presiding Bishop’s chancellor seeks to turn The Episcopal Church’s governance on its head and asks the court to enshrine this reversal in civil law. It alleges that the polity of The Episcopal Church has as its highest tier of authority the central bodies of the Presiding Bishop, General Convention and Executive Council. Underneath this triumvirate on “the next level” are the dioceses and their bishops. Dioceses are explicitly characterized as “subordinate unit[s].”
These allegations could hardly be more incorrect.
I believe it goes without saying that Katharine Jefferts Schori insists that dioceses are explicitly characterized as “subordinate units,” and since the rubber stamp House of Bishops hasn’t disagreed with her (at least not publicly, anyway), her view will no doubt prevail. I suspect, too, that the House of Deputies will also agree with her; thus violating their own Constitution and Canons.
I am grateful to the ACI for the light they shine and the integrity they show.
Should the efforts by the Presiding Bishop in the civil courts be successful, the result may very well be to subvert forever the polity of The Episcopal Church.
This would be the same polity that the presiding bishop hid behind in saying she could not comply with what she agreed to in Dar es Salaam. Before she is done, the pb will be an Episcopal equivalent of the pope and General Convention a what’s-happening-now magesterium. Is this the church that those of us who remain Episcopalian joined, or the church we want?
Canon 2 section 4 (see below) defines the responsibilities of the Presiding Bishop. I fail to see where is the authority to intervene in the internal affairs of a Diocese. Unless the designation as Primate gives that authority. But I found no definition of Primate in either the Constitution or Canons.
Article II section 3 of the Constitution (see below) limits the authority of a Bishop to the Diocese to which he was elected. It gives the Presiding Biship authority to “act temporarily in case of need” but only “within any territory not yet organized into Dioceses of this Church.” This clearly preclude acting in a Diocese already organized.
[b]CONSTITUTION Sec. 3.[/b] A Bishop shall confine the exercise of such office to the Diocese in which elected, unless requested to perform episcopal acts in another Diocese by the Ecclesiastical Authority thereof, or unless authorized by the House of Bishops, or by the Presiding Bishop by its direction, to act temporarily in case of need within any territory not yet organized into Dioceses of this Church.
[b]CANONS Sec. 4 (a) [/b] The Presiding Bishop shall be the Chief Pastor and Primate of the Church, and shall:
(1) Be charged with responsibility for leadership in initiating and developing the policy and strategy in the Church and speaking for the Church as to the policies, strategies and programs authorized by the General Convention;
(2) Speak God’s words to the Church and to the world, as the representative of this Church and its episcopate in its corporate capacity;
(3) In the event of an Episcopal vacancy within a Diocese, consult with the Ecclesiastical Authority to ensure that adequate interim Episcopal Services are provided;
(4) Take order for the consecration of Bishops, when duly elected; and, from time to time, assemble the Bishops of this Church to meet, either as the House of Bishops or as a Council of Bishops, and set the time and place of such meetings;
(5) Preside over meetings of the House of Bishops; and, when the two Houses of the General Convention meet in Joint Session, have the right of presiding over such Session, of calling for such Joint Session, of recommending legislation to either House and, upon due notification, of appearing before and addressing the House of eputies; and whenever addressing the General Convention upon the state of the Church, it shall be incumbent upon both Houses thereof to consider and act upon any recommendations contained in such address;
(6) Visit every Diocese of this Church for the purpose of: (i) Holding pastoral consultations with the Bishop or Bishops thereof and, with their advice, with the Lay and Clerical leaders of the jurisdiction; (ii) Preaching the Word; and (iii) Celebrating the Holy Eucharist.
(b) The Presiding Bishop shall report annually to the Church, and may, from time to time, issue Pastoral Letters.
(c) The Presiding Bishop shall perform such other functions as shall be prescribed in these Canons; and, to be enabled better to perform such duties and responsibilities, the Presiding Bishop may appoint, to positions established by the Executive Council of General Convention, officers, responsible to the Presiding Bishop, who may delegate such authority as shall seem appropriate.
Do NOT attempt to confuse the situation with FACTS. The current PB and her co-conspirators have not allowed them to interfere in any way with what they have done and will not allow them to interfere with what they plan to do. May God have mercy on their souls.
As the influence over TEC by the larger Communion diminishes, the more power accumulates unto KJS and her revisionist bishops in a last deparate attempt to bring the church into compliance with their secularist agenda and this is what ACI needs to confront.
That is desparate before the church totally implodes and closes up shop.
I doubt TEC will respond publicly unless an amicus brief is filed. I realize that the ACI is generally against litigation, but they are talking to a brick wall when they complain about the actions of the PB, EC, GC, chancellor et al. Those strongly disagree with the ACI’s view that bishops are the central authority of the episcopal church, and are using the civil courts to have their new polity enshrined. Writing more articles and papers like this complaining of it will no so much as provoke a tiny response. And the ACI’s views will, unfortunately, soon become no longer correct.
[i] [BeerKat] alleges that the polity of The Episcopal Church has as its highest tier of authority the central bodies of the Presiding Bishop, General Convention and Executive Council [/i]
The triune instrumpets of heterodoxy and disunity.