I know from speaking with Bishop Ackerman that he sent the Presiding Bishop a handwritten letter merely asking to have his credentials transferred to the Diocese of Bolivia. He said that he had no intention of renouncing his orders and that, while he intends to assist Bishop Lyons in work in Bolivia, he also wished to remain available to assist bishops in the United States, as requested.
The Presiding Bishop says that “…there is no provision for transferring a bishop to another province.” But that is not true.
Dr Jefferts Schori’s action is simply outrageous – not to mention either deeply stupid and slovenly, or outright mendacious.
Thanks to the Very Revd Dr Munday for his lucid and damning examination of the relevant canons.
I join with the many,many others who have been the recipients of Bishop Keith’s ministrations and worthy catholic witness over the years to lament and decry this latest example of the ongoing persecution of traditionalist clergy in our Church. Will those of us still left in TEC stop this outrage or just roll over and play dead?
The problem is that the person who signs the Letter Dimissory is also certifying that the cleric is in good standing. It could hardly be said that any cleric who departs TEO without prior permission (AWOL, in other words) is in good standing. Actually, I don’t care what Mrs Schori does. Inasmuch as she has fallen into mortal heresy the grace of ordination (presuming she ever had any) has departed from her and she’s now merely a bishop by canon, not in truth.
It seems to me the last sentence of this post would be even better put up in boldface, or better yet made the headline [i]”It is not true there is no other provision for transferring a bishop to another province”[/i], with the facts/reasons then given in the post. At last, it is good to hear/read A Senior Priest stating that Jefferts Schori is merely a bishop by canon and not in truth, any grace of ordination she might ever have had (and I believe there was none) now fairly clearly departed from her. This is made even more clear by contrast with Bishop Ackerman himself, through whom graces of ordination demonstrably continue to flow copiously.
Not only is the ‘PB’ capricious and arrogant in the acts of her office, her defiance of logic and due procedure in many of these matters would have by now caused widespread professional criticism of the title ‘Dr.’ in front of her name, in many other professions. As the entitled holder of the letters PhD in a science after my name also, I think I know a plain old hack when I see one. Well done by Dean Munday posting on this straight off, and especially on quoting from ‘Alice in Wonderland’ as a preface.
I can’t see this being of God. It has all the marks of the father of lies. Dean Munday has nailed him.
Prayers for Bishop Ackerman.
Re #3
A Senior Priest
[blockquote] Inasmuch as she has fallen into mortal heresy the grace of ordination (presuming she ever had any) has departed from her and she’s now merely a bishop by canon, not in truth. [/blockquote]
Wow! I am not going to swear to it. But I think that’s the first time I have ever heard anyone (non-Orthodox) make that claim. The Cypriatic teaching on grace and sacraments remains the position of the Christian East but I did not think it had any currency in the West post 11th century or so.
You are of course absolutely correct. I would merely add that Ms. Schori was never a bishop from a sacramental point of view to begin with.
In ICXC
John
I first met Bishop Ackerman when he was a parish priest of the Diocese of Pittsburgh, St. Mary’s up on the hill in Charlaroi, PA. I was a member of Christ Church Brownsville — a rather low church parish. I had a cousin who was Roman Catholic and when we wanted to worship together we would head for St Mary’s. I remember Fr. Ackerman always had a smile and a warm greeting along with a blessing for the both of us. I was always humbled in the presence of this man of God.
So, now to hear this news. That the Hierarchs of TEC would treat such a man in this way. As open and gregarious as I might ever want to be toward them, this certainly breaks me on the wheel!
My prayers also go out to Bishop Ackerman.
I would be very hard put to expand upon Dr Munday’s words, except to say “Bravo, and right on the money!”
And may I suggest to Katharine Jefferts Schori and Susan Russell [b]that they thoroughly read Title III, Canon 10, Section 2[/b] of their Church’s Canons in the hope that they might learn something?
I wish it were the case, but I disagree with Dean Munday that III.10.2 provides the faculty to send clergy by letters dimissory to another Province of the Communion. That section is entirely about reception. I believe those clergy indicated as “transferred to” in the Red Book continue, as a matter of fact, to be clergy with standing the TEC, “on the books” with the Recorder of Ordinations, and that their TEC canonical residence continues in the TEC diocese even when they are serving in another Province. I would be interested to hear of a case when a priest of the Episcopal Church has gone to, say, England, and then–when perhaps years later having returned to the U.S.–has been required to be received “back” through a III.10 process. I believe that historically such clergy have essentially been treated “as though they never left,” and if they did at some later time return to the U.S. and to a diocese different from the original, the bishop of their last diocese of canonical residence in TEC would send letters dim. to the bishop of the new diocese. I don’t believe that any such clergy, having been ordained in the Episcopal Church, have ever been required to follow the procedures for the reception of clergy from Churches in Communion with this Church.
Bruce Robison
Had Bishop Ackerman obtained a letter dimissory from either Quincy or Springfield? If not, I suppose it would have been a gracious act for the PB to offer to provide one [would it be canonical? — the PB is not a metropolitan], but I fail to see how a bishop who does not acknowledge women priests could abide a letter dimissory from a woman bishop.
[Comment deleted by Elf]
[blockquote]And may I suggest to Katharine Jefferts Schori and Susan Russell that they thoroughly read Title III, Canon 10, Section 2 of their Church’s Canons in the hope that they might learn something?[/blockquote]
Since when have those women ever given ANY considerations to the Canons of the Church they supposedly serve?
[Edited by Elf]
Re # 12,
Br. Franklin
I respectfully disagree.
Under the mercy,
John
I think Bruce Robison is probably right in his observation. I was ordained in the Church of England in 1969, began ministry under license in the Episcopal Church in 1976, was received into the Episcopal Church in 1977, and am now canonically resident in the Diocese of Tennessee. In 2007, I returned to ministry in the Church of England, have been licensed by the Diocese of Ely, but remain a priest in good standing in the Diocese of Tennessee.
I believe that the Episcopal Church is unique in the Anglican Communion with its notion of canonical residence, although a friend who ministered many years in the Solomon Islands before returning to England, has something akin to residence in the shape of a lifelong license in his servicing diocese in the Pacific, although, like me, he is a licensed priest of the Diocese of Ely.
If reconciliation is the goal, KJS repeatedly builds walls. This season of unpleasantness will never end with poor decisions like this one and disasspointingly points to the real mission of TEC…win regardless of the cost. This is nothing but an abuse of power and so anti-Christ. This just breaks my heart. But Bishop Ackerman your calling is from God and not the institution, so no matter what this abuser claims you are still a Bishop in the Church in good standing and empowered by the HS to shepherd and build up God’s family. Keep on keepin’ on.