Under the canons of the Episcopal Church (III.11.4), a majority of bishops exercising jurisdiction and diocesan standing committees must consent to a bishop-elect’s ordination as bishop within 120 days of receiving notice of the election.
The consent process for the Rev. Canon Mary Glasspool, who was elected the day after Bruce as a second bishop suffragan in Los Angeles, has not yet been completed. The diocese said March 3 that Glasspool had received 55 of the 56 standing committee consents needed. That information is unofficial, pending verification by the presiding bishop’s office. There is no official information about the number of bishops with jurisdiction who have consented to Glasspool’s ordination and consecration, which is also scheduled for May 15. The 120-day process for Glasspool lasts until May 8 and the diocese has been updating the process each Wednesday on its website here.
As outlined under Canon III.11.4 (a) for every bishop election, the presiding bishop confirms the receipt of consents from a majority of bishops with jurisdiction, and reviews the evidence of consents from diocesan standing committees sent to her by the standing committee of the electing diocese.
No surprise here. Expect the ABC and the AC to do absolutely nothing.
I’m not at all sure the bishops will approve Glasspool. However much they may be in favor of the gay agenda, and however feckless the ABC has been, it still might be that they willbe reluctant to consent and risk, however remotely, their invitations to Lambeth. Slim chance, I’ll grant you, but there nonetheless. Personally, I’d prefer them to consent with alacrity and thereby boldly throw down the gauntlet to the rest of the communion, and the chips fall where they may. At least it would be honest. Vile, but honest.
Um, what would you like the ABC or the AC to do?
[blockquote]Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori’s office March 8 announced successful consent processes for the Rev. Canon Diane Jardine Bruce of Los Angeles, the Very Rev. Morris K. Thompson of Louisiana and the Rev. W. Andrew Waldo of Upper South Carolina.[/blockquote]
None of these bishops are controversial unless I’m missing something.
Um, declare that by their action, TEC has intentionally and arrogantly moved outside accepted Communion faith and practice and will therefore no longer be included in the councils of the Anglican Communion.
#4 – what actions? This article is reporting that three bishops have received consent, none of which were openly gay or controversial in any way as far as I know. Why would the ABC or the AC declare what you would like them to in #4 because these three bishops received consent?
Charles,
The action I was talking about refers to my earlier comment speculating on whether the bishops will give their consent to Glasspool, not the consents to the three bishops that have already gained the necessary consents.
RE: “Personally, I’d prefer them to consent with alacrity . . . ”
I think you will definitely get your wish — I predict 70-80 sitting diocesan bishop consents.
We’ll see.
And of course they understand that there is [i]no risk whatsoever [/i] to any Lambeth invitations — I think the ABC successfully put paid to that hypothesis at the last Lambeth and I’d certainly hope we wouldn’t all start breathlessly wondering about the next one.
Sarah,
I’m certainly not breathlessly wondering about the next Lambeth. My confidence that the ABC is completely in the pocket of TEC only gets stronger with each passing day. My guess is they will consent and this, or some other in-your-face affront to Communion faith and practice which will go unchallenged by the ABC, will lead the Global South, or a large percentage of it, to break completely with Canturbury and that will be the end of the Anglican Communion. I very much fear that the current ABC will preside of the disolution. But who knows? I may be wrong.
Let’s not forget that absent a few cowardly, spineless jellyfish (see the recent thread on Gullick), an ever increasing number of TEC bishops now openly authorize same-sex blessing rites in their dioceses. Any action by the ABC in response? No. TEC bishops realized after 2008 that they can go full steam ahead without consequence from the RW-controlled Instruments of Communion.
You can almost write RW’s response to Glasspool. “Unfortunate…will strain the Communion…wait for the Covenant…please no precipitate reaction.”
The only live question now is what will Chew, Anis, et.al. do over the next 6 months? Their choices will determine whether the Anglican Communion becomes an irrelevant paper tiger for +/-20 years awaiting a new ABC and political conditions conducive to calling the Communion back together (if that would happen is questionable); or if a critical mass of Global South primates acts together to wrest control of the Communion from RW’s plans (and this would be a long, involved, messy and protracted fight).
Rowan Cantuar has at least six or seven more years left in office, so don’t expect anything to change during that time. He is certainly in TEC’s pocket……that much we do know. TEC controls the purse strings of the ACC and the ACO, and he doesn’t want to risk losing his source of funding. The problem is that he’s walking a tightrope trying to keep the Communion from falling apart, and he’s not doing very well, is he? Do I see a communion without Canterbury at the head coming down the pike? Yes, I do, and the leadership won’t be European.
and some of us will be returning Rome instead…..
jamesw (#9),
I wholeheartedly agree with your assessment. Your almost comical prediction of how the ABoC is likely to respond is probably right on target. I say, “almost comical,” since ++RW’s become a farce, and you either have to laugh or cry at such a grievous state of affairs.
As for Charles above (#3, 5),
I’m not sure if your questions are rhetorical or not, as I don’t know you. But surely evan’s point was clear enough. TEC is about to consecrate three unrepentant “progressives” who fully support a completely unbiblical religious and political agenda that is blatantly opposed to the official declared position of the AC (ala Lambeth 1998’s resolution 1.10). And the real problem isn’t their full support for the pro-gay agenda; it’s the fact that they’ve fallen for a false gospel, the relativist gospel that is no gospel at all. Which makes them heretics and unfit to become successors of the apostles.
What ought ++RW to do? Well, for starters, he ought to repent. He ought to change his mind and his behavior, aligning himself with Scripture, Tradition, and the vast majority of the AC. Failing that, he ought to resign.
David Handy+
#3/5–Define controversial. Waldo would have been defrocked a generation for his beliefs; but the absurd has become so mainstream, that the only thing left to be controversial is actually having a same sex partner, and that doesn’t even disqauaify anyone. Someone quipped recently that we have gotten so whacko Louie Crew now represents the moderate center of TEC. I am, sadly, convinced that is now the truth.
Three more who will not be in apostolic succession.