– A group of active and retired bishops, all or most of them former attorneys, delivered a roughly 100-page report yesterday (9-13-07) to the Episcopal Church House of Bishops, accompanied by an “audio version” on disc. Among the authors, we predict, are the disgraced Joe Morris Doss, and Bishop of Lexington Stacy Sauls. Both bishops are former attorneys. The nature of this report is a “kick the can” proposal that includes at least two notable angles: The case as to why the HoB cannot reply to the demands of the Dar es Salaam communique (evidently a very detailed version of the ‘polity’ line the HoB has been peddling since its meeting in March); and some use of the data solicited by Sauls two weeks ago regarding the number and status of churches under foreign oversight. The latter may be part of a proposal to bring those churches ‘back into the fold’ somehow. As a whole, the document is to be offered as a ‘solution,’ but in fact defers all decisions to General Convention 2009.
– As reported earlier, Presiding Bishop Schori will present a modified primatial vicar plan. The proposed vicar will not be Bishop Howe of Central Florida. It will be a loyal institutionalist, slightly left of center, not known for speaking out one way or the other in the debate, and not in attendance at a single Camp Allen meeting….
This is very interesting stuff. Good work by the Anglican blogosphere which is way ahead of the news.
I don’t think it is too difficult to figure out who the primatial vicar the Presiding Bishop will propose is….
Ok, #1, so who is it?
Any such Schori-appointed primatial vicar (PV) will have to serve two different groups, the orthodox/traditionalists who will submit to such leadership and the revisionists dominating ECUSA.
It is already an established fact that the revisionists do dominate ECUSA and that they are hell-bent on consolidating the gains that they have made over the past several years. This will put pressure on the PV to show ECUSA’s revisionists that the dioceses/parishes under his authority do not represent a challenge to revisionist politics either by their overt participation in the political process or by the ‘silent witness’ of their very existence within ECUSA.
Thus, the forces of theological/ecclesiological incompatibility will remain like an aching impacted tooth.
The only people who will gain from a Schori-appointed PV are the revisionists. The orthodox/traditionalists who accept that oversight will only weaken orthodox/traditional Anglican authority in the United States and will advance the goals of the revisionist heretics.
Some things bear repeating. I’ve commented repeatedly on this blog for years that the only thing keeping the orthodox and property in TEC is . . . the orthodox. They only have the power over you that you give them. TEC WILL NOT litigate property disputes with even hundreds of parishes at once, much less a thousand or more. It simply cannot be done and they know it. All of their actions regarding property have simply been a strategic intimidation tool which has for the most part worked because you have let it work.
If you want to go, go. If you want to stay, stay. If you think that TEC and the Anglican Communion are “saved” because a bunch of politicians cut a deal with not a single heart’s repentence and tranformation away from the false Gospel of TEC then fine, think whatever you want to think.
But it isn’t consequence free, though.
#2 Edisto–The job description sounds exactly like your neighbor to the north–Dorsey Henderson.
william #2,
Where are these inflated numbers coming from? Now thousands of parishes will leave? Where? I’m close to three diocese. In those three only one parish has left. No one else is leaving. The diocese are middle of the road, non-rebellious, non-extremist diocese. Each one fits the “windsor” complaint bill- no-same sex blessings, no bishops active sexually outside marriage, supremcy of Christ, and pretty straight foward anglican.
So show us the money. No more speculation. It’s stand up time. Where are the “thousands” of congregations that are preparing to bolt?
Dribbling is an excellent term for what is the metanarrative of the alleged “Anglican Communion” in the ECUSA/TEC. An alternative PV proposal without the consent or input of the anticipated subjects rather invalidates the March 2007 HOB firestorm of flagwaving, apple pie, and representation, is it not. The real question is what ECUSA/TECan orifice is dribbling upon the AC and how long it will be endured. I see no indication that ECUSA/TEC has any intent to control its dribbling or even to see it as sin, defect, or social gaffe. Truly, ’tis a gift to be simple.
I’d also like to know Greg’s sources for the article. Or is it just specualtion on his part. Perhaps a little pre-meeting hype?
D.O.A.
Plainsparson, thank you for your comment. However, the word “hundreds” is plural and the word “thousand” is singular. In my comment, if you will please read it again, I did not say, as you said, that “thousands” of parishes are “preparing to bolt.” I said your church cannot fight simultaneous legal battles with “hundreds” or a “thousand parishes or more.”
I would note parenthetically that since the ACN has close to a thousand parishes as members, its not unreasonable to speculate that parish losses to your church could be in the hundreds and a thousand or more when these folks realize your legal bluster is about as empty as the Gospel you proclaim.
Plainsparson, since you have asked me to “show you the money,” I am happy to do so. Your church admits that it has lost 1/3 of its membership since the 1960’s. Evidently when you say “no one else is leaving,” it must be because you are asleep in the pew as they walk out the door.
As I pointed out on SF, the PV plan is just one part of what’s required by the DES Communique. Without the unequivocal assurances the Primates require, the PV plan is moot.
What will happen when:
The House of Bishops appoint a Primatial Vicar, pass a resolution saying no more sexual active ourside marriage bishops, and a moretorum on blessing of same-sex unions?
It might happen. What will the “otherside” do then?
#12
A very good question. My feeling is that reasserters will be thrown into something of a quandry. We won’t for a minute believe any assurances given by the GCC. Trust has been irretrievably breached. If KJS and the HOB have any sense (not integrity mind you) they will cross their fingers and agree to all points of DES communique while, as is their wont, proceding with their “innovations.” In which case, what will the communion do? The GS primates will declare themselves out of communion with the GCC and will offer shelter to departing orthodox. The ABC will wring his hands, orthodox parishioners will depart, orthodox candidates for bishoprics will fail to gain consent. In other words, we’ll be exactly where we are today.
If the Primates meet and decide the response is acceptable, that would be wonderful #12. But it needs to be on the terms provided and it needs to be prayerfully evaluated by those outside our province.
If there is further disorder, everyone loses.
I agree with Evan entirely, but I think the HOB may be too drunk with the experience (Camp Allen, Executive Council, etc.) of telling the Communion to go to hell to do the smart thing. (Smart for ECUSA that is. No commitment they make is worth the paper on which it’s written.)
#12 yes, a good question. I’m not sure that the HoB has such authority; assuming that it does, though, and follows through on your suggestion, my guess, like #13, is that the “right wing” would be thrown into a tizzy and a quandry. Looking at the history of “the troubles,” one could say that the bar has been raised more than once. I suspect that would happen again. “That side” could say, “OK, you did this and this and such and such, [i]but you didn’t do what we asked about #3.4.a and therefore the crisis is unresolved.[/i] I really don’t think anything will satisfy. As #14 says, “It [the HoB response] needs to be on the terms provided and it needs to be prayerfully evalulated by those outside our province.”
No one, of course, would dare suggest that the Primates have exercised a power they have not been given.
RE: “If the Primates meet and decide the response is acceptable, that would be wonderful #12. But it needs to be on the terms provided and it needs to be prayerfully evaluated by those outside our province.”
Good grief, if this is what plainsparson is asking, then it would be frankly exhilirating. I for one would be thrilled.
And honestly, I think that the dioceses asking for APO would be thrilled if the structures for Pastoral Care that Dar articulated were implemented.
I may be a prophet–you should listen to me more. Please read my comment #5 and then go to Stand Firm for the “hard” rumor that Dorsey is her choice!
I seem to recall some reasserters expressing reservations about the DES version of APO. Hang on a sec, let me dig up that proposal again… here it is:
I believe the reservations centered around the fact that the ABC would nominate the “swing vote” on the proposed Pastoral Council, and that the Presiding Bishop not only gets what amounts to a veto over the selection of the “Primatial Vicar,” she decides (“in consultation with the Pastoral Council”) which powers and duties to delegate to the PV.
As for the requests made by DES of the HOB… after some thought, here’s what I think about that: technically, the HOB does have the power to do those specific things requested of it by DES. If the HOB does not consent to the election of any given bishop, that person is not elected regardless of what anyone else does. Diocesan bishops do have authority of liturgical activity in their dioceses (although it seems to vary a lot from bishop to bishop how vigorously they exercise such authority) and so if a diocesan forbids blessings SSUs in his or her diocese, then (in theory) no such blessings take place.
However, it is not within the spirit of the governance of TEC to put these decisions solely on the HOB, even though the canons do allow them to unilaterally enforce those things if they wish to. If TEC were to properly implement the Windsor requests, it would have to be done by canonical legislation at General Convention. And GC had that chance, and did not take it.
The response of General Convention to the Windsor Report, as I see it, was simply: “TEC is conflicted on this issue, and at the present moment is not capable of taking a clear and unequivocal stand one way or the other.” The Instruments of Communion would, of course, prefer a clear stand; but we weren’t able to give it to them, and there’s no indication that the next GC or any other in the near future will do better. GC has spoken, and it’s word is, “Uh…” So the Instruments will simply have to take that conflicted stance we’re in and decide what to do with that. Going back and forth to the HOB or the Presiding Bishop or whomever else is not going to produce anything that will satisfy them, just by the nature of TEC’s structure.
Of course, many of the Primates obviously have taken the results of GC06 as being the final word and have moved ahead. I can’t really fault them for that, although I’m not particularly happy at the thought of the impending schism.
Ross #19, yes, that’s pretty clear. Again, I favor clarity and transparency. “No, we will not forbid our priests from making appropriate pastoral responses [re: ssbs]” or “Yes, using our liturgical authority, we will forbid it.”
Consents — that’s pretty clear.
The APO/DEPO is not quite so clear.
And as you say, “it is not within the [i]spirit of governance[/i] of TEC [emph mine] to put these decisions solely on the HOB,” and I suspect there would be a general outcry from clergy and laity who would see themselves as disenfranchised by People in Purple (PiPs). And therefore… which way to turn?
Is it, PadreWayne, within the ontological purview of bishops to govern the church? What, precisely, is the ontological change in being ECUSA/TECan that invalidates the episcopacy per se? I would love to hear a theological or scriptural argument for the uniqueness and sinaitical source (either J, E, P, or D et alia or inter alia) of the ontological limitations imposed by New World soil. It does not seem to have affected the Roman Catholics or Orthodox. Could it be, perhaps, genetic?
HAHAHA, dwstroudmd, a well-obfuscating comment to be sure! I suggest, for clarification, you simply turn to the Constitution and Canons of The Episcopal Church.
Perhaps it’s in the water.
Did anyone happen to catch this: “One news report, that there was talk of a modified Primatial Vicar Plan for orthodox dioceses, has no basis in fact a Network bishop told VOL.”
Why does anyone take him seriously when he gets so many things so wrong so often?
NOT obsfucating, PadreWayne, actual. Can you not answer it or do you prefer not to?
Either baptism confers ontological change or the whole baptismal covenant basis of reapparaisers collapses, does it not?
Same for orders. Was there an ontological change when you were ‘priested’ or not? Is there an ontological change when one is ‘bishoped’ or not? Certainly a catholic sense of orders demands this much even from ECUSA/TEC! Unless, of course, ECUSA/TEC is not really catholic in that sense.
Are bishops charged with the duty to the Faith first or to the Constitution and Canons of the ECUSA/TEC? In point of fact, if bishops in the ECUSA/TEC are not ontologically changed, how do they differ from Methodist “bishops”? Why is there such hue and cry from bishops all over the Anglican Communion about ECUSA/TEC’s actions and forsaking tradition, you ask. Perhaps its in the orders, or NOT.
Has it been a long time out from seminary so you have forgotten? or does it not matter to you? Both serious questions, btw.
Seems +Dorsey F. Henderson has a similar understanding and places his locus in the BOCP (apparently 1979).
““My major disagreement with the report has to do with its understanding of the authority of bishops,†Bishop Henderson said. “I believe bishops have authority and responsibility to act quite apart from General Convention, and you need look no further than the catechism in The Book of Common Prayer from where my views derive.
“Bishops are asked to guard the faith and unity of the Church; that responsibility is not ascribed to any other order of ministry. I remain convinced that the House of Bishops needs to come to terms with what it means to be a bishop in the church catholic and for the church to be more aware of what it means to be a part of something larger than itself.— http://www.livingchurch.org/publishertlc/viewarticle.asp?ID=3808
And your reply…
I agree with PadreWayne #16. It doesn’t matter what the HOB does, it won’t be good enough for the dissidents in NA nor their primatial leaders in Africa. The process they have undertaken to remake NA Anglicanism is too far gone down the hill to put the brakes on it.
Plainsparsons,
If the HOB did all that you suggest then you might have 10 dioceses on the left secede – then perhaps the Orthodox might stay (or come back) and reclaim their church. But seriously time has run out – there needs to be two Anglican/Episcopal Churches – TEC is no longer compatible with traditional Christianity – for TEC to do the new thing it needs for the traditional Christians to decamp.