It is a very important week for the Bishop and the diocese; we appreciate your prayers.
It is a very important week for the Bishop and the diocese; we appreciate your prayers.
It is known that Bishop Lawrence is striving mightily to make sure that the Diocese of South Carolina and its clergy remain within TEC.
In 2006 the GC officially changed its name from the “Protestant Episcopal Church in the USA” to [b]The Episcopal Church[/b] — TEC.
These resolutions are seeking to maintain the integrity of the Diocese of SC in the face of the new TEC Title IV by appealing to the Constitution itself and the origins of PECUSA.
Intelligent effort – really good try.
It remains to be seen if the gang running TEC will let all ya’ll get away with it.
I intend this as no criticism of #1. My point is how differently people can conceive of things.
It would never occur to many that SC believes the ‘gang at TEC will let ’em get away with’ X or Y. SC believes it is incumbent upon them to defend a proper understanding of the relationship between diocese and PB, as constitutionally defined. It does not thereby assume the ‘gang running TEC’ will ‘let ’em get away with this.’ It assumes they will challenge it, and SC works for the capacity to withstand this challenge. The fight is important for everyone who continues to resist the transformation of TEC into a body unsupported by its own constitution. If TEC will have to resort to the courts to dislodge the Bishop (and Standing Committee) of SC, it will not be in a place where the decisions are made on the basis of ‘who can get away with’ this or that.
Chris,
Thank you for framing the problem spot on…..this is exactly what is being done.
RE: “If TEC will have to resort to the courts to dislodge the Bishop (and Standing Committee) of SC, it will not be in a place where the decisions are made on the basis of ‘who can get away with’ this or that.”
I’m not certain that LumenChristie was referring to “the gang running TEC” as doing anything more than simply deposing Lawrence. I can’t imagine that’s not happening in the coming year.
True — it does not appear that the bad guys will get the property, but then, that won’t be as important to Schori as deleting Lawrence from the HOB of The Episcopal Church.
At issue is not whether this will happen…most think it will. At issue is whether SC nursed some idea it would be the beneficiary of TEC largesse. No evidence for that. SC has thought very hard about this and is not expecting some sudden generosity — along the lines of
“It remains to be seen if the gang running TEC will let all ya’ll get away with it.”
PS–if you ‘delete Lawrence’ from the HOB but get nothing for it, it is hard to understand what is accomplished. Did you have an idea about that? A ‘SC diocese’ with a provisional Bishop but unable to do anything about the incumbent and all the parishes loyal to him? It does not appear that 815 is happy with such an idea in Ft Worth. I am unclear what you would have in view.
C. Seitz, Hmm, not all parishes are loyal to Bishop Lawrence. Many are but not all. SO if Lawrence and most parishes were to tell TEC where to go. Would not bother the PB a bit. Just slap a new bishop in place, consecrate (where, I don’t know) but the attendance would be mighty small as I can’t seeing more than a handful parishes remaining with TECUSA.
However, that is not what the reconvened convention is about. It IS about the unconstitutional changes in Title IV.
Totally agree with Kendall. Prayers are needed. In fact, our men of the diocese have been asked to literally surround the place with a prayer vigil that day. My hubby is a delegate so he will be there.
“Just slap a new bishop in place, consecrate (where, I don’t know) but the attendance would be mighty small as I can’t seeing more than a handful parishes remaining with TECUSA. ”
Precisely.
But as in Ft Worth, 815 has not been content with that. And also as in Ft Worth, to achieve what 815 does want requires civil courts siding with them. Not easy to get.
RE: “A ‘SC diocese’ with a provisional Bishop but unable to do anything about the incumbent and all the parishes loyal to him?”
Yes — in fact, I think they *will* settle for just that.
RE: “It does not appear that 815 is happy with such an idea in Ft Worth.”
Well certainly property would be even better!
But I think even were every single diocese to be able to keep their property, KJS will settle for “getting rid of the bishops.”
Indeed, I expect they already know pretty certainly that they won’t get the SC property, due to the state’s Supreme Court ruling. But that won’t keep them from getting “second best” which is Lawrence out.
She cannot bear public, formal differentiation of any import. And what SC is doing is public, formal differentiation of import.
Regardless of whether the Red Queen achieves the property, she’ll be happy to have the “deposition” [sic] of the bishop.
So 815 will not follow the same strategy as in Ft Worth. That will be an important change of direction for those following this closely. Perhaps you are correct. The PB will seek to depose the Bishop of SC and will not care if the diocese (standing committee included) refuses to acknowledge this.
[btw, one does not use ‘sic’ in statements one writes with his/her own pen]
Ummm, just for clarification. Just in case, it is not already obvious…. there are many here who really don’t care what the PB does. LOL! If she seeks to depose Lawrence+, we will continue on our way “Making Biblical Anglicans for a Global Age”.
RE: “So 815 will not follow the same strategy as in Ft Worth.”
If you say so — I of course did not say so.
As I said — KJS would love the property, but will be perfectly happy to excise the SC bishop from TEC’s HOB, which she will be able to do just fine without the secular courts. Who knows whether she will follow Fort Worth court “strategy” at all — hard to fully do so since the courts in SC have already ruled, mercifully.
RE: “btw, one does not use ‘sic’ in statements one writes with his/her own pen . . . ”
Sure one does, if one believes the word used — “deposition” [sic] — is purported and not actual in the case of Lawrence.
However, others are welcome to do as they wish, of course.
Thanks for the clarification, Sarah. Wouldn’t it be great if TEC changed direction and left SC alone and did not follow the Ft Worth strategy. I doubt it, but who knows what TEC is up to?
Use ‘sic’ anyway you like, of course. Strictly speaking, it “is a comment interpolated into quoted or reprinted material to indicate that the preceding text has been reproduced literatim from the source, so as to avoid the misattribution of textual irregularities to transcription errors by the quoter or reprinter.”
I see the way you use it somewhat frequently on blogs and maybe yours will become an accepted practice in time. It is not the way an editor uses the term.
lumen,
Your first premise is strangely overtaxed. With whom is the bishop striving mightily to make sure SC and her clergy remain in TECUSA?
Your second premise is simply not right, not by a long shot. And I don’t follow why that would be important anyway, unless you are suggesting (in anticipation of your 3rd premise) that “they all” have placed intelligent effort into an abandoned cause (and therefore really not that intelligent after all).
I don’t know — your comment could be taken as sarcastic, facetious, or maybe sympathetic. Do you or do you not support the intent of the resolutions? My reading of them, btw, is that they are intending to protect the integrity of the diocesan constitution and canons in the face of what the Standing Committee has determined to be unconstitutional and uncanonical changes to the General Convention C & C, thus undermining their authority, and thus undermining the reliance of any diocesan C & C which defer to them.
This is the only canonically allowed window of time for such a protest and “point of order” by a legislative body.
From 2009 (and thus including or superceding any changes from 2006):
The Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America,
otherwise known as The Episcopal Church (which name is hereby
recognized as also designating the Church), is a constituent member
of the Anglican Communion, a Fellowship within the One, Holy,
Catholic, and Apostolic Church, of those duly constituted Dioceses,
Provinces, and regional Churches in communion with the See of
Canterbury, upholding and propagating the historic Faith and Order
as set forth in the Book of Common Prayer. This Constitution,
adopted in General Convention in Philadelphia in October, 1789, as
amended in subsequent General Conventions, sets forth the basic
Articles for the government of this Church, and of its overseas
missionary jurisdictions.
I’m sorry – that last section in my comment (14) is a direct quote as the Preamble to the Constitution.
Also – Sarah, I don’t think Lumen was referring to anything but the attempts at canonical and constitutional change. The consequence of some deposition might be inferred, but it will have to be by Lumen him or herself. As I commented already, is it clear what Lumen is after in his or her comment at all? So how did you make that into the deposition of Lawrence?
But, along with your continued thoughts there in that comment, are you saying that you think there will undoubtedly be some unilateral attempt at deposing Bp Lawrence “this next year?” As a “second best” trophy?
That might be the pressure from folks like the leadership of Integrity (and she is clearly their apostle), but the PB’s mainstay is the property (and their value) as a real (and I mean that in terms of real property) symbol of heritage. Thus, bishops to her are expendable. Just like the janitorial workers at 815, New York.
What good is to her to rid TECUSA of Lawrence (who has said nothing about going anywhere like Duncan did) and yet not sack the diocese? Even if she managed to also “remove” the Standing Committee without due process, she has no guarantee of anything different in replacement (and, Blue Cat, the PB does not simply slap a new bishop into place).
A different scenario is that the diocesan convention passes what its going to pass, and then warnings are laid out to SC pertaining to her NEXT convention to “do the right thing”. THEN, try something against the bishop and standing committee if warnings go unheeded. And as ammunition, it is quite clear that the office of litigation presumes all legal precedents will be accomplished in their favor within this next year (not the first time they thought that). They would use that precedent if accomplished to wage war incessantly. So let’s see what happens this weekend, and then give it a year.
I might add there will undoubtedly be TECUSA 815 “operatives” talking up dissension in SC at the convention this weekend. That’s not paranoia or fear-mongering on my part. They will attempt to be under the radar. Pay attention, call them out, publicize their connections.