Resolved, That Episcopalians in the Dioceses of Fort Worth, Pittsburgh, Quincy and San Joaquin–lay and clergy–be commended for their unflagging efforts to continue to witness to God’s mission as The Episcopal Church during recent difficult times as they reorganize their continuing dioceses in that same spirit; and be it further
Resolved, That the leadership in each of those four continuing dioceses be commended for their similar efforts, including in particular the Rt. Rev. C. Wallis Ohl, Provisional Bishop of the Diocese of Fort Worth; the Rt. Rev. Kenneth L. Price, Assisting Bishop of the Diocese of Pittsburgh; the Rt. Rev. John C. Buchanan, Provisional Bishop of the Diocese of Quincy; and the Rt. Rev. Chester L. Talton, Provisional Bishop of the Diocese of San Joaquin, and especially the strong lay leadership of each dioceses.
You may read more there.
Update: You can check to see the headline chosen by the TEC affiliated diocese of Fort Worth there.
Did the FW9 abstain or did they say yes since it was by roll call?
The TEC affiliated diocese stated “unanimously”. Did the oppressed Bishops vote for this…or as TL2 says, “abstain”?
ENS was even baffled about the unanimousness of the vote, but Anglican Ink states and corrects it to say that it was a voice vote instead of a roll call vote.
The resolution wisely says nothing, since nothing could be said. Anything of substance would have jeopardized the ongoing court cases.
The resolution doesn’t appear to admit the 4 reorganizing dioceses to General Convention. It refers to “Episcopalians in the Dioceses of…” but does not say “in the TEC Dioceses of…”.
I’ll bet the 815 legal staff enjoyed the last couple of days. The extra legal fees will make many a payment on their Bentleys.
Can’t access the link to the TEC FW headline. Is there another way there?
As +Buchanon says publically, the Mind of the House statement evades the actual question being called. No, in other words, the HOB did not clarify the hierarchy in terms congenial to the TEC legal case. Instead, they changed the subject….
At least they didn’t call it Christ’s mission. And as to it being the Lord’s… no doubt He even allows Mrs Schori a part in the economy of Salvation. Nebuchadnezzar, too.
Katherine Schori’s assertion about the voting being unanimous is obviously spin.
Mind you, I am happy to believe anything she says, provided it is corroborated by a reliable source.
A unanimous vote to a set of anodyne resolutions. I’m not sure what that actually effects. +Buchanon makes it clear it does not speak substantively to the matter of hierarchy. The Courts will not attend to this in any way affirming of TEC’s claims.
I always vote for mom and apple pie. But at the very least some of the people of those entities haven’t been nice. That is not a good witness.
Sorry, but, #2, it’s “unanimity”; and # 6, it’s “publicly” (Can’t help it. I’m compulsive about spelling>)
#11 — just FYI.
“The Columbia Guide to Standard English says there is no difference between the two words; they are just two different spellings.”
#7 But there is a major difference between KJS and Nebuchadnezzar. The undoubtedly pagan king at least gave the Lord he saw in the blazing furnace the due of which he was capable. (“I see four men walking about in the fire, and the form of the fourth is as a son of gods.”) And Nebuchadnezzar repented of his pride and gave the glory to the God of Israel after he was was chastised with the mind and life of a beast for seven periods of time, as Daniel has prophesied to him. As for KJS, Isaiah’s prophecy (Isaiah 6:9-11), repeated by Jesus, applies instead.