Local leaders, along with those from the wider church, are already making plans for the continuation of the Diocese of San Joaquin following a vote to disassociate from the Episcopal Church.
Michael Glass, a San Rafael, California-based attorney who represents congregations and individual Episcopalians who wish to remain in the Episcopal Church, told Episcopal News Service (ENS) December 11 that he, local leaders, Chancellor to the Presiding Bishop David Booth Beers, and leaders from Episcopal dioceses surrounding San Joaquin “are coming together very soon to finalize our coordinated efforts to provide for the leadership needs, the legal and pastoral issues, and the financial concerns of our brothers and sisters in San Joaquin, and to provide for the continuation of the diocese.”
The Rev. Robert Moore will meet with the group as well. Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori appointed Moore “to provide an ongoing pastoral presence to the continuing Episcopalians in the Diocese of San Joaquin,” said the Rev. Charles Robertson, canon to the Presiding Bishop.
Moore is the husband of Bishop Suffragan Bavi Edna “Nedi” Rivera of Olympia, the daughter of San Joaquin Bishop John-David Schofield’s predecessor, Bishop Victor Rivera.
“The Presiding Bishop wants the people of San Joaquin to be assured of her prayers and also of her support in the coming days,” Robertson said.
Now that’s a whole new definition for the “continuing church.”
I hope they don’t plan to cross borders. “Oh, but we don’t recognize the diocese of San Joaquin, Southern Cone.” To which I respond, I don’t recognize the TEC as a Christian church.
Why in the world would they set up a diocese of 5 parishes and maybe 400 ASA? Wouldn’t it make sense to incorporate them into the surrounding dioceses?
Did ya’ll notice that they plan to sue “a representative sample of departing congregations”. I wonder if they mean random or the ones with money. That is shocking. The Episcopal Church appears to be run by truly bad people. Personel generally equates with policy. I sure wish the orthodox would come up with an aggressive counterattack strategy – Every week a WSJ ad could detail all of the bad acts and unChristian statements made by our worthy opponents. Surely a hard hitting PR campaign would cause them to bleed.
“Moore is the husband of Bishop Suffragan Bavi Edna “Nedi” Rivera of Olympia, the daughter of San Joaquin Bishop John-David Schofield’s predecessor, Bishop Victor Rivera.”
Note the sly implication. The husband of the daughter of +Bp Schofield’s predecessor has been called on to provide “ongoing pastoral presence.” Think that is just coincidence?
The clear implication is that +Bp Schofield’s predecessor never would have taken this action, and that everyone in the Diocese of San Joaquin where just happy loyal Episcopalians until the evil +Bp Schofield led the flock astray.
It was interesting to see the photospread on the story in AOL recently. There was an unflattering photo of +Bp Schofield looking rumpled and tired with his feet spread apart sitting on a chair, then one of VGR in full regalia then a sign from VGR’s consecration saying “this way to hell” then an image (looking up, which is always flattering) of the PB with an angelic looking female priest next to her. Anyway, I felt that this is the way reasserters are being parodied/portrayed in the press…as fire-and-damnation cranks…
Apart from the scurrilous quote from an “unnamed person” ascribing to +Schofield a financial threat directed toward missionary vicars, we have the following quote which is more in the way of hard news:
[blockquote] Speaking from diocesan offices in Fresno, California, where phones are being answered with the greeting “Anglican Church offices,” [canon to the ordinary Rev.] Gandenberger said he did not know how much time parishes have to discern their future, and added that mission congregations cannot participate in such a process. [/blockquote]
So I’m wondering: how many mission churches are there? Are they all missions of the diocese, or were some of them (“daughter churches”) planted by other parishes? If they are diocesan churchplants, clearly the vicar is a representative of the bishop and should toe the bishop’s line. If they are parish churchplants (even though, technically, they are creatures of the diocese) shouldn’t they have an opportunity for “discernment”?
Charity. Let us remember Charity.
A million bucks for litigation. I hope getting their way is worth it.
Br’er Rabbit [#7] writes: “… clearly the vicar is a representative of the bishop and should toe the bishop’s line.”
That’d be true if there were still a bishop. But there’s not, the incumbent having abandoned the position last Saturday.
This is another example of poor leadership by the Presiding Bishop. Among other errors, she is now pouring effort and money into a lost cause for TEC–the SJ Diocese of the Episcopal Church. She is spinning her wheels to make a point and to paint a facade that things are great. She does nothing that is actually effective towards creating health in TEC. She should have bent over backwards like she is doing now to accomodate the diocese before it left, but she has her agenda and this is it—not the health of TEC. I cannot imagine that those who even agree with her doctrines have objectively considered her effectiveness as a leader…she is failing miserably yet as long as she says the things they want to hear they turn a blind eye to results.
D.C. – For shame, and you a lawyer. You know full well that the Diocese of San Joaquin and its bishop John-David Schofield still exist. They have just realigned with another Province. There are no canons or constitutional provisions at all in TEC which prohibit a diocese from realigning. If you think there are, please quote the SPECIFIC LANGUAGE to support your position.
Jamesw [#12], there’s no language in TEC’s constitution or canons to prohibit a diocese (legally a creature of General Convention) from seceding, in the same way that there’s no language in state constitutions to prohibit a city (legally a creature of the state legislature) from seceding — secession simply isn’t in the universe of accepted possibilities.
In one respect the case against a diocese’s power to secede from TEC is even stronger than it would be for a city to secede from a state:
• Unlike the situation in TEC, cities’ mayoral elections don’t require the approval of either 1) the state legislature or 2) a majority of other mayors and city councils.
• In contrast, TEC bishop elections need the approval of either a) General Convention or b) a majority of other bishops and standing committees.
secession simply isn’t in the universe of accepted possibilities.
Apparently, it is.
Phil, is this then evidence for an expanding universe?
Phil [#14], if the mayor and city council of Fresno announced that they and their supporters had voted to secede from California, I’m sure Ahh-nuld would quickly send state troopers to evict the secessionists from city property. If the ex-mayor and council tried to spend city money, they’d find themselves occupying city property again, this time property they might previously have tried to avoid. In due course, the state government would organize elections for a replacement mayor and council.
#16: “Your premise- the diocese is a creation of the “national church”- is flawed; therefore, your conclusions, though consistent with your premise, are, likewise flawed.
D.C., what I meant was, apparently it is within the TEC universe, since it just happened.
Stuart Smith [#17], according to the SJ Web site, “As with all dioceses in the state of California, the diocese of San Joaquin was carved out of the original Diocese of California.” This happens under TEC’s constitution and canons in approximately the same way that a new city is incorporated in many states, or a new state is admitted to the Union: through an act of the ‘legislature,’ in this case General Convention. The DSJ can no more ‘secede’ from TEC without GC’s approval than its cathedral city of Fresno could secede without the California Legislature’s approval, or than the State of California could secede without Congress’s approval.
7 BR – I think there are at least 8 incorporated churches in the diocese. Therefore, the “sampling” of lawsuits will likely be aimed at them. In general, they are the larger (ASA and $$) congregations in the diocese. It is also interesting that Bishop Vic’s daughter enters the fray, at least indirectly. Her father would not allow her to serve in his diocese because he did not allow the ordination of women. I did not know him well, but I recall he was much like +Schofield in his theology.
#20,
Just to let you know, Victor Rivera managed to come around on that issue. In fact, he was one of the consecrators for this daughter at her episcopal ordination. Then at the end of the liturgy, he presented her with a cope he used when he served as bishop in San Joaquin.
Re: #21,
Sad, really, for Victor Rivera to have defended orthodoxy his whole life long, and then to find that “blood is thicker than belief;” really, really sad.
Also, is Robert Moore “Bishop Nedi’s” first husband, or not?
Kevin, Tighe,
I know that usma87 brought the Rivera’s into this thread, and probably without realizing how people would jump on the reference, but REALLY —
the elves must not be watching, perhaps sleeping like they should be in their time zone, to allow you both to try to hijack this thread onto women’s ordination.
What do either of you know of the nature of Bp Victor’s physical and mental well-being at the time he “came around” or gave the cope?
These comments were gratutious and obnoxious. I can only hope they are removed.
RGEaton
D.C., it’s a done deal! LIVE with it! Any statements to the contrary are pure folderol.
D,C, (19),
You’ve quoted me. Is there something of literal value you wanted to know?
RGEaton
Mr. Eaton,
Wow, talk about inadvertantly hitting a nerve. “Hijacking” is a rather strong word that doesn’t seem very appropriate in this case. Actually, I was simply stating that some people do manage to change, including Bp. Victor Rivera. I was a member of Nedi Rivera’s parish at the time and was quite fond of the times he would come to visit. It is rather insulting to him to suggest that his change of opinion can simply be explained away as physical or mental deterioration.
Getting back to the thread, I wish Bob Moore the best in this hard task he has taken on, and I will keep the remaining faithful Episcopalians in the Diocese of San Joaquin in my prayers. They’ve been abandoned by their bishop and left out to dry, but there is a wonderful opportunity now to show the Christian love and creativity that the Episcopal Church can muster in the new mission field.
Kevin
(cont. from 26)
P.S. The best part of the story about the Riveras, however, is that both of them managed to stay together in one church and in one family. They knew they had strongly opposing views at the time but also knew that each one was coming from a strong core of faith. Christian charity kept them together. Charity, unfortunately, is something [b][i]sorely[/i][/b] lacking at the present time, especially in these online forums.
Kevin
Re: #27,
Yes, it’s a pity (on your reasoning) that the Arians and the Athanasians, or the Novatianists and the Catholics couldn’t “have managed to stay together in one church and in one family.” Back then, those benighted folks thought that truth in both doctrine and practice trumped “unity” every time. I’m glad we know better today!
Kevin,
Well, there you go – you stepped in it. Tried to save you from that. I further encourage not to step into the family business.
On “hijacking”, I use the elves’ very words when WO is inserted into non-WO threads. Take that up with them.
RGEaton
Well, I tried to bring it back to the topic at hand. “That-which-shall-not-be-named” will not be named, discussed, or alluded to. I’ll now go back to praying for those in San Joaquin who were abandoned by their bishop . . . except that they were pretty much abandoned years ago.