the Diocese of San Joaquin has welcomed the Archbishop of Canterbury’s Advent letter to the Primates, seeing it as a validation of its secession from The Episcopal Church to the Church of the Province of the Southern Cone.
“I find it difficult to imagine any other reading of Canterbury’s Advent letter than the intent to recognize ”” or maybe I should say, to allow San Joaquin to be recognized as a legitimate member of the Anglican Communion,” Diocesan spokesman the Rev Van McCalister (pictured) told The Church of England Newspaper. In his Dec 14 Advent letter to the Primates, Dr Williams distinguished between the various responses made by North American traditionalists to the disputes over doctrine and discipline.
I find it difficult to imagine any other reading of Canterbury’s Advent letter than the intent to recognize — or maybe I should say, to allow San Joaquin to be recognized as a legitimate member of the Anglican Communion,†Diocesan spokesman the Rev Van McCalister
Yeah, it’s hard to see it any other way when your credibility is at stake. Since the leaders have promised their people that they are still members of the Anglican Communion, they have to read it that way or admit they have mislead their flock. The truth is much more open to interpretation.
Spin we must, Brian. But I don’t think I’ve seen any spin from the reappraiser side that makes the Archbishop’s letter a Good Thing.
No Bre’er and hopefully you won’t. There is no question that he hit TEC hard and was especially correct about our faulty view of the role of bishop in the Church.
Not to mention, Brian, that revisionist bishops are theologically on the outside looking in. But don’t fret too much; nothing at all is going to be done about it.
Would that Howe, MacPherson, Stanton, Salmon (Lawrence), etc., and the people and clergy of their dioceses take note.
Say what you will, but you can’t read it any other way if you read it.
RE: “Say what you will, but you can’t read it any other way if you read it.”
Why not? Look what revisionists have done with scripture for instance?
I think that the past four years is pretty clear. Revisionists can read any document in exactly any way that they desire!!!! ; > )
[blockquote] I think that the past four years is pretty clear. Revisionists can read any document in exactly any way that they desire!!!! ; > ) [/blockquote]
Indeed, I think that San Joaquin’s reading of RW’s letter is at least as accurate as the Joint Standing Committee’s reading of New Orleans.
If the revisionists can ignore what the Bible says about homosexuals, why conservatives Anglicans must to accept all
the nonsenses that comes from Rowan and from the Anglican Communion Office.
It’s only because, like the Constitution, they are [i]living[/i] documents, Sarah. To which the proper response is the famous line from Josey Wales: “Dyin’ ain’t much of a livin’.”
I doubt that my opinion will matter much, but here is about the way I think San Joaquin’s cessation will finally pan out. The matter of the property will wind up in the courts, and the TEC will retain the property.
The TEC will not grow there. They will not grow because people are tired of hearing about liberal issues. People want to know “what must I do to be saved?” and they will not go to the old buildings with TEC leadership. So. . . in about twenty or twenty-five years, most of the buildings can be bought pretty cheap, and probably by the San Joaquin – Southern Cone faithful. Result: pretty much what the Spirit wants to have happen, happens.
jkc1945, I am not pessimistic about the diocese of San Joaquin at all. One can listen to the chancellor’s report of San Joaquin [url=http://www.anglicantv.org/blog/index.cfm/2007/12/15/Diocese-of-San-Joaquin-2007-Chancellors-Report ]here[/url].
I think that the past four years is pretty clear. Revisionists can read any document in exactly any way that they desire!!!! ; > )
Ah, but Sarah, from a pragmatic standpoint – our reading has been right! As Jeffersonian correctly states above But don’t fret too much; nothing at all is going to be done about it.
#6 Mark McCall:
However, one should also continue reading the bit that follows immediately — literally the very next sentence — after where you cut off:
The ABC may acknowledge that dioceses like San Joaquin are still part of the Anglican Communion, but that doesn’t mean that he’s happy about them breaking away to other provinces or that he thinks this is a productive venture.
I would think the post from Mr McCall was to rebut the seemingly constant barrage from a certain other poster that these dioceses and parishes are no longer a part of the Communion. As for the ABC being “happy” with it or not, well a lot could be resolved if he would just get off the fence and actually lead. I’m sure that would make everyone happy rather than the limbo even he acknowledges the Communion has been stuck in for about 4 years.
re Diocese of San Joaquin and property: I speculate that the courts will find that the diocese does not own any parish property. It probably owns mission property. I bet that 815 is not found on any property documents in San Joaquin, and thus has no standing to file any lawsuit at all.
Yes. The Diocese of San Joaquin owns mission property. The Episcopal Diocese of San Joaquin, that is. The group which has affiliated with the Southern Cone has disowned all property.
This is more than spin. This is delusional!
[blockquote]As Jeffersonian correctly states above But don’t fret too much; nothing at all is going to be done about it. [/blockquote]
One places his money on a deviation from Canterburian inertia at one’s peril.
#17 You know that the diocesan Standing Committee has done no such “disowning” of its property. Why make up stuff that simply has not happened? The diocese is incorporated in the state of California, and has legal property in that state. Your complaint is whether that Diocesan Convention has committed an illegal action in eliminating its relationship with ecusa, and therefore made any of its current and future actions of its Standing Committee null and void.
Try at least to state matters reasonably and with some bearing to legal reality.
Ross, #14
I agree, but there is much he is unhappy with these days.
As to the ownership of real and personal property in California, that is now in the hands of the California Supreme Court. Its decision in the next year or so will have a profound influence on the shape of Anglicanism in this country, and there is nothing any of us can do about that now.
As to the Episcopal Diocese of San Joaquin, it is now affiliated with the Southern Cone and has no more to do with the DFMS (TECUSA, Inc.) than the Episcopal Church of Rwanda, which also operates quite successfully in this country.
John B. Chilton, what constitutes the Episcopal Diocese of San Joaquin now…..since we faithful Anglicans were forced to leave for the Province of the Southern Cone? And yes, we WERE forced! At last count, there are only five parishes left, with approximately 800 or so parishioners between them…..at least on the books.
Oh, and by the way: Bishop Schofield is still the Corporation Sole, and thus the Anglican Diocese of San Joaquin owns the missions……mine included. Don’t be too sure that the California Supreme Court will say that he doesn’t; in this state, he who owns the deed owns the property, and the Court is taking a very close look at the Dennis Canon and how it applies in California.
And yes, we WERE forced!
Ridiculous hyperbole. Don’t try to make YOUR choice seem like it was anything other than choice.
We’re going to have to mark this date, Brian, because I agree with you a second time. It indeed was a voluntary act DioSJ took to remove itself from TEC, no doubt about it. TEC was perfectly willing to allow the diocese to remain and gradually erode its orthodoxy as it has elsewhere. The diocese just saw the writing on the wall before that could happen and removed itself from TEC.
The “choice” was similar to that given to the Jews in the desert:
[blockquote]This day I call heaven and earth as witnesses against you that I have set before you life and death, blessings and curses. Now choose life, so that you [b]and your children may live[/b].[/blockquote]
It is obvious that Bp Schofield and the people and clergy were, indeed, thinking about their children. I wrote this on SF but it seems appropriate:
Bp Schofield saw the impending dead end in the road. For San Joaquin, it occurred earlier. In some sense, in other dioceses where the bridge is out further down the road, the delay is unfortunate. Claims of differentiation are short sighted. One is dooming if not one’s children then one’s grandchildren to the fate of diocese of San Diego where a liberal bishop was placed and is now persecuting honest Christians. People of South Carolina, imagine a Bp Andrew Smith at your helm, locking faithful out of their churches. This is your future. And come GC 2009, there will be no escaping that future.