Two Episcopal bishops will hold Sunday services this fall at The Episcopal Church of the Good Shepherd, a new worship community in Summerville.
Two Episcopal bishops will hold Sunday services this fall at The Episcopal Church of the Good Shepherd, a new worship community in Summerville.
Bishop Taylor is my bishop in Western NC and a very good preacher. I hope interested Episcopalians in the area will worship with him,
I thought today’s reigning mantra was ‘only GC can *create* a diocese’ — so how does this entity in SC qualify to be called a diocese? Isn’t it simply that collective of parishes left over when the Diocese of SC disassociated? Strictly speaking it is not a diocese. It might be a diocese-in-formation, to appeal to GC in 2015. But that is also awkward…
Faux Die-o-cese, is the term for this entity without canonical, juridical or historical existence, although Potemkin has a lot going for it.
Well, to be fair, “diocese” is not used in the article to describe the new TEC entity in SC- in fact, the article does not mention Dio of SC, or the “Episcopal Church in South Carolina”- just the dioceses of the visiting bishops. And for that matter, the Good Shepard entity is referred to as a “worship community” rather than a parish- so not sure where any of this is in the greater TEC scheme of things. To read it, you might think that St. Paul’s was the only church that left TEC last autumn.
cseitz (and I am assuming you are the good Dr. Seitz of ACI), I am a bit surprised to read your post, simply because I had not read anything along the same lines from Communion Partners, although of course, your personal opinion (which as expressed is similar to my own), the ACI opinion and CP opinion are not necessarily identical.
For Dr. Seitz or anyone who might know- I am curious on the position of the Communion Partner bishops (or CP as a whole) on the TEC entity (that I would agree is not a diocese) in SC? My understanding is that 815 and the majority of TEC bishops are viewing vonRosenburg’s jurisdiction as the heir of the diocese of SC, and functionally a diocese- or from their point of view, THE diocese of SC. I assume the CP bishops have a more “nuanced” approach, but given the current climate in TEC, probably have to keep a “moderate” position (by TEC standards) lest there be more “conciliations” or depositions. One can only assume the Communion Partners recognize it in some form. My understanding is that +Dan Martins has even extended DEPO type oversight to one of the formerly Anglo Catholic parishes that remains traditional enough to have some issues with the current administration of TEC- I assume he must work fairly closely with vonRosenburg in order to make this work. Am I misinformed?
Of course, please don’t answer any of the above if the answer might in some way be detrimental to any of the CP bishops. In the current climate of TEC, it is not outside the realm of possibility that a bishop could be charged with something based on a blog conversation between 2 commenters.
It does appear that the work of ACI and other traditional groups is beginning to bear some fruit in the courts. Clearly the judges are coming to realize that the polity of TEC, its history and its application are not, necessarily, the way they are portrayed by current TEC leadership.
Actually this seemed like quite an upbeat article to me. A new parish quadrupling its size in 9 months Not a single negative word regarding any other person or entity. I’m surprised it warranted such angry negative comments.
How many parishioners has the Diocese of South Carolina lost over the last year?
#4 You make an interesting point. Apparently the T19 headline is using the language ‘Diocese’ — not the article as such. I would be cautious about using that term.
Though ACI colleagues sought to originate and encourage the entity now calling itself ‘CP’, we are not directly involved.
My point was from a different angle. Those opposing the SCOT ruling (evacuating any ‘Dennis Canon’ trust claim) want to insist that the Diocese of Dallas (and others in TX) has no status that GC did not ‘create’. Though there was a Bishop and more than a dozen sizeable parishes, which petitioned GC to associate with TEC, the argument is that TEC/GC ‘creates dioceses.’ Hence, they are not entities which could in turn opt to disassociate.
Yet when it comes to this entity in SC, where no GC ‘creation’ is in play, it is a ‘Diocese’ all the same.
I accept that the public record may have been more cautious, but as with SS blessing rites being different than SS marriage, in the end it all swims together into a new understanding. Parishes left in the former Diocese of SC somehow become a ‘diocese’ in the general discourse. Yet all the progressive logic has been to demand a GC ownership of the diocesan entities.
Taylor, a revisionist, is an appropriate choice of speaker for the faux diocese.
#6- Over the years, I have done some reading on the origins of TEC, and of course, there were bishops and dioceses before there was a TEC (or PECUSA). And the same is true for many dioceses that would later join TEC.
I think that the current legal/canonical fiction is to maintain the stance that each diocese is a subsidiary of the unincorporated voluntary association TEC is absurd, and that courts are beginning to see that. However, until TEC has exhausted every option, I think we can expect them to try to maintain that fiction.
I suspect the answer for them will be to follow the path they chose in Quincy, where the TEC “diocese” dissolved and merged into the Diocese of Chicago. But before they can do that with the group in SC, they need to make sure they have all the court cases filed, and since they are already anticipating a loss in local courts, one can be sure they will keep the entity together through the appeal process.
Victory in Quincy. Story to follow soon. Judge rules that TEC lacks explicit documentation for ‘hierarchy’ claims.