From The Living Church:
In other news, council approved a resolution declaring “null and void” attempts by a number of dioceses to revise their constitution to qualify their accession to the Constitution and Canons of the General Convention.
“Any amendment to a diocesan constitution that purports in any way to limit or lessen an unqualified accession to the constitution of The Episcopal Church is null and void, and be it further resolved that the amendments passed to the constitutions of the dioceses of Pittsburgh, Fort Worth, Quincy and San Joaquin, which purport to limit or lessen the unqualified accession to the constitution of The Episcopal Church are accordingly null and void and the constitutions of those dioceses shall be as they were as if such amendments had not been passed,” council stated in Resolution NAC-023.
After the resolution was approved, the Rt. Rev. Stacy Sauls, Bishop of Lexington, said Episcopalians had all agreed to live by certain principles and rules and that council believed it would be “helpful to have an authoritative statement [on the matter] with respect to any litigation that might occur in the future.”
Does Stacy Sauls have anything other then litigation on his mind? Perhaps litigation against orthodox Episcopalians is to be added to the MDG’s. No, wait. The MDG’s only demand 0.7% of the budget. I am sure Bp. Sauls would rather 815 spend considerably more then that.
This is amusing. The dioceses can tell the national church to pound sand.
Sounds like the war is now in full swing. I can’t wait to hear the responses of Bishops Iker, Schofield, Ackerman, and Duncan!!!
B-b-but wait a minute – shouldn’t this be one of those decisions that can only be made by General Convention, because of our polity?
These two actions by the Executive Council are a ‘declaration of independence’ from the Anglican Communion.
If a majority of the bishops decides to confirm ECUSA’s intransigence in September then ECUSA will truly be “walking alone” and it will be impossible to be both an Episcopalian and and Anglican.
The only fly in the ointment is the pre-mature issuing of invitations to Lambeth.
Does +++Williams really want to be the man who who could have prevented a massive schism of the Anglican Communion but permitted it to happen?
The good outcome is that the orthodox Anglicans will remain members of the Church catholic and will enjoy good ecumenical relations with the Roman and Orthodox churches.
The revisionists within ECUSA will become another Protestant splinter group.
And if +++Williams permits this to happen, what will the CofE’s position in the Church catholic be?
The EC meets to discuss the response to Dar es Salaam and, hey presto, out comes this amateurish and sloppily drafted resolution. The panic is palpable. And just as obvious, the EC has reached its conclusion and is preparing an extended middle finger to the Primates.
Give thanks to God for clarity.
For those remaining in TEC – how can you in good conscience continue to fund these “bishops”? How can you continue to fund their persecution of the orthodox? Do you not realize that every dollar you allow to flow to these jackals contributes to crushing the remaining vestiges of Christianity in the TEC?
Heh. I can’t help but smile.
“Any amendment to [my friend’s title to his beautiful 1870s country home with original wide pine board flooring and tiled roof] that purports in any way to limit or lessen an unqualified accession to the [the will of my friend passing on his house to me after his death] is null and void, and be it further resolved that the amendments passed to [any of my friends titles to their beautiful 1870s country homes with original wide pine board flooring and tiled roof, including those friends of mine named Flite, Austen, Eyre, Marsh, Wimsey, and Tey] which purport to limit or lessen the [the will of my friends passing on their houses to me after their death] are accordingly null and void and the [titles to those friends’ houses] shall be as they were as if such amendments had not been passed,†[Sarah] stated in Resolution NAC-023.
Whew. So much for diversity, huh? The velvet gloves of tolerance are off now, folks…. here comes the iron fist of liberal uniformity. Absolute and unqualified accession!
(Imagine B-movie German accent, slightly deranged: )
“You VILL obey zhe Exekutiff Counzil! You VILL!!!”
———————————————————————
(OFFICIAL NOTICE: The above comment by Mr. Hylden, which purports to subvert the will and polity of the Executive Council of the Episcopal Church, is hereby thereunto ipso facto habeus corpus rendered null and void. Heretofore named parties can either like it or stuff it.)
(ANOTHER OFFICIAL NOTICE: That is, unless Mr. Hylden should wish to worship Gaia the earth-spirit, or replace the 1982 Hymn Book with selections from Jimi Hendrix or the Grateful Dead, or to otherwise express his groovy young self in whatsoever manner of life he should choose, provided that such manner of life is, you know, with it, man. We’re cool with that. Stick it to the Man, little bro!)
To RalphM – I love my local church – and to avoid funding these “bishops” or the diocese or the ECUSA – my pledge comes in the form of WalMart gift cards. No money changer fees, they don’t expire and if maintenance is an issue – Lowes and Home Depot cards work well too.
D
Wow. The resolution specifically mentioning the four diocese is a clear sign that TEC intends to sue entire dioceses that break away. +Sauls had also given an earlier presentation in which it was suggested that civil RICO suits could be brought against those involved in attempts to create a break-away province. I thought at first that TEC would not be so stupid as to do that but I am not so sure anymore.
Hah. #4, you beat me to it!
Hendrix and jerry garcia would be preferableto these guys,,I should are preferable.
Amazing isn’t it. Only General Convention in 2009 can say what exactly GC2006 meant as far as the Windsor Report, but the Executive Council can pass a resolution declaring “null and void” and qualifiers to the god of the canons.
The Executive Council says only General Convention can speak for the Episcopal Church so they themselves can’t answer the Primates’ questions from Dar es Saaam. But it can turn around “and peak with authority” regarding diocesan canons. Now, will someone explain how one gets from point A to point B with any sort of logic old or new?
David: I think its called “deconstruction”, otherwise known as postmodernism. Words means exactly what I say they mean. There can be pluriform truths. You can be a vegetarian while eating meat at the same time. In the end, the only thing that matters is raw, naked power. And that seems to be the new obsession of the official organs of TEC.
Only General Convention can speak for TEC. Therefore, the votes of TEC bishops at Lambeth Conferences or Primates Meetings have no effect. Two of the Anglican so-called Instruments of “Communion” [sic] have been rendered null and void by TEC. Was it Dr. Seitz who wondered what Anglicanism would look like without instruments of communion? Behold.
What a bunch of nitwits.
Now, if the Lambeth invitations stand after both the HoB and now the EC’s clarity, then Rowan is shown to be a dupe and stooge of TEC. Will the orthodox then leave? Will the GS take real, substantive action?
Fear, and preparation for litigation in civil court.
Otherwise, I think EC is acting and not acting within their realm. It’s just way too lose all around. EC has gained a lot of latitude over the years to expand what otherwise would be “the interim body between GC’s.” That would include being a reference body speaking to internal issues and relying upon the Constitution and Canons to do so. They can speak to such things as Accession Clause amendments. This resolution sounds more like the Supreme Court interpreting the law, however, rather than simple exhortation.
As well, EC has no right to commit the entire denomination to external commitments. They have DONE so, but now they claim to be acting in accord.
Quite hypocritical. Way too loose. Should have just kept their mouths shut. Feeling their oats.
I am especially pained for the reasserters who are members of EC; I continue my prayers for their God-given opportunity for witness.
To dovetail into the ENS release and the public response from Dr. Douglas, which is another sign of how loose things are with EC, the PB’s office, and ENS, let’s see how far Ian’s format outrage goes.
RGEaton
You know that is a point I had not realized earlier, the best reply to Dr. Seitz really is the TEC. As we are showing that, there are no interments of unity, which we are willing to be subordinate to.
For some reason, Jesus told us to be ready to look beyond our physical possessions (and wealth, I suppose) and concentrate on the things of heaven.
Back in March I said that the schismatic TEC HOB rejected Canterbury-based Anglicanism in favor of independent American-based protestantism. That decision has been confirmed and endorsed by the EC. Do we really need GC2009 to ratify this? It is beyond obvious that TEC has no intention of ever heeding Lambeth ’98, the Windsor Report or the Dar Communique. Will the primates have anything to say about this?
Anonymous:
Yes, I think they will. Given the directness of ECUSA’s responses so far, it’s hard to see how they could do anything else.
It is a mystery to me how much longer anyone can cling to the absurd notion that TEC and AC traditionalists can be reconciled. What the action of the EC demonstrates yet again is that TEC is not only not chastened by the response of most of the AC provinces to the shenanigans of the TEC during the past few years, it is positively emboldened and even more contemptuous of tradtional Anglicanism than it was in 2003. This is a function of (1) quintessential revisionist hubris, and (2) the absolute impunity with which TEC has been able to operate during this time. How many times does the ABC and the rest of the AC have to be told by TEC to stick it?
#20 “there are no interments [sic] of unity”
I hope that’s a typo.
I’m not even sure that this is legal – at least not in my state. Each parish and diocese is an individual non-profit corporation with its own set of by-laws and regulations. And while it can be in relationship with other non-profit corps, they are still independent – by state law. How can a corporation from New York simply ‘insert’ itself into the life of another corporation in another state, void a legally voted upon by-law change and make itself the primary beneficiary of that action. In other words, Kendall can’t make himself the beneficiary of my will or declare that my property is really his property (I only hold it in trust for him). If/when the Denis Canon fails in court, I suspect that this might be the main issue.
Br_er Rabbit, it may be a typo, but it may well be true!
“Lambeth 2008: The Interment of Unity”
I don’t see us in the Diocese of San Joaquin changing our minds this October, based on this implied threat from the Executive Council. I believe that we will go ahead.
RevK,
I had the same thoughts. The document doesn’t make sense to me. And canonically, isn’t the national church is a creature of its constituent episcopates? How can it be the other way around?
There is a clumsiness to the text, like reading a pro se filing that declares the income tax laws null and void.
This action from the EC and their legal types, really reeks of anger and quite frankly, desparation.
#26 and others nailed the absurdity (in law) of a corporation (815,NY) without invitation, reaching into another corporation’s (DioSJ,CA et al) property and bank account. Could Microsoft do that to Apple?
Unless this unilateral action by the EC on behalf of 815 can somehow establish a legal precedent in NY that will somehow bind the corporate laws of all the other several states of the Union, this really is an exercise in pounding sand.
Interesting legal strategy. TEC is trying to say that they are a hierarchal Church, and the ascension clauses are inviolate, and the Denis Canon establishes a trust relationship with the parish property and so forth. At the same time, TEC is part of the AC, which is itself somewhat hierarchal, allowing for the argument that Truro etc are breaking away from TEC to remain in communion with the AC and other provinces, and should be allowed to keep their property.
By disallowing the ascension clauses, they are trying to remain hierarchal within US law, but not hierarchal within the overall AC Communion, yet their headline is that they are committed to common life in the AC.
The other danger for TEC of claiming hierarchal status, is that if an Episcopal minister is convicted of fondling little boys, that TEC is hierarchal can mean that 815 has liability.
TEC’s little heirarchical ploy coupled with its complete rejection of the Anglican Communion Instruments of Unity is a very risky game to play. It depends entirely on Matt Kennedy being right and the ACI & Co. being wrong.
Because if the ACI is correct and Rowan Williams suddenly sprouts a backbone and disinvites TEC bishops, then TEC’s hierarchy game can boomerang back against them. The Preamble to TEC’s constitution makes it very clear who belongs to TEC – and that is ONLY those bishops and dioceses in communion with Canterbury and the Anglican Communion. Any diocese or bishop not in such Communion would, by definition of the TEC constitution, NOT BE TEC!!! They would be trespassers on TEC property and not eligible to partake in the “real” TEC General Convention.
So, folks, this is added reason why there should be no precipitate action by the conservatives YET. Wait for now. The game will be up within the year one way or the other. If TEC continues to reject the AC and Rowan Williams can be pressured into concrete discipline, then we would get complete and total victory. We need to hang in and dial up that pressure on the Great Bearded One, but don’t UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES break our formation!
Jamesw [#32], as far as the U.S. courts are concerned (which is what matters where property is concerned), your argument that the TEC hierarchy goes all the way to the ABC is likely to be a non-starter. See “Bishop Duncan Needs Better Lawyers” for more details from a legal perspective.
32 james,
What’s to stop TEC from amending the preamble to TEC’s Constitution?
I hate to feed trolls, but I must: 33, D.C. (“The Questioning Christian”) wrote
This assertion is, to borrow your phrase, “a non-starter” in and of itself. Property law in the US varies from state to state and resists generalizations of the sort you have made. Moreover, the question of whether TEC is a hierarchichal entity or not is largely a question of fact, which is going to be decided by trial judges scattered all over the country, and accorded great deference by courts on appeal. The whole issue of hierarchy may be irrelevant in states like Virginia, which have statutes that authorizes church members to vote who gets property in the event of a church division. The bottom line is that the issue of property is likely to be resolved differently in different jurisdictions, notwithstanding the “one-size-fits-all” pleadings of TEC and its diocesan minions.
Yes, that was a typo assisted by spell-check while working on something else. I had really meant to say instruments there, but as I continue to consider what was said today, interment may actually fit.
But moving on to a second question how do we define “precipitate action”? I think that is the more important question as I consider the material released today. Where can we, where should we, set the trigger point for departure? Where do local issues play into it? I understand the concern for not being hasty, but I am wondering where we are in relationship to an institutional point of non-recovery?
Anxious Anglican [#35] writes: “Property law in the US varies from state to state and resists generalizations of the sort you have made.”
AA, your response doesn’t address the question being discussed. Jamesw’s comment in #32, to which I was responding, addressed the specific question of hierarchy, and thus was implicitly referring to those states that defer to a hierarchical church’s hierarchy:
You’re indeed correct that some states may apply “neutral principles” instead of deferring to the TEC hierarchy, but that doesn’t help us much here.
As to trial judges deciding the facts, the evidentiary facts about TEC’s hierarchical character are going to be largely the same in every case (there may be parochial- or diocesan variations here and there). The conclusions of law drawn from the evidence will be fully reviewable by the appellate courts — including the Supreme Court of the United States if federal questions such as the Free-Exercise Clause are implicated.
It should be interesting, but it’s a pity we can’t spend the time and money on other things. (A few days ago I elaborated on this in Property ought to go where it can be best used.)
According to the Polity of The Episcopal church, the Council does not have the authority or power to approve either of the named resolutions in the article.
The House of Bishops similarly lacks the authority and power to make such resolutions. Any such resolution must emanante from GC 2009, GC 2012, and so on, since only the General Conventions are dispositive. Is not that what we have been told?
When did the Council obtain the authority over the diocesan constitutions? Would not such authority derive from the Canons? Only a General Convention can amend the Canons.
It is the case that the famous Denis Canon was adopted without benefit of following the extant system for revision of the Canon at the time, and in the years following the adoption of the Denis Canon saw a mysterious change take place in the public record of said amendment. It is also the case that the Denis Canon engaged in a wholesale appropriation of rights and properties over which ECUSA had no prior rights, and in fact many of the churches swept up in the Denis Canon pre-dated PECUSA itself.
That is called an ex post facto law, and such laws have long been regarded as pernicious. The reason is simple: you cannot protect yourself from breaking a law if the law is not enacted until after you broke it.
So apparently the Polity of TEc is whatever they say it is. And the Canons of TEc are whatever they say they are. And all rulings are final until they are not final any more. And anybody who disagrees will be deposed and defrocked. So there.
Oh Captain, My Captain, have you noticed that the boat is sinking, ma’am?
One encouraging thing: We do not yet know whether the Primates will let TEC get away with this. After Sept 30, will the Primates sit still for “We can’t do anything until the Ceneral Convention meets and, besides, we run our own show here without reference to any of our brothers in the Communion, blessings be on them”?
The discouragement and noise right now is all coming from TEC. The Primates haven’t spoken much, but their actions in the elevating of Mr Atwood speak fairly firmly. They haven’t “spoken” yet because it isn’t Sept 30 yet; what counts is what they say/do after giving TEC promised amount of rope.
In faith, Dave
Viva Texas