From the diocese of Pittsburgh:
Calling a recent resolution by the Executive Council of the Episcopal Church a failed attempt to interfere in the internal constitutional processes of their dioceses, the chancellors of the Episcopal Dioceses of Fort Worth, Quincy, Pittsburgh and San Joaquin rejected claims that changes the dioceses had made to their accession clauses over the last fifteen years were null and void.
Can anyone give me a link to TEC’s declaration that the authority of Holy Scripture is null and void?
<blockquote> The Episcopal Church (TEC) has declared the authority of Holy scripture null and void so we are not surprised that its Executive Council attacks our diocesan constitutions because we reserve the right not to accede to TEC’s unbiblical actions.
Elves, it’s beyond me why the block quote did not work in my above post.
Br_er, your blockquote tags seem OK to me too, but I also cannot get them to work here on the new T19. Just a bug that will be sorted out soon, I suppose.
#3 & #4:
sometimes the html tags work, sometimes they don’t. It’s a mystery to us. And even our own comments have been affected. Our magical elvish powers are useless in the face of the blog’s determined capriciousness! LOL.
Greg G. knows about it and hopefully he’ll have some answer soon.
In the meantime, no harm done if you keep putting the code in. Even if it doesn’t always render properly, at least it helps make clear where the original quote began and ended, etc.
Bravo Pittsburgh! Bravo Quincy, Fort Worth, San Joaquin! Thanks for holding the line.
KTF!…mrb
Does leaving a space between the tag and the text affect the position?
#2. Lo they come with Writs descending. Most un-Christian.
Amazing how facile the Executive Council can be, isn’t it? Futile, too, I admit. In a national program to study the Draft Covenant, they got 411 replies. Natch’ they’re gonna render their opinion as somehow representative there too.
Democracy’s wonderful when you need to usurp the institution but it’s a real bear when you lose groupthink.
Autonomy. Autonomie. Anomie. Antinomie. Antinomy. Mai oui!
Is there something incompatible with the Executive Council’s resolution NAC-023 quoted above:
and the statement issued by the Executive Council:
http://www.episcopalchurch.org/79901_86883_ENG_Print.html
???
Calling a recent resolution by the Executive Council of the Episcopal Church a failed attempt to interfere in the internal constitutional processes of their dioceses,…
Oh the sweet irony! One can see it reading:
Calling a recent resolution by the Primates Meeting of the Anglican Communion a failed attempt to interfere in the internal constitutional processes of their Province,…
Isn’t that what reasserters always appeal to? The next level up?
Pageantmaster
The EC is simply putting in place the mechanism to remove these Bishops and declare their Sees vacant
Hey Brian,
I guess it depends on who gets to decide membership in the various bodies. If the Executive Council gets to determine membership of the dioceses in ECUSA, then their “attempted interference” won’t be a “failed attempt” at all. And if the Primates Meeting gets to determine membership of provinces in the Anglican Communion, then their “attempted interference” won’t be a “failed attempt” at all.
Unless you merely wish to call both statements by both bodies “requests” — which after all, if they have no authority, is all that they are anyway. But if they do have authority . . . ; > )
Unless you merely wish to call both statements by both bodies “requestsâ€â€”which after all, if they have no authority, is all that they are anyway.
The Primates have no authority, but a great amount of persuasive power. They can not force the actions of the ABC, but rather only exercise persuasion.
The Executive Council acts on behalf of the Lay House when they are between General Conventions. While I don’t think they have any authority to answer the questions asked directly of the HoB, nor to provide anything other than advice on APV, they do indeed have the power to institute lawsuits. First ++Katharine would need to inhibit the Bishops in question and then Executive Council could move to protect the Diocese from being looted. In that sense, they have much more than simple persuasive power
<blockquote>Badman wrote: Can anyone give me a link to TEC’s declaration that the authority of Holy scripture is null and void?http://andromeda.rutgers.edu/~lcrew/03_b001.html#resolution
Thanks Brian from T19 for your clarification of what is going on. The Primate of course have no power to ‘discipline’ as I hear the term used. The US Episcopal Church does of course have the power to leave a Communion they joined as an organisation. Similarly heads of provincial churches, assuming they have the authority of their churches have the power to decide that they are no longer in communion with the US Episcopal Church, as many have already. What it seems to me has sadly been missed in so much that one hears from the US Episcopal Church is that the Communique set out a procedure for bringing this church back into communion with the rest of the Communion as a whole and to remove the interventions by other provinces.
It looks like things will now get so entrenched that even this will become impossible although as a Christian I do of course believe that in Christ all things are possible.
As for the litigation, lots for lawyers to do.
RE: ” First ++Katharine would need to inhibit the Bishops in question and then Executive Council could move to protect the Diocese from being looted. In that sense, they have much more than simple persuasive power”
But that’s no different from saying “First Rowan Williams would need to deny invitations to Lambeth, and then the Primates could set up their Pastoral Council to maintain a Windsor diocese’s status in the Communion.”
I suppose the resolution of EC deserved a slapdown. But the best response is that of Bishop Akerman:
“I served on the executive council for six years,” he said. “It has very, very little authority.”
When did the Executive Council become a legislative body?
Can anyone cite the canonical authority for the Executive Council making such a pronouncement regarding internal diocesan matters?
Can anyone cite the canonical authority for the Executive Council making such a pronouncement regarding internal diocesan matters?
“After consent of the General Convention, when a certified copy of the duly adopted Constitution of the new Diocese, including an unqualified accession to the Constitution and Canons of this Church, shall have been filed with the Secretary of the General Convention and approved by the Executive Council of this Church, such new Diocese shall thereupon be in union with the General Convention.”
Article V, Section 1, Constitution of the Episcopal Church
“The rights and duties of the Standing Committee, except as provided in the Constitution and Canons of the General Convention, may be prescribed by the Canons of the respective Dioceses.”
Article IV, Constitution of the Episcopal Church
When did the Executive Council become a legislative body?
“The [Executive] Council shall exercise the powers conferred upon it by Canon, and such further powers as may be designated by the General Convention, and between sessions of the General Convention may initiate and develop such new work as it may deem necessary. It may, subject to the provision of this Canon, enact By-laws for its own government and the government of its several departments.”
Canon I.4.3.(e)
Sarah
RE: “ First ++Katharine would need to inhibit the Bishops in question and then Executive Council could move to protect the Diocese from being looted. In that sense, they have much more than simple persuasive powerâ€
But that’s no different from saying “First Rowan Williams would need to deny invitations to Lambeth, and then the Primates could set up their Pastoral Council to maintain a Windsor diocese’s status in the Communion.â€
he difference isn’t necessarily in the decision, but in the decider
#22 Brian,
O.K., let’s parse this. A diocese organizes itself with a constitution, including an accession clause, as prescribed by the GC’s consent process. The diocese then shall be “in union” with the GC. If the diocese amends its constitution to remove the accession clause, does that action not mean it no longer is in union with the GC? And doesn’t that mean the GC rules, regulations, and canons no longer necessarily apply? If a diocese has the required right to align itself voluntarily with the GC/TEC, does it not also have the right to reverse its decision? Or is the decision one of those once-in-always-in gotchas?
w.w.
All this talk of canon. I wonder what would happen if there were a coordinated effort among reasserters to enforce the canonical prohibition against “open communion”? Do the networking, gather the necessary signatures, files presentment charges. If nothing else, it will tie up the Review Committee for a while. It might also serve to illustrate that there is no self-discipline within TEC, and that canons are merely discretionary suggestions without force. (I’m still dumbfounded that the Review Committe could admit that Smith of CT could violate canon but that it’s OK; and that there was no uproar about that decision.)
This is all a waste of time. We all know that TEC inforces the Canons when it wants to and ignores them when it wants to. The reappraisers are in solid control of the machinery and they will always operate it to their advantage.
It would seem from the citations in #22 that neither joining or separating can be done unilaterally. Yes, a diocese does voluntarily join, but a concurring actions take place at the national level.
w.w.
I suppose it would be the same as when one spouse walks out of a marriage for their own reasons – the union is dissolved and the exiting spouse is no longer a part of that union.
The canons cited by Brian say nothing about 2 things:
1) can a diocese once formed change its constitution so that it no longer has an “unqualified accession”, i.e., remove itself from union with TEC?
2) does EC have the power to actually rewrite a diocesan constitution if it doesn’t like what is in it?
I think William Witt had the best line regarding the possibility of departure from TEC, at least from the reappraising perspective:
We are in the process of finding out if it is true…
#1. August 2003
TEC is the ecclesiastical Roach Motel. You can check in, but you can’t check out.
We are in the process of finding out if it is true…
Why is everyone arguing that people are not free to leave? You are completely free to leave. You lose the title of Anglican/Episcopalian and you are no longer a deacon/priest/bishop and you can’t steal your property, but you are entirely free to leave.
I may be wrong, but I believe that if rules and regulations of governing bodies are loosely, randomly, and intermittently inforced the law tends to increase the burden of proof for the organization seeking legal remedy to show that this is malicious in the enforcment. I also believe that you can not retroactively alter regulations with out consent of the regulated. You say could not alter a covenant in a neighborhood to restrict swimming pools after some one legally put in a swimming pool. I think TEC is on soft sand.
Should have said “not malicious”
RE: “After consent of the General Convention, when a certified copy of the duly adopted Constitution of the new Diocese, including an unqualified accession to the Constitution and Canons of this Church, shall have been filed with the Secretary of the General Convention and approved by the Executive Council of this Church, such new Diocese shall thereupon be in union with the General Convention.â€
I’m assuming that the Executive Council will need to make the decision as to whether the “new Diocese shall thereupon be in union with the General Convention” . . . and since the dioceses in question have changed their constitutions, we’ll see what is decided by the Executive Council and the machinery of the Episcopal church.
The amusing thing is that once it is decided that “such new Diocese shall thereupon [not] be in union with the General Convention”, the Diocese of Fort Worth, et al, will go right on claiming that they are indeed a diocese, and the lawsuits for the property will all begin.
Which is precisely the point of all the back and forthing going on by Executive Council and chancellors in advance. ; > )
Correct, it is impossible to “steal your property” as what is yours remains yours. The question of whether a diocese or a parish can leave TEC is exactly what is being decided right now. All the bluster in the world doesn’t make it impossible, ask Bruno.
RE: “he difference isn’t necessarily in the decision, but in the decider”
Like I said in comment #14, “I guess it depends on who gets to decide membership in the various bodies.”
If the Primates get to decide membership in the AC [subject to Canterbury], and the Executive Council gets to decide membership in the ECUSA [subject to PB], then it would seem that neither side is issuing empty threats.
But the real question is . . . does ECUSA wish to be a part of the Anglican Communion, and does the Diocese of Fort Worth wish to be a part of ECUSA. ; > )
In the former, I think yes, but with lots of conditions about their autonomy and freedom. In the latter . . . not so much!
So all of this will be about whether the Diocese of Fort Worth is still a diocese, though not in ECUSA. I have a feeling that I know which way the courts will decide on the property issues in regards to dioceses . . . but we won’t know for some decades yet, as the case will wind its way to the Supreme Court, along with the Virginia parish cases. I look forward to it.
RE: “and you are no longer a deacon/priest/bishop . . . ”
Correction. Actually you are no longer recognized as a priest of ECUSA, but your orders still remain valid. And recognized by the rest of the communion.
As the priest [or bishop] is leaving ECUSA, I’m not certain why he would wish to be acknowledged by ECUSA, any more than the African Primates would wish for that, or, as is apparent, why ECUSA Dear Leaders should wish to be acknowledged by the African Primates.
At some point, this will all shake out into two separate bodies, and I suspect that both bodies will acknowledge the various orders as “valid” but “not in communion.”
So we’re mailing the deed to Caterbury Catherdral to Rome, then, along with all our mitres? The Anglican Church was founded upon the idea that sections can break away from a corrupt main body.
Brian and Sarah:
1. ABC decides who is in communion with him and who is in the Anglican Communion.
2. ABC has stated that he decides #1 in consultation with the primates.
3. TEC Constitutional Preamble defines the TEC as being in communion with the ABC and in the Anglican Communion.
4. The Executive Council of the TEC decides who is really in the TEC.
The question is, who will be the real TEC GC and the real TEC Executive Council?
I think that all can agree that Rowan Williams is a very weak leader. And most of the primates aren’t really interested in disciplining TEC. But there is one thing that can and has rallied them in the past – TEC liberals going over the top.
So what happens if Sauls and Beers start their Great Purge and this motivates the primates to demand the ABC to take action. The ABC responds by revoking Lambeth invitations to most TEC bishops. Those TEC bishops that still have invitations suddenly ARE the REAL TEC. Not Sauls, not Crew.
Arguably, the ABC can determine who is in or not in TEC. That is in TEC’s constitution. TEC could delete that, but they haven’t.
The message keeps coming from 815 (in its various manifestations): “We will do what we please, and you will do what we say.”
I suspect (not being a lawyer, I cannot be sure) that this is passed not so much for what it can accomplish in itself, but for some legal ammunition later on. What happens regarding dioceses will probably depend a lot on the property laws of the state where the diocese is located and on what the diocese’s articles of incorporation say. Property law usually has sections relating to ecclesiastical bodies, in addition to more general property laws.
One can argue that an orthodox diocese has the right (and perhaps the duty) to withdraw from an apostate church — but given that civil courts will not, and should not, decide matters of doctrine, the cases will have to be decided on the basis of what the law says, including such things as the language of the laws themselves, the name on the deeds, and the the articles of incorporation. These cases will not be simple.