The Most Rev. Hector “Tito” Zavala, Bishop of Chile and Presiding Bishop of the Anglican Province of South America, made his comments in clear English during a meeting at the Cathedral Church of St. Luke and St. Paul, Charleston, May 20. He said that, despite the Diocese’s separation from the Episcopal Church in 2012, the Diocese continues to be recognized as Anglicans by the majority of the worldwide Anglican Communion.
“I’m here with you with the consent of the Archbishop of Canterbury,” said Bishop Zavala. He told those gathered that Justin Welby, the Archbishop of Canterbury, was with the Global South Primates “Steering Committee” in a meeting in Cairo, Egypt in 2014 when “we decided to establish a Primatial Oversight Council to provide pastoral and primatial oversight to some dioceses in order to keep them within the Communion” said Bishop Zavala.
Is it true that a spokesman for Archbishop Welby has said the statements by Bishop Zavala are misleading? Did Archbishop Welby actually approve oversight by the Global South Primates? If not why would the Bishop say he did? This is very confusing.
[blockquote] “Is it true that a spokesman for Archbishop Welby has said the statements by Bishop Zavala are misleading?” [/blockquote]
Not that I can see. After reading your question, I looked at the Archbishop of Canterbury’s website, the Anglican Communion website, Anglican Ink, Virtue Online, and did a google news search. A few statements by the ABC are reported, but nothing at all to do with this topic.
Which raises the issue: Did you have a basis for asking this question, or was it perhaps an attempt at creating innuendo?
[blockquote] “Did Archbishop Welby actually approve oversight by the Global South Primates?” [/blockquote]
He was present when they announced it. If he didn’t approve, then it is surely up to him to say so – but I don’t think he has ever given any indication that he did not approve, so why even ask the question?
[blockquote] “This is very confusing.” [/blockquote]
Or perhaps some would like it to be confusing.
Michael,
The liberal blogs are reporting that some “spokesperson” for Lambeth Palace has stated that the ABoC did not, in fact, give formal approval to the plan for primatial oversight as delineated by Dar, or the GS version put forward last year for S Carolina (although admitting he was at the meeting, states it was already decided before he got there, and he was “informed” of it). According to the Piskies quotation of what the spokesperson said, the ABoC considers the relationship between GS and S Carolina to be “pastoral” but not “episcopal” or “primatial.” This is being interpreted by the TECies as meaning that the ABoC does not recognize S Carolina as a member of the Anglican Communion. Which, in fact, he has stated on several occasions, so it is hardly news. Of course, this impairs the communion between the ABoC and every church that DOES recognize S Carolina as a member of the Communion, but so it goes.
Well, if you insist on wriggling about while sitting on a picket fence, you can’t be surprised if you end up impaling yourself.
God bless +Tito and the Global South and GAFCON Primates for supporting Christians in the wonderful Diocese of South Carolina and elsewhere.
tjmcmahon,
I have tracked down what you are referring to – Ronald Caldwell has made a completely unsubstantiated claim, based on an alleged third hand report. He claims on his private blog that he wrote to an unnamed “spokesperson” at Lambeth Palace who (he claims) gave him permission to publish some remarks on his blog. No names, no copies of emails, zilch.
Seriously – does he think we came down in the last shower? Whatever one may think of it, Lambeth does not operate that way.
And, lets be blunt – this is *Ronald Caldwell* making these unsubstantiated third hand claims. His deep antipathy for Dio SC is well known, and his track record of accuracy is rather stunted, to put it politely.
As I wrote above, there is nothing at all about this on the Lambeth Palace web-site, nor on Anglican Communion News Service, nor anywhere else.
Caldwell’s assertions aren’t worth the paper they aren’t written on. 🙂
#5 — you are quite right in my view. I responded in this way at The Lead (which now censures my every other word).
“Outstanding news. The ABC does not disapprove of the GS Primates exercising pastoral oversight of the Diocese of SC. This shows the vocation of the latter and the nihil obstat of the former.”
The distinction between pastoral and episcopal is nonsensical and shows Caldwell to be grasping at straws.
5+6-
The primatial (episcopal) nature of the oversight is made plain by the words of the GS primates in their statement, and for that matter, the participation of several, including ++Mouneer, in the installation of Foley Beach as Abp of ACNA. I was only pointing to the source of the rumors.
That said, what Mr. Caldwell quoted (what he quoted, not what he inferred from it) was sufficiently similar to what was said by the ABoC (both WIlliams and Welby) when questions were put at Synod and elsewhere about their relationship with S Carolina (and slightly more distance between themselves and ACNA) that it is believable. It is now all over the TEC press, so if the ABoC actually believes otherwise, it is his duty to get in front of a microphone and state what the status of S Carolina actually is, and how that has changed (if it has) since the last time he stood in front of a microphone.
As is evident, S Carolina remains in full communion with all the churches of the GS (unlike some previous statements, there has been no “minority report” even from S Africa). And most of those same churches do NOT recognize full communion (or in some cases, any formal communion) with TEC or ACoC, and their communion with CoE is, at best, impaired.
ACI worked very hard on all this, so I am very pleased at the outcome.
I have read Caldwell’s blog and he does name the person who wrote the Lambeth Palace response (who is listed as part of the Archbishop’s senior staff). If you read the actual text of the Lambeth Response (which Caldwell *claims* to have permission to use on his blog… like others, #5, I am not convinced that the e-mail actually originated from Lambeth Palace for the previously stated reasons), you will understand that the words are chosen very carefully. However, in no way can it be concluded from Lambeth’s response that the Archbishop did not agree to the Primatial Oversight arrangement offered at the meeting in Feb. 2014. It is entirely possible that he did indeed agree and based on the testimony of people who were actually there at the meeting (i.e. Bishop Zavala)- he did indeed.
From the Lambeth response, it is most likely that ++Welby met with KJS and then decided on the “pastoral oversight” for the Diocese of SC. Oddly, if the Diocese is no longer part of TEC and Welby does not consider the Diocese part of the WWAC, why would he even care what happens to the Diocese? This is the odd part of the Lambeth Response….. Why would he go to TEC’s Presiding Bishop about a matter that does not concern a diocese in TEC? Also “pastoral oversight” as defined by Caldwell (an informal arrangement of friendship and communication of one body with another) is meaningless in this situation as the Diocese of SC already has friendships with and the support of many dioceses and provinces around the WWAC. This sort of “pastoral oversight” provides nothing that the diocese does not already have.
One thing that perhaps even the primates did not realize at the time of their meeting in Feb. 2014 was that our diocesan convention was coming up in mid-March 2014 and that the delegates would vote to accept the offer.
As someone who was there at one of the meetings with Bishop Zavala, I was greatly encouraged by his words and his description of his ministry as a priest and now Bishop of the Diocese of Chile and Primate of South America. He did indeed say he was there with the consent of the Archbishop of Canterbury. Given that the context of the statement was right after he described the primates meeting in 2014, I believe Bishop Zavala’s statement. As far as Caldwell’s pov and information on his blog, the old adage- Consider the source- certainly applies in this situation.
As already has been mentioned, the Diocese is recognized by the majority of the Anglican Communion and the *faithful* majority and that is enough for me. I am glad that Bishop Zavala was here and we got to know him as he is the appointed representative of the GS primates to the Diocese of SC. Afterwards, I even thanked him personally for his encouraging and yes even inspiring words to us. The Diocese of SC will continue making Biblical Anglicans for a Global Age. Worrying over liberal blogger’s pov is not what we are about.
#9–it was taken for granted that the PB of TEC would approach the ABC so soon as she learned of a plan of this kind. What was wanted was a green light for the GS Primates to pursue this, as roughly continuous with plans mooted at Dar es Salaam and elsewhere (‘extra-provincial’) but now in a new timeframe. The ACI website can provide some background if you are interested.
The GS primates knew the EDofSC timeline. Obviously they could not know however what the convention would decide.
Interesting indeed #10. If the GS Primates knew of our timeline, I don’t know that anyone here knew they were going to offer Primatial Oversight to the diocese as it had been offered before in 2007 for the other dioceses and the TEC of House of Bishops turned that down with an empathic no.
The GS had it in view to extend support to the EDofSC and that the convention would be receiving this news; which it did, and acted positively upon it. What was critical was a strong sense that the ABC would not side with the PB of TEC in opposing this. One can assume that her objections were immediate. That we heard nothing was good news.
Your leadership can fill in the details as is the most appropriate. The good news is that the GS acted as a totality, that Zavala has now visited on behalf of them all, that the PB of TEC has not been able to prevail upon others to block any of this, and that the EDofSC will, God willing, clear its last hurdles in civil court. It had been hoped that all this would provide a model for conservatives elsewhere, as the Communion reaches out in support of those it judges caught up in internal problems, offering pastoral support. For those of us at ACI, this is consistent with Dar es Salaam and the entire Covenant logic.
Hi Dr. Seitz,
I would think that the Global South Primates should have had a pretty good idea that the convention delegates would enthusiastically accept the offer of Primatial Oversight. It is no secret that the diocese had asked for alternative primatial oversight in the past and nothing happened. So why would we refuse such an offer especially after we disaffiliated from TEC?
Why would the disapproval of TEC’s Presiding Bishop effect this offer of Primatial Oversight to the diocese? We are not part of TEC anymore. Even if she had raised holy h*ll over this arrangement, it would not made any difference to the diocese and hopefully not to the Global South primates either.
To all here at Titus… I believe Bishop Zavala’s comment and his encouraging words to us. As I wrote before – consider the source of this attempt to discredit the diocese, the offer of primatial oversight and Bishop Zavala’s comment. That should be warning enough…..
As I said above, your own leadership will be able to clarify on your various questions. I do not want to get in front of them, even as we worked hard to make this happen, down to details you mention. We give thanks for the outcome. Grace and peace.
Virtue Online has posted an article on this which includes a response sent to VOL by the Archbishop of Canterbury’s office – seehttp://www.virtueonline.org/canterbury-and-episcopal-church-south-carolina-be-or-not-be:
[blockquote] This is the reply VOL received from Lambeth Palace spokesperson Ed Thornton:
“Please find a statement below which you are welcome to use. We aren’t planning to comment further.
“The Global South Primates Steering Committee announced in 2014 the establishment of Primatial Oversight for the Protestant Episcopal Church in the Diocese of South Carolina, which had seceded from the Episcopal Church. The steering committee informed Archbishop Justin of their decision when he joined them for the final day of their meeting in Cairo.
Archbishop Justin had since had discussions in order to clarify how the arrangements will work, exploring the exercising of pastoral oversight by Presiding Bishop Zavala. Archbishop Justin discussed these developments with the Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church, Katharine Jefferts Schori (sic) at a meeting last autumn in Washington.” [/blockquote]
I have been critical of David Virtue in the past but in this case note how he carries out the basic requirements of journalism – he cites his source, and he quotes, he doesn’t interpret. Well done VOL.
I can understand why Lambeth Palace declined Mr Virtue’s invitation to say that Ron Caldwell’s blog misled the public about Canterbury’s position, but the facts speak for themselves. Dio SC is getting “primatial oversight” via the GS steering committee, ABC was informed, and he had and has nothing to say against it. His reaction is the same as for many other things that he covers in regular work.
It is also clear that ABC is aware that the actual pastoral oversight will be conducted by ++Zavala, and ABC has nothing to say against that either. Presiding Bishop K J Schori of TEC has been informed and has chosen to say nothing about it (and after all, why would she? She is involved in suing to recover buildings but has no interest in exercising oversight herself over Dio SC).
In turn note what Ron Caldwell did – he ADDED the words “not episcopal” so that the paragraph read: “Archbishop Justin has since had discussions about how the arrangements will work, exploring the exercising of pastoral, not episcopal oversight by Bishop Zavala.” I reiterate, note how those words “not episcopal” are not present in the actual statement by Lambeth Palace.
Other claims by Caldwell are also not true. He alleged that “In fact, the Archbishop arrived only for the end of the meeting (Feb. 15, 2014; Cairo)”. Not correct – he arrived on the final day but he attended the meeting.
Caldwell also alleged that “In fact, the Archbishop of Canterbury approved of ‘pastoral’ not primatial oversight for the Diocese of South Carolina.” Not true. No such distinction is made in the Lambeth Palace press statement. It refers to the oversight given by the GS steering committee as “primatial oversight” and the direct oversight given by ++Zavala as “pastoral oversight”.
So much for Ron Caldwell’s blog, and so much for Episcopal Cafe. Always check carefully ANYTHING you read in them!
#16. Thanks. You have noted all the relevant bits and underscored them. Your final point about the alleged distinction between pastoral and primatial is especially important. Caldwell made that up.
I would also add that the meeting with the TEC PB took place many months ago and we heard not one peep. Why? Because the PB obviously did not get what she was seeking and so the silence was left to speak for itself.
And. The timing of the arrival of the ABC was not some accident. All parties knew when it was and what its import was. Caldwell makes it sound as if the ABC was manipulated.
Ron Caldwell is making mischief probably out of a sour grapes’ reaction having to fight always from the loser’s position.
This action is totally and transparently above board having been discussed with Canterbury, agreed to and ratified in writing. At no point was there reluctance or a reactive tone on the part of the Archbishop.
#18 — well summarized.