“This is a bit like saying ”˜you can’t quit, you’re fired!’” said the Rev. Canon Daryl Fenton, Chief Operating Officer for the Network. “It will have no practical effect on the ministry of these two godly leaders, but instead makes crystal clear the scorched earth policy that the current leadership of The Episcopal Church intends to prosecute against those who can not in good conscience follow them out of the Christian mainstream.”
“There is no question that both Bishop Cox and Bishop Schofield remain bishops in the Anglican Communion and will continue in ministry. We at the Network are thankful for their willingness to witness for the truth of the Gospel and fully intend to support them in their ongoing ministry,” he added.
The full text of the short statement is here.
There is no question that both Bishop Cox and Bishop Schofield remain bishops in the Anglican Communion and will continue in ministry.
Oh there’s a BIG question, Canon Fenton. It remains to be seen how the ABC handles this. If he chooses not to ‘disinvite’ Mr. Schofield to Lambeth, then he would need to extend invitations to +Minns et al. If the invitation remains, then he recognizes the status of Bishops who have come under other provinces. So far he has refused to recognize them. However, this situation now puts the ABC, a man of inaction, in a position where he is forced to act. We’ll see what happens.
Indeed this action of our HofB now kicks the matter “upstairs.” The appropriate Instruments of Communion probably through the Archbishop of Canterbury will have to decide whether these two former bishops of TEC are still bishops of the Communion, or bishops, or now in the lay state. Will they receive a “Mr. Schofield” or “Mr Cox” letter of the sort that now goes to deposed priests or deacons? If indeed that is what happens it will be interesting to discover a coherent theological justification.
Perhaps it would have been wise for the TEC leadership to seek the advice of the wider Communion in this unique situation, but that is an avenue which seems again unexplored by our “denominationalist” leaders.
#1 I wonder – be careful what you wish for.
I challenge anyone to support the idea that TEC is anything more than a garden club. It behaves worse than a garden club, I know, but its goals, discipline, and proccess is that of a garden club.
It does not represent, ar appear anything resembling the Church of Jesus Christ.
Don
It also begs the question whether invitation to Lambeth is the sole criteria for a bishop being ‘in the Anglican Communion’. If you maintain that it is, as Brian (#1) implies, then where does that put Gene Robinson?
Sort of gives you a feeling of reconciliation as a lifestyle rather than an event, doesn’t it? See how much good feeling has accomplished?
Ya gotta love that HOB: doctrinaire politicos to the core (such as it is) of their miscreant polity.
Polycarp was burned to death at age 86 for his faith. BISHOP Cox should be relieved that insults to polity have not yet made the ECUSA/TEC/GCC Coliseum a polity. BISHOP Schofield, too.
But wait until GC2009. It’ll be rectified, that oversight, it will.
#1 Brian from T19 says:
As I remarked on another thread, the ABC explicitly did not invite to Lambeth those bishops whose consecrations were undertaken against the advice of the Intruments of Communion. +VGR falls into that category, as does +Minns.
+Schofield, however, does not. Whatever the ABC does in response to this deposition — rescind the invitation or let it stand — it will have to be under a different rubric.
I’m not sure what he’ll do. The disinvitation of +VGR on one side and +Minns et al on the other seemed like a move that hoped to offer each side just enough of a sop and just little enough insult that a majority of each side would grumble but go along. With +Schofield, it’s harder to see what that path between the two factions might be. Perhaps he’ll downgrade +Schofield’s invite to the kind of “observer” status that was rumored for, but ultimately denied to, +VGR; that would at least have the virtue of honking off people on both sides.
Believe Brian [#1] is right. Difficult to see how Williams can duck a decision one way or the other on this one. That’s not to say he’ll not do utmost to try and duck it, but …….
Ross is correct. Schofield does not fall into the categorically of “bishops consecrated against the advice of the Instruments of Communion” as applied to both Robinson and Minns.
As I see it, Williams can arguably reject the concept of the DSJ being part of the Southern Cone, as the constitution of the Southern Cone unambiguously prohibits this. That does not bear on Schofield’s status as an Anglican Communion bishop though, and on that question Williams has a couple of options:
1. Rescind the invitation, and declare that TEC canons require the HOB to consent to the resignation of a sitting bishop, that Schofield did not obtain such consent, and therefore his deposition was valid, notwithstanding the permissibility of the actual Diocese leaving. This is probably his least controversial tack if he wants to rescind the invite.
2. Rescind the invitation, and accept TEC’s arguments about dioceses not being allowed to leave TEC. The problem here is that Williams would then be accepting one side’s interpretation of TEC’s canons, when, in fact, there is no such canonical prohibition. The Diocese is declaring that it voted to leave TEC, TEC is declaring that is not possible. This is really an Anglican status dispute that the ABC has declared he cannot rule on unilaterally. So using this justification would undercut his general approach.
3. Maintain the invitation, declaring that Schofield was an unquestioned TEC bishop at the time of invitation, and that due to the ongoing dispute, which he has no authority to intervene in, the invitation will stand, but the invitation in no way indicates the ABC’s opinion on the validity of the deposition. This would probably be the safest way for Williams to maintain the invitation.
4. Maintain the invitation, and declare that Schofield is the current bishop of the Diocese of San Joaquin and that since the diocese is the foundational unit of the Church, the Province has no authority to block a diocese and its bishop from disaffiliating.
In the end, I think that who is an Anglican Communion bishop is becoming a grey area, and the official definitions will become increasingly irrelevant.
Anthony: Key in the Cavalcanti situation was that he was deposed in Brazil BEFORE attempting to transfer out. Accordingly, Cavalcanti’s only complaint against his Brazilian deposition was that it wasn’t fair, not that he was no longer subject to such discipline. In Schofield’s case, he transferred out BEFORE the discipline and so has argued that he is no longer validly subject to TEC’s discipline. So the distinction is that for Williams to accept TEC’s discipline of Schofield would also require Williams to deny the DSJ’s or Schofield’s asserted reaffiliation.
Good analysis, jamesw. Regarding your suggestion that,
[blockquote]Williams can arguably reject the concept of the DSJ being part of the Southern Cone, as the constitution of the Southern Cone unambiguously prohibits this.[/blockquote]
…I would only suggest that +Rowan would not presume to rule on the question of whether the decision of the Southern Cone’s House of Bishops and their primate was a violation of their Constitution. Obviously our PB feels entitled to interpret (or even make up) the rules of a diocese she has no authority over, but I wouldn’t expect +Rowan to follow that example.
Of the four options you lay out, I would suggest that #4 is the most defensible from a catholic perspective.
11 JamesW, in that case, ++Williams would also have to try to discipline ++Venables and his House of Bishops, wouldn’t he? In what way would you suggest that he do that, since he has no authority to do anything of the sort? That leads us back to square one, doesn’t it? I suggest that he should leave it at that, and recognize that what has taken place is legitimate.