One notes that the requirement that a full majority of all the Bishops entitled to vote in the House of Bishops—both active and retired (or “resigned”, as they now say)—has been with us since the very first abandonment canon was adopted in 1853. I shall return to this legislative history in a later comment about the procedural violations that have occurred in the cases of Bishops Schofield and Duncan. But my next post (when it is ready) will show how the (ab)use of the abandonment canons has lately been greatly expanded, to the detriment of the Church and its polity.
Sorry Jake+, but I find this gentleman’s case persuasive.
the snarkster
Thank you for posting this. It is superb.
Somewhat tangential but related to canonical violation deposition for abandonment of communion: There is a heart wrenching letter of a 75 year old priest with heart failure, both literal and figurative, who was part of recent aggressive action by Bishop Howard of the diocese of Florida…. this story needs to be told on the mountain tops.
(1) The Church of England in the American colonies formed part of thre royal ecclesiastical prerogative. Marriage licenses and probate which in England were handles in church courts in America were assigned to the royal governors. The Bishops of London by custom or by letters patent had authority and responsibility in ordaining and licensing for service in the colonies.
(2) Bishop Chambers ordained the first four bishops of the Anglican Church in North America and many continuing church bishops trace their succession through him. Others trace succession through Bishop Donald Davies of Dallas, Fort Worth, and the Episcopal Missionary Church or through other Anglican and Episcopal bishops.
(3) Deposing bishops and clergy for abandonment is one of the more unhappy decisions of the House of Bishops in recent years.
Tom Rightmyer trightmy@juno.com Asheville, NC
This is an interesting topic. I’m looking forward to the next installment.