According the Anglican San Joaquin diocese’s web site, Schofield allowed individuals and parishes that wanted to remain with the Episcopal Church to do so and to keep all their real and personal property.
The Episcopal House of Bishops, meeting in Texas on March 12, voted to depose Schofield from ordained ministry. Subsequently, the parishes and individuals that opted to remain with the Episcopal Church formed the Episcopal Diocese of San Joaquin and approved the Right Rev. Jerry Lamb as their provisional bishop. In April, the Episcopal diocese filed a lawsuit against Schofield in Fresno County Superior Court to reclaim the possessions and real property, including the diocesan chancery office, still in possession of the Anglican diocese.
According to the Anglican San Joaquin diocese, in March, St. Andrew’s Mission in Taft was one of the churches to sign new by-laws declaring itself Anglican. But, in late May, 11 of the mission’s members held a reportedly unpublicized meeting with an representative of Lamb’s, and a majority of those present (9-2) voted to join the Episcopal diocese. The mission’s junior warden said he did not know of the meeting until one hour before it occurred. After the meeting, both the junior warden and the mission’s treasurer resigned.
Let me be quite clear about this. If Holy Cross (my parish) ever decides to join another branch of the Anglican Communion they better bring a WHOLE bunch of people to try and change the locks and take over the building. A WHOLE BUNCH.
AP+
Why a whole bunch?
Or else what?
We shall first ask them to desist. We will then make them desist.
AP+
Prayerfully, of course. Do ye ken that, Scotist?
AP, consider this:
38Therefore, in the present case I advise you: Leave these men alone! Let them go! For if their purpose or activity is of human origin, it will fail. 39But if it is from God, you will not be able to stop these men; you will only find yourselves fighting against God.”
An ASA of 18 generally translates to a membership of about 30+. What right do 9 people have to attempt this theft?
I have taken the precaution of alerting other parishes and missions in our diocese in order to make sure that +Lamb doesn’t try to do the same thing to them. His illegal action without first obtaining a court order has backfired on him, and I have been informed that the remaining members of the St Andrew’s congregation will meet at another location, and in fact, their number is growing.
I also believe that our diocese will ask for an injunction to prevent any further such illegal act on +Lamb’s part.
I was also warned that he was planning to do the same thing to St Mark’s Anglican Mission in Shafter.
#6 Why do 50(?) of 350-400+ eligible Bishops against written canons and prior precedent get to depose Bishop Schofield 20 years with a supposed voice vote carry?
Answer: Katherine Jefforts Schori-David Booth Beers
Shalom,
Intercessor
Should read “Bishop of 20 years”
Pardon moi.
Intercessor
BTW-Good morning Cennydd!
“For if their purpose or activity is of human origin, it will fail.”
Just trying to help that along, Ralinda. Of course I believe the Crusades were righteous (of God) by intent. I also believe those who sit back and allow evil to run its course had better be fit for their personal millstone.
AP+
And things just keep on getting uglier… It’s the more genteel Episcopal version of war.
“The dispute between the Episcopal Diocese of San Joaquin and the Anglican Diocese of San Joaquin has become a range war”
— California Catholic Daily
Nice lead sentence.
[blockquote]An ASA of 18 generally translates to a membership of about 30+. What right do 9 people have to attempt this theft? [/blockquote]
Such statistical assumptions might work on a large scale, but for such a small mission the margin of error would be immense. For that matter, I would imagine that a mission would have a larger percentage of active members than a long-standing parish, where the official rolls might be padded with folks who have moved away or changed churches without letting anybody know. It would be interesting–possibly useful–to know how many members St. Andrew’s actually has.
The Episcopal diocesan [url=http://diosanjoaquin.org/dfc/newsdetail_2/49]website[/url] reports that Bishop Lamb received a letter signed by 25 pledging members of St. Andrew’s requesting to return to the Episcopal diocese. Since it’s the position of the Episcopal diocese that a parish cannot leave the Episcopal Church, and that the Episcopal remnant [i]is[/i] the parish regardless of how many other members choose to leave, their actions make perfect sense [i]from their point of view[/i]. It seems that EDoSJ’s strategy is to first hold onto those parishes and missions where an Episcopal remnant is present–and apparently, a remnant of 25 pledging members is present to continue St. Andrew’s as an Episcopal church. (Ultimately, the courts will decide.)
Is it known whether the members of St. Andrew’s held a vote, or went through any kind of discernment period after the move to the Southern Cone? I recall that Bishop Schofield’s position was that missions would not be allowed to choose whether to remain in the Episcopal Church or not.
Speaking of missions in SJ, I’m curious: what happened to St. Nicholas, Atwater? Bishop Schofield fired their vicar back in December and I see that the Episcopal remnant is still worshipping off-site. Is there a Southern Cone congregation worshipping in that building now? Or is it just sitting empty?
This is the clear game plan: 1. Assemble as large a group of laity as possible to declare themselves as the true congregation. 2. Elect (get one appointed by the PB) a true bishop. 3. The true bishop sues and claims ownership of everything. 4. True bishop appoints vicar/representative to shepherd the true congregation. 5. Lock out the Anglican congregation. 5. Claim that all is well with TEC. 6. Continue to pay lawyers as the property suits are pressed on.
This will be the template for Pittsburgh and for Fort Worth. There is already significant evidence in FW that this strategy is mounting already.
Ladytenor, a mission is directly under the control of the diocesan bishop, and since this is the case, he is also the rector. Missions can be shut down at his pleasure, but more often than not, they aren’t……except for good and compelling reasons, such as insolvency or declining numbers. Our mission church in Los Banos has been here for 50+ years, and at the moment, we’re better off remaining a mission until this crisis is resolved in our favor.
As far as I know, there is an active Anglican presence in Atwater……though admittedly, I don’t know who’s in charge there. Perhaps someone else from our diocese can expand on that for you.
Isn’t this article a bit misleading?
I’m under the impression that there are two groups wanting to remain in the Episcopal Church – the group that decided to stay, and the group that the Presiding Bishop put in with an illegal convention. I am also under the impression that Jerry Lamb was appointed by the PB’s convention.
I was also under the impression that the group that voluntarily stayed behind was more friendly with the Anglican group. The article makes it sound as if the group who kept their property betrayed Bishop Schofield. Am I wrong here, or have some things happened in the past few months?
Subcribing for now until return from work….I will try to answer Ladytenor at tht time regarding Atwater, unless someone else gets to it before me. Fr. Rob?????
Ha! What’s sauce for the goose . . .
Townsend Waddill+, let me set you straight on the matter:
Those of us…..me included…..who stayed with +John-David…..are NOT the “group” who “betrayed Bishop Schofield.” We voted TWICE to delete the Accession Clause from our constitution vis a vis The Episcopal Church, and we voted to move to the Province of the Southern Cone. I was a delegate to both conventions, and I voted “FOR” the resolution both times. I know what transpired, because I was involved. We had no intention of remaining in the Episcopal Church then, and that has not changed one iota. We are GONE!
No, this article isn’t misleading.
And good morning to you, too, Intercessor! Nice day for a “war,” isn’t it?
Just a quick note here on the size of this mission. The last membership numbers that are being shown publicly by 815 are 48. So the troubles with quorum numbers continues.
#21-How I love the smell of burning Myrrh in the morning! (Apologies to Robert Duval…)
Intercessor–I think we must be blood brothers or something. I was just getting ready to write the exact same thing. Cennydd–pretty much any day is a good day for a war in TEC. I personally keep my Gospel armor constantly handy, right here next to my desk.
DITTO!
And a “quorum” is whatever Schori & Company decides it will be……regardless of the actual number.
Cennydd,
I think you might have misunderstood my post. My understanding is that the group who stayed with Bishop Schofield is the Anglican group, now under Southern Cone (of which you are a part of). My understanding is that there were also two other groups, both who remained Episcopalian. One was the remnant group of standing committee members that wanted to remain Episcopal, and the other was the group put in power by KJS’s illegal convention.
From reading the article, it looks to me like Bishop Schofield allowed the parishes who wanted to remain in the Episcopal Church to keep their properties, and then these parishes turned around and betrayed him by suing him. I was wondering if, in reality, it was this third group created by the illegal convention that was doing the suing, because the article makes it sound as if the group who was allowed to keep their properties are now suing Bishop Schofield, when he tried to reach out to them pastorally in the first place.
Never did I consider that those who voted to remove the accession clause betrayed Bishop Schofield. I’m just trying to understand what has happened…
#26- Whenever 2 or 3 are gathered together an orthodox bishop will be deposed…great canons huh!
Intercessor
[blockquote]”…it looks to me like Bishop Schofield allowed the parishes who wanted to remain in the Episcopal Church to keep their properties, and then these parishes turned around and betrayed him by suing him. I was wondering if, in reality, it was this third group created by the illegal convention that was doing the suing, because the article makes it sound as if the group who was allowed to keep their properties are now suing Bishop Schofield, when he tried to reach out to them pastorally in the first place.”[/blockquote]
#27 Townsend Waddill+
Your assumptions are pretty spot on. The group that helped in the uncanonical “convention” and those who were voted in as a “Standng Committee” plus +Lamb’s new Canon to the Ordinary are a part of the Remain Episcopal group. They along with the appointed suedo bishop Lamb by KJS and accepted by the Remain Episcopals and their Standing Committee in concert with KJS & 815 are the ones who are suing the bishop. Yes! The very ones that Bishop Schofield told that they could stay in TEC and keep their property and real assets no strings attached save don’t leave a huge debt to the diocese. Nice Christians yea? But, I have been told by many who are either in the Remain Episcopal group or with those who are still in conversation with sommeone from Remain Episcopal that they had been in the planning stages of suing well before the vote, in regards to strategy and tactics on how to best proceed. I would not at all be surprised at that being very factual.
Thanks, One Day Closer. That makes a lot more sense. It sounds like the two groups wanting to remain in the the Episcopal Church are not as distinct as I was making them out to be. Sounds like the old “give an inch, try to take a mile” routine. My prayers are offered for all the folks in San Joaquin.
So, BeerKat appoints a Lamb, who then acts the wolf and turns on the flock. Certainly there’s a parable in here somewhere?
KTF!…mrb
That a Catholic paper would bother to run an article about this matter says a great deal about Catholic self-confidence, or lack thereof.
They really must be desperate to distract their parishioners from their own scandals.
[i] Slightly edited by elf. [/i]
It’s a [i] California [/i] Catholic paper..and the article is about a [i] California [/i] news item. My view anyway since there’s no mention of it in my Texas Catholic Herald.
The other side of the story can be found here:
http://frjakestopstheworld.blogspot.com/2008/06/report-from-st-andrews-taft-ca.html
Having received the original documentation from the persons involved, I can vouch that the source is a member of St. Andrew’s Episcopal Church in Taft.
Dirk C. Reinken
Sorry Dirk,
That story is just that! I know very well Fr. Threewitt and he is not the type of priest that this made up propoganda is stating! This story is a very carefully crafted piece of work done by the side of those who orchestrated this siezure!
His words:
[blockquote]The treasurer has been the force in this little church for many years by virtue of her largess with the church’s discretionary fund, primarily supplied by the ex-senior warden. The remaining congregation is primarily old ladies who depend upon her for transportation, in-home care, etc. She is also the provincial ECW president, and has every intention of becoming the national president at the triennial next year. The other “strong personality” served two terms as the national CPC president, very successfully, and was well-funded by the same senior warden. So much for appreciation —— Both of them detest Bishop Schofield — he must not have humored them — and they are unable to separate their personal animosity from their understanding of theology. Without the income from the ex-senior warden, they cannot exist for many months. I wonder what Mr Lamb and company will do then?
By the way, I am the discharged priest.[/blockquote]
I would trust the words of Fr. Threewitt before an unsigned person from the other side anyday. This is a godly man who is not forceful in any way.