In all honesty, and I’m not being snarky here, why does the Presiding Bishop insist upon issuing inhibitions and the like against bishops who are no longer under her purview? Am I correct in supposing that they are merely the required hand motions preceding legal proceedings?
Bernini, I think we have one of those rare occasions where the Presiding Bishop and Bishop Iker agree on something. They both believe that he is no longer part of the Episcopal Church. As to why he was inhibited, one reason out many, I suppose, is his violation of the oath that he took at ordination, that included ” I do solemnly engage to conform to the doctrine, discipline, and worship of The Episcopal Church.”
Am I the only one who got a huge grin out of Hightower’s turning the tables on KJS, reproving her for her “border crossings”:
We regret this illegal, unconstitutional, and uncanonical attempt to interfere with the rights and ministry of a diocese of another province of the Anglican Communion. We call upon her to desist from any further actions in our diocese and that she refrain from any further border crossing.
No, you’re not the only one. It was a strikingly ironic and amusing line, to be sure.
But personally, I like +Iker’s brief statement even more than the Standing Committee’s. I especially like the caustic part about how KJS never did have any authority over him (and never will). I support WO, but that was a marvelous line, and it would’ve applied just as much to a male PB. For Presiding Bishops have no canonical authority over diocesan bishops.
It would be interesting for 815 to sue Iker & Co. for trademark infringement for continuing to call themselves the Episcopal (capital E) Diocese of Fort Worth. (Small e would be a permissible descriptive use of the word.)
I don’t see the wisdom of all of 815’s tactical choices (for example, purporting to depose bishops for abandonment by less than a majority of all bishops entitled to vote). And I still think that property should go where it can best be put to work trying to bring people to God. But since the secessionists don’t seem to be interested in cooperating toward that end (save possibly in Virginia), I thoroughly approve of what from here seems to be 815’s overall approach: no bluster, no grand pronouncements, just quiet, steady, implacable action to reclaim the Episcopal Church’s property from its would-be usurpers.
Denbeau (#4), your assertion that Bishop Iker violated his ordination oath to conform to the discipline of The Episcopal Church is merely question-begging; viz., is the discipline of The Episcopal Church a hierarchical one, in which the Presiding Bishop has metropolitical authority and the General Convention dispository power over the dioceses; or a discipline in which the dioceses are voluntarily joined with one another for common mission. (Yes, I realize that hierarchical discipline, characteristic of most other Churches of the Anglican Communion, is not inconsistent with mission – see, for example, the Church of Nigeria. Nor do I assert that a discipline of voluntary association need be a loose one. Clearly the association of dioceses in The Episcopal Church is a strong one, though in an atmosphere of canonical fundamentalism and outright disregard for canons, the apostolic virtues of forebearance, patience and mutual discernment are sadly too lacking to give that association evangelical force.)
If the discipline be of the former sort, then yes, the Diocese of Fort Worth has illegitimately and uncanonically withdrawn from The Episcopal Church, and Bishop Iker, as complicit in that withdrawal, has violated his ordination oath. If of the latter sort, then he hasn’t.
Re: “We call upon her to desist from any further actions in our diocese and that she refrain from any further border crossing.”
Three hours after reading this, my wife and I are still laughing. I have not laughed this long and this heartly for a very, very, looooooog time!
This is “broder-crossing” phrase is the best part of the FW response. I am still laughing and rocking.
When I saw the grin oin Fr. Hightower’s face at the clergy meeting, I suspected he was up to something. Now I know.
Long live and God Bless the Diocese of Fort Worth and her faithful Bishop, Clergy, and people.
[blockquote]It would be interesting for 815 to sue Iker & Co. for trademark infringement for continuing to call themselves the Episcopal (capital E) Diocese of Fort Worth. (Small e would be a permissible descriptive use of the word.) [/blockquote]
What a brilliant idea! Then perhaps she could sue the Roman Catholic Church for daring to call itself the Catholic Church in Fort Worth, and then the various (Russian, Greek, Antiochian, etc.) Orthodox churches for calling themselves the Orthodox Church in Fort Worth, then the Reformed churches for daring to call themselves the Christian Reformed church in Fort Worth, then the Presbyterian churches for calling themselves the Presbyterian church in Forth Worth, then the United Church of Christ for daring to call itself the Church of Christ (with capital letters, no less).
After all, everyone knows that TEC is the only church in the world that has bishops (episcopal), claims to be catholic (yeah, right), orthodox (you’re kidding), has Reformation roots, has presbyters, or claims to be a church of Christ.
The PB & Co. are throwing enough money down the rat hole of useless law suits. Why not one more?
Wm. Witt [#13], you might want to read up a bit about basic trademark law. Any trademark lawyer would tell you that under federal law, 815 would have a plausible infringement case, and perhaps even a compelling one, against a secessionist group that called itself “the Episcopal Diocese of X” with a capital E. The relevant concept is that of ‘secondary meaning’ (or ‘acquired distinctiveness’) of a descriptive term, for example Windows for operating-system software. I think 200+ years of being known as the Episcopal Church is enough to establish secondary meaning. (Other churches in this country that use the term ‘Episcopal’ with a capital E have modifiers that distinguish them from TEC, for example the Reformed Episcopal Church and the African Methodist Episcopal Church.)
As for “throwing … money down the rat hole of useless law suits,” I guess we’ll find out how useless they turn out to be. From what I’ve seen over the years, it’s the parties with weak cases that tend to squawk about their lawsuits; parties with strong cases generally try their cases in court, and don’t try to do so in the public media.
There’s an old joke among litigators: When the facts are against you, pound on the law; when the law is against you, pound on the facts; and when both the facts and the law are against you, pound on the table. I hear a lot of table-pounding from the secessionists.
RE: “I thoroughly approve of what from here seems to be 815’s overall approach: no bluster, no grand pronouncements, just quiet, steady, implacable action to reclaim the Episcopal Church’s property from its would-be usurpers.”
And I thoroughly approve of what from here seems to be the departing Christians’ overall approach: no bluster, no grand pronouncements, just quiet, steady, implacable action to keep their property from its would-be usurpers.
RE: “I hear a lot of table-pounding from the secessionists.”
Oh I dunno — I would call your comments “table-pounding” — so perhaps that’s [i]yet another word[/i] or concept that you and I don’t define in the same way. ; > )
#9, #14: When I read your logic, an amusing thought comes to mind. I picture Jack Kevorkian being elected as head of the AMA. Next he calls, on short notice, a meeting to depose (revoke medical licences) all the gerontologists who faithfully follow the Hippocratic Oath. [b]E[/b]piscopal, [b]e[/b]piscopal, [b]C[/b]hurch, [b]c[/b]hurch, [b]c[/b]ult. What is in a trademark? What does the Constitution say about letting people practice their faith as they traditionally understand it without placing barriers like confiscating the property items that were purchased only for the purpose of exercising that traditional faith?
#13– Yes Read up on trademark as well as corporation law pertaining to religious institutions. The Episcopal Diocese of Long Island is the only “Diocese of Long Island”. The Roman Catholics have to be named the Diocese of Rockville Center, the Diocese of Brooklyn etc., because NY Sate Law regarding Religious Corporations is stated in such a way that only the Episcopalians can use the word. The point, however, is well taken. 815, that is to be more exact David Booth Beers, is intent upon litigation and invoking canons. The fact that KJS goes along with such silliness shows what an incredibly weak “leader” she is.
The bishop carries on that interesting, uniquely Anglican use of the phrase “The Church of God”. What exactly is that? Where is it? If it isn’t there, I expect KJS has no authority over anyone “in” it, but then no one has any rights “in” it either. A little too mystical for Orthodox. How do you know if you’re out of it?
#14, Sorry DC, TEC has claim to the title Domestic Foreign Missionary Society of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the USA. It has no more claim to being THE Episcopal Church than it has claim to being THE Catholic Church or THE Church of God.
From the very piece that DC pointed me to:
[blockquote]Finally, a generic mark is a mark that describes the general category to which the underlying product belongs. For example, the term “Computer” is a generic term for computer equipment. Generic marks are entitled to no protection under trademark law. Thus, a manufacturer selling “Computer” brand computers (or “Apple” brand apples, etc.) would have no exclusive right to use that term with respect to that product. Generic terms are not protected by trademark law because they are simply too useful for identifying a particular product. Giving a single manufacturer control over use of the term would give that manufacturer too great a competitive advantage. Under some circumstances, terms that are not originally generic can become generic over time (a process called “genericity”), and thus become unprotected.[/blockquote]
What might be an example of such a “generic mark”? I don’t know, how about the word . . . . “Episcopal”?
In all honesty, and I’m not being snarky here, why does the Presiding Bishop insist upon issuing inhibitions and the like against bishops who are no longer under her purview? Am I correct in supposing that they are merely the required hand motions preceding legal proceedings?
Yes, I beleve so.
Will the PB’s pronouncements against Bishops and priests hold up in American courts over property and money issues?
[Slightly edited – Elf]
Bernini, I think we have one of those rare occasions where the Presiding Bishop and Bishop Iker agree on something. They both believe that he is no longer part of the Episcopal Church. As to why he was inhibited, one reason out many, I suppose, is his violation of the oath that he took at ordination, that included ” I do solemnly engage to conform to the doctrine, discipline, and worship of The Episcopal Church.”
[Slightly edited – Elf]
Is it possible that she is closing the barn door so the horse CAN’t get back? larry
Am I the only one who got a huge grin out of Hightower’s turning the tables on KJS, reproving her for her “border crossings”:
Jon (#6),
No, you’re not the only one. It was a strikingly ironic and amusing line, to be sure.
But personally, I like +Iker’s brief statement even more than the Standing Committee’s. I especially like the caustic part about how KJS never did have any authority over him (and never will). I support WO, but that was a marvelous line, and it would’ve applied just as much to a male PB. For Presiding Bishops have no canonical authority over diocesan bishops.
One moral of the story: “Don’t mess with Texas.”
David Handy+
+Iker has been rather the master of the pithy one-liner that unfolds itself further in your head over time. A tip of the miter to him!
It would be interesting for 815 to sue Iker & Co. for trademark infringement for continuing to call themselves the Episcopal (capital E) Diocese of Fort Worth. (Small e would be a permissible descriptive use of the word.)
I don’t see the wisdom of all of 815’s tactical choices (for example, purporting to depose bishops for abandonment by less than a majority of all bishops entitled to vote). And I still think that property should go where it can best be put to work trying to bring people to God. But since the secessionists don’t seem to be interested in cooperating toward that end (save possibly in Virginia), I thoroughly approve of what from here seems to be 815’s overall approach: no bluster, no grand pronouncements, just quiet, steady, implacable action to reclaim the Episcopal Church’s property from its would-be usurpers.
Denbeau (#4), your assertion that Bishop Iker violated his ordination oath to conform to the discipline of The Episcopal Church is merely question-begging; viz., is the discipline of The Episcopal Church a hierarchical one, in which the Presiding Bishop has metropolitical authority and the General Convention dispository power over the dioceses; or a discipline in which the dioceses are voluntarily joined with one another for common mission. (Yes, I realize that hierarchical discipline, characteristic of most other Churches of the Anglican Communion, is not inconsistent with mission – see, for example, the Church of Nigeria. Nor do I assert that a discipline of voluntary association need be a loose one. Clearly the association of dioceses in The Episcopal Church is a strong one, though in an atmosphere of canonical fundamentalism and outright disregard for canons, the apostolic virtues of forebearance, patience and mutual discernment are sadly too lacking to give that association evangelical force.)
If the discipline be of the former sort, then yes, the Diocese of Fort Worth has illegitimately and uncanonically withdrawn from The Episcopal Church, and Bishop Iker, as complicit in that withdrawal, has violated his ordination oath. If of the latter sort, then he hasn’t.
Hey, i thought all that stuff in seminary about breaking the shackles of hierarchy — is it all voided if smashing patriarchy comes first?
These folks seem awfully hierarchical to me. Primates, Presiding Bishops, chancellors, et alia. What happened to “Power to the people, man!”
Re: “We call upon her to desist from any further actions in our diocese and that she refrain from any further border crossing.”
Three hours after reading this, my wife and I are still laughing. I have not laughed this long and this heartly for a very, very, looooooog time!
This is “broder-crossing” phrase is the best part of the FW response. I am still laughing and rocking.
When I saw the grin oin Fr. Hightower’s face at the clergy meeting, I suspected he was up to something. Now I know.
Long live and God Bless the Diocese of Fort Worth and her faithful Bishop, Clergy, and people.
Fr. Kingsley Jon-Ubabuco
Arlington TX
[blockquote]It would be interesting for 815 to sue Iker & Co. for trademark infringement for continuing to call themselves the Episcopal (capital E) Diocese of Fort Worth. (Small e would be a permissible descriptive use of the word.) [/blockquote]
What a brilliant idea! Then perhaps she could sue the Roman Catholic Church for daring to call itself the Catholic Church in Fort Worth, and then the various (Russian, Greek, Antiochian, etc.) Orthodox churches for calling themselves the Orthodox Church in Fort Worth, then the Reformed churches for daring to call themselves the Christian Reformed church in Fort Worth, then the Presbyterian churches for calling themselves the Presbyterian church in Forth Worth, then the United Church of Christ for daring to call itself the Church of Christ (with capital letters, no less).
After all, everyone knows that TEC is the only church in the world that has bishops (episcopal), claims to be catholic (yeah, right), orthodox (you’re kidding), has Reformation roots, has presbyters, or claims to be a church of Christ.
The PB & Co. are throwing enough money down the rat hole of useless law suits. Why not one more?
Wm. Witt [#13], you might want to read up a bit about basic trademark law. Any trademark lawyer would tell you that under federal law, 815 would have a plausible infringement case, and perhaps even a compelling one, against a secessionist group that called itself “the Episcopal Diocese of X” with a capital E. The relevant concept is that of ‘secondary meaning’ (or ‘acquired distinctiveness’) of a descriptive term, for example Windows for operating-system software. I think 200+ years of being known as the Episcopal Church is enough to establish secondary meaning. (Other churches in this country that use the term ‘Episcopal’ with a capital E have modifiers that distinguish them from TEC, for example the Reformed Episcopal Church and the African Methodist Episcopal Church.)
As for “throwing … money down the rat hole of useless law suits,” I guess we’ll find out how useless they turn out to be. From what I’ve seen over the years, it’s the parties with weak cases that tend to squawk about their lawsuits; parties with strong cases generally try their cases in court, and don’t try to do so in the public media.
There’s an old joke among litigators: When the facts are against you, pound on the law; when the law is against you, pound on the facts; and when both the facts and the law are against you, pound on the table. I hear a lot of table-pounding from the secessionists.
Interesting how Bp. Iker refers to the PB as “KJS” (spelled out) without any title at all as if to say he doesn’t recognize her in her role either.
RE: “I thoroughly approve of what from here seems to be 815’s overall approach: no bluster, no grand pronouncements, just quiet, steady, implacable action to reclaim the Episcopal Church’s property from its would-be usurpers.”
And I thoroughly approve of what from here seems to be the departing Christians’ overall approach: no bluster, no grand pronouncements, just quiet, steady, implacable action to keep their property from its would-be usurpers.
RE: “I hear a lot of table-pounding from the secessionists.”
Oh I dunno — I would call your comments “table-pounding” — so perhaps that’s [i]yet another word[/i] or concept that you and I don’t define in the same way. ; > )
#9, #14: When I read your logic, an amusing thought comes to mind. I picture Jack Kevorkian being elected as head of the AMA. Next he calls, on short notice, a meeting to depose (revoke medical licences) all the gerontologists who faithfully follow the Hippocratic Oath. [b]E[/b]piscopal, [b]e[/b]piscopal, [b]C[/b]hurch, [b]c[/b]hurch, [b]c[/b]ult. What is in a trademark? What does the Constitution say about letting people practice their faith as they traditionally understand it without placing barriers like confiscating the property items that were purchased only for the purpose of exercising that traditional faith?
#13– Yes Read up on trademark as well as corporation law pertaining to religious institutions. The Episcopal Diocese of Long Island is the only “Diocese of Long Island”. The Roman Catholics have to be named the Diocese of Rockville Center, the Diocese of Brooklyn etc., because NY Sate Law regarding Religious Corporations is stated in such a way that only the Episcopalians can use the word. The point, however, is well taken. 815, that is to be more exact David Booth Beers, is intent upon litigation and invoking canons. The fact that KJS goes along with such silliness shows what an incredibly weak “leader” she is.
The bishop carries on that interesting, uniquely Anglican use of the phrase “The Church of God”. What exactly is that? Where is it? If it isn’t there, I expect KJS has no authority over anyone “in” it, but then no one has any rights “in” it either. A little too mystical for Orthodox. How do you know if you’re out of it?
#14, Sorry DC, TEC has claim to the title Domestic Foreign Missionary Society of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the USA. It has no more claim to being THE Episcopal Church than it has claim to being THE Catholic Church or THE Church of God.
That should be Domestic AND Foreign Missionary Society, etc.
From the very piece that DC pointed me to:
[blockquote]Finally, a generic mark is a mark that describes the general category to which the underlying product belongs. For example, the term “Computer” is a generic term for computer equipment. Generic marks are entitled to no protection under trademark law. Thus, a manufacturer selling “Computer” brand computers (or “Apple” brand apples, etc.) would have no exclusive right to use that term with respect to that product. Generic terms are not protected by trademark law because they are simply too useful for identifying a particular product. Giving a single manufacturer control over use of the term would give that manufacturer too great a competitive advantage. Under some circumstances, terms that are not originally generic can become generic over time (a process called “genericity”), and thus become unprotected.[/blockquote]
What might be an example of such a “generic mark”? I don’t know, how about the word . . . . “Episcopal”?