The predicted statement has now been published.
See Bishops’ Statement on the Polity of the Episcopal Church, at the ACI website.
There is also a separate item there, Statement from the Anglican Communion Institute signed only by The Revd Canon Professor Christopher Seitz. This responds to the original publication of email extracts by The Revd Canon Mark Harris.
The entire email correspondence has now been published as a PDF file over here.
Earlier, an unofficial copy of the formal ACI document was published, also as a PDF here.
The Bishops’ Statement has been signed by 15 bishops. The list is as follows:
Also Endorsed By:
– The Reverend Canon Professor Christopher Seitz
– The Reverend Dr. Philip Turner
– The Reverend Dr. Ephraim Radner
(The Anglican Communion Institute, Inc.)
The name of Mark McCall, the actual author, does not appear in the published document.
According to the emails and the draft version of the document, the following four additional signatures were sought:
list amended Thursday morning
The Right Reverend John C. Bauerschmidt, Bishop of Tennessee
The Right Reverend Geralyn Wolf, Bishop of Rhode Island
The Right Reverend Gary R. Lillibridge, Bishop of West Texas
The Right Reverend C. Andrew Doyle, Bishop Coadjutor of Texas
Various blogs have commented on this story, including:
In A Godward Direction BS from ACI
BabyBlue Draft of Communion Partners Statement on the Polity of The Episcopal Chuch is seized and leaked by Episcopal progressive activists
Integrity Integrity Applauds “Outing” of Communion Partners Network
Telling Secrets Anglican Teabagging
Episcopal Café ACI releases statement and Breaking III: Integrity publishes CP/ACI draft document
Articles of Faith Episcopal email conspiracy unwrapped
Washington Blade Episcopal leaders look to enhance anti-gay schism: source
An Inch At A Time: Reflections on the Journey Nancy Drew and The Case of the Errant Anglican Emails added Thursday morning
+Geralyn Wolfe of RI is named on the draft, but not on the official release. She must have refused to sign up. A number of CP bishops do not, therefore, support this.
Well, that’s the end of the Covenant, then.
Ha! I love Seitz’s PS to the first email:
“Please can we pray about what it means for +Tanzania to take a big chunk of money and, effectively, use is [sic] to buy an airplane ticket to London to meet with Gafcon. This is despicable and cannot be left without a response and of a serious sort.”
I guess the primate of Tanzania will be getting a slap!
I read this statement with increasing amazement. What could possibly have possessed these people to make these strange assertions at this vital time in the life of their Church. I am constantly surprised by TEC – take for example the fact that in some diocese the bishop votes in the House of Clergy and in others the bishop has no vote at all! Though I understand the bishop has the right of “last voice” in the debate! Nothing here to support the episcopal aspirations claimed in this “Partners” statement TEC is clearly bi-polar on bishops and has a quirky and… Read more »
If the dioceses are all independent, why did all these bishops have to get the consent of General Convention to be consecrated..most notably Lawrence?
….. and I think Charlotte is right …. Radner and mates is making the Covenant impossible ….
MJ
Thank you for spotting that, I have amended the list accordingly.
Two documents which contradict the arguments of Mark McCall may be of interest. Both have been linked on TA in response to earlier discussions of this topic: The Government of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America: Confederal, Federal, or Unitary By James Allen Dator Submitted in 1959 to the faculty of the Graduate School of The American University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy http://www.edow.org/dator/ “A Response to Mark McCall’s ‘Is The Episcopal Church Hierarchical?’” by church historian Dr. Joan R. Gundersen http://progressiveepiscopalians.org/html/mccall.pdf And there is also “History Revisited:… Read more »
It is worth noting that the Communion Partner bishops, according to their website, subscribe to
the following:
“- are committed to honoring diocesan boundaries
– will be governed by mutual respect
– and will proceed by invitation and cooperation”
http://communionpartners.org/?page_id=2
Do the emails show commitment to this…?
I expect that when the Dio of VA goes before the Virginia Supreme Court to argue that we are part of a hierarchical church and therefore not bound by the post-civil war legislation aimed at NON-hierarchical churches tha that had broken during the civil war, the document above will be cited by the would-be thieves on the other side. It would be helpful to us if the ABC refuted this, but, given his track record, I just hope he keeps his mouth shut, or delivers a windy opinion on piracy and the law of the sea, or some other topic… Read more »
In US legal context, “hierarchical” has a specific legal meaning. All of the precedents are that TEC is a hierarchical church. Only the Supreme Court can alter that precedent. No such document is even relevant. Though, the fact that the dioceses are all subject to the canons is completely determinative of the legal question.
Well, I know it’s a bit passé, but an observation that the Episcopal Church has a fractal hierarchical structure might catch Rowan’s eye.
Bishop John Howe of Central Florida made the following comment earlier today, reproduced on another blog:
“The Executive Council has said that the only body that can act upon the Anglican Covenant is
the General Convention. We do not believe that is accurate. We believe that dioceses and even
parishes could decide to “opt into” it.”
I was unaware that a parish-by-parish signing of the Covenant was contemplated by its designers until now. I wonder if those familiar with the Church of England would care to comment on the probable result if parish-by-parish adoption is required there.
Bishop John Howe is not the brightest bulb in the candelabra. He has promoted the dioceses-as-basic-unit idea previously. I wonder how he would feel if some of his parishes decided to opt out of his cuckoo diocese?
As for the fractal nature of our polity and the ABC – puLEEZE don’t tell him!
My hope is that the VA Supreme Court will pay attention to the previous rulings of the Supremes above them and throw the case out.
Cynthia, you’re on a roll today: subsequent posts should come w/ a “Cover Keyboard” warning! *LOL*
{Breathlessly awaits +++Rowan’s discourse re String Theory}
Canon Seitz takes issue with the publication of emails not addressed to Harris. It’s important to remember that the legal owner of emails or letters is the person who receives them, not those who send them — even if they’re marked ‘confidential’. And the recipient can indeed dispose of them as he or she wishes. I suspect many of us have felt burnt by having our letters or emails republished, but copyright law (at least here in the UK) allows this, and one ought always to be careful with what one writes, lest our various schemes get exposed….
Joe
We have now reached the second level of the homophobic and misogynist rebellion within the Episcopal Church. I know that +John Howe and his fellow bishop signatories proclaim their desire to remain “within” the Episcopal Church. The price for “remaining” will be that he and his colleagues assert, against the history of the Episcopal Church, the decisions of the United States Supreme Court, the Canons of the Episcopal Church, and their own ordination vows that the Episcopal Church is not a hierarchical church; that individual bishops are free of any discipline from the Episcopal Church; that they may remove their… Read more »
The realignment Anglicans are plotting & scheming. Ditto, Ditto, Ditto, Ditto. … One of their fav ploys is to adopt skewed – even odd, even outright ahistorical – definitions and presuppositions – all of which leave them in a favorable or positive strategic light, while also putting their non-realignment believer colleagues (both ordained and lay) in a remarkably unfavorable or negative or less powerful light. Ditto, ditto, ditto, ditto … Yawn. Are we getting the hang of this stuff yet? The passing surprise is their ineptitude in carrying off this phase of the constant plotting & scheming. And – as… Read more »
“The passing surprise is their ineptitude in carrying off this phase of the constant plotting & scheming. And – as if anybody much needed it – further clear evidence that figures like Radner and Seitz with all their repeat high titles are not friends of anybody except their own special realignment Anglican sort.” – drdanfee – Radner’s stance: on supporting the independence of diocesan authorities to sign the Covenant, is strangely at odds with his membership of the international Covenant design Group. Why is it that such obvious supporters of this bit of non-Anglican ecclesiology like Radner and Abp. Gomez… Read more »
RIW:
In re to consecrations in TEC: It is my understanding that General Convention consent comes only for consecrations near (usually within one year) of the triennial conventions. In off years the consent comes via the national standing committee.
Gosh ….. I didn’t expect my exasperation with the “ACI/Fulcrum divas” expressed yesterday here above to be answered quite so quickly ….
“more pointy hats please…..”
But it was announced today Graham Kings is to be a suffragan of Salisbury ……
But choirboy, that doesn’t quite solve the problem. Put it another way: if dioceses are really autonomous, why do they need consents for the consecration of their bishops at all?
Choirboy, BillyD–
I believe the normal approval process (w/o General Convention) is that, after the diocesan election, separate consents are required from a majority of the bishops having jurisdiction and from a majority of the diocesan standing committees. In any case, the point remains that the diocesan election isn’t entirely autonomous.
more pointy hats please…..”
But it was announced today Graham Kings is to be a suffragan of Salisbury ……
Posted by: Martin Reynolds on Friday, 24 April 2009 at 5:12pm BST
No actual pointy hat for him though –surely ?!
Thank you 4 May 1535+, that was the point I was trying to make, and that is the structure of TEC is ultimately hierarchical, whether we like it or not.
I like the statement by Common Cause, “committed to honoring diocesan boundaries”. Now if they would just respect metropolitan boundaries.
Most progressive Evangelicals will now wear a mitre..the last remaining bishiop to refuse o ewaer this Romanist bauble is Wallace Benn.
Knowing Rowan’s ability to shock, maybe Bishop Benn will be translated to Carlisle!
‘the last remaining bishop to refuse to wear this Romanist bauble is Wallace Benn’
I believe the first post Reformation bishop to sport the pointy hat was Edward King, who did so just down the road from here at St Mary’s Wrawby – and so outraged a Cleethorpes churchwarden that the campaign to have EK ‘done’ for ritualism was begun….
If any more ‘pointy hats’ are needed, I’m sure the Archbishop of Sydney and some of his loyal bishops would be glad to deliver up theirs – that is, if they haven’t already consigned them to the flames (or to would-be newly appointed bishops of ACNA).
“I believe the first post Reformation bishop to sport the pointy hat was Edward King, who did so just down the road from here at St Mary’s Wrawby – and so outraged a Cleethorpes churchwarden that the campaign to have EK ‘done’ for ritualism was begun….” David Rowett
Perhaps that’s true for post Reformation ENGLISH bishops. But at least two American Bishops wore “the pointy hat” in the 18th century: Bishop Seabury of Connecticut (1785), and Bishop Claggett of Maryland (1792).