Archive for May, 2008
Written by: Communion Partners
Saturday, May 31st, 2008
In the context of discussions about the Episcopal Visitors concept announced by the Presiding Bishop at the House of Bishops meeting in New Orleans, we the undersigned have considered a need to maintain and strengthen
• our ties with the Anglican Communion
• our commitment to the observance of diocesan boundaries within The Episcopal Church
• and our exercise of our office as a focus of unity.
We believe such ties will provide the opportunity for mutual support, accountability and fellowship; and present an important sign of our connectedness in and vision for The Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion as we move through this time of stress and renewal.
read more...
May 31 2008 | Articles
Written by: Communion Partners
Saturday, May 31st, 2008
As a fellowship of Communion Partner Rectors, we welcome and support the release of the Communion Partner Bishops’ Statement. As this initiative moved forward, we felt it crucial to have the support of a growing group of rectors from Episcopal parishes throughout the United States and we will form a counterpart to Partner Bishops and Partner Primates. We believe it important that we are a broad partnership, extended across dioceses of various levels of Communion commitment.
read more...
May 31 2008 | Articles
Written by: Mr. Mark McCall
Saturday, May 31st, 2008
With Bishop Sauls’ lengthy and considered review of the canonical irregularities in the cases of Bishops Cox and Schofield, we can now assume that the leadership of The Episcopal Church has made the best case that can be made in defense of these actions. But a review of Bishop Sauls’ memorandum shows that one cannot defend the indefensible. His analysis studiously avoids addressing the controlling issues. He extols safeguards that were not followed in these very cases. His inexplicable misreading of the legislative history of Canon IV.9 points to yet further proof confirming the plain meaning of that canon. And inherent in his waiver argument is the admission that there was a legal right that was waived. After all arguments are made that can be made, it remains clear that a “majority of the whole number of Bishops entitled to vote” does indeed mean what it says: a majority of bishops with voting rights in the House of Bishops. The legislative history to which Bishop Sauls points demonstrates that the canon has always had this meaning, and it has never changed.
read more...
May 31 2008 | Articles
Written by: Rev. Professor Christopher Seitz
Thursday, May 15th, 2008
One concern about the covenant process now underway is that the reality of the Communion’s present condition could be bypassed by well-intentioned efforts of a committee to hear everyone and find a common document that proves unable to address a reality.
read more...
May 15 2008 | Articles
Written by: Rev. Dr. Philip Turner
Thursday, May 1st, 2008
Three events in the recent past have posed a serious question. Does the Presiding Bishop of The Episcopal Church (TEC) know what she is doing? The possible answers to this question have raised even greater concern than the question itself. For, I have concluded, if, on the one hand, she does not know what she is doing then TEC is without effective leadership at perhaps the most crucial time in its history. If, on the other hand, she does know what she is doing, she is leading TEC in directions for which she has no warrant.
read more...
May 01 2008 | Articles
Written by: Rev. Dr. Philip Turner
Thursday, May 1st, 2008
A second iteration of a draft covenant for the Anglican Communion (the St. Andrew’s Draft) is now circulating; and it is likely that some version thereof will be presented to the Bishops of the Communion when they meet in Canterbury this summer. At some point after this gathering, a covenant proposal will be circulated among the provinces of the Communion for ratification. There is no doubt that most (though perhaps not all) of the member provinces of the Communion will ratify a covenant within the next few years. The question is really not so much ratification of the Covenant, but (1) the sort of covenant that will be ratified; (2) the way in which the provinces of the Communion comport themselves during the period leading up to ratification; and (3) how the Communion might best respond to a situation in which a province rejects the covenant but there are dioceses and parishes within that province that do not.
read more...
May 01 2008 | Articles