Episcopal Diocese of South Carolina leaves the Episcopal Church

[andrewstx]

Κυριε ελεησον
Χριστε ελεησον
Κυριε ελεησον

Lord, have mercy on us, for we are exceedingly daft, and prone to getting into great hissy fits with one another rather than sitting down and talking things out. Please grant us the wisdom to use the brains, the hearts, and the mouths which you have given us.

In particular, Lord, please comfort the members of the Episcopal Diocese of South Carolina and of other episcopal dioceses who are caught up in this storm over jurisdictions.

AMEN

 

[ltwin]

Read this thread. When has this ever happened in the Catholic Church? A Diocese relinquishes legal claim to any of its parishes in order to avoid the USCCB from confiscating those parishes? Has that ever happened? Has the Catholic Church ever had a whole Diocese jump ship? Personal immorality and sin are obviously in every Church… stories like this are not.

Could it even legally happen in the Catholic Church? I mean, isn’t a Catholic dioceses pretty much under the control of the bishop, who has to obey the Pope?

However, it sort of makes since in the case of the Episcopal Church and especially the case of the Diocese of South Carolina. The Church of England’s history in South Carolina goes all the way back to the 1660s. It was made the established religion of South Carolina by the Church Acts of the 1700s. It’s only been a member of the Episcopal Church since 1790, and during the American Civil War it was not even a member then (being a diocese of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the Confederate States of America). South Carolina Episcopalianism has a well developed sense of self, which because of its long history can exist outside of its identity as a diocese in the Episcopal Church.

 

[Aramis]

I’m 20 years old.

It seems like most of your post is talking about the “80’s and 90’s”, or how bad things were in “decades past”. What I said was basically a paraphrase of what Ordinary Jeffery Steenson said upon joining the Anglican Ordinariate… they had finally docked in the safe harbor of Rome.

I find it stunning that you can read this thread and find this Church (Episcopal), to be anywhere close to the Catholic Church. Would this ever happen to a Catholic diocese? Because, apparently, this isn’t even the first time this has happened to an Episcopal Diocese.

Again, I’ll close by saying that my statement is an assessment of the present. Whereas you take issue with it mainly because of your opinion of things that happened 20-30 years ago (before I was born).

Historically, it has happened within the Catholic Church… The Diocese of Utrecht severed and became the parent of a whole range of “somewhere between Catholic and Protestant” ecclesial communities.

In recent times, it’s been a parish here or there, rather than whole dioceses… one in Australia a year or two ago was pretty iffy - the whole parish refusing to obey the bishop when the pastor was relieved for theological and disciplinary issues. Wikipedia: Peter Kennedy (Priest)

And then, there’s the SSPX, who are suspended as a body and yet ignoring their suspensions, and the SSJK, who were excommunicated…

And the occasional defection to the “Old Catholics” of a priest and some followers…

And the public ministry being removed from Fr. Albert Cutie and more recently, Fr. Kevin Lee, over their not living up to their vows of celibacy. At least my cousin got laicized before taking a girlfriend. (His kids are now in college. He was the priest who baptized me…)

The Catholic Communion, all 20-some churches, is a much less rocky sea than the Anglican Communion (and its 30+ member churches) or the several Lutheran federations… But just because it’s a calm sea by comparison to the Anglicans doesn’t mean we’re not concerned that there’s water lapping the rails…

 

[Aramis]

Could it even legally happen in the Catholic Church? I mean, isn’t a Catholic dioceses pretty much under the control of the bishop, who has to obey the Pope?

Not just “pretty much”… but, in practice, the 20th C Popes have been unwilling to publicly remove even the openly defiant bishops. Especially HH John Paul II and HH Benedict XVI.

Bishops are seldom removed publicly in the Catholic Communion, especially the Roman Church. Sufficiently so that it makes news when it happens.

4 bishops this year were relieved. Rome doesn’t actually say why. Nor did they do so for Bishop Nicholas Elko… but in his case, it obviously wasn’t heresy, as he was later appointed as Auxiliary Archbishop… Still, Rome never discussed why HG Nicholas was ordered to a monastery, nor relieved as Eparch of Passaic.

The thing is, most dioceses are set up as corporations in themselves - and the charter and bylaws specify the Pope is solely competent to determine who the bishop is, and to ammend the bylaws and charter. So, unlike the Episcopals, Catholic bishops can’t take the diocese and its property with them - the courts should restore the diocese’s stuff to the new bishop. Much as they did with the diocesan propertys of an Assyrian Diocese which came into union with Rome and the Chaldean Patriarch.)

Since the Episcopals lack a clear leading hierarch, it’s easier for them.

But, then again, Rome learned from Utrecht following Vatican I…

 

[Rainaldo]

But, then again, Rome learned from Utrecht following Vatican I…

Yeah, i partially disagree. You wanna take this outside, sir?

 

[ltwin]

Not just “pretty much”… but, in practice, the 20th C Popes have been unwilling to publicly remove even the openly defiant bishops. Especially HH John Paul II and HH Benedict XVI.

Bishops are seldom removed publicly in the Catholic Communion, especially the Roman Church. Sufficiently so that it makes news when it happens.

4 bishops this year were relieved. Rome doesn’t actually say why. Nor did they do so for Bishop Nicholas Elko… but in his case, it obviously wasn’t heresy, as he was later appointed as Auxiliary Archbishop… Still, Rome never discussed why HG Nicholas was ordered to a monastery, nor relieved as Eparch of Passaic.

The thing is, most dioceses are set up as corporations in themselves - and the charter and bylaws specify the Pope is solely competent to determine who the bishop is, and to ammend the bylaws and charter. So, unlike the Episcopals, Catholic bishops can’t take the diocese and its property with them - the courts should restore the diocese’s stuff to the new bishop. Much as they did with the diocesan propertys of an Assyrian Diocese which came into union with Rome and the Chaldean Patriarch.)

Since the Episcopals lack a clear leading hierarch, it’s easier for them.

But, then again, Rome learned from Utrecht following Vatican I…

Yes, that makes sense. And lets not be deceived, the Presiding Bishop has nowhere near the authority of the Pope. She can’t even perform any priestly functions within a diocese without the permission of the diocesan bishop.

It’s even more confusing because the Episcopal Church’s disciplinary canons are a hot mess. Mark Lawrence has been charged with “abandonment of Communion,” which is suppose to mean that he has actually abandoned the communion of the Episcopal Church. Obviously, the fact that he and his diocese were still in the Episcopal Church calls into question how the Bishop could be charged with leaving the Episcopal Church. Furthermore, two of the three charges are an example of double jeopardy, since Lawrence was brought up on those two charges before and found not to have abandoned the Episcopal Church.

The possibility of double jeopardy should make all Episcopal clergy concerned, since it can easily be turned into a tool for persecuting clergy.

And then you add the fact that Lawrence is being condemned for the actions of the Diocesan Convention, which removed from the Diocese’s Constitution an unqualified accession to the Constitution and Canons of the Episcopal Church. However, there are many Episcopal dioceses that DO NOT have accession clauses in their constitutions. So, there is a lot of inconsistency here.

Add to that the fact that the Diocese of South Carolina has never recognized TEC’s new disciplinary canons and never incorporated it into their own canons. So according to the Diocese of South Carolina, none of this affects Bishop Lawrence at all.

 

[GKC]

Yes, that makes sense. And lets not be deceived, the Presiding Bishop has nowhere near the authority of the Pope. She can’t even perform any priestly functions within a diocese without the permission of the diocesan bishop.

It’s even more confusing because the Episcopal Church’s disciplinary canons are a hot mess. Mark Lawrence has been charged with “abandonment of Communion,” which is suppose to mean that he has actually abandoned the communion of the Episcopal Church. Obviously, the fact that he and his diocese were still in the Episcopal Church calls into question how the Bishop could be charged with leaving the Episcopal Church. Furthermore, two of the three charges are an example of double jeopardy, since Lawrence was brought up on those two charges before and found not to have abandoned the Episcopal Church.

The possibility of double jeopardy should make all Episcopal clergy concerned, since it can easily be turned into a tool for persecuting clergy.

And then you add the fact that Lawrence is being condemned for the actions of the Diocesan Convention, which removed from the Diocese’s Constitution an unqualified accession to the Constitution and Canons of the Episcopal Church. However, there are many Episcopal dioceses that DO NOT have accession clauses in their constitutions. So, there is a lot of inconsistency here.

Add to that the fact that the Diocese of South Carolina has never recognized TEC’s new disciplinary canons and never incorporated it into their own canons. So according to the Diocese of South Carolina, none of this affects Bishop Lawrence at all.

It is even worse than that, as can be read here:

accurmudgeon.blogspot.com/2012/10/once-again-conflicts-galore-on-kangaroo.html

The canon under which TEC moved here didn’t exit in that form, (Title 4) until mid-summer last year. It was crafted to be used against +Lawrence. The Curmudgeon’s site, linked above, is a treasure trove of legal and canonical info on this case, going back for years. If anyone were interested.

GKC

 

[Izdaari]

Given the basic nature of +Lawrence, and of the gracious Katherine, this has been coming for a long time.

Let the lawsuits begin.

GKC

Agreed. I was kind of expecting it, while at the same time hoping it could be averted.

If I must choose sides (and I don’t suppose I must, since I live in WA), I would have to side with “the gracious Katherine”.

 

[GKC]

Agreed. I was kind of expecting it, while at the same time hoping it could be averted.

If I must choose sides (and I don’t suppose I must, since I live in WA), I would have to side with “the gracious Katherine”.

I am very sorry to hear that.

GKC

 

[manualman]

SZ, If you didn’t know what dramamine was, I can see how the rest looks insulting. Mea Culpa. Now that you DO know what it is, I should get at least a groan for a bad pun…

But I do find it ironic that you are asserting that this sort of thing just doesn’t happen in the catholic church when the entire Anglican Communion only exists precisely out of this very thing happening in the catholic church (The Church of England jumping ship from catholicism). Yes, that was 500 years ago. And yet the wound bleeds on.

Anyway, peace. I never meant to insult you or insinuate you were drug addled. I hope that’s clear by now.

 

[Contarini]

Agreed. I was kind of expecting it, while at the same time hoping it could be averted.

If I must choose sides (and I don’t suppose I must, since I live in WA), I would have to side with “the gracious Katherine”.

Would you like to explain why?

I’m a lot more sympathetic to +Jefferts Schori than most folks on this forum, but I think it’s hard to defend what she’s doing here. Episcopalians who oppose the Covenant like to say " we don’t want to look like Rome." But apparently TEC has no problem “looking like Rome” as long as it’s TEC doing the disciplining. That’s not inconsistent–it’s just an ecclesiology in which the denomination (+Jefferts Schori insists that we are not just a national church but an international body, since we do have some provinces outside the U.S.) is a Church with disciplinary power. And ecclesiologically that makes no sense to me at all. There’s the diocese, and there’s the universal Church. If the Anglican Communion doesn’t have the right to discipline because it isn’t the universal Church (and I think that’s a fair argument), then the same applies a fortiori to TEC.

Also, even granted the right to discipline, she’s doing it in a very high-handed way.

Edwin

 

[Glomung]

Κυριε ελεησον
Χριστε ελεησον
Κυριε ελεησον

Lord, have mercy on us, for we are exceedingly daft.

ROFLMAO, that is TOO TRUE and straight to the point.

That has now become part of my daily prayers.

 

[Usbek_de_Perse]

I think just the opposite. Good relations between bishops, especially between a conservative Anglican and a like minded Roman, generally leads to better relationships and acknowledgement of shared values, not to conversion. I am certain you would not like to see Catholics converting to Anglicanism.

This talk of conversion is troubling and I am glad it is not coming from any Roman episcopal authority. Recently, Marc Andrus, the Bishop of California (ECUSA) was inhibited in his attempt to take his invited place at the enthronement of Abp Salvatore Cordileone (RC) in San Fran due to Andus’ essentially open invitation to Catholics unhappy with Cordileone’s stance on gay weddings. This talk of poaching is really unseemly.

You will note that the text of Coetibus Anglicanorum referenced the repeated pleas of Anglicans, especially by the Traditional Anglican Communion, for full union with Rome. In other words, it was a response to requests not an uninvited appeal for converts. It would be best for you to emulate the approach of the Roman Catholic church authorities.

I live in South Carolina. As I understand it, the RC Bishop of Charleston (diocese is coterminous with the borders of the state, as is the Episcopal diocese, so “territory” is the “same”) and the E Bishop of South Carolina have a very close relationship. I think this can potentially be a very ripe source of converts for our diocese.

 

[Usbek_de_Perse]

Thanks GKC.

It is even worse than that, as can be read here:

accurmudgeon.blogspot.com/2012/10/once-again-conflicts-galore-on-kangaroo.html

The canon under which TEC moved here didn’t exit in that form, (Title 4) until mid-summer last year. It was crafted to be used against +Lawrence. The Curmudgeon’s site, linked above, is a treasure trove of legal and canonical info on this case, going back for years. If anyone were interested.

GKC

 

[Contarini]

I think just the opposite. Good relations between bishops, especially between a conservative Anglican and a like minded Roman, generally leads to better relationships and acknowledgement of shared values, not to conversion. I am certain you would not like to see Catholics converting to Anglicanism.

This talk of conversion is troubling and I am glad it is not coming from any Roman episcopal authority. Recently, Marc Andrus, the Bishop of California (ECUSA) was inhibited in his attempt to take his invited place at the enthronement of Abp Salvatore Cordileone (RC) in San Fran due to Andus’ essentially open invitation to Catholics unhappy with Cordileone’s stance on gay weddings. This talk of poaching is really unseemly.

You will note that the text of Coetibus Anglicanorum referenced the repeated pleas of Anglicans, especially by the Traditional Anglican Communion, for full union with Rome. In other words, it was a response to requests not an uninvited appeal for converts. It would be best for you to emulate the approach of the Roman Catholic church authorities.

Also, SC is a pretty low-church diocese. They’re conservative, and I can believe that they work well with the local RCs, but that doesn’t mean they’re reading to become RC.

Edwin

 

[GKC]

Thanks GKC.

As with many things, it is complicated in detail. But it is simple in essence.

GKC

 

[Usbek_de_Perse]

I spent part of my weekend in the belly of the beast (the convention of the Diocese of California) and, while I was hoping to talk to someone about the situation in South Carolina, I realized then and there that the liberal agenda of the church is to a great extent led from San Francisco, especially by its bishop. The church has become unmoored from its foundation. I like the bishop personally, but I distrust him theologically. I don’t think he really thinks about theology much at all. It’s all about radical inclusion.

As with many things, it is complicated in detail. But it is simple in essence.

GKC

 

[GKC]

Also, SC is a pretty low-church diocese. They’re conservative, and I can believe that they work well with the local RCs, but that doesn’t mean they’re reading to become RC.

Edwin

As I said; my conclusion too.

GKC

 

[GKC]

I spent part of my weekend in the belly of the beast (the convention of the Diocese of California) and, while I was hoping to talk to someone about the situation in South Carolina, I realized then and there that the liberal agenda of the church is to a great extent led from San Francisco, especially by its bishop. The church has become unmoored from its foundation. I like the bishop personally, but I distrust him theologically. I don’t think he really thinks about theology much at all. It’s all about radical inclusion.

Though I think this flows more from the source of 815, as it seeks to increase the powers of the presiding bishop’s office, fundamentally changing the historic ecclesiology of the church, that the TEC is unmoored and has been off the rails (mixed transportation metaphor, there) for 30 years and more.

GKC

 

[TEPO]

Agreed. I was kind of expecting it, while at the same time hoping it could be averted.

If I must choose sides (and I don’t suppose I must, since I live in WA), I would have to side with “the gracious Katherine”.

Eh, I don’t know… The old ‘if you’re not with us then you’re against us’ attitude is really unproductive when it comes to faith in God.

I can’t blame Bishop Lawrence for sticking to his God given conscience.