[Date Prev][Date Next][Date Index]

Re: Irregularity [consecrations in Singapore]



> Mother hates to spoil the party, but I do want to raise a serious
> question about these "irregular consecrations."
> 
> As Nat Pierce+ pointed out, this isn't the first time "irregularities"
> have been committed in the name of what the proponents perceived as a
> "justice issue." And the Philadelphia Eleven weren't the first^Îit's
> arguable (and +Fitz Allison hints at it in their press release) that
> every Bishop in the Episcopal Church's succession is the product of an
> end run around the canons of the time, aided and abetted by the Scottish
> Non-Jurors.
> 
> So, before we get too deep into our self-righteousness, y'all help me
> tease out how what happened in Singapore is different from the
> consecration of +Spinnin' Sam Seabury or the ordination of the
> Philadelphia Eleven, on some basis other than "we don't like it."
> 
> Otherwise we are going to be drowning in the same noxious sea of
> disinformation that we've been floating in about the "30-year decline of
> 30 percent in the membership of the Episcopal Church of the U.S.A."
> yada-yada-yada.
> 
> Church history scholars? Canon lawyers? On your mark . . .

Good  questions.

For starters, the church wanted women priests, as shown 2 years later when
we 'regularized' the Philadelphia Eleven and changed the canons to make
women priests.   The church wanted Samuel Seabury and went to Scotland to
seek to have him consecrated.

Even if the Standing Committees and Bishops wanted to consent to the
consecrations in Singapore, I doubt that the new bishops want to be part
of ECUSA:  they are consecrated to be missionaries to it, to convert it,
not to become part of it.  I am not able to say how we will feel a few
months or years into their prophecy, but I doubt they would get the
consents at this moment.

At least one of the ordaining bishops in Philadelphia was an ordinary and
did have the possibility of deploying those in his jurisdiction.

Seabury had no deployment problems:  he was not an episcopus vagans.  The
Anglican Communion has never dealt approvingly of episcopi vagantes
Bishops are consecrated for a place, not for the whole church, as Joe Doss
discovered recently.

Bishops are consecrated for a place, not for the whole church, as Joe Doss
discovered recently.

I agree with you that we should not be on any high horse about this. There
are new bishops in my neighborhood all the time; almost any pastor who can
raise enough money to get a roof can find someone to call him or her
'Bishop.' When Otis Charles went to Utah as Bishop, he decided to get a
new credit card and was turned down.  He called the senior warden at his
largest parish who was president of the bank, who checked out the
application.  "Of course we did not give you a new credit card," the
manager reported back, laughing.  "Why not?" asked Bishop Charles,
non-plussed indeed.  "Because of what you put as your 'occupation.' You
listed only 'bishop.' Every Mormon is a bishop and if you had no other
visible means of support, clearly we would be risking too much to extend
credit."  Humor over, he got his card, in addition to an important lesson
about the appellation.

L.




Please sign my guestbook and view it.


My site has been accessed times since February 14, 1996.

Statistics courtesy of WebCounter.