Thursday, April 12, 2007

From the San Joaquin Standing Committee

The Standing Committee of the Diocese of San Joaquin (of which I am a member--that is, both of the diocese and of the SC) has written Bishop Schofield a request to use his influence with the Windsor (aka "Camp Allen") Bishops to fulfill their role in the plan enunciated by February's Primates' Communique by nominating a candidate for the position of Primatial Vicar by June 1st. The Standing Committee, in keeping with the resolution passed by last Diocesan Convention to the effect that the SC, Diocesan Council, and the Bishop work together to develop a plan for maintaining the diocese's relationship of full communion with the See of Canterbury, believes it is both prudent and appropriate for the Windsor Bishops to move forward with the Primates’ structural scheme of a Pastoral Council and Primatial Vicar.

The text of the letter:

Standing Committee
Diocese of San Joaquin
4159 E. Dakota Ave.
Fresno, CA 93726-5227
Fax 559.244.4832

April 10, 2007

The Rt. Rev. John-David Schofield
Bishop, Diocese of San Joaquin
4159 E. Dakota
Fresno CA 93726

Re: Primates’ Pastoral Council & Primatial Vicar

Dear Bishop Schofield,

The Standing Committee of the Diocese of San Joaquin requests you use your influence with other Windsor Bishops to expedite the nomination of a Primatial Vicar to the Archbishop of Canterbury. The Primates’ Communiqué from Dar es Salaam, including the pastoral scheme, offers a reasoned and appropriate way forward for this diocese. We believe our best connection with the Anglican Communion is the one being offered by the Primates via the Pastoral Council.

In requesting Alternative Primatial Oversight [APO] last year, we began a process to insure continued recognition within the Anglican Communion. The Pastoral Council and Primatial Vicar as established by the Primates, if implemented in good faith, appears reasonable and prudent for the time leading to the conclusion of the Covenant process. We would urge you, in obedience to the established Anglican authority of the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Primates’ Meeting, to have the nomination of a Primatial Vicar to the Archbishop of Canterbury before June 1, 2007.

In the Name and love of our Risen Lord Jesus,

s/ Jim Snell+, President

for the Standing Committee of the Diocese

10 comments:

Jeremy said...

Why is it that no one knows how to write a proper salutation anymore? The opening line should be "Right Reverend Sir:" and not "Dear Bishop Schofield:"

Jeffrey said...

Speaking of grammar and properness -

As there was no further mention of the Alternative Primatial Oversight, there was no reason to abbreviate after mention.

Ann said...

The "Windsor Bishops" have no standing to make nominations. I believe only The Most Rev. Katharine Jefferts Schori and other Primates have that standing.

Dan Martins said...

Ann, according the the Dar es Salaam Communique, it is the Windsor Bishops who nominate the PV, and the Pastoral Council that appoints, "in consultation" with the Presiding Bishop. Apparently, Katharine has opted to renege on the commitment she made in Tanzania to implement this scheme. Nonetheless, it can still happen with the cooperation of the other parties.

Jon said...

Actually, the scheme probably can't work without the PB's cooperation since she was to appoint two of the members of the Pastoral Council. Without that cooperation the primary achievement of the Council will probably be to undermine the tradition of autonomous provinces in the Anglican Communion.

Still if the Windsor Bishops decide to address the issue, perhaps they could indicate that the PC can only mediate between those who have lost trust in each other, rather than attempt to act as a legislative body superior to GC.

Jon

rob roy said...

The PB was to nominate 2 of the 5 committee members. As the ACI, members state: If she chooses not to, so be it. Given the brazenly biased make up of the Executive committee to study the DeS communique, her nominations would have been along the lines of Bp's Robinson and Chane and would have been an ignored minority anyway.

Craig Goodrich said...

Jon, the PC isn't superior to the GC but parallel to it, since it has no influence over the activities of non-Windsor dioceses, while the Windsor dioceses do not accept certain GC actions as binding. (Neither, apparently, do many progressive bishops; note the reaction to B033.)

The "tradition of autonomy" is nonexistent; it's more like a "tradition of autocephaly" such as we see in Eastern Orthodoxy. And as to what the Council can do without the cooperation of 815, it can do precisely what it could do with such cooperation, the added complication being 815's legal resistance and vituperation.

frcartercroft said...

Dan, thanks for posting this important information!
Carter+

Eli Sabachthani said...

This is defiant of the House of Bishops' resolution passed at their last HOB meeting at Camp Allen, Texas. You have no right to make these kinds of moves. This is so ridiculous that it doesn't really require comment, except for the fact that your diocese of known to be so nuts that no one is surprised. Too bad Bishop Swing ex of California didn't succeed in his attempt to bring charges on your profligate bishop. there will not be any kind of pastoral oversight vicar in this country, sweeties. No way.

Jon said...

Craig, then let the Windsor bishops clarify that such is the case. Although I suspect that if it exercises legislative authority at all, it will make reconciliation significantly harder. Of course if reconciliation isn't the point then it might be able to work without cooperation, it probably won't be able to actually build up the body of Christ, but it can certainly defend the teachings and interpretations of humans.

Jon