tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34346296.post2036845877493384752..comments2023-12-25T23:40:17.701-05:00Comments on Confessions of a Carioca: More San Joaquin Flotsam and JetsamDaniel Martinshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15980949721733826978noreply@blogger.comBlogger15125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34346296.post-11815177874141037662008-02-05T12:20:00.000-05:002008-02-05T12:20:00.000-05:00Joe asks, "Do the six SC members who were fired by...Joe asks, "Do the six SC members who were fired by Bishop Schofield still consider themselves members of the SC? And do the other members recognise them as such?"<BR/><BR/>They (i.e. the Unqualified Six) consider themselves members of the Standing Committee of the *Episcopal* Diocese of San Joaquin, but not the Southern Cone Diocese of San Joaquin. The other two, who were not found "unqualified" by Bishop Schofield, consider themselves members of the Southern Cone Diocese of San Joaquin.Daniel Martinshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15980949721733826978noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34346296.post-5501302592180386352008-02-05T10:55:00.000-05:002008-02-05T10:55:00.000-05:00Thanks for that, Dan. One further question: do th...Thanks for that, Dan. One further question: do the six SC members who were fired by Bishop Schofield still consider themselves members of the SC? And do the other members recognise them as such?<BR/><BR/>JoeAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34346296.post-36942489252040565002008-02-04T22:51:00.000-05:002008-02-04T22:51:00.000-05:00Joe asked, "Is the SC saying that, though its bish...Joe asked, "Is the SC saying that, though its bishop has left TEC, they haven't and they're holding the fort until a new bishop is appointed?"<BR/><BR/>Yes.<BR/><BR/>Precisely.<BR/><BR/>That is what they are saying.Daniel Martinshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15980949721733826978noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34346296.post-75387077436600221782008-02-04T21:47:00.000-05:002008-02-04T21:47:00.000-05:00Dan,I don't quite understand the situation. If th...Dan,<BR/><BR/>I don't quite understand the situation. If the SJ Diocese has left TEC, and if the Standing Committee is the SC of that diocese, then the SC should not be recognised as part of the TEC.<BR/><BR/>If the SJ Diocese has not left TEC because it cannot legally do so, then the TEC needs to find some way clearly to distance itself from that decision and to affirm its continued membership in TEC even though its bishop (even before being inhibited) has left. Being a member of TEC is a voluntary association and, though it is polite to leave in a proper legally-sanctioned fashion, one can nonetheless leave simply by deciding to do so. Inhibition is a consequence of leaving TEC, not a cause for leaving.<BR/><BR/>Is the SC saying that, though its bishop has left TEC, they haven't and they're holding the fort until a new bishop is appointed?<BR/><BR/>I may be missing something crucial in all of this.....<BR/><BR/>Joe, UKAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34346296.post-20918419260150179162008-02-03T20:20:00.000-05:002008-02-03T20:20:00.000-05:00Fr. Dan,I think you are generally right - ++KJS er...Fr. Dan,<BR/><BR/>I think you are generally right - ++KJS erred significantly in her actions toward the SJ SC. We'll have to see how it plays out, unfortunately. I don't believe the Canons ever contemplated both a sitting bishop and a Standing committee being absent, which is what 815 believes at the moment.<BR/><BR/>Pray for the church.RFSJhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15164772153139719659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34346296.post-32795038233548289962008-02-03T15:31:00.000-05:002008-02-03T15:31:00.000-05:00I want to thank Dan for keeping a civil tone in wh...I want to thank Dan for keeping a civil tone in what was no doubt a very difficult conversation. We can be a rowdy bunch at times.<BR/><BR/>We most likely will continue to "agree to disagree" on some matters, but I think it is worth noting, as Dan mentioned, that the situation continues to change quite quickly, and we have all had to adjust our stance on any number of things. <BR/><BR/>If I understand his position correctly, Dan considers remaining in communion with Canterbury as a very high priority, and has never supported Bp. Schofield's move to the Southern Cone as the way to accomplish that priority.<BR/><BR/>That stance is significantly different from many of those with whom I usually disagree, and is one that I can respect, even while holding to a different set of priorities. <BR/><BR/>Oh, and the spam is gone. One person, probably a child, judging from the silly content. No big thing. All part of this strange new world.Jakehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13579571802576738609noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34346296.post-85856638824430387122008-02-03T15:26:00.000-05:002008-02-03T15:26:00.000-05:00Actually, and for the record, I found your explana...Actually, and for the record, I found your explanation that the SJ canons (not publicly available to date) did not allow the Bishop to remove SC members to be illuminating and helpful, and thank you for that.<BR/><BR/>Mind you, I think calling the individuals in question "Martyrs" is a tad over the top, but you have given me some food for thought, and I appreciate it.Anglocathttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03218740053628978255noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34346296.post-88277505410621620462008-02-03T14:51:00.000-05:002008-02-03T14:51:00.000-05:00Fr. Martins, I'd like to direct readers of this bl...Fr. Martins, I'd like to direct readers of this blog to the entire discussion at Fr. Jake's, from which you have excerpted your own comments. They might find it interesting. Unfortunately, after your posts appeared, someone began posting comment spam to Fr. Jake's blog, and it has become almost impossible to access the comments. Regrettable, isn't it?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34346296.post-56689866980499612192008-02-03T13:56:00.000-05:002008-02-03T13:56:00.000-05:00Beryl,The documents were published on the diocesan...Beryl,<BR/>The documents were published on the diocesan blog site Surrounded. Other blog sites have pick up the information & done with it what they wanted. The SC of the diocese did not publish this outside the diocese.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34346296.post-47857613308429947922008-02-03T11:48:00.000-05:002008-02-03T11:48:00.000-05:00Thank you Father Dan for your insight. I truly wis...Thank you Father Dan for your insight. I truly wish that someone in power would heed what you say. Unfortunately, both Bishops Schofield and Schori seem bent on having their own way regardless of what the canons say.mousestalkerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07640977915382623244noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34346296.post-63039011650568185712008-02-03T11:47:00.000-05:002008-02-03T11:47:00.000-05:00It is still difficult for me to believe that the S...It is still difficult for me to believe that the Standing Committee is a group of "martyrs," to the cause. Their letter is full of disrepect and accusations leveled at the presiding bishop of our church. They then publish the letter on Stand Firm, a site known for its disregard for all that is Episcopal. As you would expect, the responses were a series of smears and angry diatribes. The other place where this letter appeared was on the weblog for the Diocese of San Joaquin. Now why would it have appeared there if it was not supported by John David Schofield?<BR/><BR/>You say that the RE churches and remnants need those "large" conservative congregations, but the opposite is also true, they also need us. Hey, if they really want to work with us, then they need to take a step forward in a positive manner. Someone has to drop the gauntlet. I believe that those of us who wish to remain with the national church have dropped the gauntlet, if we ever held one. We want to talk.Beryl Simkinshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04518248428800542990noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34346296.post-1657666679473591452008-02-03T11:16:00.000-05:002008-02-03T11:16:00.000-05:00What I want to know is, from who the BLEEP is 815 ...What I want to know is, from who the BLEEP is 815 getting its canonical advice? Or, more to the point, when is 815 going to step back and redo what's wrong with this situation?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34346296.post-72451963332167996582008-02-03T05:11:00.000-05:002008-02-03T05:11:00.000-05:00It seems possible that the Remain Episcopalians do...It seems possible that the Remain Episcopalians don't want to be in a diocese dominated by these big conservative parishes. I'm not saying that legally they ought to be given any choice. Just sayin'.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34346296.post-45635536503814580652008-02-03T00:43:00.000-05:002008-02-03T00:43:00.000-05:00For the record Fr. Dan, St. Pauls Bakersfield's ve...For the record Fr. Dan, St. Pauls Bakersfield's vestry voted to go Anglican Southern Cone! So that one is not staying in TEC! The remenants in Bakersfield are and have been meeting with a licensed LA priest Tim Vivian who has had no authority to start a mission church even before the Dec vote as he has been doing. I'm not altogether surre that that remenant is that large unless they get some LA folks to come join them!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34346296.post-82904455748474843012008-02-02T23:56:00.000-05:002008-02-02T23:56:00.000-05:00The Standing Committee has said nothing - no state...The Standing Committee has said nothing - no statement at the Diocesan Convention - no statement following the vote to go to the Southern Cone. No wonder it is impossible for KJS to recognize them as the Standing Committee - how long did they plan to wait before making a statement to the Diocese - did they try to reach out to those who ARE the Episcopal Church? I haven't seen them doing anything that would convince me that they had not abandoned their post. Now they are playing the victim card - it just won't work.<BR/>I agree - canons need to be followed - beginning with the former Standing Committee.Annhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07287169546184325690noreply@blogger.com