I was under the impression that this was against the rules. Any chance of ABC calling a foul, or since TEC is going to lose in the end, is it not worth his addressing?

Oooh La la.. As folk say in Europe!

With a steady stream of ECUSA dioceses requesting alternative primatial oversight (5 is the latest tally I think) and some of the remaining conservative churches deciding to leave ECUSA (but remain Anglican) and now a high profile conservative rector appointed a missionary bishop... I wonder what else will unravel due to GC2006 ?

So much for the attempts to hold things together, even in a fractured way.

I see I am not the only person perplexed as to what this primatial oversight of an American diocese consists of:
Dale Rye has commented on titusonenine
http://titusonenine.classicalanglican.net/?p=13956#comment-805779

He concludes:

...What is the nature of the primatial oversight that Fort Worth, Pittsburgh, South Carolina, and San Joaquin are seeking from Canterbury? Are they just rejecting the personal leadership of Bishops Griswold and Jefferts Schori, or the ecclesiastical authority of General Convention and the pastoral oversight of the House of Bishops? If the latter, how is that consistent with continued membership in TEC? Is this an Act of Secession, or merely a personal repudiation of the new PB? What is the nature of the “alternative primatial oversight” that they seek? I hope somebody will clarify all this.

"With a steady stream of ECUSA dioceses requesting alternative primatial oversight (5 is the latest tally I think)" Actually so far it has only been the usual suspects of which there are around 10. When the number gets over 15 I will worry, until then it is just shaking out the dead wood.

Simon, I'm evangelical, so you probably know better than me the catholic need for sacramental "certainty" - that is tied up with heirarchical as well as theological orthodoxy. I guess that is why the traditionalist diocese are appealing to be out from under ECUSA's direct authority... They need to be part of a constituent part of the Church Catholic - which ECUSA is ceasing to be. In addition they must worry that the rest of the catholic Churches would not recognise them if their church was lead by a woman.

As an evangelical neither of the above bother me that much.. I expect that the evangelical ECUSA dioceses see this more in terms of authority - They are no longer being able to submit to the authority of a church that has departed from Christian faith and conduct, and has decided that it is not going 'back'!

I think that these are parallel reasons to those that motivate churches in the UK to ask for alternative episcopal oversight.

Well well well. Martyn will finally get to wear all the mitres he has probably bought and mothballed as he has been up for election as bishop and lost time after time in diocese after diocese here. Pathetic.

Two months ago, I heard strong rumors that this precise action was planned for GC 2006 in Columbus. Two difference between the rumors and the fact are that the consecrations took place a week after GC 2006 and not in Nigeria. But can anyone doubt that this action was planned months ago, and that the consecrations and the requests for DEPO would have been made on schedule no matter what actions GC 2006 took?

I don't think it's against the "rules". Sandy Millar was consecrated Bishop in Mission from the Church in Uganda: http://www.london.anglican.org/NewsShow_5129

i assume this means that Nigeria won't be eligible for +++Rowan's new covenanted churches, right? well, except that section 155 of the windsor report was never honestly intended in the first place. silly me.

All this just shows what a sick and sorry instution Anglicanism actually is.

The quicker it all unravels, the better. And can you conservatives take Williams the Spineless with you?

"I don't think it's against the "rules". Sandy Millar was consecrated Bishop in Mission from the Church in Uganda"

Sandy Millar's consecration was done with the advance knowledge, cooperation, permission, and blessing of the Church of England. By contrast, Minns' consecration will *not* occur with the permission and blessing of TEC, the Anglican province within the geographical territory of which he will be exercising episcopal authority. It's apples and oranges.

Likewise, TEC has long approved of churches of the Church of South India functioning within TEC's territory. No such approval has been granted to Akinola's CANA group to function within TEC territory.

That CANA -- and its new bishop-elect, Minns -- are not intended as a cooperative mission (such as Millar in London, or the CSI churches in the USA) but rather as the vanguard of a hostile occupation that seeks to create "facts on the ground" within TEC's territory, is evident from CANA's apparent name change. Formerly the "Convocation of Anglican Nigerians in the Americas," it is now the "Convocation for Anglicans in North America" -- no longer following the model of the "Convocation of American Churches in Europe" (i.e., intended primarily to serve one's expatriates and emigrants in the territory where it operates), but rather claiming to be for all Anglicans within the territory where it operates (which happens already to have Anglican Communion provinces with jurisdiction -- TEC and the Anglican Church of Canada -- thankyouverymuch).

For some relevant prophesying that comes to pass more each day, see http://anglicanfuture.blogspot.com/2006/03/hold-anglican-church-of-nigeria-to.html

I don't see this action as much different from Murphy of the AMIA. Remember him?

This will work out nicely. Williams can refuse to invite both Robinson and Mimms to Lambeth. Thus each side has their own sacrificial lamb. Mad props to Mimms for taking on this outcast bishop role.

Relax! It is the Church of Jesus Christ. He - the Lord of the Church is in the business of shaking, pruning, cleansing, etc. all for His own purpose.

Jesus declared – “I am the true vine, and My Father is the vineyard keeper. Every branch in Me that does not produce fruit He removes, and He prunes every branch that produces fruit so that it will produce more fruit.” John 15:1-2 (HCSB)

Will ECUSA continue to slide into irrelevance and eventually die, or will CANA wax strong and prove very effective in accomplishing God’s purposes for the Church?

What is at stake here is beyond Church traditions or Church politics.