Comments: San Joaquin votes to leave

At least the NYT got the headline right (i.e., regardless what these *persons* voted for, the Episcopal Diocese of San Joaquin ain't going anywhere)

Lord have mercy!

Posted by JCF at Saturday, 8 December 2007 at 10:58pm GMT

It was interesting to hear Bishop Schofield quote from Jim Packer in his speech calling for the break. Packer has also joined Southern Cone.
His whole ministry has been one of rejecting Anglo-catholicism as an aberration , which has corrupted reformed Anglicanism. Yet San Joaquin believes in baptismal regeneration, prayers for the dead and the real presence etc

It would seem that the new denomination turns a blind eye to heresy when it wants.

By the way Schofield in his reply to Bishop Schori affirmed that San Joaquin had the same view of order as Rome. No...San Joaquin ordains women deacons...so in a way is liberal.

San Joaquin craves union with Canterbury which suppports the ordination of women priests as do the majority of Anglican provinces..!

Posted by Robert Ian Williams at Saturday, 8 December 2007 at 11:18pm GMT

Be sure to check out this link -- http://tinyurl.com/2om7r3 -- for a good look at what passes for "orthodoxy" in Fresno. It puts Schofield's martyr act in a whole new light.

Posted by JPM at Sunday, 9 December 2007 at 12:06am GMT

I agree with what Charlotte posted on another thread - it is absolutely astonishing that the ABC doesn't comment on any of this at all.
What can he possibly be thinking?

Is there anyone here who could make some sense out of it, without just insulting Rowan's ability?

Posted by Erika Baker at Sunday, 9 December 2007 at 7:07am GMT

An interesting analysis on Lionel Deimel's blog

http://www.deimel.org/commentary/blogger/atom.xml

Posted by Erika Baker at Sunday, 9 December 2007 at 7:34am GMT

That's frightening as hell Erika. And we are worried about the Taliban here in the west?

Good find.

Posted by choirboyfromhell at Sunday, 9 December 2007 at 11:36am GMT

A better link to my analysis is http://deimel.org/commentary/blogger/2007/12/now-what.htm

Posted by Lionel Deimel at Sunday, 9 December 2007 at 1:29pm GMT

Lionel,
The link you posted doesn't seem to work

Posted by Erika Baker at Sunday, 9 December 2007 at 2:07pm GMT

Says +Venables:
"Welcome Home. And welcome back into full fellowship in the Anglican Communion."
to San Joaquin. Pretty amazing. Have any of the 4 instruments of communion sanctioned this +Lyons and +Venables' cross jurisdiction incursions and poaching? Or is who is and isn't a member of the Communion +Venables' singular call?

Posted by EmilyH at Sunday, 9 December 2007 at 2:10pm GMT

Erika, my thoughts on ++Rowan's silence and apparent approval of the events in San Joaquin are on the next thread up ("More on San Joaquin").

My thoughts are not happy ones right now.

Additional gloomy comments are at Father Jake's blog at http://frjakestopstheworld.blogspot.com/2007/12/leaders-of-san-joaquin-abandon.html

Posted by Charlotte at Sunday, 9 December 2007 at 3:47pm GMT

It's the full stop at the end that causes Lionel's link to fail. I have fixed it above.

Posted by Simon Sarmiento at Sunday, 9 December 2007 at 4:08pm GMT

According to The Living Church article referenced in the thread above, Emily H., ++Rowan gave this plan his blessing in November. His letter to +John Howe reflects similar thinking. So we must assume that this is happening with ++Rowan's foreknowledge and blessing.

I hope to be eating my words soon -- but at this point, strange as it is, it seems that ++Rowan approves of and consents to San Joaquin's actions. Thus his Singapore discourse, which says that the Church is in God's hands, should be read as his act of hand-washing.

Posted by Charlotte at Sunday, 9 December 2007 at 4:23pm GMT

I think it is best to assume nothing and wait to hear from the archbishop directly.

Posted by Frank at Sunday, 9 December 2007 at 5:36pm GMT

Charlotte, I wouldn't give up hope just yet: what we have here is something like the old game of telephone, in which Schofield says that Lyons told him that Venables told Lyons that Williams said to Venables that it was OK.

Of course, Rowan could help matters by clearing things up. If the past is any indication, however, he will remain silent for a few weeks before issuing some unintelligible statement that actually makes things worse and requires a clarification from his staff.

It's funny how he has time to speak out on global warming, the prayer habits of Muslims, the virtues of British imperialism, George W. Bush, and every other topic under the sun but not the state of the church that he supposedly leads.

Posted by JPM at Sunday, 9 December 2007 at 7:25pm GMT

"I would be surprised to hear that the Archbishop would formally support such a development which is contrary to the Windsor Report," -The Reverend Canon Kenneth Kearon, Anglican Communion Secretary General, November 27th letter to a Fort Worth Delegate.

Still think ++Williams has given this a "blessing"?

Frank is right. Let's see what he'll have to say.

Posted by choirboyfromhell at Sunday, 9 December 2007 at 7:30pm GMT

Let them go - good riddance.

This should be looked at as an opportunity - a straightforwardly liberal province without the cancer of conservatism.

Posted by Merseymike at Sunday, 9 December 2007 at 9:38pm GMT

The folks at Remain Episcopal in the diocese may be reached via their website.

See: http://www.remainepiscopal.org/

Note the support being expressed from all over the world to the remaining Episcopalians. Also note, Remain Episcopal is a bona fide IRS Code 501(c)(3)organization as it may pertain to any donations.

Alas. Lord have mercy.

Posted by drdanfee at Monday, 10 December 2007 at 12:20am GMT

Says +Venables:
"Welcome Home. And welcome back into full fellowship in the Anglican Communion."
to San Joaquin. Pretty amazing. Have any of the 4 instruments of communion sanctionec this +Lyons and +Venables' cross jurisdiction incursions and poaching? Or is who is and isn't a member of the Communion +Venables' singular call?

Posted by EmilyH at Monday, 10 December 2007 at 2:11am GMT

"Of course, Rowan could help matters by clearing things up. If the past is any indication, however, he will remain silent for a few weeks before issuing some unintelligible statement that actually makes things worse and requires a clarification from his staff.

It's funny..." JPM

Trouble is, I started laughing at this paragraph.

Posted by Pluralist at Wednesday, 12 December 2007 at 3:23pm GMT

Rowan has helped tremendously. He said nothing, except through Kearon. The boys, Duncan, Iker, Schofield had to make their own decisions. Rowan has no control over them. They were given fair warning. They lie and cheat, and now have stolen the property of SJoaquin. They did not have the endorsement of Rowan, and they knew it. They may have had the intention of trying to get his endorsement... But Schofield didn't.

By the way, it has not escaped some of us that fast-draw McSchofield may have shot himself in the foot trying to pull his gun so fast. It may be the best thing for TEC and the SJoaquin faithful that we now have only the weakest of the big-3 to battle. MacSchofield has not got the legal smarts, nor resources to battle this by himself.

Oh this is going to be so so fun... One can see Duncan and Iker wagging their fingers at fast-draw McSchofield.

Posted by Anonymous at Friday, 14 December 2007 at 1:50am GMT
Post a comment









Remember personal info?






Please note that comments are limited to 400 words. Comments that are longer than 400 words will not be approved.

Cookies are used to remember your personal information between visits to the site. This information is stored on your computer and used to refill the text boxes on your next visit. Any cookie is deleted if you select 'No'. By ticking 'Yes' you agree to this use of a cookie by this site. No third-party cookies are used, and cookies are not used for analytical, advertising, or other purposes.