Exactly what was changed in this resolution. What is posted here is the same as the language of the “proposed” resolutions as found on the Diocesan website.

Never mind. I see that the language “and terminate” was added to the final resolve clause.

The ecclesiological primacy of the diocesan and the diocese is at issue here.

++Rowan said that the diocese is the primary organizational entity of the Anglican Communion.

The current leadership of ECUSA, aka The Episcopal Church, asserts that the confederation of ECUSA dioceses that meets every three years and which is headed by a presiding bishop has authority which supersedes that of the diocese.  In all matters appparently, including the paradigm shattering use of canon law.

When did General Convention give the Presiding Bishop the ‘authority which supersedes that of the diocese?’  Let’s see some proof.

If you read carefully you can see that “withdraw and terminate the engagement of” was added, instead of “drop the retainer of” in the final resolve.

Alea iacta est.

#6, I am not sure everyone is going to know the reference to which you speak. The phrase means “the die is cast…” and is usually associated with what Suetonious claims Julius Ceasar purportedly said prior to the crossing of the Rubicon.

It is interesting that you should write this as I have found myself much of late pondering the phrase “Les jeux sont faits” (which Sartre used as a play title) which is really the French version of this.

As when I first saw this resolution, I find it confusing.  Perhaps that is because I am observing from outside the Diocese.  Is the problem it seeks to address one of nomenclature, or one of “sovereignty” or both. Could the Presiding Bishop or the national Episcopal Church, consistent with this resolution, retain counsel in South Carolina to advise and act in its interests?  I would that there would be little dispute that it could (leaving to one side Sarah’s previously stated view that there is a defect in the previous engagement by either the PB - who, according to Sarah, acted in a “corrupt” and “personal” capacity in that instance, an act that I would have thought would have required a different sort of resolutions or different sort of internal disciplinary actions at the national church level to address) and little sense that any resolution such as this could even remotely affect that capability.  Thus, by elimination, I assume that the key language in the resolution seeks to limit representations by TEC , formal or otherwise, that “The Episcopal Church”, when retaining counsel in South Carolina, is acting for “The Episcopal Church in South Carolina.”  Is that what this is all about?

#7 How true Kendall, the bets have indeed been placed and the roulette ball is in motion.  There is no going back now.