What did the queen agree to payment for these resignations?

So THIS is what the colonialists were doing in Quito. Mrs Shori has risen to the rank of Popess I guess, no longer merely PB&P.

“By resigning their positions, the leadership yields its authority to the presiding bishop; she appointed Scantlebury, who had served as an assisting bishop in the Diocese of Chicago until he retired July 1 to serve as interim bishop.”

Is there some local canon that provides for this procedure?  I am not aware of any General Convetion canon that assigns this kind of responsibility or authority to the Presiding Bishop. I am reasonably sure that had this happened in the United States lawsuits would have been filed.

Wow, that’s about as opaque as Pravda ever was about resignations of high-ranking generals during the cold war.

#3- as you may recall, in the US, lawsuits were filed against any diocese that did not allow KJS to replace their bishop at will (the only way to prevent it happening was to leave TEC, and then get sued for doing that).
I think if you look closely at the new title IV, you may find that KJS does, indeed, have these powers under the canon, since last July 1.  Had the bishop and standing committee not resigned, she could, under the new canon, have just removed them on the least pretext- and given the state of things in the church in Equador, I am sure she could find plenty of pretext.
This way, she can solidify things in C America by putting in one of her ultra revisionist bishops and a like minded standing committee.  Some of the C American dioceses have been remarkably conservative, something no longer tolerated in TEC.  No doubt she will be working hard to change it.

I read about this a few hours ago on Louie Crew’s HOB/D listserv, and even those folks don’t have a clue what this is about.

Each person attending would have a few thousand $ in travel expenses. A coach airfare might go for about $700.

One might opine that the funds would have been better used to fund lawsuits in the US, or mission work.

Oh, wait a second. This is mission work. The PB is definitely on a mission.

Actually—this appears to be about a continuation of another buffoonish decision made back in 2009 by the raving revisionists at the 2009 General Convention—and thus it is about “consequences.”  Since there were so many buffoonish decisions made at the 2009 General Convention by the raving revisionists, this one received little attention.

Back in 2009, a delegation from Central Ecuador presented a resolution to the General Convention concerning the bishop election process, [in which the candidates from Central Ecuador were rejected by the search committee and only out-of-diocese candidates were allowed to stand] and alleging gross violation of the canons in regards to the actions of the Executive Council and its then interim bishop:
http://www.standfirminfaith.com/?/sf/page/23991/

Three of the six members of the bishop search committee had resigned over the search process, at which point apparently the canons required that the three substitutes should be appointed to the search committee.  Those subs were not appointed and after much wrangling the interim bishop cast the deciding vote at a diocesan convention [because of a tie] to ask the TEC HOB—that’s right,  the incredibly corrupt and incompetent TEC HOB—to elect Central Ecuador’s bishop, which the TEC HOB then happily did.

2/3 of the Central Ecuadorian Standing Committee rejected the election of that bishop and asked the TEC House of Deputies to please please not approve the election.  Three of the four deputies from Central Ecuador also did not support the election or the process.

This was a very heartwrenching scene on the floor and these people from Central Ecuador spoke in several venues at the General Convention.

As you can see by this thread, their request was given all the due moral consideration that our General Convention could muster in both a morning and afternoon session—that is, trivial, shallow, decadent, and incoherent—a committee studied the claims and determined that all was well with the process:
http://www.standfirminfaith.com/?/sf/page/24148/
http://www.standfirminfaith.com/?/sf/page/24005/

You can see more of the charity and courtesy accorded the Ecuadorian delegation by our HOD here:
http://www.standfirminfaith.com/?/sf/page/24159/

There’s an article reporting on the outrage by the interim bishop and the bishop-elect of Central Ecuador regarding the uprising in their diocese over at The Living Church:
http://www.livingchurch.org/news/news-updates/2009/7/10/bishops-join-central-ecuador-consent-controversy

Note the helpful words of the interim bishop:

Bishop Ramos stated the Committee on Consecration of Bishops had given Fr. Ruiz its unanimous consent, and urged the bishops to support their choice. Central Ecuador verged on falling back into the “dysfunctional system” and could regress to “where we were before,” unless the bishops stood firm.

And now—here we are.

It’s two years later for poor Central Ecuador. 

And quite shockingly—all the leadership, including the “elected” [by our HOB] bishop has had to resign.

Who could have guessed that the people—who had rejected the election results—could *possibly* have held on to their rejection for two whole years?

And oh yes . . . here’s Bishop Ramos’s name on the list of bishops who participated in Gene Robinson’s consecration:
http://www.americananglican.org/official-list-of-bishops-participating-in-gene-robinson-s-consecration/

Nice job, HOB.

Nice job, HOD.

Nice job, 2009 General Convention.

Sarah,
You might want to archive all that somewhere, because the actions of TEC make it pretty clear that they intend to re-write the history of all this.  No doubt we will shortly be reading an account on ENS about the concern of the HoB for the Ecuadorans, and how they met in Quito and were shocked, shocked I say, to discover that the diocese was in distress, took immediate action to address the issues when they were discovered, and all the care and nurture they will give it in the future.

“Will you strive for justice and peace among all people, and respect the dignity of every human being?”

Although it may disappoint some readers, the current issues have nothing to do with Bishop Katherine.
May be just for once, we, Americans, are not at the center of the Universe.

I was one of the nominees for election by the HOB to Ecuador Central so I can say that I am pretty well aware of the long-standing issues affecting the people of Ecuador. Long-standing because they are rooted in the struggles and tensions facing any young diocese with zero mobility among their clergy, the mishandling of funds by deposed bishop Larrea, cultural and political factors unique to the peoples of Ecuador, and the constitutional and civil problems facing the relationship between civil incorporation statutes of the Church according to the laws of Ecuador vs. our Constitution and Canons.

So there was no easy way out, nor there were any other options than just “resetting” and starting all over again—all in accordance with the civil laws of Ecuador under which the Church is incorporated.

Please pray for Interim Bishop Victor, pray for the people of Ecuador, pray that new and God-fearing leadership may be raised, and pray that the message of the Lord may spread rapidly and be honored that, eventually, all Ecuador may be filled with God’s grace and love.

RE: “Although it may disappoint some readers, the current issues have nothing to do with Bishop Katherine.
May be just for once, we, Americans, are not at the center of the Universe.”

Except by announcing that on this thread you’ve just acted as if we are, not to mention that the Central Ecuadoreans have just yielded authority to the Presiding Bishop of “we Americans.”  So I’m not certain how it is that “we Americans” are not rather in the thick of things having to do with Central Ecuador.  It does no good to claim lack of blame when we’re claiming authority.

RE: “nor there were any other options than just “resetting” and starting all over again . . . “

Actually the original resolution presented to the 2009 General Convention listed several options.

Those options were rejected in favor of affirming the TEC HOB’s choice of bishop for the diocese—a choice that was rejected by 2/3 of the then Standing Committee, 3/4 of the deputation, and at least half of the Standing Committee.

And now . . . it’s two years later.

What a pity that that two years has been so horribly wasted.

“pray that new and God-fearing leadership may be raised:”
Of course we pray for that, but in our experience, the TEC HoB is much better at deposing God-fearing bishops than it is at raising them up, which is why we are worried.  Perhaps if the HoB listened more to the God they should fear, and less to their personal desires, TEC and the AC - and the diocese of C Equador - would not be in the state they are in.