The link to the Fresno Bee story is broken.

Of these stories, it appears that only the LA Times tries to make clear that the inhibition is limited to the U.S. denomination known as The Episcopal Church and has nothing to do with its efficacy vis-a-vis the larger Anglican Communion.

“...abandoned the historical faith…”

I don’t believe that Bishop Schofield has done this.

Hmmm.  Who in the world might have done this?  Could it be the leadership of ECUSA?

As Susan Russell frequently opines “yawn” - +KJS is closing the barn door after the horse has already departed.

“Let’s file a police complaint about the loud sirens in front of my House - while it’s engulfed in flames.”  - KJS

Bishops who blow the whistle, opine, press for change, and criticize KJS and National Church errors are just viewed as loud noise by those who are about to be roasted in their own House. Unable to reach conclusions, they reach for complaint forms.

LA Times: Robertson said Friday’s action, known as “inhibition,” meant that Schofield was prohibited from performing any religious duties at least until early March, when the church’s bishops are expected to render a final judgment in his case. 

Yes, but the reality of the situation is that TEC is inhibited from performing any religious apostasy in the Diocese of the San Joaquin until it returns to the Historic Faith.

Mark Lawrence, the Bishop Elect of South Carolina is from the Diocese of San Joaquin. With his upcoming consecration next week, will Bishop Schofield be able to participate?

I know this is picky - but maybe sombody can explain. She faxed the inhibition (Jan 10) before the date when she says that the 3 senior bishops provided consent (Jan 11).

There has been much debate about whether ECUSA is acting inconsistently by inhibiting Bp. Schofield for “abandoning the communion” while ECUSA continues to claim to be a member of the Anglican Communion.  Reading the report of the review committee will help clarify this point.

In Canon Nine, the term “abandons the communion” is not an undefined term, but is specified by three actions that may constitute abandonment: 

If a Bishop abandons the communion of this Church (i) by an
open renunciation of the Doctrine, Discipline, or Worship of this
Church, or (ii) by formal admission into any religious body not in
communion with the same, or (iii) by exercising episcopal acts in and
for a religious body other than this Church or another Church in
communion with this Church, so as to extend to such body Holy
Orders as this Church holds them, or to administer on behalf of such
religious body Confirmation without the express consent and commission of the proper authority in this Church

Bp. Dorsey Henderson’s letter makes clear that Bp. Schofield is charged under subpart (i) “an open renunciation of the Doctrine, Discipline, or Worship of this Church,” not subpart (ii) “formal admission into any religious body not in communion” with ECUSA.

I think the inhibition of Bp. Schofield was a tragic mistake by ECUSA in that it guarantees a permanent division of the church.  This situation called for wisdom and good judgment by the senior leadership of the church, not a close reading of subparts.  That such judgment was to be found even during the Civil War but not now is a revealing indictment of that leadership (and I include all who participated in this).  But if one ignores the fact that the church is burning and looks only to the subparts, ECUSA is not claiming that Bp. Schofield joined a body not in communion with itself.

So sad that bishop Wimberly of TX was one of three senior bishops tha consented to this sham when he could’ve exhibited courage with a number of alternatives.  But the die is cast and those who are want to ‘go along to get along’ are doing exactly that.  I knew many years ago that the group calling themselves bishops in TEC were an unusually political lot but this really seals it for me.

RE: “She faxed the inhibition (Jan 10) before the date when she says that the 3 senior bishops provided consent (Jan 11).”

Paul PA, I expect the point was to try to release the inhibition on the afternoon of the slow news day right before the weekend.

Nice attempt at management of the news cycle . . . what all professional communicators work with.

#4, you put quotation marks around a statement that ++KJS has not made. Please, do not be so careless and thoughtless.

#8, how could this inhibitioin be “a trajic mistake” when Bp. Schofield has clearly left the “barn”? He has repeatedly repudiated TEC in the strongest terms. What else should the PB do? Bp. Schofield needs to be deposed at the earliest possible date. Of course that will make no difference to ++Venables, as he has already brought the deposed bishop of Recife into his province.

#7, perhaps the explanation is that she had received a phone call or email from Bp. Henderson regarding the Committee’s decision.

#5, the Episcopal Diocese of San Joaquin continues in existence whatever Bp. Schofield and his flock wish to call their diocese.

#8—Please explain how you were actually able to type the phrases “wisdom and good judgement” and “the senior leadership of the church” in the same sentence without bursting out in laughter.

The report of the review committee, at least without seeing supporting documentation seems rather vague as to which count or counts are invoked to support the allegation. Normally of course clergy of this church are free to exercise their ministry in other Anglican Provinces with the consent of their Ordinary, but that presumes that they reside in the territory embraced by that Province. While the Instruments of Unity do not authorize the limits and extents of geographical boundaries, one could well say that the recognition given to a Province by the whole Communion includes, at least externally, a territorial limit recognized by all. Internal reorganization is another matter. Ergo, if the Diocese of Sydney claimed jurisdiction over Southern Africa (Archbishops of Sydney have consecrated bishops for the rival not Anglican Communion “Church of England in South Africa” in the past, sometimes over the protest of Capetown and sometimes with tacit approval) its claim might not be recognized by the Australian Church as a whole or the Communion in general through its Instruments.

Therein lies the problem for the Communion, for the Southern Cone and for TEC. However temporary the measure, the Province of the Southern Cone (sounds like ice cream!) now seems to claim jurisdiction in North America. Such a claim is unilateral and is not recognized by the wider church. Similarly although perhaps less immediately the Provinces of Rwanda, Uganda, Nigeria and Kenya seem to make a similar territorial and jurisdictional claim, however justified and however temporary.  Such measures are rarely temporary and even more rarely justified. They fly in the face of the Windsor Report’s recommendations and the wishes of the Primates of the Communion and seem to be acts of impatience and panic. They are also ecclesiologically suspect.

There may not be “moral equivalence” whatever that term means, between the actions of TEC in 2003 and onwards and the actions of these Provinces -depends how importance one views the Doctrine of the Church - but the prevalence of unilateralism among conservatives must surely be a cause for worry and needs a far more convincing justification, however much one cares for those in this country who suffer for orthodoxy, than so far has emerged.

Meanwhile Bishop Schofield and his followers are placing themselves under a jurisdiction which may have no jurisdiction in “this land of the USA”. In the long run they may find themselves just as isolated as they have been in TEC. This is all tragic.

#11
“you put quotation marks around a statement that [I have] not made. Please, do not be so careless and thoughtless.”

Bob #11
Bishop Henderson’s review committee is separate from the 3 senior bishop’s approval. I don’t think any of the senior bishop’s serve on that committee. I think she needs both approvals. My point - picky as it was - was that she claims in her inhibition letter to have received their approval on January 11 - though she sent the inhibition on the 10th.

The report simply states a conclusion, with no findings of fact and conclusions of law in support. Bp. Henderson, JD should be embarassed to sign such a document.

One has to think out of the box of politics and structure to understand what is happening in the wider view.  The issue is the freedom to stand firm in one’s faith.  There is the global two thirds world of Anglicanism and other denominations of Christendom that very well believe that these breakaway diocese are on the right path spiritually.  To say that they will be isolated is just so wrong in the wider understanding of the brotherhood of Christian Faith.

The only entity that +John-David has “abandoned” is the apostate organization known as “The Episcopal Church,”  and NOT Christ’s One Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.  It is TEC who have abandoned US.

And Bob from Boone:  Several hundred people do not constitute a diocese, the last I heard.  The Episcopal diocese of San Joaquin now exists in name only, and it will be quite a while…..if ever…..before it recovers.

I thought the lawyers for the Diocese of Virginia contend there is no division within TEC. Does subtraction count?

#16—At Diocesan convention in Upper South Caroliona in October, the budget process was ignored and bypassed.  Had it been followed the National Church appropriation would have been substantially cut.  Bishop Henderson gave the gavel over and spoke to the convention, begging that the budget be altered and the full amount be paid to 815 so he could “be a player” in the national church (Bob From Boone—he DID say what is in quotes).  After that spectacle, I suspect he no longer has any shame at all.  We in DUSC are now getting what we paid for.

WVParson:  If the diocese is the basic unit of the church - as per Anglican historical precedent and recent statements from the ABC (which will be confirmed when JDS’s Lambeth invitation remains or not), then the actions of the DSJ has actually added central California to the territory of the Province of the Southern Cone (sort of like the American Convocation in EUROPE).

There are no Anglican definitions on Provinical geographical boundaries, as you acknowledge.  If one geographical unit of the Anglican Communion chooses to align with a different Province, then that - by the very nature of the decision - adds the new territory to the geographical jurisdiction of that Province.

There is no Anglican rule that says all of the USA must be under the territorial jurisdiction of TEC.

Re: # 20-
The Diocese of Virginia is in crisis mode since the Virginia Attorney General dropped his office into their murk and called them what they are. Yes, Virginia, there IS a division.