OK, since the headlines are becoming a bit pedantic, I would just like to remind everyone that TEC’s canons are defined by how the majority choose to enforce them.  They are subject to challenge.  Less than 10 Bishops abstained.  In addition, +Paul Marshall said:

The House upheld the rulings of the Chancellor, Parliamentarian, and the PB, that the canons were being appropriately applied. It was deeply uncomfortable for me to observe people who have over the last decade or so personally behaved with a somewhat remarkable flexibility about the rules of the church’s life suddenly emerge as strict constructionists of certain canons…

...

As to the canon in question (IV-9), it describes several sets of ways one may be judged to have abandoned “the doctrine, discipline OR worship of this church.” None of those ways require joining another church (which Robert Duncan claims to have done as of this morning). In a later section of the canon, we learn Abandonment can consist of as small an act as performing episcopal acts for churches not in communion with TEC. Had the complainants addressed that issue, of course, the case would have been even stronger.

The House, I think, has eight lawyer-bishops in it, and certainly contains many very sharp people in terms of our history and theology, so it would be very unfair to allege, as one colleague has publicly done this evening, that the proceedings of the last 24 hours were shallow or misinformed. While I heard things I disagreed with or thought ill-founded, I find that the bishops here are all people of considerable depth, and many of them have great breadth of learning as well.

The headline writers state as fact something that is not factual.  They may be correct in the de jure interpretation, but the de facto meaning is final and has been finally applied.  It not only lacks pragmatism, it states categorically that there is only one interpretation and that is categorically false.  Reasonable minds do disagree.

Brian - so….might makes right in TEC????

Brian, your post states “as fact something that is not factual….Reasonable minds do disagree.”

In other word BT19, TEO lacks the authority to do what it did, but not the powere.

Yes Brian,
Indeed reasonable minds do disagree.  The presupposition of course is that there are minds on both sides of the disagreement and that they are comparable in their capacity to be reasonable.  Yesterday’s actions are at best signs of what happens when a few reasonable minds disagree with a greater number of reprobate minds.  The leadership of TEC has clearly shown stellar abilities to excel in the 3Rs: reprehensible, repugnant and reprobate.  The s? - specious: as in the nature of all her intellectual arrogance and arguments which comes against the knowledge of God.

And I, in turn, Brian, find it deeply uncomfortable to observe people who have over the last decade or so personally behaved with a somewhat remarkable flexibility about the Faith and Scriptures of the Church suddenly emerge as ardent followers of the rules.

The whole thing reminds me of Goya’s painting of Saturn devouring his children. Sickening, saddening, but not surprising if you’ve been awake.

TEC is incorporated as a nonprofit in New York, and thus like other nonprofits is subject to oversight by the Attorney General of that State.  TEC has to follow the law like everyone else relating to nonprofits, and that includes following its own “articles and bylaws.” Given the continuing blatant violations of the requirements of its governing documents, it seems to me that at some point the Attorney General of New York is going to have to step in and take judicial action to appoint a receiver to take control of a nonprofit which is obviously out of control.

RE: “The headline writers state as fact something that is not factual.”

No they don’t.  The PB violated the canons in her rulings, repeatedly and with variety.

RE: ” .  . . it states categorically that there is only one interpretation . . . “

lol

Yes the headlines do just that.

The headline is a smear.

In the context of Title IV.9 the role of inhibition is equivalent to what a secular court would issue as a temporary restraining order.

The only way it can be argued that the required majority is a majority of all bishops is with out-of-context quoting—- like quoting Jesus as saying “hang all the Law and Prophets” (which, by the way, is found in Matthew 22:40).

A bishop who is not present is not entitled to vote.

Guest bishops even when present are not entitled to vote.

It’s not that hard to understand.

What is uncanonical is for an ordained member of TEC, who has taken the Oath of Conformity, to call TEC an “apostate church” or to say that TEC espouses a “counterfeit religion”.

If an ordained minister finds that he (or she) cannot keep his solemn promise, he should resign.  That is the honorable course.