So many people have poured their hearts into a campaign to return TEC to the faith which animates the majority of the Anglican Communion, only to have its leaders deny that the Communion even exists.

Ian Douglas’ testimony makes PGCCUSA’s arrogance clear.  Only it will decide if there’s been a division; therefore, it will not be sullied with state law, which it is, of course, far above.

Let’s say - let’s come up with a hypothetical - that a treasurer in the national church office embezzled money.  What Douglas is trying to argue is akin to saying the penalties for embezzlement don’t apply here because only the General Convention can decide that there’s been embezzlement in the first place.

Duin’s coverage of the final day of the hearing is here:

http://tinyurl.com/2sk5fv

If “an intact whole” does not exist, then what is the problem with bishops from one province exercising authority in another province? 

ISTM that TECUSA is trying to maintain a franchise by legal means.  While this works for secular corporations, it is not the act of a Christian.  The restriction of one bishop to a territory is only applicable to churches in communion with each other.  If there is a communion (which TECUSA implicitly asserts by asserting the one bishop rule) then there is obviously division in the communion because parishes have requested bishops from other provinces and they have not seen themselves in close enough communion to refuse.

YBIC,
Phil Snyder

Phil is right.  If there is no communion then why are they bent out of shape over “boundary crossings”.  If there is no communion then there is no boundry to cross.

The judge has given the parties until January 17th to file additional briefs. Given that this case requires a ruling by judge (not a jury) on the interpretation of a statute and it’s constitutionality, I believe that the courtroom aspect of the trial will play a minimal role in the outcome. We probably won’t know the judge’s ruling on the arguments until February.

‘We’re not a global church”!?!  Then what the heck is the point of being Anglican?!? 

New slogan for the ECUSA - “One, Unholy and National Franchise Church.”  Honestly, how much more proof that reappraisers and reasserters are really two religions do we need?

One of the arguments that was put forth in the Diocese of Virginia and The Episcopal Church’s opening statement was that the Anglican Communion was a dream, an ethos and an idea but not an entity.

If that is the case, then how does a dream, an ethos or an idea have an office, a news service, a titular head, commissions and councils?

Now, now, Seminarian, you certainly should recognize the eisegetical technique at work here on the nature of the AC.  It is the same one at work on the Scripture (I make the assumption you are not at TESM).  If the material reality in front of you (whether textual or relational or incarnational in structure) does NOT agree with what one wishes to achieve/believe/say/etc, arguing a ‘hermeneutic of suspicion’ and ‘post enlightenment thought’ and a Derridan conceptualization of “reading”, you can make the material reality suit your purpose.

Are you paying attention in class?  ;>)  Seriously, I trust the judge is noting this massage of the words theory of ECUSA/TEC.  He judges the meaning of the legal text which is asserted by the state to have specific meaning.  The fog and mists of obfuscation yielded by Beers et alia won’t hold.  The bit about the academic and the word choice “division” has been the highlight of my day thus far.  One rarely gets that level of humor in the courtroom.

“The Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America, otherwise known as The Episcopal Church (which name is hereby recognized as also designating the Church), is a constituent member of the Anglican Communion, a Fellowship within the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, of those duly constituted Dioceses, Provinces, and regional Churches in communion with the See of Canterbury, upholding and propagating the historic Faith and Order as set forth in the Book of Common Prayer.”

This statement of its very identity reinforces the notion of the AC as a global church, of which TEC is a constituent member.

They will now have no basis for complaint if (if) the ABC disowns them and the ACC disenfranchises them.

10, I quoted the preamble on another thread and not one reasserter commented on it.

That’s OK, I’m used to being ignored.  I tell myself that it’s because my thoughts are beyond challenge, and any right-thinking person can only assent, so there’s nothing left to be said.  Kind of like Rush. 

If I were a lawyer, I would ask Professor Douglas to make up his mind. If he is right that “We are not a global church. It’d be hard to create a division because it presupposes an intact whole.” He cannot possibly be right in stating that: “only the Episcopal Church’s General Convention, which meets every three years and has formal procedures to handle such cases, can permit a division”.  An “expert witness” ? Pity his students!

dwstroudmd,

I actually graduated recently from seminary, just haven’t changed my user id since it is one I have used for sometime.  I was not privileged to attend TESM but was forced to attend another Episcopal Seminary that pretty much taught nothing solid or orthodox.  So I didn’t really pay attention in class unless the material was on an exam or i had to write a paper on it, because to do so would mean that I might be subject to learning the new views on Scripture, etc.  So I really didn’t learn all about this stuff TEC is trying to purport.  I wanted to remain true to my Anglican identity.

seminarian,  I know the feeling.  Happy to hear you engaged the process in such a satisfactory fashion.  But, given your exposure, do you think I properly characterized the modus operandi?  From one student to a recent graduate, that is?  I have read too much in Anglican history and THE HOMILIES as well as CS Lewis and Dorothy L. Sayers and Charles Williams to sacrifice Anglican on the altar of ECUSA/TEC.