From WDUQ (The NPR affiliate in Pittsburgh)Following the vote to secede, at least 20 parishes voted to remain with the U.S. Church. Today the national leadership recognized a Standing Committee to serve as the ecclesiastical authority of the reorganized Pittsburgh Diocese in the absence of a bishop. The Reverend Doctor James Simons, rector of St Michael's of the Valley, chairs that committee.
Dr. Simons told DUQ News that the first task is pastoral...reaching out to those parishes and members who are in pain because of the split. Simons says that they will hold a reorganization convention December 13 at which an interim bishop will be chosen to serve for a year or two until a selection committee is formed and conducts the process for electing a new bishop. Reverend Simons says he believes that sometime in the future there will be reconciliation in the Pittsburgh Diocese.
Rest is here-
http://wduqnews.blogspot.com/2008/10/new-leadership-for-reorganized.html
9 comments:
In a post several months ago you made the claim that the Presiding Bishop has absolutely no ecclesiastical authority over the Diocese of Pittsburgh. Today you concede enormous authority to the Presiding Bishop, claiming that her recognition has made you the legitimate ecclesiastical authority in Pittsburgh. You have acknowledged that the Presiding Bishop has the authority to remove a Standing Committee of a diocese, which she will do in this case. Perhaps you will now retract your earlier claim that the Presiding Bishop has absolutely no authority in the Diocese of Pittsburgh?
What you say doesn't make any sense. Realigners have left TEC to join the Province of the Southern Cone, where there is an archbishop whose position, from all I can tell, is similar to that of the PB of TEC; he had the power to welcome Bishop Duncan and the Realigners into the province of which he is archbishop, and he exercised that power. Those of us who remain in TEC still work with the PB in this province. Are you saying that instead of being in TEC, you regard us as being in some sort of no man's land?
Yes. What I believe Jim has been stating, correctly, is that it is the proper role of the Presiding Bishop to encourage and support the canonical reorganization of the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh of the Episcopal Church by those in Pittsburgh who continue to be members of the Episcopal Church. This is what she has done. The PB doesn't "have ecclesiastical authority" in Pittsburgh. But she does have the role of recognizing that ecclesiastical authority in the governing bodies organized by those of us here. The former Standing Committee was not removed by her action. She simply affirmed what they told her: that they were now no longer functioning as the SC of the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh of the Episcopal Church, but had begun to function as a part of the canonical authority of another church, the Anglican Province of the Southern Cone. She didn't fire them, nor did Jim and our continuing Standing Committee: they resigned when they announced they were no longer willing to exist under the auspices of the canons of the Episcopal Church.
Bruce Robison
Who decided that the Diocese of Pittsburgh has in fact NOT left TEC? Who decided that the actions of the diocesan convention were null and void? Who made the determination that the appropriate language to refer to the realignment is "attempted" or "purported"? Who decided that "resignations" were submitted? The diocese had its vote and the diocesan chancellor supported the legitimacy of the vote. Rather than encouraging devastating legal battles with the dubious assertion that only individuals can leave TEC, the reorganizing parishes (of which I remain a member) should recognize the legitimacy of the convention and start anew. I would have no problem with seeking the approval of the PB as the ecclesiastical authority in Pittsburgh, if it wasn't attached to the claim that the diocese has not left, which in effect has granted the PB authority to override the decisions of a diocesan convention.
Jim:
I just read the letter sent to you by the former standing committee of the Episcopal Diocese.
You're in my prayers. I have never liked confrontation and mean people do suck! I sat at convention hoping against hope that people who think differently and feel differently about theology/The Christian message could stay together. This was my third convention and I have to admit that I've never felt comfortable and excepted. How you and others do it is beyond me.
May God continue to guide you and those who will be helping reorganize our diocese (and yes I plan to be active in my own way. I think we all need to help and be of support to one another).
Ich desc Bogiem, or Go/walk with God (Polish)
Bob
Mccallaster
You seem very angry. I lost my parish of 38 years in this realignment and my blood pressure isn't half what yours seems to be. Have you tried prayer beads/meditating on scripture. Seriously, it's help me deal with my pain and anger.
God's Peace
Bob
The relevant canon is I.2.4 (a) (3). Duties of the Presiding Bishop. "In the event of an Episcopal vacancy within a Diocese, consult with the Ecclesiastical Authority to ensure that adequate interim Episcopal Services are provided."
The Presiding Bishop in her letter offered her staff to consult with the Standing Committee about obtaining appropriate Episcopal assistance. This constitutes her "recognition" of the Standing Committee.
Given the level of conflict in Pittsburgh right now I have concluded that posting on blogs is simply counterproductive. What is written is easily misinterpreted, as the tone cannot be conveyed as in an actual conversation. I am not angry about the split in Pittsburgh, at least not yet. I am disappointed but mostly concerned. Concerned because as bad as a split is, fighting like pagans over the spoils is far worse. I am deeply concerned that hearts and minds are set in stone and that there is no turning from what seems to be an inevitable struggle in the courts. I am concerned that some are eager for vengeance. I am concerned that too few are willing to accept less than an absolute legal victory. Turning to non-Christian secular courts, against the warnings of St. Paul in Holy Scripture, to make decisions for the church is wrong. That outcome cannot in any way be the will of God. I don't want to stir up strife so I will refrain from any more posting. It is probably too much to pray that the sides be reconciled so I will simply pray for an amicable split.
My Father was Roman Catholic. When my parents married the "Church" didn't recognize the marriage since my mother was a Protestant. My father left the Roman Catholic Church and Joined TEC. He didn't say, "can I have the money I gave to RCC back?" He didn't ask for a pew or a missal. He simply left taking only himself. If the present struggle hasn't be set up over money and property they why didn't the realigned people just get up walk out and start their new SC church? As Jesus says, "Shake the dirt off your sandals." I too am disappointed by the vote on October 4th. I can never go back to my old parish (I basically was told I wasn't welcome before the convention anyway. Why? Because I don't agree with the majority).
In the end Mr. McCallester, we are both victims of this divorce. I wish you peace. It takes time but it's there.
Post a Comment