tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25082628.post3446893481140332663..comments2024-03-24T13:51:58.601-05:00Comments on Desert's Child: From ENS -- Presiding Bishop inhibits San Joaquin bishopKatie Sherrodhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09159503802660122104noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25082628.post-10067514440779391822008-01-12T21:01:00.000-06:002008-01-12T21:01:00.000-06:00Bishop Iker's response reaffirms why the Presiding...Bishop Iker's response reaffirms why the Presiding Bishop needs to move against him NOW, rather than waiting until after the next diocesan convention.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25082628.post-8531338872791175822008-01-12T17:28:00.000-06:002008-01-12T17:28:00.000-06:00Yes, Christopher, but before he wrote THAT, he iss...Yes, Christopher, but before he wrote THAT, he issued THIS statement:<BR/><BR/>"Bishop Schofield is currently a member of both the House of Bishops of the Episcopal Church and the House of Bishops of the Southern Cone, a position not prohibited by either house."<BR/><BR/>Apparently after conferring with his "new" Primate [and probably some lawyers], Schofield withdrew his assertion that he's a member of BOTH the House of Bishops of TEC and the House of Bishops of The Southern Cone. Now he's saying clearly that he's left The Episcopal Church, which means that the see of the Episcopal Diocese of San Joaquin is vacant. Seems to me what's needed now is for the Episcopalians there to elect their new bishop.Katie Sherrodhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09159503802660122104noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25082628.post-85381442405045527322008-01-12T15:11:00.000-06:002008-01-12T15:11:00.000-06:00Thank you for posting this, Katie.How we had hoped...Thank you for posting this, Katie.<BR/>How we had hoped that there would be an amicable, instead of an acrimonious, separation between the now two legitimately formed Anglican Churches recognized by the Worldwide Communion in the continental United States.<BR/><BR/>I thought you might like to see the official response from San Joaquin which reiterates their position, and this statement from the Archbishop of the Southern Cone.<BR/><BR/>I expect this will be our position in the Diocese of Fort Worth (and other Dioceses and numerous formerly TEC congregations throughout the USA) as well.<BR/><BR/>Faithfully,<BR/><BR/>Fr. Christopher Stainbrook<BR/><BR/>-----------------------------------<BR/>The Rev. Cn. Bill Gandenberger<BR/>Canon to the Ordinary, Diocese of San Joaquin<BR/>559-907-7122<BR/><BR/><BR/>As a point of clarification, there is no confusion on the part of the Bishop<BR/>of San Joaquin or the clergy, people, leadership, and convention of the<BR/>Diocese of San Joaquin of their status. The claims of the Episcopal Church<BR/>to have oversight or jurisdiction are not correct. The fact is that neither<BR/>the Diocese nor Bishop John-David Schofield are part of The Episcopal<BR/>Church. The Bishop is a member of the House of Bishops of the Southern Cone<BR/>as of December 8th, 2007. The Diocese is a part of the Southern Cone.<BR/>Neither the Presiding Bishop or the House of Bishops of the Episcopal Church<BR/>have any further jurisdiction. Bishop Schofield is no longer a member of the<BR/>House of Bishops of The Episcopal Church. <BR/><BR/>A statement from The Most Reverend Gregory Venables, dated January 11,<BR/>2008:<BR/>“As of December the 8th, 2007 Bishop John-David Schofield is not under the<BR/>authority or jurisdiction of The Episcopal Church or the Presiding Bishop.<BR/>He is, therefore, not answerable to their national canon law but is a member<BR/>of the House of Bishops of the Southern Cone and under our authority.<BR/>Un fuerte abrazo.<BR/>++GregAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com