Monday, 9th June 2008. 5:05pm By: George Conger. Two bishops of San Joaquin have been invited to next month’s Lambeth Conference. The former Bishop of Northern California, the Rt Rev Jerry Lamb, announced last week that on May 27 he had received an invitation from the conference organizers to attend Lambeth 2008 as Bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of San Joaquin. |  |
“This a clear sign from the Anglican Communion that the Episcopal Diocese of San Joaquin is the only Anglican diocese in all of inland Central California,” Bishop Lamb said on his diocesan website. “I received this invitation because I am your bishop and, therefore, entitled to attend the Lambeth Conference as the Bishop of the Diocese of San Joaquin recognized by the Archbishop of Canterbury.”
However, Bishop John-David Schofield of the Anglican Diocese of San Joaquin has also been invited to Lambeth. “Bishop Schofield received and accepted his invitation to Lambeth shortly after the invitations were first issued,” Canon William Gandenberger told The Living Church magazine. The invitation has not been withdrawn, he noted.
A spokesman for the Conference confirmed to ReligiousIntelligence.com that Bishop Lamb had been invited to Lambeth. However the presence of two bishops of San Joaquin, may present problems of protocol and ecclesiology for Archbishop Rowan Williams.
Last October, Dr Williams wrote to Central Florida Bishop John W Howe reaffirming the traditional view that the diocese, not the national church or province, was the primary ecclesial entity within the Anglican Communion.
“The organ of union with the wider Church is the Bishop and the Diocese rather than the Provincial structure as such,” Dr Williams said. “The Bishop and the Diocese” were the “primary locus of ecclesial identity rather than the abstract reality of the ‘national church’,” he noted.
While US Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori nominated Bishop Lamb to be interim bishop of the Episcopal diocese, and called a special convention to ratify his nomination, a growing number of US dioceses have issued formal protests against her actions, and do not recognize the appointment.
Bishop Schofield’s actions have further complicated matters. While he resigned his membership in the Episcopal House of Bishops, he did not resign his see --- transferring it and the diocese to the Province of the Southern Cone. Bishop Schori declined to recognize this transfer and sought to depose Bishop Schofield at a meeting of the House of Bishops this spring. The legality of this action is likely to be tested in the California courts.
This article is from Religious Intelligence
10 comments:
This could have all been avoided if the former Bishop Schofield had done the right thing by leaving TEC, it's property and it's assets and gone on about his business. What a tragedy this has become for the faithful Episcopalians of the D of SJ.
Praise BP Katharine and Bishop Lamb!
Mrs. Schori called the special convention, which she has no authority to do. Therefore, it is invalid. She nominated Bishp Lamb, which she had no authority to do. Therefore, his appointment is invalid. On top of that, Bishop Lamb resides in New Mexico. There is no Episcopal Diocese of San Joaquin. It must get six churches together and petition to join General Convention. Until then, Jerry Lamb, like Mrs. Schori, is the Bishop of Nothing.
So sorry David, but someone has given you some misinformation.
The faithful Episcopalians went over to the Southern Cone. This could have been avoided if Schori and Lamb were actually Christians and respected their own canons and our wishes. Bishop Schofield did not file the lawsuits. What makes Schori think that the national church has any claim to our property? The national church did not put any money up to buy the land and build the buldings. Over the years, the Diocese has sent money to the national church. If anything, the Diocese has a claim on national church property, since money from the Diocese helped pay for the land and the buildings. Should we file a lawsuit to get some of that back?
David,
Apparently, this is the stuff of great debates. See you in court.
Dear David,
I think that you have spoken most disrespectfully of the PB and Bishop Lamb. You are quite wrong. The FAITHFUL Episcopalians are still right here in faith communities all over the valley. We are a group of clear thinking, well educated people who love the Lord with all our hearts and do not park our minds at the door before entering to worship. Why don't you come and join one of our communities? We are growing by leaps and bounds.
I will continue to pray that the Lord softens your heart and opens your mind.
Many Blessings,
David, I fully agree with you that Bishop Jefferts Schori had no canonical authority to call the Lodi convention nor to nominate Bishop Lamb, and I agree with you that he is the Bishop of Nothing. However, in the interest of fairness, I feel constrained to point out that, between 1911 and 1935, San Joaquin was a Missionary District, and, as such, did receive aid from the General Convention. Moreover, many of the older congregations in the diocese were organized by Bishop William Kip, who was appointed Missionary Bishop of California by the General Convention of the Episcopal Church. As for San Joaquin sending money to the national church--it hasn't happened in close to 15 years. Not a dime (except for a share of the cost of operating General Convention.) Not to have these facts right detracts from your argument.
Bloggers -
My apologies for the delay in posting your comments. I have been on vacation without my computer and blissfully enjoying ignoring the news and the blogs.
Respect is a two-way street. Mrs. Schori and Lamb have shown absolutely no respect for those of us who have chosen to leave TEC. You say you love the Lord? What Lord is that? Mrs. Schori does not believe in the divinity of Jesus (John 14:6) and has denied the Great Commission. We left TEC because of heresy. Mrs. Schori, Lamb and most of the bishops in TEC are heretics. They no longer believe in the tenants of our faith as contained in the Thirty-Nine Articles and the Creeds. As for parking our brains at the door, I won't dignify that with a comment. Growing by leaps and bounds? What other jokes do you know?
Fr. Martens:
Thanks for setting me straight about the early years of the Diocese. I just assumed (always dangerous) that the Diocese had sent money to the national church.
My parents were among those who helped Bishop Sumner Walters when the Missionary District became a Diocese. I was confirmed by Bishop Walters in 1961.
Post a Comment