22 March 2007

Howe Re The House.


Interesting comments from the bishop of Central Florida re the HOB meeting:

There has been much discussion of both of these requests, and a number of individual Bishops have very clearly expressed their unwillingness to agree to either of them. But there has been no official action taken by the House as a whole regarding them. The tenor of the discussion makes it clear (to me) that whenever we do address them (presumably in our September meeting), there will be an overwhelming decision to say No.

. . .

The proposals for the formation of a "Pastoral Council" and the "Pastoral Scheme" have been thoroughly rejected as incompatible with our Constitution and Canons. (Please note: I do not believe they are incompatible, and I voted against this rejection. But that is the opinion of the great majority of our House.) The Presiding Bishop was asked whether she still has the authority to appoint a "Primatial Vicar," and her answer was Yes.

So that may still happen, but it will not be within the framework envisioned by the Communique.

Bishop Howe - one assumes - misspeaks here. The PB does not, according to the Primates' plan, appoint the Primatial Vicar; rather, she appoint two members of the Pastoral Council, while the "Windsor Bishops" nominate the Primatial Vicar (who will then presumabley be confirmed by the Council.

Here's the whole thing, via Stand Firm.
 

3 Comments:

Blogger John B. said...

Actually, under the Primate's scheme the "Camp Allen" bishops would nominate a primatial vicar, in consultation with the pastoral council, but the PB must (1) "consent" to the nominee, and (2) "delegate" the PV's specific powers and duties.

In light of the one unanimous Mind of the House resolution adopted this week, I'd be suprised if the "Camp Allen" bishops made a nomination in the near future, even if the primates, the ABC and/or the PB were to select persons to serve on the pastoral council.

22 March, 2007 10:52  
Blogger Thunder Jones said...

His praise for ++Schori was unexpected as was the information he provided about the +South Carolina. It seems that he disagrees with the belief that the episcopacy of Lawerence+ was undermined from the PB down.

22 March, 2007 11:08  
Anonymous Scott K said...

Although I'm not a fan of the PB, I find it hard to believe that she was not personally hoping that Lawrence+ would ultimately be consecrated. The ultimate failure to consent only created bigger headaches for her than his consecration would have, especially since he is likely to be re-elected anyway.

22 March, 2007 16:49  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home