I can follow Tobias Haller’s realistic narrative of “The pluperfect mindset” to the point at the end where it turns a bit cynical. Since when is it so easy to dismiss the promises made by bishops of the Episcopal Church at their ordination? At the beginning of the service at “The Presentation,” and after declaration of belief that the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments are “the Word of God, and to contain all things necessary to salvation,” the ordinand promises, “And I do solemnly engage to conform to the doctrine, discipline, and worship of The Episcopal Church.” (BCP, 513). So how does rebuffing these new bishops, as Haller indicates, become “actions entirely within the competency of any diocesan bishop outside of Los Angeles” ? Besides that, the “Holy Scriptures” are quite clear, especially in the readings of and around Ascension and Pentecost, that women were present when apostolic authority and power of the Spirit were bestowed. I for one think it is quite necessary “to salvation” to recognize the work of the Spirit where it is so obvious and to avoid such profane rejections (1 Thess 5:19-21).

Joseph Monti
Atlanta, Georgia

Joseph, Tobias mentions on his blog that he is serving jury duty this week in NYC where he lives and breaths and has his being, so he is cut off from probably seeing your post anytime soon.

I think that Tobias would agree with you and his statement I do not believe was meant to be taken cynically, so much as the way things currently happen to be. I think that he was merely summing up the status quo. Las Obispas were called to serve in the Episcopal Diocese of Los Angeles and that is pretty much were they will be exercising their episcopate as suffragans to +Jon. They are duly called bishops in the Church of God in TEC and by extension in the Anglican Communion. At this point, as far as exercising their faculties outside of Los Angeles, that is canonically determined by the bishop ordinary in any given locale in the world. They will be welcome in some places, perhaps +Diane more so than +Carol, and not so welcome in others, perhaps +Carol more so than +Diane. Such is life.

Thanks, D.A., and you too, J.M. I am popping up from Jury Duty, though will be back in the court tomorrow.

I did not mean to be cynical -- I'm simply referring to the canon law which allows bishops to disallow other bishops from elsewhere functioning in their dioceses. (I'm not saying I think they should -- but that if they are all that upset, they have the preventative at their disposal.) At present, no woman bishop from anywhere in the Communion is allowed to function as a bishop in England, for example, because England doesn't allow women bishops. I think they should, but that is their decision.

Thanks, guys. But my point refers to the Episcopal Church. If there is a canon that allows a bishop not to recognize the orders of a bishop within their own church, then it is a new one on me. Let's change the ordinal immediately to say something like "you can conform to the doctrine, discipline and worship of the Episcopal Church if you want to." But hey, it isn't necessary. The whole alternative bishops thing is without theological rationale in any ecclesiology that even utters the words "catholic" and "bishop." Functioning across dioceses does require some permission as far as jurisdiction goes. But you seem to be confusing that with recognition of validity and legitimacy of orders. And, please, call me Joe.

Joseph Monti

Dear Joe,
I am referring to the Episcopal Church. I never mentioned "validity of orders," but am referring to Article II section 3 of the Constitution which requires bishops to confine the exercise of their office to the diocese in which elected, unless requested to perform episcopal act in another diocese by the proper authority. Why one bishop might refuse to make such a request of another bishop, is up to him or her. Again, I'm not saying I agree with their reasons, just that they have that right. If anyone doesn't want +Mary or +Diane to function in their dioceses, they don't have to invite them in. It's their demanding that +Mary (in particular) ought not to have been ordained that I find out-of-line. Those who withheld their consent cast their vote. They lost. This is how the church works, and instead of gnashing teeth they should get about the work of God.

By the way, I'm dead set against "flying bishops" and think hat was a disastrous idea.