This is really terrible, but St. Andrews has taken action to keep the property...

"St. Andrew's Church transferred property worth $3.45 million into a land trust, a transaction recorded in July 2009 and amended in September 2009. The "St. Andrew's Church-Mt. Pleasant Land Trust" received parish property formerly held by the vestry and church wardens of St. Andrew's.

"The purpose of the Trust shall be to purchase, receive, hold title to, improve, and otherwise manage real estate and improvements thereon in order to provide an orthodox Anglican ministry center for St. Andrew's Church," legal documents state"

http://www.postandcourier.com/news/2009/dec/19/parish-looks-to-leave/

[Editor's note: thanks for the comment, please leave your full name next time.]

A bit of a wonkish comment here (but, then, I'm a bit of a wonk): I find it interesting that Bishop Lawrence pronounced a "Declaration of Removal," and not a "Sentence of Deposition." There was apparently a sentence of Removal at some recent point in our history. However, that is no longer the case. According to Canons (IV.14.28),

Sec. 28. Former Sentence of Removal. Solely for the purposes of the application of these Canons to persons who have received the pronouncement of the former Sentence of removal, the former Sentence of removal shall be deemed to have been a Sentence of Deposition.

Thus, these priests are, regarding authority within the Episcopal Church, deposed.

I believe that the bishop has chosen his words carefully. Bishop Lawrence and the South Carolina Convention have recently made a point of selecting not only which Canons they wish to accept, but which year - although I had thought they had stated explicitly they would respect those of 2006, from which I quote. In an adminstrative sense, whether these priests have been "removed" or "deposed" isn't great difference. They've made their choice, and may God go with them. In the sense of making a statement of avoiding recent revisions of Canons, however, the words just might make a difference.

Marshall Scott

They are deposed as such and not just within the Episcopal Church. It is contrary to sound ecclesiastical discipline (and ancient canon) for any Catholic Church to receive their orders.

Bill, I agree that it would be "contrary to sound ecclesiastical discipline (and ancient canon) for any Catholic Church to receive their orders." However, we live in a time when, to paraphrase, "every bishop does what is right in his or her own eyes," an environment in which we have to acknowledge no small part. So, I limited my comments to what is enforceable by the Episcopal Church. I choose not to worry too much about what ACNA considers good or bad for sound order. That way lies madness - or at least a lot of angry-ness.

Marshall Scott

Here is yet another example of how the case of South Carolina just gets curioser by the day. For all real intents and purposes the Episcopal Diocese of South Carolina has separated from the Episcopal Church (three conventions within a year) following that age old impulse of South Carolinians for nullification and local sovereignty. This should surprise no one. Technically Bp Lawrence "removed" the clergy of St. Andrews from TEC (insignificant since they had already left). However, he gave tacit approval to their property claims (very meaningful by nullifying canon law). He is covering his tracks of separatism with technicalities. In fact, his treatment of St. Andrew's gives a big free rein to the dozen Lowcountry parishes biting at the bit to leave TEC for "Anglican" pastures. If the annual diocesan convention next March does not vote to secede from TEC, one should expact a number of old and famous parishes to bolt and take their property with them.
Ron Caldwell