Here's the tally of "No" votes that I have.
- Easton,
- Olympia,(Public letter from Bishop Rickel)
- Bethlehem (Public letter from Bishop Marshall)
- Louisiana,
- South Carolina,
- Kentucky, (Public letter)
- N. Indiana,(Public letter)
- Southern Ohio, (Public letter)
- Rhode Island,
- Atlanta,
- Albany,
- Central Florida,
- Springfield,
- Dallas,
- Western Louisiana,
- Southwest Florida,
- Arkansas,
- Mississippi,
- North Carolina (He's my bishop)
- Western Kansas
- San Diego
- Texas
- Arizona
- North Dakota
- Hawaii
- West Texas
- Fond du Lac
- Maryland
- Central Pennsylvania
- Tennessee
- West Tennessee
- Montana
- Upper South Carolina
- Central Gulf Coast
- Virginia
- West Virginia
- Alabama
- Southeast Florida (by virtue of abstention)
- Florida
- Northern California
- Ohio
- Western North Carolina
- Puerto Rico
- Colombia
- Los Angeles
- Alabama
- Albany
- Arizona
- Arkansas
- Central Florida
- Central Gulf Coast
- Colombia
- Colorado
- Dallas
- El Camino Real
- Eau Claire
- Europe
- Florida
- Fond du Lac
- Fort Worth
- Georgia
- Hawaii
- Iowa
- Los Angeles
- Louisiana
- Maryland
- Mississippi
- Missouri
- Montana
- New Jersey
- New York
- North Carolina
- Northern California
- Northern Indiana
- Northwestern Pennsylvania
- Ohio
- Oklahoma
- Oregon
- Pennsylvania
- Pittsburgh
- Puerto Rico
- Quincy
- Rhode Island
- Rio Grande
- San Diego
- Springfield
- South Carolina
- Southwest Florida
- Southwestern Virginia
- Tennessee
- Texas
- Western Kansas
- Western Louisiana
- Western Michigan
- West Missouri
- West Tennessee
- West Texas
- West Virginia
14 comments:
Add Arkansas. (I think)
Do you know of any bishops with jurisdiction who have voted to consent?
I know that the Standing Committee of the Diocese of MS voted "no", but our bishop is currently on sabbatical ...
Southwest Florida is a no.
I'd be willing to say the Bp. Gray will probably vote no.
I'm sure you're right, Kevin.
I'm also interested in Matt's question: does anyone know of any "yes" votes?
I'm keeping track,too, over at http://apostolicsuccession.wordpress.com, but I have not seen official notice of Bp Lawrence, or Stanton, or Bp Wolf, nor Bp Beckwith or +Atlanta or +SWFlorida. Not that I don't think these will vote no.
SCarolina and Dallas have issued notices apart from their bishops, unless I missed their inclusion. What have you got?
I see Postulant includes SWFlorida. Is there an email or press release available?
I think it will be important to note sources.
I've been keeping track of consents as well and occasionally posting updates at T19 and StandFirm in the comments.
My list has been at 14 NO and 1 Yes.
I've not seen anything public about votes by
+Rhode Island,
+SW Florida,
+Beckwith (Springfield)
nor +Dallas (I had a private e-mail re: +Stanton's vote and do have him on my NO list.)
nor +Atlanta (+Alexander is said to have spoken of concern about Forrester's theology at the HoB meeting, so I have him as an unconfirmed NO on my list)
The one and only YES vote I've been told about is by +Neff Powell of SW Virginia. He supposedly wrote about his vote in a letter to his clergy following the HoB meeting, but I've been unable to obtain the letter.
I have one NO vote on my list that you do not have. James Adams of Western Kansas. I received an e-mail from Bp. Adams himself about his no vote.
I'd welcome links and confirmations about some of the bishops you have on your list.
My e-mail: AnglicanPrayer@gmail.com
Oops, I think my comment above could have been clearer for anyone who is trying to do the math.
1. There are 6 bishops on your list who I did not have on my list at all:
+Mississippi
+North Carolina (will take your word for it!)
+Rhode Island
+South Carolina (though I've assumed a No vote would be forthcoming)
+Springfield (ditto re: assumption of a No vote, but not on my list yet.)
+SW Florida
2. I have one bishop (James Adams of W. KS) on my list as a No vote (based on his e-mail) whom you are lacking.
3. I have +Atlanta and +Dallas on my list as NOs but have seen no public confirmation.
4. I have +Neff Powell of SW VA as a seemingly solid yes based on the report of what he wrote his clergy, but would love to read the actual letter.
If we put together your list and mine that gives us 20 Nos and 1 Yes.
Thanks Karen. I spoke with Bishop Curry about this at length, and he has also given me explicit approval to publish his vote on my blog.
My one no vote has been Rusty Kimsey based on his rebuttal to Tom Breidenthal. I'll make it two yes's with Karen's info re: Powell, although I agree it would be nice to see it in writing.
For that matter, if we are speculating, Bp Ely of Vermont and Bp Caldwell of Wyoming could also be listed as yes votes since they were involved in the Northern Michigan process AND Bp Little mentions them as supporters of the election of Forrester at HOB.
I will add Bp Curry to my list of no votes based on your testimony here. And I will add Bp Adams based on Karen's testimony.
I don't think Bishop Kimsey has a vote, actually. Only bishops
"exercising jurisdiction" vote on consents. Unless I am mistaken, this does not include Bishop Kimsey.
He can, as he has, offer an opinion one way or another, but he has no actual vote.
Matt,
Thank you. As of February 1st, +Rusty became the Assisting Bishop for Alaska. I may have been too hasty in acknowledging provisional authority, which is what Jerry Lamb has in San Joaquin - not elected, mind you, just by act of the Special Convention of 2008 - and +Jerry has exercised his invitation to return a letter of consent, even though he would not be officially considered bishop of jurisdiction by some.
The letter I read a couple of weeks ago from the Alaska Standing Committee led me to believe one thing; a second reading today is not conclusive. A reading (like I didn't have this section memorized a year ago) of the Canon regarding Dioceses without Bishops has 3 sections, and the letter almost feels like it has made a combo of the first two. Of course, the Canon directly states that a bishop being given provisional authority must be as an act of convention, not simply of a Standing Committee (whereas the SC can act alone in contracting episcopal ministry). +Lamb's ability to exercise consent is done so almost in spite of Article II's definition of a bishop of jurisdiction (Election as Ordinary). Perhaps not spite, but rather a "logical extension." And I was already there with +Rusty as the "Assisting Bishop for.."! I guess the only way to know is to ask Bp Kimsey if he was mailed a consent form to fill out and return. My little study here would say he should have sent it back without giving or witholding consent.
I'll take him off my "yes" list.
Oregon is between Diocesans, so neither a yes nor a no vote from here.
Post a Comment