DOCSLIB.ORG

Conclusion of a Memorandum from the Revd.Sergius Bulgakov to the Iiost Rev.Metropolitan Nulogius the Above May Be Summarized As

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Conclusion of a Memorandum from the Revd.Sergius Bulgakov to the Iiost Rev.Metropolitan Nulogius the Above May Be Summarized As / Conclusion of a Memorandum from the Revd.Sergius Bulgakov to the iiost R e v . M e t r o p o l i t a n nulogius The above may be summarized as follows:- 1. The report of metropolitan oergius to the Synod about my doctrine of Sophia is evidently not based upon acquaintance Kith my writings in the original, b u t only upon quotations from them, w h i c h were furnished to him. Neither was I- in- -formed of the trial in process, n o r was there any previous consideration by competent theologians. The inaccuracy and incompleteness with which my opinions are treated in M e t r o - -politan oergius1 report are such that I cannot consider that it constitutes a satisfactory judgement. Besides, t h e personal judgements of metropolitan jergius deal not so much v,ith the central points of my doctrine, a s with details,some- -times not even connected with it. The report has more the character of a theological polemic, in which, b y the way,the persons! o p i n i o n s of metropolitan Sergius are not always u n - -assailable from the viewpoint of Orthodoxy. 3.1n reply to the accusation that my views are "pagangnostic", I solemnly declare that,as an orthodox priest} I confess all the true dogmas of Orthodoxy, i/1 у oophiology doeB not concern the content of those dogmas, b u t only their theological inter- -pretation. It is my personal theological conviction, w h i c h I never have and never shall exalt to the position of obligatory Church dogma.1 I consider myself as a theologian entitled to hold my own theological ideas, w i t h no pretension to their general acceptance until the Spirit of God melees H i s judgement known.In the history of the Church there have always been differ- ences in theological schools and opinions (we need only recall the schools of Alexandria and Antioch) end without freedom for theological study, of course within the limits of the Church's dogmas, theology cannot live. Sophiology has always been a teaching at least tolerated in the Russian Orthodox Church, (the priest i'lorensky, VI. 3olovieff3, end myself in the "Unfading Light», 1 3 1 7 . l.Let me cite as evicence the fact that in my book "L'Ortho- -cloxie" (The Orthodox Church")intended for the information of non-Orthodox about Orthodoxy, the question of Sophiology is not even mentioned. 3.Soloviefx's Sophiological doctrine, although subject to question in some points, w a s admitted even by the Roman Cath- -olic Church in so far as in h i s work "Ьа Eussie et l'Eglise Universelle", he joins it with his defence of the primacy of the Pope. 3.1 have given the true exposition of my sophiological doctrine, as related to various dogmatic questions, in a series of books and articles, b e g i n n i n g in 1917 (''The U n f a d i n g Light") a n d e s - -pecially in books about the Orthodox veneration of the Virgin, St John the Baptist, the angels, about ikons and other venerat- -ion and in an extensive study "Of the God-мап" of which the first volume, "The Lamb of God"l. on Christology has appeared. The second, "The Comforter" is now in press. M y doctrine never has included the acceptance of a "fourth hypostasis" in the Holy Trinity, but deals chiefly with the relation between God and the world. Further, it has no connection whatever with pa.ga.n gnosis, which I am accused of holding. Rather it is inspired by Russian Orthodox veneration of Sophia, the Divine Wisdom, a s expressed in Church architecture, liturgy, iconography, and represents an essay in the dogmatic interpretation of this v e n - -eration.2. 4# The fact of the condemnation of my doctrine, as it has been pronounced by Metropolitan Sergius, w i t h o u t any general discuss- -ion in the Church, is not in keeping with Orthodox "sobornost" and bears rather the character of Roman Catholic pretense to hierarchical infallibility exsese, in matters of faith, itfot recognising any such external hierarchical organ of dogmatic infallibility, the Orthodox Church gives its dogmatic judge- -rnents by the action of the Holy Spirit, in various ways, b u t always in ways of Church "sobomost".(oecumenicity) Sometimes these judgements are arrived at by long and stormy discussions (the Christological disputes) and are consummated by a solemn definition of the faith in oecumenical or local councils, a c c e p t - e d oy the Church as the words of truth, (and sometimes rejected, as in the case of the false councils) or else tacite consensu, by the life of the Church itself. In the present instance, a s regards my doctrine, its proper general theological discussion has not yet begun, d i s c u s s i o n which cannot be achieved by any premature forced judgement. M y doctrine belongs not to d o g m a s , but to theological opinions, in which Orthodoxy, according to its spirit and its dogmatic basis, p e r m i t s the proper freedom of thought. Interference with, or diminution of this freedom threatens the life of the Orthodox Church and touches the vital interest of all theologians, regardles s of the differences in their theological opinions. Paris.October,1935. Rev.S.BULGAKOV. 1.1 have presented a brief exposition of the leading ideas of "The Lamb of God" in Russian (PUT" No 41,) in English (Theology" 1934) and in German (Theologisches Zentralblatt" 1934) H e n c e they are available for a n y o n e . S.See the table of different icons of Sophia the Divine Viisdoni in the new book by Alexis van der Mensbrugghe ".from Dyad to Triad" 1835.(The Faith Press) THE FELLOWSHIP OF ST ALBAN AMD ST SERGIUS, 30,St James's Square, London,S.Ή.1. December 13th/o5. Dear member of the Fellowship, It is, w e think, v e r y likely that you have heard reports concerning a condemnation of certain theo- -logical opinions of Fr.Sergius Bulgakov, and we believe, in consequence of this and also because Fr.Bulgakov is one of the oldest and most venerated of our friends, t h a t you will be glad to have a statement of the actual facts of the case. They are, b r i e f l y , as follows :- Fr.Sergius Bulgakov is one of the leading exponents of the theory of Sopiiiology, w h i c h is an attempt to state and solve the perennial problem of the relation between God and the world and of Creation. This h a s been a matter of controversy in the Russian Church since the middle of the last century, and the supporters of this line of thought have included such well-known theologians and phil- osophers as V.Soloviev, P.Florensky, N.Berdyaev, and V.Zenkovsky, each of whom has of course, developed the theory in his own particular way. The discussion has been particularly vigorous in the post-devolution period in the exile. At the beginning of October news was received in Paris that the'Presiding ^ishop of the Church in Russia, the Metropolitan Sergius of Moscow, h a d issued a censure of Fr.Bulgakov's writings, p a r t i c u l a r l y the sophiological_ portions. Some time later the document itself reached Paris. At the request of the Metropolitan iiulogius, Fr.Bulgakov's own superior in Peris, F r . B u l g a k o v prepared ε .reply to the accusations. This reply, together with Hetro- -politan Sergius· Document, h a s been published in book form by the Y.m.C.A. Press in Paris at the end of November. Part of it consists of a solemn profession of orthodoxy by Fr. Bulgakov, in which he insists that he has never taught Sophiology as part of Christien dogma, and that it is a private theological and philosophical opinion compatible with Orthodoxy. There, at the moment, the matter rests. The actual method toy w h i c h the censure was issued was as follows:- The information on which metropolitan Sergius acted was prepared for him toy t h e Brotherhood of at Fhotius, a smell body of laymen, i5 or 20 in numtoer, and was communicated to metropolitan Sergius toy m e t r o p o l i t a n Ileutherius of Lith- uania, who is under his immediate jurisdiction. The Russian Diocese of v.'estern E u r o p e, w e may remark, to which Fr.Bulgakov belongs and whose head is the metropolitan ICulo^ius, w a s cut off from canonical relations with Russia in consequence of its refusal to accede to a demand received from Moscow in 1937· requiring the clergy of the Exile to affirm their loyalty to the Soviet power, end the status of metropolitan Euloglus since 1932 has been that of an Exarch of the Oecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople. This change of jurisdiction was however reseated by a small minority, w h o eventually аск* -nowledged as their ^ishop the metropolitan Fleutherius of Lithuania, who being a Lithuanian subject, w a s not included in the demand for a profession of loyalty and so remained in canonical relations with Metropolitan Sergius of Moscow.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Resolutions to Censure the President: Procedure and History
    Resolutions to Censure the President: Procedure and History Updated February 1, 2021 Congressional Research Service https://crsreports.congress.gov R45087 Resolutions to Censure the President: Procedure and History Summary Censure is a reprimand adopted by one or both chambers of Congress against a Member of Congress, President, federal judge, or other government official. While Member censure is a disciplinary measure that is sanctioned by the Constitution (Article 1, Section 5), non-Member censure is not. Rather, it is a formal expression or “sense of” one or both houses of Congress. Censure resolutions targeting non-Members have utilized a range of statements to highlight conduct deemed by the resolutions’ sponsors to be inappropriate or unauthorized. Before the Nixon Administration, such resolutions included variations of the words or phrases unconstitutional, usurpation, reproof, and abuse of power. Beginning in 1972, the most clearly “censorious” resolutions have contained the word censure in the text. Resolutions attempting to censure the President are usually simple resolutions. These resolutions are not privileged for consideration in the House or Senate. They are, instead, considered under the regular parliamentary mechanisms used to process “sense of” legislation. Since 1800, Members of the House and Senate have introduced resolutions of censure against at least 12 sitting Presidents. Two additional Presidents received criticism via alternative means (a House committee report and an amendment to a resolution). The clearest instance of a successful presidential censure is Andrew Jackson. The Senate approved a resolution of censure in 1834. On three other occasions, critical resolutions were adopted, but their final language, as amended, obscured the original intention to censure the President.
    [Show full text]
  • Censure of Board Members Policy Code: 2118
    Censure of Board Members Policy Code: 2118 It is the policy of the Board of Education that all Board members conduct themselves in a professional manner and in accordance with the Code of Ethics adopted by the Board. A "censure" under this policy is the process by which the Board of Education, acting by a two-thirds majority vote (i.e. five affirmative votes), can reprimand or condemn the actions of a member for any violation of law or policy or any other conduct committed by a Board member which tends to injure the good name of the Buncombe County Board of Education and/or undermines the effectiveness of the Buncombe County Schools or the Board of Education. A censure is an expression of formal disapproval by the Board. The Board, in addition to or in lieu of censure, may vote to 1) ask the member to resign or 2) refer possible misconduct by a Board member to the District Attorney as provided by law and/or 3) issue the Board member an official warning regarding future conduct. The Board of Education does not have the legal authority to remove a Board member from office. Therefore, any legal consequences or punitive sanctions related to a Board member’s actions shall be in accordance with applicable law and shall be separate and distinct from any censure proceeding under this Policy. In the event that a member of the Board of Education believes that a fellow Board member should be formally censured by the Board, the following protocol shall apply: 1) All Board proceedings related to a censure motion, with the exception of the disclosure of confidential information as permitted by the Open Meetings Law, shall be conducted in an open meeting.
    [Show full text]
  • An Examination of the Call to Censure the President
    S. HRG. 109–524 AN EXAMINATION OF THE CALL TO CENSURE THE PRESIDENT HEARING BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY UNITED STATES SENATE ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS SECOND SESSION MARCH 31, 2006 Serial No. J–109–66 Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary ( U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 28–341 PDF WASHINGTON : 2006 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800 Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001 VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:36 Aug 16, 2006 Jkt 028341 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 5011 Sfmt 5011 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\28341.TXT SJUD4 PsN: CMORC COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania, Chairman ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa EDWARD M. KENNEDY, Massachusetts JON KYL, Arizona JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR., Delaware MIKE DEWINE, Ohio HERBERT KOHL, Wisconsin JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, Wisconsin JOHN CORNYN, Texas CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois TOM COBURN, Oklahoma MICHAEL O’NEILL, Chief Counsel and Staff Director BRUCE A. COHEN, Democratic Chief Counsel and Staff Director (II) VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:36 Aug 16, 2006 Jkt 028341 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 5904 Sfmt 5904 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\28341.TXT SJUD4 PsN: CMORC C O N T E N T S STATEMENTS OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS Page Cornyn, Hon. John, a U.S. Senator from the State of Texas ..............................
    [Show full text]
  • Implementing Summorum Pontificum in the Diocese of Davenport
    DIOCESE OF DAVENPORT Policies for Implementing Summorum Pontificum in the Diocese of Davenport These pages may be reproduced by parish and Diocesan staff for their use Policy promulgated at the Pastoral Center of the Diocese of Davenport–effective September 14, 2007 Feast of the Exaltation of the Holy Cross Revised November 27, 2011 Revised October 15, 2012 Most Reverend Martin Amos Bishop of Davenport TABLE OF CONTENTS §IV-249 POLICIES FOR IMPLEMENTING SUMMORUM PONTIFICUM IN THE DIOCESE OF DAVENPORT: INTRODUCTION 1 §IV-249.1 THE ROLE OF THE BISHOP 2 §IV-249.2 FACULTIES 3 §IV-249.3 REQUIREMENTS FOR THE CELEBRATION OF MASS 4 §IV-249.4 REQUIREMENTS FOR THE CELEBRATION OF THE OTHER SACRAMENTS AND RITES 6 §IV-249.5 REPORTING REQUIREMENTS 6 APPENDICES Appendix A: Documentation Form 7 Appendix B: Resources 8 0 §IV-249 Policies for Implementing Summorum Pontificum in the Diocese of Davenport §IV-249 POLICIES IMPLEMENTING SUMMORUM PONTIFICUM IN THE DIOCESE OF DAVENPORT Introduction In the 1980s, Pope John Paul II established a way to allow priests with special permission to celebrate Mass and the other sacraments using the rites that were in use before Vatican II (the 1962 Missal, also called the Missal of John XXIII or the Tridentine Mass). Effective September 14, 2007, Pope Benedict XVI loosened the restrictions on the use of the 1962 Missal, such that the special permission of the bishop is no longer required. This action was taken because, as universal shepherd, His Holiness has a heart for the unity of the Church, and sees the option of allowing a more generous use of the Mass of 1962 as a way to foster that unity and heal any breaches that may have occurred after Vatican II.
    [Show full text]
  • The Shakespeare List Is a Group of 1625 Words That Have Appeared on Past SAT/PSAT Tests
    The Shakespeare List The Shakespeare List is a group of 1625 words that have appeared on past SAT/PSAT tests. Many of the words have appeared several times on past tests. This section lists the words in alphabetical order along with definitions, pronunciation guide, synonyms, antonyms, sentences, and derivatives. The definitions given here, sometimes the secondary meaning, are those used on past SAT/PSAT tests. For that reason, it is expedient to give the students these definitions that they are likely to be tested on, rather than have the students look the words up themselves in dictionaries and copy definitions of their choice. A pronunciation guide is a simplified method of indicating the pronunciation of words so that the student who is not familiar with phonetic symbols is not handicapped. The synonyms are included in this section as a prediction of words that may appear on future SAT/PSAT tests. If ETS, the creators of the SAT/PSAT, feels a particular word is important enough to put on the test, then perhaps they will also put the synonym of that word on future tests. The sentences were added to assist the student in seeing how the words are used in context The derivatives of the words are predictors of words on future tests. Often a variation of a word will appear on a test, so we want to expose the student to as many forms of the words as possible. Copyright 2005 © by Advanced Placement Strategies 197 Shakespeare List 1. a cappella ah cuh PEL luh without accompaniment by an instrument Synonyms >> Antonym >> accompanied The girl had to sing acappella when her piano accompanist did not appear at the audition.
    [Show full text]
  • The Permission to Publish
    THE PERMISSION TO PUBLISH A Resource for Diocesan and Eparchial Bishops on the Approvals Needed to Publish Various Kinds of Written Works Committee on Doctrine • United States Conference of Catholic Bishops The Permission to Publish A Resource for Diocesan and Eparchial Bishops on the Approvals Needed to Publish Various Kinds of Written Works Committee on Doctrine • United States Conference of Catholic Bishops The document The Permission to Publish: A Resource for Diocesan and Eparchial Bishops on the Approvals Needed to Publish Various Kinds of Written Works was developed as a resource by the Committee on Doctrine of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB). It was reviewed by the committee chairman, Archbishop William J. Levada, and has been author- ized for publication by the undersigned. Msgr. William P. Fay General Secretary, USCCB Excerpts from the Code of Canon Law: New English Translation. Translation of Codex Iuris Canonici prepared under the auspices of the Canon Law Society of America, Washington, D.C. © 1998. Used with permission. Excerpts from the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches: New English Translation. Translation of Codex Canonum Ecclesiarum Orientalium pre- pared under the auspices of the Canon Law Society of America, Washington, D.C. © 2001. Used with permission. First Printing, June 2004 ISBN 1-57455-622-3 Copyright © 2004, United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, Washington, D.C. All rights reserved. No part of this work may be reproduced or transmit- ted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photo- copying, recording, or by any information storage and retrieval system, with- out permission in writing from the copyright holder.
    [Show full text]
  • 2019 Constitution, Canons, and Rules of Order
    CONSTITUTION & CANONS together with the Rules of Order OF THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH IN THE DIOCESE OF CALIFORNIA Adopted in Conventions 1850–2019 The Episcopal Church in the Diocese of California 1055 Taylor Street San Francisco, California 94108 Tel. (415) 673-5015 Fax (415) 673-9268 www.diocal.org The Rt. Rev. Marc Handley Andrus Eighth Bishop of California Constitution & Canons Prepared by the Committee on Canons of the Convention of The Episcopal Church in the Diocese of California Mr. Philip S. Boone, Esq., Vice Chancellor and Chair Prof. Margalynne Armstrong, Esq. The Rev. Paul Burrows Mr. Michael O. Glass, Esq. The Rev. Patricia Pearson Rules of Order Prepared by the Committee on Dispatch of Business of the Convention of The Episcopal Church in the Diocese of California The Rev. Ginger Strickland, Chair Mr. Matthew Burt Mr. David Frangquist, Secretary of the Convention Mr. Jeffrey Hookom Ms. Stephanie Martin Taylor The Rev. Eric Metoyer Table of Contents TABLE OF CONTENTS Constitution of The Episcopal Church in the Diocese of California ............................................................................... 11 Article I. The Title and Territory of the Diocese. ........................................................... 11 Article II. Acceding to the Constitution and Canons of The Episcopal Church. ..................................................................................................................... 11 Article III. The Authority of the Diocese. .......................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Lora Gerd Russian Policy in the Orthodox East: the Patriarchate of Constantinople (1878-1914)
    Lora Gerd Russian Policy in the Orthodox East: The Patriarchate of Constantinople (1878-1914) Lora Gerd Russian Policy in the Orthodox East: The Patriarchate of Constantinople (1878-1914) Managing Editor: Katarzyna Tempczyk Language Editor: Kerry Fast Published by De Gruyter Open Ltd, Warsaw/Berlin This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 license, which means that the text may be used for non-commercial purposes, provided credit is given to the author. For details go to http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/. Copyright © 2014 Lora Gerd ISBN (paperback): 978-83-7656-030-4 ISBN (hardcover): 978-83-7656-031-1 e-ISBN: 978-83-7656-032-8 Managing Editor: Katarzyna Tempczyk Language Editor: Kerry Fast www.degruyteropen.com Cover illustration: © ivan-96 Contents Preface VII 1 Russian Policy in the Balkans, 1878-1914 1 1.1 Between the Two Wars: 1856-1877 1 1.2 After the Congress of Berlin: Fin de Siècle 3 1.3 The Macedonian Question 8 1.4 Russian Cooperation with Austro-Hungary 11 1.5 Russo-Austrian Attempts at Reforms in Macedonia: The Mürzsteg Agreement 12 1.6 The Bosnian Crisis (1908-1909) 14 1.7 Preparation of the Balkan League 15 2 The Byzantine Legacy in Russian Foreign Policy in the Second Part of the 19th and the Beginning of the 20th Century 20 2.1 Historical Background 20 2.2 The Greek Megali idea 23 2.3 From Pan-Slavism to Imperial Nationalism 24 2.4 Russian Philhellenists 30 2.5 Plans for a Russian Constantinople during the First World War 36 3 Russia and the Patriarchate
    [Show full text]
  • “Une Messe Est Possible”: the Imbroglio of the Catholic Church in Contemporary Latin Europe
    Center for European Studies Working Paper No. 113 “Une Messe est Possible”: The Imbroglio of the Catholic Church 1 in Contemporary Latin Europe by Paul Christopher Manuel Margaret Mott [email protected] [email protected] Paul Christopher Manuel is Affiliate and Co-Chair, Iberian Study Group, Center for European Studies, Har- vard University and Professor and Chair, Department of Politics, Saint Anselm College. Margaret Mott is Assistant Professor of Political Science at Marlboro College. ABSTRACT Throughout the contemporary period, the Church-State relationship in the nation-states of France, Italy, Spain and Portugal – which we will refer to as Latin Europe in this paper – has been a lively source of political conflict and societal cleavage, both on epistemological, and ontological grounds. Epistemological, in that the person living in Latin Europe has to decide whether his world view will be religious or secular; ontological, in that his mortality has kept some sense of the Catholic religion close to his heart and soul at the critical moments of his human reality. Secular views tend to define the European during ordinary periods of life, (“métro boulot dodo,”) while religious beliefs surge during the extraordinary times of life (birth, marriage, death,) as well as during the traditional ceremonial times (Christmas, Easter). This paper will approach the ques- tion on the role of the Catholic church in contemporary Latin Europe by first proposing three models of church-state relations in the region and their historical development, then looking at the role of the Vatican, followed by an examination of some recent Eurobarometer data on the views of contemporary Catholics in each country, and finishing with an analysis of selected public pol- icy issues in each country.
    [Show full text]
  • Student/Parent Handbook 2021-2022
    Our Lady of Providence High School STRENGTHENING THE BODY ENRICHING THE SOUL CHALLENGING THE MIND Student/Parent Handbook 2021-2022 Main Office (812) 945-••2538 Fax (812) 981-••2538 Attendance Hotline (812)206••0375 Athletic Office (812)944••1114 President’s Office (812)944••9362 Business Office (812)944••9285 Advancement Office (812)945••3355 www.providencehigh.net Revised 2021 Our Lady of Providence High School Under the Auspices of The Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Indianapolis and The New Albany Deanery Directed by The Our Lady of Providence Board of Trustees Accredited by The Indiana Department of Education and North Central Association of Colleges and Schools Member of The National Catholic Education Association Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development The Indiana High School Athletic Association Recognized by the US Department of Education as a Blue Ribbon School of Excellence Foreword Welcome to Our Lady of Providence High School! Academic achievement and spiritual development in a caring, disciplined environment are the foundations of a Providence education. This student/parent handbook presents an overview of Our Lady of Providence Junior- Senior High School, its mission and philosophy, and the rules and expectations aimed at providing a quality educational experience for Providence students. The policies and guidelines contained in this handbook help students, parents, and faculty foster an environment in which we are able to grow toward our potential as Christian people. In choosing Providence, you have indicated a willingness to accept and promote the above values and to abide by the regulations and provisions outlined in this handbook. Therefore, this is a shared vision between Providence and the individual student.
    [Show full text]
  • Canons of the Diocese of Chicago 2020, Updated 11.26.19
    2020 Edition THE CONSTITUTION AND CANONS OF THE EPISCOPAL DIOCESE OF CHICAGO Through the 182nd Annual Convention, 2019 Summary of Canonical Actions: Convention 2019 ........................................... p. 1 Table of Contents of the Constitution and Canons ............................................ p. 2 THE CONSTITUTION ..................................................................................... p. 5 THE CANONS ................................................................................................ p. 14 Rules of Order of Convention ......................................................................... p. 60 Historical Notes from Past Diocesan Conventions ......................................... p. 62 Province V – Constitution and Ordinances, Standing Rules and Bylaws ....... p. 66 The Rt. Rev. Jeffrey D. Lee Bishop of Chicago Michael W. Peregrine, Esq., Chancellor Paul Keller, Esq., Assistant Chancellor Richard J. Hoskins, Esq., Chancellor Emeritus Todd M. Young, Esq., Chancellor Emeritus Summary of Canonical Actions at the 182nd Annual Convention, 2019 The 182nd Annual Convention of the Diocese of Chicago met on Friday and Saturday, November 22 and 23, 2019, in Lombard, Illinois. Convention approved (on the second reading) a resolution to amend Article XVI of the Constitution, The Election of a Bishop. Convention also approved amendments to Canons 12 (Dissolution of the Pastoral Connection) and 14 (Differences Arising Between a Rector and the Vestry or Parish) to bring them into alignment with the canons of The Episcopal Church. Convention also approved amendments to Canon 33 (Commission on Ministry) and Canon 35B (Episcopal Charities). The business session of the Convention also included consideration and approval of resolutions on becoming a sanctuary diocese, freedom of speech and the right to boycott, minimum clergy compensation, opposition to capital punishment, common sense gun legislation, advocating for clean water in Ghana, and prevention of human trafficking of children in Chicago and Ghana. Todd M.
    [Show full text]
  • Procedure and History
    Congressional | Saas Research Service Informing the legislative debate since 1914 Resolutions to Censure the President: Procedure and History Jane A. Hudiburg Analyst on Congress and the Legislative Process Christopher M. Davis Analyst on Congress and the Legislative Process Updated February 1, 2018 Congressional Research Service 7-5700 www.crs.gov R45087 CRS REPORT Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress Resolutions to Censure the President: Procedure and History Summary Censure 1s a reprimand adopted by one or both chambers of Congress against a Memberof Congress, President, federal judge, or other government official. While Member censureis a disciplinary measure that is sanctioned by the Constitution (Article 1, Section 5), non-Member censure 1s not. Rather, it is a formal expression or “sense of” one or both houses of Congress. As such, censure resolutions targeting non-Membersusea variety of statements to highlight conduct deemedby the resolutions’ sponsors to be inappropriate or unauthorized. Resolutions that attempt to censure the President for abuse of power, ethics violations, or other behavior, are usually simple resolutions. These resolutions are not privileged for consideration in the House or Senate. They are, instead, considered under the regular parliamentary mechanisms used to process “sense of” legislation. Since 1800, Membersof the House and Senate have introduced resolutions of censure againstat least 12 sitting Presidents. Two additional Presidents received criticism via alternative means(a House committee report and an amendmentto a resolution). The clearest instance of a successful presidential censure is Andrew Jackson. A resolution of censure was approved in 1834. On three other occasions, critical resolutions were adopted, but their final language, as amended, obscured the original intention to censure the President.
    [Show full text]