BTW, Thinking Anglicans has taken a decidedly strange bent. Read their last few releases including the one on this and it seems (stress seems) they are word smithing more toward the "odd" of the world.
Here is the cite for the letter:
When is a new diocese new? Do you think when Bob takes it to the Southern Cone? Oh no, it is when the Episcopalians who are left try to rebuild the shambles left behind by Bob Duncan. Read and weep:
First, this paragraph addresses “parishes in the Diocese” deciding “not to remain in the Episcopal Church.” It does not address the Diocese as an entity deciding “not to remain in the Episcopal Church.”
Also, he adds this nonsensical paragraph:
There is only one way that Diocesan assets could “stay in the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh of the Episcopal Church”, and that is if the “Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh of the Episcopal Church” was a continuing entity, i.e., the Diocese’s realignment was invalid. If, on the other hand, the Diocese’s realignment was valid – which it was – then the Diocese “continues” to exist as it always has, but is now aligned with the Province of the Southern Cone (and very soon with the Anglican Church in North America.) A new diocese may form in Pittsburgh and align with TEC, but this is not a “continuing” Diocese.
So, as you can see, the language of Saint Bob is nothing like the language of us sinners. The only thing that comes close to this is the issue with Bill Clinton and the meaning of "is". Now, we can discuss the meaning of "new". Did anyone ever think that Bob Duncan and Bill Clinton would share the same entomological razor?
Finally, Bob actually gets the litigation flat out wrong:
The leaders of the new diocese, and many within TEC, will insist on a legal fight over the validity of our withdrawal from TEC. We will engage in this battle, as we must. But there should be no mistake on the following points: the Stipulation and Order does not address the Diocese leaving TEC, and the leaders of the new diocese want nothing less than all Diocesan assets.No one said you could not go to wherever you want to, we just said (as the courts have) that you cannot take the property that belongs to someone else with you. Bob, is really does mean is and new really does mean new. Take your folks and don't let the door hit you on the way out. If you need money to build a church get it from Greg Venables, I'm sure he will help.