What part of Episcopal Church don't they understand? UPDATED

Episcopal Cafe is reporting the latest end run by Communion Partner bishops who believe the dioceses they serve(?) exist without relationship to The Episcopal Church. (thanks a bunch Rowan Williams for opening that door)

Leaked emails reveal their plan for testing their ideas involve a priest in Colorado (referred to by the infamous Don Armstrong as a back stabber - see Stand Firm) and the Bishop of South Carolina (the one who had to run twice through the election process as so many had their now realized doubts about him).

Thinking Anglicans has some of the emails here,.

Mark Harris comments here.

For a better essay on TEC polity read here.

Sample of Email 2

1) The CO priest will request of +SC, as a CP Bishop, a ‘visitation’,

2) the purpose of which is to prevent his parishioners from concluding that the only route for them is joining ACNA (which will be happening in CO soon) because their Diocesan is not foregrounding his covenant commitments and indeed has ordained an openly homosexual priest, etc, but also has said he means to create space for others’ views, etc;

3) +SC will phone +O’Neil and ask that this request be honored and seek to persuade him of its importance,

4) +SC will ask +Salmon to visit, and will indicate to +CO that +Chane is using Salmon in this way in DC.

At issue here is said parish understanding that they have some connective tissue to a covenant their Diocesan may wish to avoid, without challenging the Diocesan as to his authority, and so underscoring a way to remain in TEC and not leave for ACNA but also to affirm Communion life and differentiation.

Importantly, +SC reminded us that he does not want to get into a quid pro quo situation that, having implemented something like this, the PB makes sure he reciprocates when SSBs pass in General Convention and he is forced to let a proponent of the same do a visitation in SC. Hence, using +Salmon.

But also, hence, the importance of the Pastoral Visitors. They need to come into play in time as independent of deal-making and/or mild forms of extortion.

…at issue here is a) the need to show +RDW and others that CP works at a practical level, and that we have tried, b) that we have not done this by asking something of the PB is is not her right to give, but have worked bishop to bishop, c) that the PVs can in time occupy the space—it is hoped—modelled by the CP initiatives in this regard.
IMPORTANTLY, the visitation in CO, should it happen, needs to be labelled by all as a CP initiative and not just a single ad hoc thing (as in DC).

UPDATE with more email at Thinking Anglicans.

Washington Blade has the story.

Here are the emails --- read the whole tawdry story

Email trail

Here is the statement and proposed signers --

Bishops' Statement.