Pardon the crass analogy, but the Fat Lady has yet to sing!

I would expect such an initial response, as so very much remains at stake. It is unthinkable that the African Primates would allow themselves to be treated as schoolboys yet again. Much wrangling and work has gone on and is ongoing. Oppositions have been buttressed and calculating for long periods of time.

But what of the hand of God and the prayers of His people? Much more is at stake here than human polity. There will be many movements and repercussions during this gathering; and many more in the weeks and months following.

We must wait, pray, and advance our work! Many local and authoritative events do not stop while the big boys are at play!
________________________________________

"Whatever is pure . . . whatever is praiseworthy . . .", yes?

Compromise?

Are the "orthodox" primates going to get into... compromising?

Isn't compromising the quintaessential liberal sin?

As in, "compromising the Word of God", like so many conservative commentators have decried of the progressives?

Compromising the neo-cons' delusional refusal to accept the cultural, political, sociological and geo-economic realities of the Communion?

Compromising their own word, which they have wasted over and over in threats and "here I stand so help me God" drama drives?

Now this should be fun.

And, I am telling you, first it's just a handshake, then it's a joke, and next thing you know... Akinola is COMPROMISING!

The horror!

Bishops to orthodox remnant in North America: Drop dead!

I don't know about the rest of you, but I want the TRUTH! NOW! No more fudge, no compromises! And no more spin! We have the right to hear the truth!

Cennydd

.

Poster: Cennydd Posted: 2007/2/15 13:40:40

I don't know about the rest of you, but I want the TRUTH! NOW! No more fudge, no compromises! And no more spin! We have the right to hear the truth!

/////////////

The truth?

Sure, Cennyd, rightaway.





No, wait.

You can't handle the truth.
















Cuz, you know... they're compromising.

Calm!

Let us think clearly about all of the statements made by all of the Primates to date, and long before this highly-charged event unrolls before our waiting eyes and ears.

Why become hysterical over the merest cliche of a wordsmith after a preliminary meeting?

Draw your brains, all, to THINKING!
TOO MUCH is going on here for alarmists' posture!

Om

Keep it together, keep it together! The house of cards is coming DOWN!

Om

Hang in there fella's. Check out Hylden's artical here "Storm Clouds..." http://www.firstthings.com/ His deliniation of three camps in the Communion, liberal, evangelical and catholic, seems accurate to me. Compromise on the essentials-- no. But compromise on some non-essentials to further uncompromised essentials may be what is needed. I am simply not qualified to assert what is essential other than Christ came into the world to rescue us from the consequence of our sin. We must have faith that the same Jesus through His Spirit will be heard in the hearts of those Primates who know and love him. If Jesus calls them to compromise for His glory, then we can trust the call is on non-essentials.

Peace.

I am most concerned by this sentence.

"No primate is permitted to leave the secure area without a minder or a staff member employed by the Anglican Consultative Council."

No exactly the people that the orthodox want to be running the show. It's time to end this farce and let the communion split.

"...the Archbishops are taking the "long view".."

Yep. This is just the first volley of several that will disgust, disappoint, and discourage the "orthodox" hangers-on in TEC.

Tanzania will present no more of a rescue than any of the other "emergency" meetings, documents, organizations, and positions since November of 2003 (The Vicky Gene Chronicle). 2004, 2005, and 2006 gave no solid response. 2007 will be no different.

I pray that I am wrong and am therefore holding onto my final "I told you" until the final nail is in the coffin of the Tanzania meeting.

My prediction based on past events of "primates in talks" meetings:
Katherine Schori will depart victorious for having stood up to the "orthodox bishops" there and Rowan will be credited for "keeping things together". Akinola won't accomplish squat and there will be no "second province" in the U.S. Duncan will return, hat in hand, after having been out-manuevered by the high bishopess, and all the conservative orthodox clubs in TEC will wail and mourn once more. Then the "listening process" will be affirmed and continued.

Mrs. Schori will certainly be invited to Lambeth as the Presiding Bishop of TEC, just as she has been invited and seated to this meeting, and she will be hailed as a hero and Godsend by all her followers in TEC. Gene will continue to be counted among TEC's bishops and the small minority of dissenters left will have to suck it up and tolerate it or leave.

For those who have pinned their hopes on Tanzania I would think that they would have learned by now, especially with all of the other supposed "deadlines" where something would be done.

Not the "emergency" meeing after Vicky Gene's consecration. Not Dromantine. Not Windsor. Not a new "coevenant". And not Tanzania.

If I am wrong by Monday, then thanks be to God. If I'm not, then those who continue to "hang-on" will be sentenced to a life of it.

Poster: Gayle Posted: 2007/2/15 14:08:58

I am most concerned by this sentence.

"No primate is permitted to leave the secure area without a minder or a staff member employed by the Anglican Consultative Council."

No exactly the people that the orthodox want to be running the show. It's time to end this farce and let the communion split.

//////////////////

C'mon, Gayle! But, that's a Non-Essential, dude!

(remembering "THIS is the headquarters" )

UECNA I take you are not all too happy about those seemingly innevitable developments? Right?

UTURN,

Happy? No.

Confirmed in my opinion that this was inevitable and even painfully predictable? Yes.

They will be gutless as usual.

I am amazed at the way "conservatives" in PECUSA continue to wait... and wait and wait and wait... for some magic bullet which will somehow instantly save the day.

The latest line in the (white) sand(s) is this primates meeting. As if the primates are going to step up, wave a magic crozier, and make everything okay again. That's a fairy tale. It's not going to happen.


Look -- think about it rationally:

* What authority do the primates have over PECUSA?: none. They can declare their own national churches out of communion with it. But that's it.

* What authority do the primates have over who gets invited to Lambeth?: none. They can threaten to withdraw their own participation, but who is and who isn't invited to Lambeth is up to the ABC & ABY.

* What authority does the ABC and the "Anglican Communion" have over PECUSA?: none. They can hold episcopal jamborees and issue communiques and statements until they're blue in the face, and PECUSA isn't obligated to pay one whit of attention to what they say... as history has proved!

* What difference to local property legal battles would censure or expulsion of PECUSA from the AC have?: none. Neither the ecclesiastical nor the secular facts of the property situation will be changed by anything the primates or the AC or the ABC does. Regardless of what happens elsewhere, PECUSA will continue to throw money into grabbing at every property as hard as it can... and funding the legal fees by selling the vacant properties which they thus obtain.


Moreover, think about it from the primates' point of view. They can't expell PECUSA from the Anglican Communion, but they can back themselves into a corner where they have to walk away themselves. And why should they do that? It's not the A.C. that is the problem per se (except, of course, in the fact that it's a communion in name only), but PECUSA.

The apostasy of PECUSA is not their problem. Beyond disassociating themselves from it, and offering oversight to parishes which come to them for aid, there's nothing else they can do. And they've already done that.


It's not up to the primates, or even the ABC, to deal with the problems in PECUSA. Nor can we excpect the ABC, especially based on his past actions and statements about the nature of the AC, to go out on a limb to censure PECUSA.

It's up to Episcopalians to fix it.

And as long as the majority of self-proclaimed "traditionalists" simply sit about in their pews, wringing their hands and doing precisely nothing about separating themselves from being yoked with unbelievers... but just waiting for someone else to come along and wave a magic wand, then nothing is going to change.

There are those like +Duncan who have made some moves in the direction of addressing the problem... though all the while refusing to come out from under that yoke.

And there are those like +Schofield who have actually started to move in the direction of coming out from under that yoke.

And there are the priests & congregations which have left PECUSA to come under alternate jurisdictions, and thus actually have come out from under that yoke.

But the majority still seem to be sitting around waiting for the magic wand. It isn't going to happen. It can't. There is no law or constitution or structure which can prevent PECUSA from doing precisely as it is doing... stifling Christian belief; teaching heresy and apostasy; marginalizing traditionalists; hanging on with bloody fingernails to the property. Nothing can change PECUSA but PECUSA... and there is no longer any hope of that.

And trying to put a positive spin on the statements or meetings or communiques of the primates... trying to make the most out of their expressions of distress at, or even lack of communion with, PECUSA isn't going to change that fact. It's just going to create an excuse for doing nothing for yet another year.


As long as those who complain about PECUSA's apostasy continue to stay in PECUSA, they're going to continue to be in PECUSA. It is, frankly, tautological.


For those who are still fence-sitters after lo these 40 years, there are ultimately only two choices: either face reality and figure out how best to extricate yourself ASAP in your particular situation from the yoke of PECUSA... or keep coming up with incapacitating pipe-dreams about primates or Lambeth or whatever riding to the rescue, until you finally and belatedly realize that you're no longer (and never have been) on the fence... you've been sitting in the middle of the pasture fantasizing to yourself the whole time.


Harsh? maybe... but only because true.


pax,
LP

Whatever is going on, the following must be having a role in it I am sure. Enjoy!

Report of the Communion Sub-Group

The following is the report given to the Anglican Communion Joint Standing Committee of the Primates meeting and the Anglican Consultative Council.

Background

* At their meeting in London in March 2006, the Joint Standing Committee of the Primates and the Anglican Consultative Council nominated four of its members to assist the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Secretary General of the Anglican Communion in discerning the response of the Anglican Communion to the decisions of the 75th General Convention of the Episcopal Church. Some of these decisions related to requests made of the Episcopal Church in the Primates’ Statement of February 2005 at Dromantine, which incorporated the Primates’ response to the recommendations of the Windsor Report. The group appointed met in London in September 2006.

* At the Primates’ meeting in Dromantine, the Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church had made it abundantly clear that only General Convention was empowered under the constitution of the Episcopal Church to give a response to the sorts of undertakings requested in the Windsor Report on behalf of the Episcopal Church. The Primates at Dromantine therefore decided to give the Episcopal Church (and the Anglican Church of Canada – although that Church is not the focus of current consideration) space to allow its proper processes to function.

The 75th General Convention

* It is clear to this group that in the period following the Dromantine meeting, the Episcopal Church took the Windsor Report and the recommendations adopted by the Primates extremely seriously, establishing a Special Commission to work on its response, dedicating a particular legislative Committee (Special Legislative Committee 26) at the 75th General Convention to carry forward business associated with the Windsor Report, and devoting a lot of time to considering this work.

* The response of the 75th General Convention to the Windsor Report as a whole in its resolutions was positive – Resolution A159[1] affirmed the Windsor Report, and its vision of the interdependent life of the Communion, including the appointment of a person to carry forward work on this proposal; the proposal for an Anglican Covenant was welcomed (Resolution A166[2] ); resolutions reflecting what the Windsor Report had had to say about the pastoral care of dissenting groups, and provincial autonomy were passed (A163[3] ).

* The Primates gathered at Dromantine in February 2005 adopted three specific requests to the Episcopal Church from the Windsor Report:

o first, a request that the Episcopal Church should express its regret that the proper constraints of the bonds of affection had been breached in the events surrounding the consecration as a bishop of a person whose lifestyle contradicted the standard of teaching enshrined in the Lambeth Resolution 1.10 (see paragraphs 18-23 below);
o second, a moratorium on the election and consent of any candidate for the episcopate living in a same-gender union until some new consensus emerged in the Anglican Communion (see paragraphs 6-12 below); and
o third, a moratorium on public Rites of Blessing of same-sex unions (see paragraphs 13-17 below).



The Election of Bishops

* Following debate on these matters throughout Convention, on the last day the Presiding Bishop, with the support of his successor who had been elected at the Convention, acted to propose a resolution which he believed expressed the mind of the majority of Convention delegates and bishops with respect to the second of the requests arising from the Windsor Report. This became resolution B033, and was passed with impressive majorities in both the House of Bishops, where it was voted upon first, and subsequently in the house of Deputies. The group believes that this resolution does express the clear view of the Convention.

* The resolution states:

“Resolved, That the 75th General Convention receive and embrace The Windsor Report’s invitation to engage in a process of healing and reconciliation; and be it further
Resolved, That this Convention therefore call upon Standing Committees and bishops with jurisdiction to exercise restraint by not consenting to the consecration of any candidate to the episcopate whose manner of life presents a challenge to the wider church and will lead to further strains on communion.”

* The group noted that, in this resolution, the language of moratorium from the Windsor Report had not been used. It understood that legal counsel to the Convention advised that the language of a moratorium was difficult to embody in legislation under the provisions of the Episcopal Church’s constitution.

* Instead the resolution uses the language of “restraint”, and the group noted that there has been considerable discussion since General Convention about the exact force of that word. By requiring that the restraint must be expressed in a particular way - “by not consenting …”, however, the resolution is calling for a precise response, which complies with the force of the recommendation of the Windsor Report. The resolution, which was passed by large majorities in both houses, therefore calls upon those charged with the giving of consent to the result of any election to the episcopate to refuse consent to candidates whose “manner of life presents a challenge to the wider church and will lead to further strains on communion”.

* In voting for this resolution, the majority of bishops with jurisdiction have indicated that they will refuse consent in future to the consecration of a bishop whose manner of life challenges the wider church and leads to further strains on Communion. This represents a significant shift from the position which applied in 2003. It was noted that a small number of bishops indicated that they would not abide by the resolution of General Convention, but in supporting the resolution the majority of bishops have committed themselves to the recommendations of the Windsor Report.

* The group noted that while the Windsor Report restricted its recommendation to candidates for the episcopate who were living in a same gender union, the resolution at General Convention widened this stricture to apply to a range of lifestyles which present a wider challenge. The group welcomed this widening of the principle, which was also recommended by the Windsor Report[4] , and commend it to the Communion.

* The group believes therefore that General Convention has complied in this resolution with the request of the Primates.

Public Rites of Blessing for same-sex unions.

* A separate recommendation in the Windsor Report and adopted by the Primates was the proposal for a moratorium on the authorisation of public Rites of Blessing of same-sex unions. This issue, as well as others in the Windsor Report, had been addressed in a draft resolution, A161, which was defeated in the House of Deputies. General Convention as a whole did not therefore specifically consider the question of a possible moratorium on same-sex unions. However, it is significant that General Convention declined to take further a number of resolutions which had been drafted to support their introduction. A summary of the current situation was included in a letter to the Archbishop of Canterbury from Presiding Bishop Frank Griswold[5] .

* While this states the position at national level, the group noted that decisions affecting the use of public rites have more usually been made at diocesan level. The Windsor Report, in recognising that fact, calls upon all bishops of the Anglican Communion to abide by the unanimous recommendation of the Primates in March 2003 and institute a moratorium on such rites[6] .

* In a resolution of the 74th General Convention in 2003, the Episcopal Church recognised that local faith communities within its common life were exploring and experiencing such liturgies[7] , and while, at provincial level, it has done nothing to authorise such Rites, it has done nothing to check their development. This creates a level of dissonance between the life of the Church at national level and at local level, which makes it hard to discern exactly where the Episcopal Church stands on this issue.

* While the bishops of the Episcopal Church pledged themselves in March 2005 not to authorize any public rites for the blessing of same sex unions, and not to bless any such unions, at least until the General Convention of 2006, there is evidence that a variety of practices now apply across the United States in accordance with the acknowledgement given at the 74th General Convention in 2003. (As we have already noted 75th General Convention in 2006 did not speak authoritatively the issue.) There are dioceses in which progress towards the development of a public Rite of Blessing for same-sex unions has been initiated[8] ; other dioceses where, while there is no standard rite, guidelines have been issued by the bishop giving circumstances in which it may be permitted for priests of the diocese to offer such blessings[9] . In other dioceses, permission has been given for the development of rites which cover a wide range of circumstances, but which could include circumstances where a same-sex couple were seeking a blessing on their relationship[10] . Experimental liturgical resources have been produced in some dioceses which address amongst other matters, the area of pastoral care for same-gender couples[11] . There are also dioceses which have only adopted a process of study around the subject, but which have not moved to the adoption of any kind of rite[12] . Some commentators allege that up to sixteen dioceses out of a total of 108 dioceses and jurisdictions have moved in the direction of the authorisation of public Rites of Blessing which can be used to celebrate same-sex unions, but this is probably not demonstrable: the real situation is very limited, but very complex and the wide range of practice and procedures means that it is difficult to establishment exactly what has and has not been approved.

* It is therefore not at all clear whether, in fact, the Episcopal Church is living with the recommendations of the Windsor Report on this matter. The Primates in their statement of March 2003 did admit that there could be “a breadth of private response to individual pastoral care”, but it is clear that the authorisation by any one bishop, diocese or Province, of any public Rite of Blessing, or permission to develop or use such a rite, would go against the standard of teaching to which the Communion as a whole has indicated that it is bound. We do not see how bishops who continue to act in a way which diverges from the common life of the Communion can be fully incorporated into its ongoing life. This is therefore a question which needs to be addressed urgently by the House of Bishops of the Episcopal Church.

Expression of Regret

* Finally, we must turn to the issue of the statement of regret requested by the Windsor Report, and affirmed by the Primates at Dromantine. It is to be noted that the Windsor Report did not request “repentance”, although this request has been voiced in some quarters in the Communion. Equally, the Windsor Report went beyond asking for an acknowledgement of the hurt and offence caused by the implications of the decision to consecrate a bishop living in an openly acknowledged sexual relationship outside marriage in contradiction to the teaching upheld in Lambeth Resolution 1.10. The report argued that there had been a breach of the proper constraints of the bonds of affection, and it was this breach for which regret ought to be expressed.

* In the event, the relevant resolution, approved by General Convention is as follows:

Resolved, That the 75th General Convention of The Episcopal Church, mindful of “the repentance, forgiveness, and reconciliation enjoined on us by Christ” (Windsor Report, paragraph 134), express its regret for straining the bonds of affection in the events surrounding the General Convention of 2003 and the consequences which followed; offer its sincerest apology to those within our Anglican Communion who are offended by our failure to accord sufficient importance to the impact of our actions on our church and other parts of the Communion; and ask forgiveness as we seek to live into deeper levels of communion one with another.

* A number of things have to be noted about this resolution. In the first place, General Convention voted down a proposal to adopt the precise wording of the Windsor Report, arguing that it was impossible to know what “the proper constraints of the bonds of affection” were. The group has some sympathy for this view. Instead, however, Convention expressed regret for “straining the bonds of affection”, and offered its apology “to those offended by our failure to accord sufficient importance to the impact of our actions on our church and other parts of the Communion”. It goes on to “ask forgiveness”.

* The group was unsure how these words should be understood. On the one hand, there does not seem to be any admission of the fact that the action of consenting to the particular election at the centre of this dispute was in itself blameworthy. On the other, there is the use of the strong language of “apology” and the request for “forgiveness”. These words are not lightly offered, and should not be lightly received. Taken with the apparent promise not to repeat the offence (Resolution B033 discussed above) we believe that the expression of regret is sufficient to meet the request of the primates.

* The Group feels that the reality of the change of direction that some see in the resolutions of the General Convention can only be tested however by the way in which the Episcopal Church lives out these resolutions.

* There was clearly a strong groundswell within the General Convention to walk more closely with the Communion and in the commitment to a common life. There is considerable diversity of opinion within the Episcopal Church – as indeed there is across the life of the Communion. It is clear that Lambeth Resolution 1.10 is going to continue for the foreseeable future as the standard of teaching by which the Anglican Communion as a whole will live. It is also clear that it is not only those who have expressed their strong disassociation from the decisions of the 74th General Convention in 2003 who have a commitment to the life of the Communion. There are many elements of the Episcopal Church who share that commitment, who wish to abide within the full recommendations of the Windsor Report and still remain committed to the life of the Episcopal Church. It is the duty of the wider Communion to nourish and encourage all those within the Episcopal Church who wish to embrace our common and interdependent life.

Afterword

* The issue of same-sex relationship has been on the agenda of the Instruments of Communion of the Anglican Communion since 1978. Failure to address it then and on subsequent occasions has only exacerbated that situation. Our churches and Communion have suffered greatly from that failure. Our Instruments of Communion must be pro-active in identifying such potentially divisive issues in the future.

* We recognise that the Windsor Report was addressed to the whole of the Anglican Communion. This report has been concerned with the response by the Episcopal Church to that Report. We understand that the Anglican Church of Canada is in the process of preparing its response. We have to express our concern that other recommendations of the Windsor Report, addressed to other parts of the Communion, appear to have been ignored so far.

Members of the Sub-Group

The Archbishop of Canterbury
The Archbishop of Central Africa
The Archbishop of Wales
Chancellor Philippa Amable, Province of West Africa
Canon Elizabeth Paver, Church of England
The Secretary-General

This Report is available to download as a pdf document here

Appendix One
Extract from a letter sent by Presiding Bishop Frank Griswold to the Archbishop of Canterbury, 12 July 2006

With regard to the blessing of same sex unions, the report from the secretary of the Committee shows the following actions. The Committee considered three resolutions that pertained to the blessing of same sex unions. Resolution D054 would have directed the Standing Commission on Liturgy and Music "to prepare for study and consideration by the 76th General Convention rites for inclusion in the Book of Occasional Services by means of which the Church may express that support...." Resolution D054 was neither considered nor acted upon by either House.
Resolution D017, entitled "Marriage Rite in Book of Common Prayer for Same-Sex Couples" was rejected by the House of Bishops upon the recommendation of the Special Legislative Committee #26.
Resolution C004, entitled "Response to Windsor Report" would have affirmed "support (of) the blessing of (same-sex) unions and the ordination or consecration of persons in those unions." Another provision of the rules is that once a matter is addressed in one resolution, resolutions bearing on the same topic can be “discharged,” which means they are not considered further. Upon the recommendation of Special Legislative Committee #26, the House of Deputies discharged C004.
In all three of these cases of Resolution D054, D017 and C004 there was little support for the resolutions within the Special Legislative Committee. It was very clear from the actions of both the Special Legislative Committee, the House of Bishops and House of Deputies that the General Convention did not wish to move forward with the blessings of same sex unions.
In sum, therefore, the General Convention discharged or rejected or declined to consider all resolutions put forward with regard to authorization of blessings of same sex unions. Therefore, the position of the Episcopal Church remains unchanged: no rites of blessing are authorized and neither is the development of such rites.

1. Resolution A159

Resolved, the House of Bishops concurring, That the 75th General Convention of The Episcopal Church reaffirm the abiding commitment of The Episcopal Church to the fellowship of churches that constitute the Anglican Communion and seek to live into the highest degree of communion possible; and be it further
Resolved, That the 75th General Convention reaffirm that The Episcopal Church is in communion with the See of Canterbury, upholding and propagating the historic Faith and Order as set forth in the Book of Common Prayer; and be it further
Resolved, That the 75th General Convention join with the Archbishop of Canterbury, the primates, and the Anglican Consultative Council in making a commitment to the vision of interdependent life in Christ, characterized by forbearance, trust, and respect, and commend the Windsor Report and process as a means of deepening our understanding of that commitment; and be it further
Resolved, That as an expression of interdependence, the Presiding offices of both Houses work (contd.) in partnership with the churches of the Anglican Communion to explore ways by which there might be inter-Anglican consultation and participation on Standing Commissions of the General Convention of The Episcopal Church.

2. Resolution A166
Resolved, That the 75th General Convention of the Episcopal Church, as a demonstration of our commitment to mutual responsibility and interdependence in the Anglican Communion, support the process of the development of an Anglican Covenant that underscores our unity in faith, order, and common life in the service of God’s mission; and be it further
Resolved, That the 75th General Convention direct the International Concerns Standing Committee of the Executive Council and the Episcopal Church’s members of the Anglican Consultative Council to follow the development processes of an Anglican Covenant in the Communion, and report regularly to the Executive Council as well as to the 76th General Convention; and be it further
Resolved, That the 75th General Convention report these actions supporting the Anglican Covenant development process, noting such missiological and theological resources as the Standing Commission on World Mission and the House of Bishops’ Theology Committee to the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Joint Standing Committee of the Anglican Consultative Council and the Primates, and the Secretary General of the Anglican Communion; and that the Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church report the same to the Primates of the churches of the Anglican Communion.
3. Resolution A163
Resolved, That the 75th General Convention of the Episcopal Church affirm the centrality of effective and appropriate pastoral care for all members of this church and all who come seeking the aid of this church; and be it further
Resolved, That the 75th General Convention commit the Episcopal Church to the ongoing engagement of and sensitive response to the request and need of all the people of God – in particular, but not exclusively, those who agree and those who disagree with the actions of this body, those who feel isolated thereby, and gay and lesbian persons within and without this Church; and be it further
Resolved, That the 75th General Convention recognize the agonizing position of those who do not feel able to receive appropriate pastoral care from their own bishops, and urges the members of the House of Bishops to seek the highest degree of communion and reconciliation within their own dioceses, using when requested in good faith the Delegated Episcopal Pastoral Oversight (DEPO) process detailed in the March 2004 statement of the House of Bishops, “Caring for All the Churches”; and be it further
Resolved, That the 75th General Convention urge continued maintenance of historic diocesan boundaries, the authority of the diocesan bishop, and respect for the historical relationships of the separate and autonomous Provinces of the Anglican Communion.
4. The Windsor Report, paragraph 131.
5. Excerpt attached in Appendix 1.
6. The Windsor Report, paragraph 143, 144.
7. Resolution C051(5) of the 74th General Convention
Resolved That we recognize that local faith communities are operating within the bounds of our common life as they explore and experience liturgies celebrating and blessing same-sex unions.

8. Cf. the diocese of Washington.
9. Cf. the dioceses of New Hampshire and Washington.
10. Cf. the diocese of Nevada.
11. Cf. the dioceses of Long Island and Vermont.
12. Cf. the dioceses of Atlanta and Hawaii.

MacPherson is liberal? Could somebody clarify? I was under the impression that he was conservative. (Please don't shoot me if I'm waaay off the mark....)

UTURN, Quit playing in the toliet and flush that post from the dark one.

Must say you are funny.

gregory

Ashanti, toliet... whatsawrongwithya dude?

Post from the dark one? What?

Funny? Funny IS that YOU should be talking about flushing and toliets and all.

"I don't know about the rest of you, but I want the TRUTH! NOW! No more fudge, no compromises! And no more spin! We have the right to hear the truth!

Cennydd"

The truth is this . . . TEC is a lost cause. The orthodix parishis within TEC are also a lost cause. There is no truth in TEC.

I've been Epicopal for over 14 years . . my wife - her entire life.

Well no longer.

Our Parish was Orthodox, yet back at a church meeting a few months ago, they decided to co-exist and just agree to disagree without leaving TEC. MY wife said to me "It's Time to go."

Through many tears, she and I prayed and looked at different denominations and we went to the Roman Catholic Church. For all the naysayers out there, I suggest you read the book "Crossing the Tiber." It's a very biblical, historical look from a Evangelical that turned to the catholic Church. And helped my wife and I come to terms with some of the things that we disagreed with their teachings.

For those that are still in TEC, I also suggest a book called "Kingdom of the Cults." While the book never mentions TEC, read about the cults in there, then try to look at what TEC leaders are espousing . . . and then tell me that TEC is not fast becoming nothing more than a cult.

Get out while you can.

A little addition:

For those that are the orthodox faithful in the pews . . you need to leave, and leave now. Go by yourself, your family, or with a group, but go none-the-less. There are battles worth fighting, and lose that are not. The name Episcopal is so tarnished, that no amount of cleaning will make it sparkle again. Find a denomination that is Biblical, and true to God's Word. And stop having the sentimentality of "it's what I've always known" or "I grew up in that church, got married there" or whatever. Remeber that Jesus told people to cast off their possessions? He knew that people would get so caught up in "things, buildings, etc" that it would be hard to follow him.

(A prime example is from another article posted here talking about how TEC tries to take property form Parish that's worshiped there since 1903. So what? Let them. It's just a building. Get over it. Is a building worth your soul?)

Leave your possesions behind and follow Jesus. Grow up and make a Godly choice. Shake the dust off you feet and find a new place.

And meanwhile, let the few heretics that are left try to maintain mostly empty buildings with no money. Let TEC hold onto it's worldly possessions as they fall into dis-repair and crumble.

"As long as those who complain about PECUSA's apostasy continue to stay in PECUSA, they're going to continue to be in PECUSA. It is, frankly, tautological."
______________________________________

Bravo! LP, I liked EVERYTHING that you had to say.

And faithful, God bless you in your recent hard-won decision. Out of the mire and clay, are you? WELL DONE! Some of we 'others' are either more stubborn or more stupid!, based upon the many comments found here. Godspeed to you and your intelligent wife.

(And UTURN, unless you can find a way to post a condensed version, I must pass you by!)

Akinola etc can expect no support from the new archbishop of Armagh (church of ireland - alan harper) - he did an interview before he left and it was definitely pro-gay - take a look at www.irishangle.net to see for yourselves.

when bishop of connor he had to do a little backtracking when some of his clergy wrote to him in light of some of his pro-gay comments.

his position is that he could not allow the blessing of same-sex relationships because the church of ireland has no service liturgy for it, not that it is sinful.

Schlori will find him supportive as he is a big supporter of women in the priesthood and episcopy

Well, I think we all know how everything is going to shake out -- details aside.

The true conservatives, the true defenders of the faith, will not compromise. I don't see that happening.

The true conservatives will communicate in no uncertain terms that the liberal revisionists have departed the faith, that they are apostate. And if they understand the gravity of the situation, they will say the same of those who choose to remain in fellowship with the apostate churches -- whether these all individually embrace the apostate teachings or not.

At the very least, this needs to be done. The point isn't that the apostate churches will magically go away. It's an issue of principle. The Bible demands that the Shepherds of Christ's flock identify the wolves, and label them as such. The sheep and the goats must be clearly identified and separated.

Regardless, the liberals won't go away. Neither will the conservatives. As I see it, the liberals will be told what they are, smile carelessly, and continue on down the road in pursuit of their own Satanic agendas.

The Orthodox Primates will make good on their threat to establish a rival Lambeth. Doesn't mean Rown can't hold his own Lambeth in England, but it will be a necessary move to distinguish the dead from the living.

Those who wish to separate completely from fellowship with the liberal element will go with the Africans and Asians to establish a new Orthodox Communion of faithful Anglicans, leaving the apostate in God's hands, whose lampstand He will snuff out in His own time.

After that, there will have to be a debate on WO. It may even be (if the WOers won't comply) that there will end up being THREE separate "Anglican" (in name) communions -- unfortunately.

If the WOers aren't forced out, then there is no hope left for an Orthodox united Anglicanism, breeding further splinter sects and independent jurisdictions.

Quote:

Yeah, it is. If I found an intruder in my home, I would shoot him dead without asking a single question.

Why do the Sheople give away millions in fungible assets that the Adversary will use to further evil in the world?

FIGHT THE BASTARDS. SCUTTLE THE SHIP IF YOU CANNOT WIN. GIVE THE ENDOWMENT TO BUMS IN THE STREET BEFORE GIVING IT TO THE SHE-DEVIL SCHORI.

Good grief I cannot stand the utter b*lllessness of RCs, whatever their present denominational affiliation. Why are RCs so gutless and servile? Why is RC the religion of slaves, serfs, peasants and peons? Don't you guys have a backbone? FIGHT! STAND UP FOR WHAT IS YOURS AND DEMAND JUSTICE! THIS IS A BATTLE FOR SOULS ALL RIGHT AND WE MUST FIGHT IT TO WIN!

It's like Korea and Vietnam and Iraq all rolled into one to read the advice of certain so-called Anglicans.

FROM THE BOOK OF COMMON PRAYER, 1662 - 1928:
Quote:

WHAT ABOUT THIS DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND?

Considering the terms "long view" and compromise, I am inclined to believe that nothing of any consequence is going to happen. I am pessimistic about the resolve to turn the back on the heretics of TEC.

Quote:

Why is it that so many people simply do not undertand the WO issue. They seem to think that it is a matter of "personal preference" or a desire for a "local custom". IT IS NOT.

Look, the logic is very simply:
* IF the ordination of women is not valid, then:
* Eucharists being presided over by priestesses are being presided over laity.
* Ordinations done by bishopesses are ordinations by laity
* To have laity preside at Eucharist is to abandon any sort of orthodox sacramentality; to have laity performing ordinations is to abandon the apostolic succession and any sort of orthodox ecclesiology.

IT DOES NOT MATTER that those who approve of WO do not believe that they have laity presiding. It doesn't matter if they genuinely think that it's in accord with Scripture and Tradition -- just as it does not matter that those who approve of homosexual activity are convinced it's in accordance with Scripture. Those personal "convictions" are irrelevant.

What is relevant are the "impersonal" facts of logic, theology & ecclesiology.

If the ordination of women is invalid, then any full communion or jurisdictional unity with those who practice it is tantamount to abandoning the apostolic succession and orthodox sacramental theology. EVEN if it's within a "local option" jurisdiction. That's the simple logic of it. How well-intentioned and good-faith the disagreements are -- and they often are! -- is irrelevant.

If, on the contrary, it's okay to be in the same jurisdiction with WO practitioners, then stop fudging about with "local option" nonsense -- if you accept "local option" then you've either abandoned the apostolic succession & sacramentality already (in which case, 'communion' is meaningless) or you're simply objecting to women clergy out of personal misogyny, which is reprehensible.


So, yes, there will be 3 jurisdictional centers of gravity -- apostate, moderate revisionist, and orthodox. Because the differences between them are sufficiently profound that there simply is not the requisite foundation and commonality for jurisdictional unity. Fellowship; good feeling; cooperation in outreach? Sure. But not jurisdictional unity.


The fact is, many of the "moderate revisionists" who are now so loudly bewailing PECUSA's latest apostasy absolutely refuse any compromise on the WO issue (and the "local option" is not a compromise -- it's as much a capitulation of the orthodox & catholic belief as full aceeptance of it). The acceptance of WO is as non-negotiable for them as accepting homosexual activity is for the apostates... and they turn as much disgust and irritation and contempt and censuring on those who oppose WO as the apostates do on those who oppose homosexual activity. (Even all the while trying to portray it that it's the "other guys's" stubborn refusal to compromise that's the problem... rather than their own abandonment of the authority of Scripture and Tradition.)

And for all the differences between the two issues -- WO & pro-homosexual-activity, ultimately the putting of the "spirit of the age" and personal preference over the clear testimony of Scripture and Tradition is the same in both cases.


So, no, let's not call it "unfortunate" if (as you put it) the "WOers won't comply" with some sort of graceful capitulation like local option.

On the contrary... let's recognize that those who hold out are the only ones left who (on that score at least) are standing firm for the orthodoxy & catholicity of traditional Anglicanism, and be grateful for it.


pax,
LP

LP,
You are dead on! Women's ordination is the golden calf that many of these "orthodox" won't let go of, EVEN if it means completely ruining any chance for a true coming together of orthodox Anglicans in North America, continuers included.

That's why bishops like Duncan, God bless him, are truly done before they get off the ground. They favor a limited return to orthodoxy and are mainly upset about the "gay thing". They are perfectly at home with this and a few other innovations that ECUSA came up with in the dope smokin 60's and 70's.

Bishop Duncan can talk about orthodoxy all he wants, but when he turns around and lays hands on a woman to "ordain" her, most of the world's truly orthodox Anglicans write him off as just another revisionist, albeit minus the gay agenda.

That's how important priestesses are to them, they would rather see a real chance for an orthodox province spoiled as to live without them and deny these ladies their "justice and rights".

A humble observation:

If ++Akinola and the other global south bishops who have been making noise about breaking communion with TEC do not act at this particular meeting, you might as well consider them enablers and move on to the REC, Continuing Churches, Rome or the OC, because the fat lady will have sung loudly. If they only bark but don't bite, they are useless. By staying in any longer you will be saying, "no matter what you do to us, no matter your apostasy, we will stay and wrestle with you and thus acquiesce to your evil."

lh

WE receive this Child into the congregation of Christ's flock, *and do sign him with the sign of the Cross, in token that hereafter he shall not be ashamed to confess the faith of Christ crucified, and manfully to fight under his banner, against sin, the world, and the devil; and to continue Christ's faithful soldier and servant unto his life's end. Amen.

JTM,

You know as well as I do what it is that they do not understand. First, they have probably never read either 1662 or 1928. Second, they don't understand what Baptism is all about because they don't understand who Chist is and why he dwelt among us. Finally, they can't confess their faith in Christ. They voted vthat down at GC 06.

Blessings

O.K., VOLunteers, time for a quick poll.

How many of you long term posters remember Fr_Steve, or GodisLove, or sinner?

All who see a striking resemblance to our brother/sister, uturn, raise your hand.

Poster: UTURN Posted: 2007/2/15 12:38:22

Compromise?

Are the "orthodox" primates going to get into... compromising?

Isn't compromising the quintaessential liberal sin?
==========
Steve? Is that you?

Steve-O!!! We've missed you!!

"How many of you long term posters remember Fr_Steve, or GodisLove, or sinner?"
"All who see a striking resemblance to our brother/sister, uturn, raise your hand."

Yes, i see the striking resemblance.
And yes i raise my hand...
Lord, help me.

gregory

The spelling, as well as the attitude, is JUST like Steve's.

lapittengr,

don't get me wrong. I oppose WO. I think you misunderstood my post. By the way, great reply. We're right on board with each other.

After reading this article, I don't know if I cry or I laugh. As I said before they will need to prove that they(Global South) are not chicken.

Poster: UTURN Posted: 2007/2/15 12:45:27

The truth?

Sure, Cennyd, rightaway.


No, wait.

You can't handle the truth.
============================

Hey Steve -- where's the "spirit" going to lead ECUSA next? Incest? Bestiality? Crystals? Wicca?

You go boy!!!

Awww Rats!!!!!!!

I'm away from my MAC for THREE DAYS and look what happens - we get visited by none other than STEVE-O!!!!!!!

Steve-O...on VOL???

Yeeeeeeeooooooo - Braddah! Still up to your same ol' dirty tricks, eh???

Were you so totally lonely over at Fr. JakesBlog??? That den of vipers and iniquity???

Trak, TEC has gone in the direction which you queried Steve-O.
Now you know why the sheep and goats of Araby are nervous when they hear the sound of a zipper.