Posted on 03/15/2005 5:44:18 PM PST by sionnsar
Traditional Anglican ping, continued in memory of its founder Arlin Adams. OK, what are they saying here? Who won?
I don't know, but Point 2 seems to be a masterpiece of word parsing in my book. In the interests of disclosure, I'm not Episcopalian.
Dear McGavin999,
Yeah, especially after reading the fire-breathing denouncement that the Presiding Bishop just gave down in Texas.
This one looks like the ECUSA caving. Look especially #3:
"Those of us having jurisdiction pledge to withhold consent to the consecration of any person elected to the episcopate after the date hereof until the General Convention of 2006, and we encourage the dioceses of our church to delay episcopal elections accordingly."
I'm not sure, but I THINK this means that the House of Bishops is agreeing not to confirm any more homosexual bishops. Thus, if the Diocese of California elects a homosexual bishop in the months leading up to the 2006 General Convention, thus requiring a vote accepting that election by the General Convention (as it was explained to me) does that mean that these folks are pledging to reject that bishop?
I'm confused. 8-p
sitetest
Its a ban on all consecrations, liberal, conservative and homosexual.
Dear Raycpa,
Aha! You seem to be correct.
Wow.
sitetest
Lambeth Conference of 1888
Resolution 11
That, in the opinion of this Conference, the following Articles supply a basis on which approach may be by God's blessing made towards Home Reunion:
(a) The Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, as "containing all things necessary to salvation," and as being the rule and ultimate standard of faith.
(b) The Apostles' Creed, as the Baptismal Symbol; and the Nicene Creed, as the sufficient statement of the Christian faith.
(c) The two Sacraments ordained by Christ Himself--Baptism and the Supper of the Lord--ministered with unfailing use of Christ's words of Institution, and of the elements ordained by Him.
(d) The Historic Episcopate, locally adapted in the methods of its administration to the varying needs of the nations and peoples called of God into the Unity of His Church.
----
If they really mean it, then yes, they have "caved" - or, rather, they have returned to the historical Anglican faith.
Clearly. *\;-) It's actually relatively blunt, for Episcopalians.
But the statement has been made before and has been fully parsed and understood before, so this was fairly perfunctory.
I'm not so sure. Two points, one already made in this thread:
1) It looks like nobody gets consecrated. What was the jurisdiction that recently said that if gays can't be married nobody gets married, until it's all sorted out?
2) I keep wondering about the phrase "Those of us having jurisdiction pledge..." -- but it's been a long day, I am tired and about to go offline and rest.
Too little, too late.
In the affluent Johnson County, Kansas suburbs of Kansas City, the largest church in the diocese of Kansas has had its Vestry and Clergy vote to withdraw from the ECUSA and forced an agreement from the Bishop.
The Bishop agreed to let them "buy" their own church with a mortgage they obtained. (Now they've paid for it twice.)
The Bishop claims that the terms of the withdrawal means they can't call themselves Episcopal, or even Anglican.
How does he make that claim?
He knows that under the terms of the latest Anglican meeting that the other branchs of the world Anglican community can't come to the aid of and join communion with such churches.
They are wording the above strongly enough to buy time while they punish finacially those strong enough to try and leave the ECUSA. Their success is more likely if they can take advantage of the lack of outside communion and unity for churchs, individuals and conservative dioceses.
Its a damn shame that their politcal and cultural power grab to force orthodox christians from their midst was posited on the backs of homosexual people that are in many cases the least offensive of that disordered group.
Those of us that have been mainline ECUSA members certainly aren't able to be labeled homophobic, the church in general is known as being welcoming to homosexuals.
What it is no longer welcome is orthodoxy.
Despite a wealth of friends in Christ and friends in general, the ability to feel accepted and in worshipful communion with the congregation is gone.
The only thing the Bishop will sincerly miss is my money.
You are so correct on both accounts.
The House of Bishops includes Diocesean Ordinaries (the head bishop of a Diocese), Suffragan Bishops (the Bishop who'll take over as Ordinary when the Ordinary retires), and Associate/Assistant Bishops (no right of succession, but they help the Ordinary with his/her duties). Only the Ordinary has jurisdiction in their diocese to approve/deny liturgical changes such as celebrations of same-sex unions. The rest were there at the HOB, though, so this wording was used.
The way I read this, the members of the HOB is not going to consecrate ANY bishops, homosexual or not, until after GC2006.
There are those who disagree with you, and say that the Windsor report forbids extra-provincial bishops from coming into a province, but does not forbid a parish from reaching out to an extra-provincial bishop.
This seems to be a direct response to the request that the ECUSA not participate:
"We reaffirm our continuing commitment ... to participate fully in the Anglican Consultative Council, the Lambeth Conference, and the Primates’ Meeting..."
It's Co-Adjutors that take over when the Ordinary retires. Suffragans get to share admin duties but don't have jurisdiction. I believe at GC2003, there was a vote to amend the canons to give voice and seat to ALL bishops--suffragans and assisting. I believe it was defeated, but has to be voted on a second time according to sacred canons. I'll have to go back and re-read the journal (if I can stomach it, that is).
Ah! Thanks for the correction.
In political terms this would be called a "log-roll." The HOB recognizes that they're in trouble, and this is in a sense a surrender. However, they also took pains to remind the Primates that nothing at all is going to happen until GC06.
The subtext to this is that the HOB is fully expecting GC06 to forge ahead with the public affirmation of same-sex blessings -- so all they've really done is try to kick the can down the street a bit longer.
Note that the HOB quite clearly stated that they would take no action against those bishops and clergy who continue to practice "non-public" rites for same-sex unions. This is the real meat of the statement, and I think the Global South will pounce on it.
I think the HOB made a big mistake by asserting the "no consecrations whatsoever" policy. This is clearly wrong-headed -- it's essentially a confession that the ECUSA no longer has any clear idea of what a bishop should look like. This, I think, will provide fodder for the Primates to state that the ECUSA has utterly lost its way.
They haven't caved. If you start to pick at the statement, you find that there's not much there. What concessions they have made, seem to be guided by a desire to "stay in the club," more than any true repentence.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.