Posted on 12/21/2006 10:22:48 AM PST by sionnsar
Speaking of hysteria on the Episcopal left, this guy wants Dr. Williams to come down on Nigeria and Uganda like a ton of gender-neutral Bibles:
The Anglican Communion is based on a system of trust and a confederation of sovereign provinces. According to Anglican Canon Law and tradition, no Anglican province is permitted to violate the sovereignty of another. Since 1789, ECUSA has been the sole representative of the See of Canterbury in the United States and therefore is the sovereign province in the United States. In recent years, primarily due to the consecration of His Grace, Bishop Gene Robinson of New Hampshire, certain Anglican provinces who name themselves the "Global South" became dissatisfied, along with several parishes of ECUSA. His Eminence, Archbishop Rowan of Canterbury thereafter encouraged the creation of what is now known as the Network of Anglican Communion Dioceses and Parishes ("ACN") which would serve to advocate a more conservative outlook on Church Doctrine and Polity. This resulted in illegal invading organizations created by primates of the Global South primarily from Africa.
Some Anglican blog this is. Why anybody would vote for this site in the 2007 Anglican Blog Awards when I didn't even know there was such a thing as "Anglican Canon Law" escapes me. All I've heard over the last three years is that Canterbury doesn't have the legal authority to force TEC to do anything so I assume it also doesn't have the legal authority to make Nigeria stop establishing a mission in the United States. If I'm wrong, please correct me in the comments. As for the tradition part of the equation, TEC pretty much plowed that one under in 2003 when, spitting in the faces of this and this, it gave Robbie a pointy hat. But do go on.
In the United States there are two chief offenders. The first being the Convocation of Anglicans in North America ("CANA") controlled by H.E. Archbishop Peter J. Akinola of Nigeria with support from the Ugandan provice and other provinces of the Global South. The second being the Anglican Mission in America ("AMiA") controlled by the Rwandan province of the Anglican Communion. These offenders out of an idolatrous obedience to their interpretation of the Holy Scripture and abandonment of the traditional Anglican interpretative scheme consisting of Scripture, Tradition and reason have attempted (and in some cases succeeded) in invading the sovereignty of ECUSA. Parishes have disaffilliated from ECUSA and joined these illegally created jurisdictions.
"An idolatrous obedience to their interpretation of the Holy Scripture" means, of course, that the Africans think that words mean what they say rather than what some liberal Episcopalian wants them to mean. As for "the traditional Anglican interpretative scheme consisting of Scripture, Tradition and reason," most intelligent people realize that TEC completely ignores the first two while its application of the third is ludicrously inept. But you don't get it. These people are...you know...barbarians.
These jurisdictions are not simply offering a home to disaffected Anglicans in ECUSA, but are actively seeking to invade and replace ECUSA as the sole sovereign Anglican jurisdiction in the United States. They have asserted that though founded by external jurisdictions they are not in and of themselves controlled by a foreign Anglican jurisdiction. This point is vacuous at best, and at worst an outright lie. Even if founded by a foreign primate and not controlled by him, it is still considered an invasion as it constitutes an attempt by a foreign sovereign jurisdiction to undermine the sovereignty of another Anglican jurisdiction - which renders the point again at a minimum vacuous. On the issue of control, it is very clear that the respective primates of Nigeria and Rwanda are in direct control of the doctrine and polity of the illegally established jurisdictions.
And the problem with this would be what, exactly? I believe A. My bishop, Bishop B, thinks that A is unsophisticated nonsense. African Bishop C over there thinks that A is true. Why should it matter that African Bishop C is "in direct control of the doctrine and polity of the illegally established jurisdictions?" That's a feature, not a bug. Unless the real problem with Bishop C is that he's an African and won't take orders from his betters.
The only remedy at this time is for the Archbishop of Canterbury to immediately declare all parishes which are members of CANA, AMiA or any other illegally established invading organization in the United States be declared as not in communion with Canterbury, and further, the Archbishop should affirm the status of ECUSA as the sole sovereign Anglican jurisdiction in the United States.
Once again, I didn't know Dr. Williams had the power to do that. Because if he does, he can go ahead and declare that Bob Duncan is the Anglican primate in the United States.
ECUSA must further revoke all credentials of clergy who are working for and/or with organizations such as CANA and AMiA.
Wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if they did.
Further, the Archbishop and ECUSA must repudiate any claim that CANA or AMiA are in communion with the See of Canterbury and affirm that the only churches in the United States that are communion with the See of Canterbury are those which are affiliated with ECUSA.
Best of luck with that.
Churches that are affiliated with CANA or AMiA are according to United States law free to exist as they are. However, in accordance to Anglican law,
Again with the Anglican law. So much for any shot I have at a 2007 Anglican Blog Award. For the last three years, all I've heard is that there is no Anglican law. Maybe "Anglican law" is like the British Constitution. It's not written down anywhere.
they are not in communion with the See of Canterbury and must affirm that statement.
Someone help me out here. If CANA and AMiA are not in communion with the See of Canterbury, why, according to "Anglican law," must they "affirm" anything at all?
As with the Reform Episcopal Church and other traditionalist communions, they are free to exist in the United States but they should be prevented from asserting any affiliation with the See of Canterbury in any manner.
And you're going to do that how exactly? Sue them if the name "Canterbury" appears on their web site?
The Provinces of Uganda and Nigeria should immediately be brought on charges to the Panel of Reference and reprimanded for their illegal invasion of ECUSA’s sovereignty. Where possible, financial penalties should also be assessed including revocation of any and all aid to those provinces.
Have mercy, Judge! PLEASE don't sentence me to be married to that supermodel!
Traditional Anglican ping, continued in memory of its founder Arlin Adams. Rarely do leftists speak in such a traditionally lofty tone of respect for prelates.
Blue-blooded nicolaitans defending their turf.
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.