Posted on 01/11/2005 10:04:03 PM PST by kattracks
The Episcopal Church has one last chance to back down from its consecration of an openly homosexual bishop, thereby sparing the worldwide Anglican Communion from a potential split, say conservatives at an Episcopal bishops' conclave this week in Salt Lake City.
The meeting today and tomorrow will deal with the "Windsor Report," a lengthy document issued last fall blaming the nation's 2.2-million-member Episcopal Church for potentially splitting the 70-million-member Anglican Communion over the consecration of V. Gene Robinson.Unless the Americans show some willingness to suspend homosexual ordinations and same-sex blessings, conservative bishops say a showdown is expected next month at a gathering of the world's Anglican archbishops in Ulster, Northern Ireland. In a letter dated Jan. 4, Central Florida Bishop John Howe told fellow bishops there would be a "pastoral disaster" in the church if bishops come up with "an unclear or ambiguous response" to the report.
"Even worse would be for us to create the perception that we are dodging the report altogether or trying to 'buy time' by employing delaying tactics," he wrote.
(Excerpt) Read more at washtimes.com ...
The Denis (or Dennis - I've seen it both ways) Canon says that the property belongs to the national church. But what if the national church no longer is united with the international church?
I don't think they'll do it. It guarantees litigation. They're going to mealy-mouth and hope it'll all die down like the 1978 split if they just delay long enough.
Every day I am more and more glad that we fled this church.
There will be an unclear or ambiguous response to the report.
Precisely. According to what I've heard, Howe's letter is actually a strategic move, intended to force the issue at the HOB meeting. Bp. Salmon of South Carolina will apparently be the spokesman for the position laid out in Howe's letter.
The Denis (or Dennis - I've seen it both ways) Canon says that the property belongs to the national church. But what if the national church no longer is united with the international church?
That is the crux of the issue. There are a LOT of things other than Anglican Communion issues that are hanging out there. For example, the Roman Catholics have broken off all communication with the Anglicans -- the Pope reportedly won't even talk to Rowan Williams -- until the Communion does something about the American church, and specifically Frank Griswold and the "same sex" lobby.
The Primates will use this, of course, in their decision to "disinvite" the ECUSA from Communion gatherings. This will presumably open the way for the RCs to re-open ecumenical discussions, sans the ECUSA.
When all is said and done, I think we end up with a set of "communion" entities who have "ecumenical relations" with the Catholic and Orthodox churches; and we'll have the nominal ECUSA (the technical term is "rump" ECUSA -- a rather ironic linguistic twist), which is not part of the Communion, and has no relations with those other bodies. The mantle of legitimacy will de facto shift to the "communion" entities -- which makes the application Dennis Canon a lot less obvious than it currently seems.
I don't think they'll do it. It guarantees litigation. They're going to mealy-mouth and hope it'll all die down like the 1978 split if they just delay long enough.
You're almost certainly correct. From the standpoint of legal actions, the folks at 815 will be a lot less certain of their chances in court, and I really can see them choosing to cut their losses by working out a deal.
Merely a shallow crack, however. As long as Anglicans keep ordaining women as priestesses, the chances of reconciliation are small.
There is always a showdown just around the corner but it never comes.
Well, we were never going to re-join the Catholic Church in any case. With that in mind, the discussions to patch up differences had been going on for decades, apparently with pretty good results.
Frank Griswold was actually the head Communion delegate to the ARCIC. The Catholic Church cut off the ARCIC talks following the Gene Robinson debacle, and they mentioned Frank Griswold by name. Further, they have declined to take part in the follow-on to ARCIC unless and until the Communion does something about the ECUSA (and Canada).
The Orthodox churches have done the same thing.
Given the desire of all parties (with the exception of Griswold and his elves, apparently) to restore as much unity as possible in the universal church, it puts a lot of pressure on the Primates to do something about the ECUSA.
And again: once we have a distinction in ecumenical relations between "communion" entities, and Frank Griswold's ECUSA, then the mantle of legitimacy switches rather dramatically.
This isn't just speculation, either: Cardinal Ratzinger's letter to the Plano Conference last year made it clear that the Catholic Church is ready to recognize "communion entities" in preference to the nominal ECUSA.
That's because real "showdowns" aren't possible until we lay the groundwork such that the revisionists can't avoid them. But we orthodox (and conservatives in general) have historically been far too impatient to make that happen. We end up hoping for a big blow-up (which sometimes comes), rather than patiently chipping away at the problem -- which is what the revisionists did, and why they're in power today.
As long as the conservatives cling to banning priestesses (as they call them) the chances for reconciliation are nil.
Agreed. Although, some of the more Anglo-Catholic perhaps would, the property issues in the U.S. would make even that difficult.
once we have a distinction in ecumenical relations between "communion" entities, and Frank Griswold's ECUSA, then the mantle of legitimacy switches rather dramatically.
Yes. Frank's brand of Affirming Catholicism sounds an awful lot like the modernists the Roman Church has quite enough of already, thank you very much. Once the more orthodox elements are broken away into recognizable bodies of their own, and provided they leave the priestesses behind (AMIA is of 2 minds about this question it seems to me), the talks will be much more fruitful.
Which conservatives? Anglican orthodox traditionalists don't ordain women. The Roman Catholic Church "has no authority" to ordain them according to the pope.
Boy, you've got an interestingand depressing day today..the ECUSA conference AND the Wash St Governor's inauguration..mifght need an adult beverage or two with dinner...regards..
God laid the groundwork in the New Testament. Anything else is just an excuse to avoid taking a stand.
But priestesses aren't the innovation that started things down the wrong road ... that would be the 39 Articles, and, after that, the Lambeth Conference of 1930. Priestesses, and the consecration of Vicky Gene, flow logically, and almost inevitably, out of the earlier errors. Even some Anglican prelates have admitted as much.
The Anglo-Catholics do not ordain women.
I meant Anglicans as "Church of England and ECUSA". I know there are some dioceses within ECUSA still that do not. They are under assault for it by femi-nazis. Not many (if any) out of communion with Canterbury bodies ordain women as priests. Of course, for most that was the reason they left in the first place, along with the 1979 Prayer book thing.
The non-female-ordaining parishes are organized into a couple of groups - FiF (Forward in Faith America) and APCK members don't ordain women, I'm sure there are others. The AAC has voted to put the question off to another day (typical Anglican response to any vexing issue) because they are trying to deal with the ordination of Vicki Gene and see that as more pressing. Plenty of folks who don't have a problem with lady preachers DO have a serious problem with him. Hang together or hang separately is how they're thinking, I believe.
You and I agree on the founding rules of the Church, just as we no doubt agree on a basic interpretation of the Constitution. The real question is how are we supposed to take a stand that has a chance of succeeding?
The problem is that we're talking about ways to deal with a human institution governed by political processes, which has been taken over by people with a contrary agenda.
Not coincidentally, the church revisionists usually belong to the same circles, and hold the same politics, as the Constitutional revisionists. It's not coincidental because, IMHO, it's all part of the same, larger strategy.
We orthodox like to hope for quick-fix "bolt from above" solutions to our problems, just like political conservatives hope for the same thing. That's why we get trounced so often on "procedural," "fairness," and/or "feelings" grounds. Often we don't even properly understand the battle we're in: we incorrectly assume that the other side is playing by the same rules as we are, when in fact they're trying to subvert our rules.
The truth is that we're never going to get that bolt from above. Ours is the task of the apostles, who were told to expect a hard, day-by-day struggle against the forces of darkness, all too often with physical defeat at the end of our road. God will guide us, but we have to do the work. And for the past 30+ years, the orthodox side haven't been doing the work, while the other side has been.
I was in an APCK parish, before I converted. The only thing stopping their growth is lack of clergy, IMO.
I don't think they are worried one way or the other about conversations with Rome right now, they are merely doing their own thing and looking at the mess in ECUSA with a mixture of sadness and amazement that what they figured all along in the 70's would happen so quickly.
The only problem in ECUSA, in reality, is that they refuse to obey God. Repentence is the only solution, and sadly the road that will probably not be taken.
If we take that "logig" to its ultimate conclusion, then we can look for Vicki Gene to have a sex change operation, and THEN apply to join the AAC..
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.