Thinking Anglicans

Fort Worth and the Southern Cone

The full text of the resolution passed by the Provincial Synod of the Southern Cone of America concerning the welcoming of American Episcopal dioceses can be found here.

A resolution is to be put to the Fort Worth Diocesan Convention as follows:

Resolution 2

A Response to the Invitation of the Anglican Province of the Southern Cone

Whereas, it is the resolve of the Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth to remain within the family of the Anglican Communion while dissociating itself from the moral, theological, and disciplinary innovations of the Episcopal Church in the United States of America;

And whereas, the Synod of the Anglican Province of the Southern Cone, meeting Nov. 5-7, 2007, voted to “welcome into membership of our Province on an emergency and pastoral basis” those dioceses of the Episcopal Church in the United States of America who share this resolve;

Therefore, be it resolved, that the 25th Annual Convention of the Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth extend its sincere thanks to the Synod of the Anglican Province of the Southern Cone, and to its Primate, the Most Reverend Gregory J. Venables, for the generous and fraternal invitation to join their Province;

And, be it further resolved, that the Bishop and Standing Committee prepare a report for this diocese on the constitutional and canonical implications and means of accepting this invitation.

Subscribe
Notify of
guest

57 Comments
Oldest
Newest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
williex2
williex2
17 years ago

how could this possibility work? the southern cone is as calvinist in their theology and practice as ft worth is anglo-catholic in theirs. how will the southern cone folks and the ft worth folks ever worship together at a mass/lord’s supper service, presided over by a minister/priest, wearing a business suit/chasuble? whatever will they do with the left over bread and wine—-put the hosts back into the bag with all the other unconsecreated ones and pour the leftover wine back into the same bottle from which it came or reserve it properly in the tabernacle, complete with the appropriate genuflections?… Read more »

NP
NP
17 years ago

willie asks “whatever will they do with the left over bread and wine—-put the hosts back into the bag with all the other unconsecreated ones and pour the leftover wine back into the same bottle from which it came or reserve it properly in the tabernacle, complete with the appropriate genuflections?” Well, what did the Lord say they should do with the bread and wine? http://www.gnpcb.org/esv/search/?q=1+cor+11%3A23-32 Oh, he gave his disciples bread and wine and did not introduce ceremonies or superstitions?? Maybe human traditions and superstitions are less important than the unity that exists between the various types of Anglicans… Read more »

Fr Mark
17 years ago

williex2: you can see from this how the gay issue, for the conservatives, makes all other doctrinal disagreements pale into insignificance – at this rate, the most Protestant Anglicans will soon be reunited with the Holy See, and the Patriarchate of Constantinople, as long as they guarantee to remain homophobic, of course.

NP
NP
17 years ago

Mark – the issue is the authority of scripture.

Most of us in the AC do not want to have condoned by the church behaviour which our bishops have consistently said is “incompatible with scripture”

I certainly felt more in common with Pope John Paul II than Spong or David Jenkins etc…… I did not think the pope was right on very important issues but at least he believed the creeds…..

There is a difference between differing interpretations of scripture and flat rejection of certain scriptures…..

L Roberts
L Roberts
17 years ago

Esgob ! — now the Blessed Sacrament is a ‘superstition’ !

Jesus help Mary pray

NP
NP
17 years ago

L Roberts – show me where the Lord, Peter or Paul or any apostle taught anything different to what see in the gospels and 1 Cor 11 when it comes to the sacrament??? I think they knew what they were teaching….. You are Anglican and not a member of the RCC, right? http://anglicansonline.org/basics/thirty-nine_articles.html “XXVIII. Of the Lord’s Supper. The Supper of the Lord is not only a sign of the love that Christians ought to have among themselves one to another, but rather it is a Sacrament of our Redemption by Christ’s death: insomuch that to such as rightly, worthily,… Read more »

Ford Elms
Ford Elms
17 years ago

L Roberts, 2000 years of historical development which its followers believe was led by the Holy Spirit, though perhaps they didn’t always follow as they should. Complex liturgical activity, every element of which teaches something about the faith or expresses some tenet of faith. A strong tradition of spirituality and mysticism, again, all solidly based on the faith. 500 years of historical developpment grounded in mistrust. Only Scripture has anything to say about the faith. Mysticism and spirituality are suspect, indeed, some say Satanic. Liturgical worship was a product of the old mistrusted religion, so one must not worship like… Read more »

Martin Reynolds
17 years ago

There can be no doubt that if Fort Worth follow this course they will end up in a similar position to the community gathered around Robinson Cavalcanti.

How wise to pause now and discover exactly what this would mean. There was considerable concern that the diocese might immediately follow this (or a similar) path hoping their precipitate action would influence the consequences.

choirboyfromhell
choirboyfromhell
17 years ago

NP, Where in the creeds does it say I have to accept the authority of scripture? Oh, and read your articles more closely…XXV “Sacraments ordained of Christ be NOT only badges or tokens of Christian men’s profession, but rather they be certain sure witnesses, and EFFECTUAL signs of grace, and God’s good will towards us, by the which he doth work INVISIBLY in us, and doth not only quicken, but also strengthen and confirm our Faith in him….” It’s one step below transubstantiation, and arguably changes within us. It was a presumption of the articles that Christ said something about… Read more »

Ford Elms
Ford Elms
17 years ago

“1 Cor 11”

NP, I should think verse 29, among others, should give you pause for thought. Sorry, but that chapter seems to refute pretty much everything you’ve been saying. Paul, whose authority you seem to place above that of Christ, also calls it the Body and Blood of Christ, and condemns those who eat it without recognizing this fact, that is to say, you.
And who said anything about transubstantiation? I don’t believe in it either, I don’t think it’s necessary at all, so what are you getting on with?

MJ
MJ
17 years ago

Since you are so fond of Lambeth Resolutions NP, you might like to reflect on the fact that Lambeth 1988, in considering the provincial responses of the entire Communion to the ARCIC Report resolved that: “the Agreed Statement on the Eucharist sufficiently expresses Anglican understanding.” So the following passages were agreed by the provinces as expressing Anglican understanding: “Communion with Christ in the eucharist presupposes his true presence, effectually signified by the bread and wine which, in this mystery, become his body and blood.” “The elements are not mere signs; Christ’s body and blood become really present and are really… Read more »

Ford Elms
Ford Elms
17 years ago

Can anyone give me chapter and verse where Jesus says that we should not swear by anything in Heaven, on Earth, or under the Earth but simply speak the truth at all times? This certainly is contradicted by Article 39, which clearly denies this “plain word of Scripture”. Now, if NP follows this article, he is clearly following teaching “incompatible with Scripture”. No bishops have declared it so, of course, preferring to ignore that little inconvenience, so it must be OK. Of course, this has nothing to do with Scripture or anything else except “Rome does it so it must… Read more »

NP
NP
17 years ago

choirboy…. we do not have him on record on the subject but you have absolutely no evidence to suggest the Lord would have condoned what our bishops have consistently said is “incompatible with scripture”….. he did come to fulfil the scripture.
I am sure he would have said “go and sin no more”….as we see him doing that in his grace and compassion……

Ford – I think Paul meant those who do not believe….and I am pretty confident that he would have included all the false teachers in various places that he did not tolerate one bit.

Ford Elms
Ford Elms
17 years ago

Oh,and NP, I assume the women at HTB all submissively cover their heads, and the men all have their hair cut decently short. Paul seems to think short hair on men is natural, I presume after he got rid of his own forelocks. Do you refuse communion to men with pont tails or women with their heads shaved, as is so fashionable at present?

Michael M
Michael M
17 years ago

Actually, the Ft. Worth rejection of women trumps their “catholic” principles about the Calvinism of the Southern Cone. That diocese contains more than a few secret homoerotic priests, but no women priests. As long as Southern Cone looks the other way about the first and continues to refuse the second, Ft. Worth can stand their snake belly low practices.

Merseymike
Merseymike
17 years ago

Yes, NP, you are right – you afford the Bible the authority of the fundamentalist. We don’t.

Malcolm+
17 years ago

Nice to see that NP has a grip on the Articles.

What about that one that appears to delimit the authority of foreign prelates in other realms?

L Roberts
L Roberts
17 years ago

L Roberts – show me where the Lord, Peter or Paul or any apostle taught anything different to what see in the gospels and 1 Cor 11 when it comes to the sacrament??? I think they knew what they were teaching….. You are Anglican and not a member of the RCC, right? ‘ (‘NP’) Neither I am afraid. I am a Quaker…. However, I have shall we say experienced eucharistic worship, read the Bible, the BCP, and the Newmans famous Tract on the 39 Articles, read the Instruction on the worship of the eucharistic Mystery (Congregation for the Doctrine of… Read more »

Tim
Tim
17 years ago

NP scripsit: “Maybe human traditions and superstitions are less important than the unity that exists between the various types of Anglicans who remain faithful to scripture?”

By whose measurement are you judging `faithful to scripture’? And why single-out scripture rather than any feature that actually defines Anglicanism?

Maybe it would be a worthy challenge to identify people who have held together despite differences of opinion. No specific names come to mind but I see *every church* as full of qualifying members.

williex2
williex2
17 years ago

i fear that NP has succumbed to bibliolatry. even the devil was able to quote scripture to our lord during his 40 days in the wilderness.

Misten
Misten
17 years ago

Let me preface my comments by saying that I am a layperson at St. Timothy’s, Fort Worth’s traditional Anglo-Catholic parish. My family has been a part of the Fort Worth diocese since its inception, and is a founding family of St. Timothy’s itself. Therefore, heed my comments when I say this thread has completely gotten off subject. This dissension within ECUSA has torn our parish apart. We have shed tear after tear. We have tried path after path to retain fellowship within ECUSA. The priest who taught me catechism is gone. My baptismal Bishop is gone. My church family has… Read more »

Ricardo Tucas
17 years ago

I dare to post here a comment from the Southern Cone: I have been reading this informative blog regularly for many years now. I find it very helpful to get to know the various traditions and opinions in the Anglican Communion and I appreciate it very much for its good level of debate, although sometimes it saddens me when it fails to show respect and care for fellow Anglicans/Christians. Well, now I see some posts (in this thread and others recently) which fail to treat the Southern Cone churches fairly, and I have resented various prejudiced and unkind comments thrown… Read more »

Göran Koch-Swahne
17 years ago

And you wanted to say?

Misten
Misten
17 years ago

To Ricardo,

Thank you from Fort Worth, with love and respect.

Ren Aguila
Ren Aguila
17 years ago

Goran, why can’t you understand the words “Liberals are committing heresy and schism and we won’t have any of it anymore” when it is screaming at you at your face!

That’s all.

(I use the word “schism” because I believe that the opinion in the circles just mentioned is that ECUSA has committed schism by whatever it has done–tolerating Spong, ordaining women and gay bishops, etc.)

ruidh
ruidh
17 years ago

“This dissension within ECUSA has torn our parish apart. We have shed tear after tear. We have tried path after path to retain fellowship within ECUSA. The priest who taught me catechism is gone. My baptismal Bishop is gone. My church family has been ripped to shreds over the years. The internal spiritual battle has been great. You can discuss dogma and liturgy all you want. We deserve the ability and right to worship as delivered to the saints without fear of ecclesiastical discipline by a minority-led, threatening, interfering governmental body. I, for one, stand behind Bishop Iker and his… Read more »

choirboyfromhell
choirboyfromhell
17 years ago

“… he did come to fulfil the scripture.”-NP Think it was the other way around, NP, but then again, being more concern with scripture than with Christ, you wouldn’t see that. Being a low churchman, I was somewhat horrified at my first gig (choral singer) at an Anglo-Catholic parish at benediction. I thought that putting that piece of bread in that big golden thing on the altar was a sure form of idolatry. But it wasn’t used to attack others, but instead seemed to at least get one focused on Christ’s Presence. And in otherwords, inside ourselves, the good that… Read more »

Cynthia Gilliatt
Cynthia Gilliatt
17 years ago

“We deserve the ability and right to worship as delivered to the saints without fear of ecclesiastical discipline by a minority-led, threatening, interfering governmental body.” OK: What is the right to worship as the saints delivered? The 1928 BCP? 1660 BCP? What is this ‘minority-led…governmental body?’ As far as I know, the General Convention passes things with a majority vote. So far as I can count – and I am only an English major – the majority of the Episcopal Church accepts the current BCP, accepts the ministry of women in all orders and is working – slowly -towards full… Read more »

Leonardo Ricardo
Leonardo Ricardo
17 years ago

Dear Ricardo, Greetings from The Global Center where we may not agree with everything and everyone but have no intention of excluding anyone at The Body of Christ…I’m afraid, dear brother Ricardo that you’ve been rail-roaded with your misplaced indignation regarding the inclusivity of LGBT people at all levels of Churchlife…you ARE aware that up to 50% of the Roman Catholic clergy (in the Americas and beyond) are LGB people? Most are celibate but none-the-less LGB Christians that serve the tens of millions of OUR families in OUR South of the Border(s) neighborhood. Please don’t believe nonsense generated by fear-hatemongerers… Read more »

Pseudopiskie
Pseudopiskie
17 years ago

“What some here consistently fail to acknowledge is that ECUSA has so profoundly disregarded the Christian appreciation of biblical doctrine, departed so clearly from Christian tradition and, moreover, has been so patronizing in its attitude with the churches which diseent from its innovations, that has indeed provoked the reaction of a diverse group of churches, all over the World.” It is these “Christians” which have forced me to reject the label. I choose to follow Jesus who was all about challenging traditions which were not healthy when he lived and are not healthy now. Why do so many people reject… Read more »

Robert Ian Williams
Robert Ian Williams
17 years ago

Southern Cone has its origins in the anti-Roman catholic South American Missionary Society.

As a province it was the first to debate lay celebration.

There are no prayers for the dead and to the Saints.

Holy Communion is not dressed up as the Mass.

Yet they are taking on Fort Worth.

It just goes to show that fudge is acceptable as long as it is not pink.

trueanglican
trueanglican
17 years ago

What dismays me as an American reader of this thread of commentary is the comfortable assertion of so many “orthodox” Anglicans that the Episcopal Church–to quote just one–“has so profoundly disregarded the Christian appreciation of biblical doctrine, departed so clearly from Christian tradition.” Friends, that is just bunk. The Episcopal Church that I know is profoundly biblical and profoundly Anglican. The astonishing innovators are this crowd of vituperative heresy hunters who are far too righteous to share the Lord’s Table with those with whom they disagree. Don’t like the bishop (or presiding bishop) they have? Well, there’s a bishop in… Read more »

NP
NP
17 years ago

Ricardo says “What some here consistently fail to acknowledge is that ECUSA has so profoundly disregarded the Christian appreciation of biblical doctrine, departed so clearly from Christian tradition and, moreover, has been so patronizing in its attitude with the churches which diseent from its innovations, that has indeed provoked the reaction of a diverse group of churches, all over the World.” Ricardo, your points are factual….but many round here see the problem as people like +Duncan who will not go along with the deviations of TECUSA because the rights of a few matter more than the authority of scripture…….it is… Read more »

Göran Koch-Swahne
17 years ago

Ren Aguila wrote: “Goran, why can’t you understand the words “Liberals are committing heresy and schism and we won’t have any of it anymore” when it is screaming at you at your face!

That’s all.”

No, sorry it’s not all. I can understand the words all right, but to me they lack coherent meaning.

Some humility seems required.

The use of Big Words does not change reality.

Merseymike
Merseymike
17 years ago

Yes, NP, people’s rights matter FAR MORE than words in the Bible. Say that to yourself a thousand times a day and you may start to realise why everyone here simply rejects your approach to the Bible, seeing its errors, and its limitations.

Ford Elms
Ford Elms
17 years ago

Not everybody, Merseymike. For starters, I don’t think anything takes second place to the Kingdom. Second, I don’t believe MY rights take precedence over yours, or NP’s for that matter. Indeed, I believe it is the antithesis of Christianity to say that they do. And I, and many other gay people, do not share your hatred of the Church. When you insult the Church or Scripture, you are insulting the faith of many of your gay brothers and sisters who have not been led to the place you have been led to. I feel for you, actually. So much anger… Read more »

Pluralist
17 years ago

Hang on, Ford – if an institution is sanctifying exclusion of someone because of who they are, then some anger might be expected. But the point is also rationally made. It is possible even without anger to say that the Bible has limitations and errors. It does have limitations and errors. The Church is hardly a faultless institution either, as we see.

Ren Aguila
Ren Aguila
17 years ago

Yes, Goran, but from where I am sitting, I can understand those words all right. Maybe you do need a bit of that humility sometimes, for when I read you going on about biblical scholarship, I see a lot of “big words” myself. (Of course, I can understand what you want to say, but others may not.) Ford, I agree with you. I know a number of GLBT people who still want to stick it out with the Church and with Christ, and it would be a huge insult to them and to us if we allow those who were… Read more »

Pat O'Neill
Pat O'Neill
17 years ago

“Second, I don’t believe MY rights take precedence over yours, or NP’s for that matter. Indeed, I believe it is the antithesis of Christianity to say that they do.”

Ford:

It is also the antithesis of Christianity to say that human rights don’t matter at all, as NP seems to think.

Erika Baker
Erika Baker
17 years ago

Ford, Merseymike did not say that some people’s rights are more important than others. He said that human rights are more important than religious dogma, and I would agree. The Christ I believe in stands firmly on the side of human equality and wellbeing. This cannot be achieved by trampling over particular groups of people. As I said before, it is not a question of rights but a question of theology. And a church that believes it doesn’t matter if you hurt people as long as your doctrine is pure has it wrong. You don’t have to hate such a… Read more »

Malcolm+
17 years ago

I have yet to see a shred of evidence to support the contention that “conservatives” have ever been constrained in their capacity to “worship as delivered to the saints without fear.” No parish that I’m aware of has ever been compelled to accept a woman priest. No diocese has been compelled to ordain a woman priest. No priest has been compelled to bless a gay union. No bishop has been compelled to ordain a non-celibate gay person. To the best of my knowledge, any parish is free to worship using “Rite Two” with any assortment of accoutrements they see fit.… Read more »

Tobias Haller
17 years ago

If this resolution is adopted, it will represent a clear renunciation of the Doctrine, Discipline or Worship of The Episcopal Church. To wit: “dissociating itself from the moral, theological, and disciplinary innovations of the Episcopal Church in the United States of America” — and as such, constitute grounds for action for the application of Canon IV.10 on abandonment of the communion of the Episcopal Church. The Bishop and Clergy of Ft. Worth cannot have it both ways. They are either under the authority of TEC, or they reject it; and rejection, in this case, constitutes abandonment.

NP
NP
17 years ago

Merseymike, pls do not get me wrong – human rights matter a lot. Your rights matter a lot. The question in the AC is what is God’s will and what is or is not sin in his eyes…..my point is that you cannot answer that question by talking of rights.

(I am not against SORS etc, as long as we do not end freedom of speech in England)

Ford Elms
Ford Elms
17 years ago

“The Christ I believe in stands firmly on the side of human equality and wellbeing. This cannot be achieved by trampling over particular groups of people.” Same here, Erika. The issue of human rights versus dogma is a thorny one, not something I can easily answer. Dogma that claims women have no souls, or black people are second class, that’s easily dismissed simnply because it is false. Dogma that prevents you from being a reader, that’s again easy to answer, AFAIAC. Dogma that says marriage is meant for heterosexuals, not so easy to answer, for me at least, though the… Read more »

Erika Baker
Erika Baker
17 years ago

“I am not against SORS etc, as long as we do not end freedom of speech in England”

No-one is after your freedom of speech. It’s your freedom to discrimminate that cannot be allowed.

Do you not see the difference?

John Henry
John Henry
17 years ago

And, of course, NP speaks for GOD! Fr. Tobias Haller is right on the mark with regard to the polity of the Episcopal Church versus the Diocese of Fort Worth’s secessionist leanings. There is a good reason why I have, in the past, referred to that diocese as Sp-Iker-land. More and more lay members active in Diocese of Fort Worth parishes report on the harassment and public abuse which they have been subjected to as Episcopalians who recognize Dr. Jefferts Schori as the canonically elected Presiding Bishop. Of course, the diocesan, +Jack Leo Iker, sets the tone of the public… Read more »

John Henry
John Henry
17 years ago

Another victim of the Jefferts-Schori gay conspiracy is seeking refuge under the shelter of the Southern Cone Primate, allegedly backed and supported by now less than ++Rowan Cantuar. According to their news release: “The Diocese of San Joaquin today announced that the Anglican Church of the Southern Cone of South America has extended an invitation to offer the Diocese membership on an emergency and pastoral basis. The announcement comes three weeks before the Diocese is scheduled hear the second and final reading of Constitutional changes first adopted on December 2, 2006. Should the second reading of the Constitutional changes be… Read more »

Erika Baker
Erika Baker
17 years ago

Ford “My response was grounded in the vehement anger Merseymike directs at the Church” I see a direct parallel in the anger you occasionally hurl at evangelicals here. It speaks more of hurt and frustration than of a real intellectual case against ALL evangelicals, just as I believe Merseymike’s anger at the church would dissolve once the consevos have left. In fact, he has said before he’d go back to church then. Are you in some respects too alike to recognise it? I see both forms of anger born out of personal pain….. but maybe I really shouldn’t indluge in… Read more »

Göran Koch-Swahne
17 years ago

Ford Elms wrote: “My response was grounded in the vehement anger Merseymike directs at the Church, and at the faith of that Church which is very important to me.”

I, for one, cannot see any such “vehement anger”. Merseymike has got criticisms – severe ones. You know they are true – but that’s hardly his fault, is it?

You criticise Merseymike because he points out that the Church is a wrong, suppressive and often anti Gospel place to be.

I find it censorious and co-dependent.

Part of the problem, not part of a (possible) solution.

Göran Koch-Swahne
17 years ago

Erica Baker wrote: “No-one is after your freedom of speech. It’s your freedom to discriminate that cannot be allowed.

Do you not see the difference?”

But NP has nothing else to say! If not allowed to vent her considerable anger at Life; Lechaim, what’s left for her?

Dust, Ashes, Nothing.

57
0
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x
()
x