Friday, 24 April 2009

More on the CP/ACI statement

The Church Times has this report by Pat Ashworth US contingency plan asserts diocesan autonomy and there is a second, related report Covenant is to be used as litmus test of Anglicanism.

The first article has moved on the CT website: please follow the above link, and then scroll down, in order to find the first article above!

Matthew Davies has written about it for ENS see Communion Partners statement challenges Episcopal Church polity.

The Chicago Consultation has issued this Response to Anglican Communion Institute statement.

The Living Church has a report, Bishops: Church’s Doctrine, Worship, Polity in ‘Grave Peril’.

Mark Harris who first broke this story, has written a second note, Cleaning out the Stalls.

Posted by Simon Sarmiento on Friday, 24 April 2009 at 1:00am BST | TrackBack
You can make a Permalink to this if you like
Categorised as: ECUSA
Comments

"The statement argues that, in the 'recent controversies surrounding the withdrawal of dioceses from the Episcopal Church', the Presiding Bishop, Dr Katherine Jefferts-Schori, did not have the constitutional authority to speak on its behalf in civil-litigation cases.

Church Times article by Past Ashworth 24 April '09

from Pat Ashworth's article it would appear that the '14 conservative TEC Bishops' have over-reached their own episcopal authority in trying to take on the established authority of the TEC Presiding Bishop and General Convention. Their relationshiop to the Anglican Communion is quite clearly contingent upon their membership of TEC, and not, as they suggest, on any direct links with Canterbury or the ACC. This attempt to subvert the traditional Anglican ecclesial system, via the P.B. and TEC General Convention, must be construed as a self-serving flight of fancy, and ought to be condemned at the highest levels of the Communion.

To assert that any individual diocese can make its own submission to the Covenant Process, is to assert a different kind of order from that prevailing in the rest of the Church. One hopes that the upcoming meeting of the Anglican Consultative Council will reject this strategy, and reaffirm TEC's sole right to represent the traditional Anglican ecclesiastical entity in the USA and its related TEC-oriented churches.

Posted by: Father Ron Smith on Friday, 24 April 2009 at 2:01am BST

"One of the statement's endorsers, the Rev Ephraim Radner, is a member of the Covenant Design Group, the internationally representative committee that is writing and revising the covenant text"
- Response from Chicago Consultation -

The fact that Dr. Radner is an active member of the Covenant Design Group, while at the same time an advocate of ACNA's insistence on the validity of diocesan independence from the TEC General Convention and the authority of the Presiding Bishop, should surely elicit some doubt about his being accorded membership of the C.D.G.

For Radner to be in a position of executive decision-making on the conditions of Covenantal relationships within the world-wide Anglican Communion, must call into question the propriety of his membership of this pan-Anglican body. He cannot even be loyal to his own relationship to his parent Church - T.E.C. His loyalty is obviously to the dissident body which seeks to attach itself to the A.C. through its proposed autonomous entity within ACNA. Let's hope that the ACC will see through this cynical ploy.

Posted by: Father Ron Smith on Friday, 24 April 2009 at 10:07am BST

I can only suppose they are out to completely destroy TEC and invent a church in their own restrictive and holier-than-thou image and likeness. I think this is by far the most dangerous move against the TEC.

Posted by: Sara MacVane on Friday, 24 April 2009 at 12:53pm BST

"I can only suppose they are out to completely destroy TEC and invent a church in their own restrictive and holier-than-thou image and likeness."

That's more than just a supposition. Haven't there been statements, all kept hush-hush till someone uncovered them, that state that this is precisely their goal? Was there not a document a few years ago that they wanted to keep secret but that got leaked anyway, to their embarrassment, that gave fairly detailed plans for how this destruction and replacement were to take place? It's been pretty obvious for quite some time, by their own admission, that their goal is to replace TEC with some PseudoCalvinist cult. It will be interesting to watch what happens to the Anglo-catholics in their midst. They will eventually feel protected from the subhuman fags roaming about salivating for their blood, and will wake up to the fact that their Calvinist fellows don't even think them Christians at all and have no tolerance for their Popish practices. Then watch what happens as the purge instinct turns inwards.

Posted by: Ford Elms on Friday, 24 April 2009 at 4:17pm BST

...the Presiding Bishop, Dr Katharine Jefferts Schori, did not have the constitutional authority to speak on its behalf in civil-litigation cases....

Constitutionally, perhaps not. But the Canons charge the PB with "speaking for the Church as to the policies, strategies, and programs authorized by the General Convention" (which includes the Constitution and Canons itself) and to speak to the world "as representative of this Church and its episcopate in its corporate capacity." I think these canonical charges cover testifying in court, as needed. (Canon I.2.4.a.1-2)

Posted by: Tobias Haller on Friday, 24 April 2009 at 10:19pm BST

"Was there not a document a few years ago that they wanted to keep secret but that got leaked anyway, to their embarrassment, that gave fairly detailed plans for how this destruction and replacement were to take place?"

Yes. The Chapman memo did precisely that. When it was revealed, there were basiclaly two responses.

1. Oh, they can't be serious. That's someone's silly wishful thinking. Who knows where the extra candles are?

2. Oh, nobody can do any of those things. Just ignore it. I still can't find the extra candles.

And look where we got with that response? They are serious and they are dangerous, and despite their pious protestations about how unedifying it is to go to law about church things, they hire damned good lawyers. None of them has dropped the suits to steal property which they have initiated.

This gang is equally dead serious about replacing TEC and/or getting us booted from the Communion. Wake UP, people.

Posted by: Cynthia Gilliatt on Saturday, 25 April 2009 at 3:06pm BST
Post a comment









Remember personal info?

Please note that comments are limited to 400 words. Comments that are longer than 400 words will not be approved.

Cookies are used to remember your personal information between visits to the site. This information is stored on your computer and used to refill the text boxes on your next visit. Any cookie is deleted if you select 'No'. By ticking 'Yes' you agree to this use of a cookie by this site. No third-party cookies are used, and cookies are not used for analytical, advertising, or other purposes.