Comments: GS: report of Saturday afternoon

Wm. Blackstone in his Commentaries on the Laws of England, Book 4 Chapter 8 wrote:

"5 Elizabeth c/1 To refuse the oath of supremacy will incur the pains of praemunire and to defend the pope's jurisdiction in this realm, is a praemunire for the first offense, and high trreason for the second."

Praemunire in its original meaning is the introduction of a foreign power into the land and creating an imperium in imperio. [a government within a government]

The APO scheme for the US described by +Duncan
in his November request to the Steering Committee of the Global South, and the pastoral scheme defined for the US [TEC] by the Tanzania communique did exactly that.

The Draft Covenant proposed by the +Gomez committee will create an offshore legislature and judicatory for The Church of England, a church that is headed now by the Crown. Has the Crown been consulted? Has this Elizabeth agreed to cede her church to this offshore group of prelates?

Posted by EPfizH at Saturday, 7 July 2007 at 9:38pm BST

More properly, I should ask, has Parliament ceded its power to the the Churchmen to decide?

Posted by EPfizH at Sunday, 8 July 2007 at 12:43am BST

EPfizH - Thank you for putting this core value in such a historical perspective that it can only help those who are about to vote on legislation affecting this very point. Let us pray for clarity and wisdom in their counsels - and confusion to the enemy.

Posted by ettu at Sunday, 8 July 2007 at 12:38pm BST

I don't see any way around the fact that the current draft of the Proposed Covenant is a violation of the Royal Prerogative. The Church of England is, by definition, not self governing and therefore cannot cede the right to any outside authority.

Posted by Prior Aelred at Sunday, 8 July 2007 at 2:58pm BST

"I don't see any way around the fact that the current draft of the Proposed Covenant is a violation of the Royal Prerogative."

Living, as I do, far from the Muvverland, this matters not a whit WRT the New New Covenant. Far more important for me is the betrayal of the Reformation ideal that The Bishop of Rome (which I have always taken to mean, perhaps naively, any foreign bishop) hath no authority. Why is it that those who are most idolizing of the Reformation are the ones most in support of this setting up of a new Papacy and Curia while, it would seem, us Anglo-Catholics are against it, for the most part? Ironic after more than a century being suspected of secretly plotting to return the Church to the Roman fold, it is the descendants of those who suspected us all those years who are actually doing something very like it. Or do they think that centralized episcopal power is OK, as long as it's not centralized in Rome, whose arguments, while I disagree with them, are at least backed up by tradition that goes back to the Apostles?

Posted by Ford Elms at Monday, 9 July 2007 at 1:02pm BST

Ford Elms on Monday, 9 July 2007 at 1:02pm BST

The Puritans have never been opposed to authoritarianism in theory -- as long as they were the ones in authority! First they want to purify the church by driving out the "papists" (by which they meant non-puritans) & then the list of those to be expelled continues to grow -- happily, with the exception of Cromwell's Commonwealth, they have never been able to cease power but have always left (as separatists, or dissenters or non-conformists, etc.) when they couldn't call the tune -- this might be the major change in the current situation!

Posted by Prior Aelred at Monday, 9 July 2007 at 3:33pm BST

Prior,
I sometimes think perhaps we SHOULD "walk apart". We can keep ourselves open, and as one group after another gets kicked out for crimes against purity, we could welcome them into our fellowship of the impure. It wouldn't take much more than a generation or two for us to reconstitute the Anglican Church, as the numbers of the 'perfecti' continue to diminish in the face of harsher and harsher interpretations of the New New Covenant. I predict the first will be the conservative Anglo-catholics, whose idolatry and superstition will soon prove unbearable for the Real Christians. It'll start with an attempt to give Walsingham back to the Romans!

Posted by Ford Elms at Monday, 9 July 2007 at 3:53pm BST

Ford Elms on Monday, 9 July 2007 at 3:53pm BST

We may see sooner than we expect -- Veneables, Primate of the Southern Cone, has already suggested the TEC will be joined in a separate communion by Canada & Mexico (& Scotland & Wales -- maybe the rest of the British Isles as well!) OR perhaps it is Equatorial Africa (+ Sydney?) that will leave the WWAC -- time will tell, I suppose.

Rome already has the slipper chapel!

Posted by Prior Aelred at Monday, 9 July 2007 at 4:22pm BST

"We may see sooner than we expect -- Venables, Primate of the Southern Cone, has already suggested the TEC will be joined in a separate communion by Canada & Mexico (& Scotland & Wales -- maybe the rest of the British Isles as well!) OR perhaps it is Equatorial Africa (+ Sydney?) that will leave the WWAC -- time will tell, I suppose." - Prior Aelred

It seems Venables may be nearsighted (perhaps by intent?) in his assessment, in that he has also forgotten Brasil and South Africa, and Scotland, which have already rejected the Abuja coup. And, besides the already-committed Scotland, mentioned by Prior Aelred, there are the likely allies of Wales, Ireland, New Zealand, Australia ex-Sydney, and part of England (in yet-to-be-determined proportion).

In other words, there will be the Traditional Anglican Communion, coalesced around this group rejecting the coup and rejecting the fundamentalists, and the New Anglican Communion, coalesced around Abuja, equatorial Africa, and parts of England, plus minor bits and pieces from Provinces in Traditional Anglican Communion.

This is far from over, and many of the pieces have yet to be moved. If anything, the only mystery is how much of England will be willing to cede authority to a new non-Roman curia; it could well be that when the question is called, and commitments are required, how little of England will cave into the fundamentalist camp.

Whatever it may seem (by fuzziness and fudge) today, I predict that the Traditional Anglican Communion will increasingly win the day in England. The British Isles has seen too much, and endured too much, to allow themselves to roll over and play dead on these questions, and England may be following its brothers and sisters, rather than leading them. Strange how some things may work out, isn't it?

Posted by Jerry Hannon at Tuesday, 10 July 2007 at 12:57am BST

I think I generally agree with Jerry's assessment. However, a caution on referring to the non-Abujan grouping as the "Traditional Anglican Communion." I believe that is already the name of one of the coalitions of "continuing" Anglican ecclesial bodies which came into being in the wake of the ordination of women.

I'd suggest the following nomenclature:

The Anglican Communion - those Provinces and / or remnants of Provinces which reject the coup d'eglise.

The Abujan Communion - those Provinces and / or breakaway sects from Provinces which accept the coup d'eglise.

Posted by Malcolm+ at Tuesday, 10 July 2007 at 5:54pm BST

Nigeria, Uganda, Rwanda and Kenya Anglican Communion: The NURKs.

Posted by Pluralist at Thursday, 12 July 2007 at 1:28pm 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.