Updated
The 2016 meeting of the General Synod of the Scottish Episcopal Church opened today, and there is an official summary of the day’s business here.
In addition there are the texts of the Primus Charge and the Primus’s report from January’s Primates’ Meeting. The latter includes this passage, with reference to the ‘consequences’ which that meeting decided to impose on The Episcopal Church of the United States,
Two weeks ago, I went to London and met with Archbishop Justin specifically to ask the question, ‘Will this also apply to us if we complete the process of Canonical change in 2017?’ The answer is that it will. Most directly, I will be removed from the role of Anglican Co-Chair of the International Anglican-Reformed Dialogue. But other effects are limited. Our bishops will be present and fully involved in the Lambeth Conference planned for 2020. We shall continue to be actively involved in our network of Diocesan Companionships and in the Anglican Networks.
and this
I believe that the Primates Meeting has acted beyond its powers.
but do read it all.
Update
Comment by Kelvin Holdsworth On Being Threatened
and by Beth Routledge Speaking Truth To Power – Sanctions Threatened Against Scottish Episcopal Church
Having so recently threatened the stability of SEC with its ACCORD with the Presbyterian Church of Scotland, one might have thought that the Head of the Church of England would step very carefully in his relationship to the Episcopal Church of Scotland. We are only just getting over the implied threat to the stability of TEC – The Episcopal Church in the U.S. – by the ABC’s conservative friends among the Communion prelates. No doubt people will remember the time when the Church of Eengland refused to ordain Bishops for the new Anglican Church in the United States (ECUSA). The… Read more »
The problem is that nothing that Canterbury or the Anglican Communion does *will* threaten the stability of TEC. The only thing that does that is the perception of TEC’s incredibly lukewarm and watered-down commitment to social and spiritual justice and compassion by repeatedly demanding others to suffer so that the structure can remain in contact with a corrupt and corrupting organization masquerading as a “communion.” No judge is going to care about a group of foreign churches and a pompous little man from England when deciding about U. S. church property. The ones who were going to leave over the… Read more »
“No doubt people will remember the time when the Church of Eengland (sic) refused to ordain Bishops for the new Anglican Church in the United States.” 1. There was no episcopal church when Seabury was ordained; he was sent by loyalists in the state of CT; 2. Seabury was an ardent Tory and no revolutionary, which made him also suspect by many; 3. He wanted to be consecrated in the Church of England, and indeed pressed their cause for BCP issues (descent clause; Creed of Athanasius) when later the Episcopal Church developed and sought to create a PB; 4. He… Read more »
Re Seabury — he was unable to take the oath of allegiance to the British Crown and the archbishops were unable to consecrate anyone without a royal mandate and without the person having been elected to a diocesan See in England, or appointed as a suffragan bishop in England. The Consecration of Bishops Abroad Act 1786 permitted the archbishops to consecrate foreign subjects without requiring them to take the oaths of allegiance, supremacy and obedience.
Of course the Primates overstepped their powers. (Was it even a properly noticed Primates’ meeting?)
That aside, I will be fascinated to watch Parliament react as the Archbishop of Canterbury imposes “discipline” on another Anglican Church within the United Kingdom.
Methinks the fur is about to fly again in Westminster.
As it should.
cseitz’s laudable attempt to correct some misconceptions about Seabury’s consecration could be interpreted (probably against his intention) to argue that this early connection between the SEC and TEC is mostly historical accident and Seabury’s consecration was purely a matter of administrative convenience. There’s one glaring piece of evidence that the early TEC-SEC relationship was stronger than this argument implies. Compare the Communion services of the 1662 BCP of the Church of England with the 1789 American Book of Common Prayer. Notice what follows the Words of Institution in 1789, but not in 1662. Why it’s the Oblation and the Invocation!… Read more »
What would ABC have the Primus do? Is he supposed to defy the democratic decision of the Synod if it votes to allow ssm? Is the Primus supposed to resign?
Seabury wrote tracts defending the Scottish HC service; I have not said otherwise in my comments. He agreed to this rite in exchange for his consecration. The Scottish prelates had fascinating exchanges with the Eastern Church and were in favor of the epiclesis. As the saying goes, “The Orthodox know everything about the RC’s and love nothing, and about Anglicans they know nothing and love everything.” Seabury also wrote stout tracts arguing for the loyalist cause under a pseudonym (A.W. Farmer), and was chaplain to the King’s regiment when on Long Island. Alexander Hamilton was his antagonist interlocutor. Of course… Read more »
Who are the member churches of the Reformed grouping? Presbyterian Church USA? The Church of Scotland? The Reformed Church of France?
Aren’t most of these churches either in favour of same-sex marriage or on the way there?
Perhaps they should object if David Chillingworth is removed from this post.
Very odd that you can’t be leading dialogue with more progressive churches because you are seen as too progressive yourself!
There is no question that Bishop Samuel Seabury was a Tory supporter during the War of the Revolution (which is why New York’s Bishop Samuel Provoost would have nothing to do with him). However, like many others he rapidly reconciled himself to the new American Republic. In 1785 he became the first bishop of any American denomination to wear a miter in the performance of his ecclesiastical duties. He may have also have worn a chasuble about this time as well (perhaps a keepsake of his contacts with the Danish Church while cooling his heels in London). The Communion Office… Read more »
Here’s the Anglican Communion’s webpage on the Anglican – Reformed dialogue.
http://www.anglicancommunion.org/relationships/ecumenical-dialogues/reformed.aspx
The most recent communiqué lists Reformed members of the Dialogue as being present from the United Reformed Church, the Church of Scotland, the Church of South India, and the Dutch Reformed Church and a consultant from the Uniting Presbyterian Church in Southern Africa. They represent the World Communion of Reformed Churches, which has 225+ members.
http://wcrc.ch
I see that four English bishops are now offering to provide “alternative episcopal oversight” to Scotland.
(http://scottishanglican.net/same-sex-marriage-gafcon-offers-alternative-oversight-to-scottish-episcopalians#more-56)
The gentlemen involved are: The Rt Rev John Ellison, The Rt Rev Michael Nazir-Ali, The Rt Rev Wallace Benn, and The Rt Rev Ken Barham.
Is it not time that the persecuted LGBT Anglicans in Nigeria, Uganda, etc, etc, were offered alternative episcopal oversight? Or even those priests who are unable to marry in England?
Will their Archbishop condemn this border-crossing incursion?
To clarify the status of the four English bishops.
Kenneth Barham was consecrated a bishop in 1993, and served as a diocesan bishop in Rwanda from 1996 until his retirement in 2001.
John Ellison was the diocesan bishop of Paraguay from 1998 to 2007 when he retired.
Wallace Benn was Area Bishop (ie a suffragan bishop) of Lewes from 1997 until 2012 when he retired.
Michael Nazir-Ali was Bishop of Rochester from 1994 to 2009 when he retired early. Previously he had been diocesan Bishop of Raiwind (in Pakistan) from 1984 to 1986.