It is regrettable that the appeals from Anglican Communion bodies for continuing gracious restraint have not been heeded. Following the Los Angeles election in December the Archbishop made clear that the outcome of the consent process would have important implications for the Communion. The Standing Committee of the Anglican Communion re-iterated these concerns in its December resolution which called for the existing moratoria to be upheld. Further consultation will now take place about the implications and consequences of this decision."
Thursday, March 18, 2010
Archbishop of Canterbury: Calls election of Glasspool "regrettable" and reiterates that there will be "implications and consequences" to the election
Rowan Williams calls the election of Bishop-elect Glasspool to the episcopacy as "regrettable" and that there will be "implications and consequences" for the decision of The Episcopal Church to elevate to the office a bishop a non-celibate homosexual woman, despite promises to show restraint and pleas from the Anglican Communion to not tear apart the fabric of the communion.
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)
Surprise us Rowan (not holding my breath)
Surprise us Rowan (not holding my breath)
No surprises here. I don't believe there was anyone who voted for or consented to Canon Glassool's election who wasn't aware that there would be consequences. Even if there are no mechanisms in the Communion to discipline a member church, I know that there are consequences for our actions.
Another day another nail in the coffin of TEC. No biggie since the pensions still flow quite nicely.
I'm sure that this will scare TEC as much as the 3D House of Pancakes http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6m2gl51J6lo&feature=related
"Further consultation will now take place about the implications and consequences of this decision." Or the the muttering, head-shaking chorus of a Gilbert & Sullivan operetta as the plot approaches its dénouement, 1662
"I will do such things,-- What they are, yet I know not: but they shall be the terrors of the earth."
Bailiff: Prepare the wet noodles!
There has always been a mechanism in the Communion to discipline a member church. The assertion that there isn't is of course the TEC party line. His title is Archbishop of Canterbury. You know the guy who calls all the meetings and invites people to the meetings. Our present ABC has hitherto been unwilling to exercise his authority. My thinking though is that his patience has ended.
Do you remember how the TEC House of Bishops got invitations to Lambeth? They assured the ABC that they accepted the Primates call to commit to not electing another person in a same sex relationship as a bishop. Hmm...do you think he's maybe feeling a bit used right about now? Hmm? The ABC accepted the word of the TEC HOB. His mistake was that he is a man of his word and assumed that the TEC HOB was also honorable.
on past experience, this a bone to keep the majority loyal.....and will be followed by 'indaba', 'ubuntu', one-way 'listening' and no action whatsoever.....even while the AC disintegrates..... thankfully, most of the Primates and GAFCON are long past being fooled by endles delays....a few are in error - they can either repent or leave the AC, it's simple (even in Zulu or Russian)
"...most of the Primates." Come off it, Londoner. Better still, give us a count.
Just as there are urban myths there are wwac myths and Ed McNeill has repeated one. Having asked a member of the Lambeth planning team about this, I am sure that there was no requirement that bishops commit to refusing to consent to the ordination of a partnered LGBT priest to the episcopate.
I didn't actually state that there are no mechanisms for discipline, although that would could be a reasonable interpretation of what I wrote - even here the interpretation of the text has some importance. I see two ways in which TEC could be disciplined. Excluding TEC's bishops from the Lambeth Conference is an option that the Archbishop could take. The Anglican Consultative Council could revise its membership schedule to exclude TEC's representatives. I am not aware of a mechanism for removing a church from membership in the Communion itself.I have heard that the two Primates in the CofE would have to agree on that, but that may be another Anglican myth. Given the divisions within the CofE on this issue, there might be some protest with the CofE were the Primates to remove TEC from the Communion.
I'm wishing for a Baby Blue dramatic reading. There would be a juicy stress on "important implications." Maybe there would be an aside to handlers after the close. Something like: That should do it, don't you think?
yes, Mr Weir -some in the CofE would protest.....but so few go to hear their made up ideas, the Primates would not have to care.....we're not talking about chruches which are net contributors to the CofE! (in any way)
This is no myth. The ABC went to The House of Bishop's meeting in New Orleans to get clarification with respect to the GC2006 motion that responded to the Primate's call for restraint in this matter. He specifically asked if the commitment to refrain from consecrating a person in a same sex relationship was included. He was assured by the HOB that that was the case. You might recall that this was the same meeting that Bp. Bruno, in a press meeting, told the reporter from the New York times that SSBs did not happen in his diocese with his knowledge. I don't have time to go find the links to show you.
Londoner back but no count of primates?
rabbit.... all the Primates who actually represent more than 1% of their populations (ie. not Katie or whoever is north of her) are not going to be applauding tec's latest fait accompli......
The myth that I thought Ed McNeill was mentioining was that a signed declaration was required of each bishop. That is a myth, but I can understand how the clarification requested of the HofB could morph into such a signed declaration. The clarification of the 2006 resolution was accurate. What I am sure the bishops never would have said is that B033 would be TEC's position forever.
Yes Gator...a Dramatic Reading is in order and long overdue!!! Maybe even wear a black cloak, like RW did in his London "street documentaries". Maybe first include the comments of Bruno/Glasspool/815 from a few days ago regarding the consents, to emphasize the TransAtlantic INDABA that is going on...
We get it, Londoner - more 'reasserter' "I wish it, therefore it is so".
of course the real discipline we should be asking for is that which comes from God through his Word! TEC has already demonstrated its lack of capacity to do that very thing, in my opinion. The ABC can exercise all the authority he desires. Track record is that he won't...again. No surprise here. I just wish it weren't so predictable.
Whenever I read your comments I am reminded of a slick politician attacking his opponent with near truths and innuendo and then denying what was said when challenged.
I shake my head in sad wonder at your collar.
Fr. Weir mistakenly noted:
"I am sure that there was no requirement that bishops commit to refusing to consent" (to go to Lambeth). You're right, but also selectively so. It was widely stated by the ABC and subsequently advertised that the ABC trusted the bishops to self-critique about whether or not they were in accord with the Windsor protocols (which includes-to this day-moratoria on SSBs and non-celibate homosexual ordination) and then if a bishop could not say they were that they should excuse themselves from Lambeth. It was about honor and trust; and that was the ABC's mistake. He was duped and no one is surprised since treachery and deceit are common practices in the governance of TEC; so much so that even the secular media has noted it. (IMHO as a non-pensioned person who doesn't have to defend The Shop).
Your comments are a mean spirited personal attack. Unlike your posting, he does not "attack his opponents".
Fr. Weir stated some months ago that he is posting here to defend the PB. When facts are presented that cast her or TEC in a bad light, he just claims no direct knowledge of the issues.
While his style of debate may not be to your liking, it still does not warrant personal attacks.
In an earlier outing concerning the sale of a church to a Muslim group Fr Weir said this about some of those who questioned the sale:
”In the absence of evidence, I find it reasonable to see prejudice at work.”
But he had this to say about why the folks selling the church acted:
“I still have no insight into the reasons for the diocese's actions and will continue to remain unwilling to venture any opinion about the morality of the diocese's actions.”
It seems to me -- and this is nothing personal -- that the good father is willing to defer motive only to those whose side he is representing.
I am always amused by the indignation of those who are questioned or called out when they are doing what they are doing. A sense of moral superiority does not make your position just or right, and the this skin your wear is telling.
I will agree with your post of 1:54PM of today. It cites a specific example of what has been said without attacking the person.
It would help if you signed with a screen name rather that leaving a completely anonymous post. (I don't know if you are the poster of 7:24 last PM that I criticized.)
The same person, Ralph M.
And I agree -- in that instance, he did not attack a person, he attacked several, which frankly, I find is even more offensive -- he paints with a broad brush and hides behind his innuendo.
And he says it is his penance to read and write here at BB, having to mingle with the misguided here at the cafe.
I find his whole demeanor and attitude offensive.
Usually I just sit back and read the posts -- it is like watching a train wreck in slow motion. I see BB stepping up and trying to stop the derailment, with folks like the good father stoking the engine just as fast as they can shovel the coal in the boiler -- looking into the gates of hell, if you ask me.
But that is just my opinion. My Church has plenty of problems too -- I pray for yours and mine together.
So, I can't make a joke about penance?
What I was addressing, buy unsuccessfully, was the unsupported assertions that the diocese sold the buildings to a Muslim organization out of spite. The lack of evidence that I mentioned was a lack of evidence presented on that thread that would indicate that there were other and better current offers for the property. Calling the sale "beyond farce" or worse struck me as either prejudice against the diocese of against Muslims. If anyone has evidence that the diocese had better current or that the Muslim group is hostile to Christians, it hasn't been shared on this blog.
I don't recall stating that my purpose in posting here was to defend the PB, but it is a fair statement of what I intend, although I am not without my own disagreements with her actions. As almost the only person posting here who is willing to defend any of her actions, I have to admit that I sometimes jump in without as much insight and knowledge as I need to make effective comments. While I may be wrong,I have sensed that some of those who post here are so negatively disposed to the PB that there is nothing that she could do that would be seen as OK.
"While I may be wrong,I have sensed that some of those who post here are so negatively disposed to the PB that there is nothing that she could do that would be seen as OK."
I think the vast majority here would be OK if she resigned.
I am quite sure that the Presiding Bishop could not read the Lord's Prayer without it being attacked as theologically deficient and evidence of apostasy on this and a few other sites. It is a reflexive, habitual action against the person of the PB. I have siad before here that I think she is the wrong person at the wrong time for that position, but she is not nearly the devil incarnate that she is made out to be.
Father Weir, it seems to me, is moderate in his comments and demeanor around here. It is, of course, possible to disagree with him, but I have never perceived him to attack individuals on a personal basis.
"I think the vast majority here would be OK if she resigned.""
There again, consider who helped elect her and why they did so. Any number of reasons her election suited their agenda more than the election of Henry Parsley would have done.
I wish that I kept the copy of a photo of the PB giving a sermon, I believe in Cuba. The photo was priceless. Her laptop was propped open on the pulpit and she preached from it. Astonishing.
Revealing. The stuff of the martyrs and Church divines it is not. Makes one wonder what can come from the heart if it must come from a medium such as that.
Any comment about my post at 12:33 above? A lot of fog went through this thread, but no retort about the Lambeth/Windsor honor code that most of the HOB of TEC was and is breaking?
I have been too busy to comment. I will not judge the honesty of the TEC bishops as they went to Lambeth. What may be worth noting was that between Lambeth and the Glasspool election General Convention met and passed the resolution which, while not reversing B033 from gc2006, made clear that Bishops and Standing Committees were free, as they are in the Canons, to examine each request for consent and make their own judgment. Things have changed in two years and I am not willing to accuse our Bishops of duplicity. You have set forth a reasonable case for that, but I am not willing to join you in the accusation.
If that is the case then it seems as though we have bishops driven by the heated winds of whatever.
How can they in one year claim that they agree with Windsor and because of it get to go to Lambeth and yet have some collective epiphany the next year and disavow Windsor? Jon "it didn't happen in my diocese" Bruno even ponied up a proper response to get to Lambeth and then a year later he led the charge to proclaim to the rest of the Church that if they don't follow his lead in the other direction then GC is disobeying the canons. We all remember how well GC followed right behind him.
Only the willfully blind can't see straight on what this is all about.
If the HOB is that weak then "away with them all"! But they're not that weak are they? They have a very deliberate mind at work. They're acting like people who can't control the crowd so they play to whomever they must for the moment.
RE: "There again, consider who helped elect her and why they did so."
Of course, that little mythology propagated by institutionalists attempting to explain why someone as radical as Schori got elected was exploded out of the water by any number of actually factual analyses -- at most 3-4 "traditional" bishops MIGHT have voted for her, and that was in no way enough to actually elect her. It appears -- three years later -- that not one of the Network bishops voted for her.
No -- that was merely some propaganda from distressed [and somewhat angered] institutionalists to try to explain away her election to parishioners and clergy. But there years later they learned that, yes, the deputies of TEC really were as foamingly revisionist as they had feared and tried to deny three years earlier.
One of the many early analyses was mine:
RE: "Any number of reasons her election suited their agenda more than the election of Henry Parsley would have done."
Well sure -- Henry Parsley was a revisionist who would have tried to pretend to be a moderate, and not to mention the fact that he's an ass.
Why would any traditionalist want a rank revisionist who would do a better job of hiding his revisionism than Schori, who is unable, frankly, to obscure her own gospel with a good use of rhetorical spin.
Besides, Parsley had proven himself amply as a little Stalinist bishop in his own diocese. By the time we got to 2006 there was no way in **** that a traditional bishop would wish to vote for him. I myself wanted "anybody but Parsley."
I remain highly gratified that Schori was elected. It has been a very helpful tenure as far as devastating damage to the reputation of TEC, both in the media and the broader Anglican Communion.
I'm as pleased as punch, and I was at the time too.
"I remain highly gratified that Schori was elected. It has been a very helpful tenure as far as devastating damage to the reputation of TEC, both in the media and the broader Anglican Communion."
Then why do you stay?
Why do we stay?
The question is: "How dare YOU destroy our Church and then blame us for the schism!!"
Ever read this, Allen?
Wow, Lap! Reminds me of that wonderful saying, "Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get you." Do you think you could find a Scripture that really covers the situation? Especially since that's what the ado is about? It's one thing to call people who don't like what's going on paranoid with mental issues as in your reference, it's quite another to be in an organization that purports to believe in Christ that can't stick with the basics.
My question is why have the pretense at all? Except that the (formerly) highly respected Episcopal church was one way to co-opt for legitimacy of several agendas. If you all just want a social club, why not just start one.
Thanks for the laugh, though. I wish I could tell you that you were being original, but it's old hat these days.
what a weak response, rabbit! so what was false in what I said.....more than 1% go to TEC churches on a Sunday???? I think you will find that 700k and falling ASA is not 1% of the US population.....and that is part of why Katie has less influence in the AC than you might hope (inherited money and land helps buy some influence (even places at Lambeth 08)...but so few Americans being interested in 'ubuntu' etc etc does not make the revisionist case look good to the rest of the AC.... of course, you can assert this is wrong and give no evidence (as above) but can you show that 700k and falling on a Sunday means revisionist ideas are really relevant in the context of the US???
Pls show me a statement from the ABC saying that nothing has really changed and TEC is an integral part of the AC and there is no challenge to the place of its revisionist leadership in the AC..... waiting for that, rabbit! Ubuntu!
Christianity in action, Londoner. Thanks.
Why would you want to have been able to tell me that linking something published more than 45 years ago is "original", Lakeland Two?. Of course it's not. What it is, is a classic definition of symptoms of what is still a significant factor in the American political culture. You seen the actions of the grass-roots anti-health-care folks these past few days? They are, incidentally, symptoms of a condition apparently not confined to the US.
Glad (seriously) to have given you a laugh, LT. Few better things one can do for someone. If only one could do the same for Londoner.
Oh, Lap, you are too much. I didn't say you wrote it. Calling people who disagree with you mentally defective is old hat and unorigianal because revisionists have a propensity to do so because their position is weak to begin with. Unfortunately for you, Lap, it weakens your position and costs you credibility. Being a BL (Bunny Lover) I think what you've done to the bunny on your profile is kinda cute and original though - tiger stripes and all.
Off topic, but as one who has had to deal with rationed healthcare in the past 9+ years already with my quadriplegic spouse, I think we could have done a whole lot better than what was passed. But it would have meant real work which something our goverment just ain't up to.
It's not until you are affected by such things that you really grasp the ineptitude of others. Being able to grasp the problems and know the root cause - and see where they could actually be fixed - really intimidates those perpetuating the problems. Here's one example we experienced: Head of Infectious Disease at 10th
"best" hospital in the nation to Caregiving Spouse "No, I don't need to wash my hands or put on gloves while I examine your spouse" - And they wonder why people get multiple infections they don't come in with. Caregiving Spouse to idiot overly-inflated-by-self doctor: You aren't touching my spouse until you do. I don't know how many infectious patients you've been around today.
And they called me a pain in the a##. But my spouse finally made it out after that hospital wrung every cent out of our insurance they could - even after he was told by a doctor on rounds he would never make it out of ICU. Now this is before the blessed Obamacare bill. So, no, I think what was just passed is a death sentence for many. I speak as one who has experience, thank you.
On a bunny note, we have several who live in our yard. They don't have tiger stripes, but they are precious. Have a great day everyone!
Ever Read This?
"Woe be unto the pastors that destroy and scatter the sheep of my pasture! saith the LORD".
Jeremiah 23:1 (KJV)
You have my heartfelt sympathy where the medical system is concerned, Lakeland Two. I was raised in a county that had a single-payer system, and neither my parents nor I had a worry on that count, and I have what I understand to be "good" medical insurance - though mercifully I have never had to test it as you have - in the US. The infectious diseases doctor story is appalling. And I hope that you are mistaken as to where the new system will take us.
Few animals more delightful to watch than wild rabbits. I envy you.
Rabbit, Christianity in action is NOT about compromising with false teaching - not according to Christ and his apostles, that is ....pls read 1 Cor 5-7....and 2 Peter 2.....and Matt 7:15.....nobody with authority said compromise with false teachers....so, I wish we saw years ago biblical Christianity in action in the AC and not the delaying tactics of those who have tried (and failed) to subvert the AC from within.......thankfully, we in the CofE recently asked our Archbishops to look into building links with CANA....great news that Anglicanism we can recognise still exists in the new world!
To the red faces of TEC's ruling class the recent CofE Synod overwhelming expressed the desire to keep hearing more about the faithful Anglicans now emerging in America. They want to hear more and the videos and comments at Synod showed very obvious sympathy. The more that Schori and Company keep muddying the headlines the better off we'll all be.
Keep those headlines coming Kate. You and the stiff-necked tribe in the HofB are the best things that have ever happened to the cause of a new Province. Please reject the Covenant. Please consecrate more non-celibates. Please abuse the canons more. Please control ENS Opinion section to keep showing glowing stories to cover losses.
Post a Comment