The 1998 Lambeth Conference further enhanced the role of the Primates’ Meeting asking that it intervene “in cases of exceptional emergency which are incapable of internal resolution within provinces, and giving of guidelines on the limits of Anglican diversity in submission to the sovereign authority of Holy Scripture and in loyalty to our Anglican tradition and formularies.”
A return now to the “talking-shop” model of the early 1980s would not work, one African archbishop told ReligiousIntelligence.com, while Archbishop Peter Akinola told his some of his colleagues on Feb 1 that the primates must be consistent in their actions and not walk away from the undertakings made at the last three meetings.
As the primates began to arrive at the Helnan Palestine Hotel on Alexandria ’s corniche, splinter groups on the left and right met to prepare strategies for the meeting. The larger conservative faction met on the afternoon of Jan 31. “Long distances” and “poor communications” in the developing world necessitated the pre-conference meeting, Presiding Bishop Maurice Sinclair, retired primate of the Southern Cone told us.
Bishop Sinclair, who after retirement served a term as Dean of the Anglican Cathedral in Cairo and as visiting lecturer at the Alexandria School of Theology, stated he had not been part of the strategy group for the Global South primates, but had been invited by the Bishop of Egypt, the Rt Rev Mouneer Anis to greet the primates on his behalf.
[blockquote] In his sermon to the ebullient congregation of Alexandrine Anglicans, Dr Williams spoke of the city’s place in Christian history, and offered an oblique criticism to the conservative primates. Extolling the virtues of finding Christ in one’s neighbour, Dr Williams urged quietness, stillness and respect for diversity upon his peers.[/blockquote]
Because Alexandria’s place in Christian history models pluralism and tolerance of diverse theologies? An odd connection. If anything I would think the idea of Athanasius and company would be rather more challenging for the wafflers.
I’ve noted that in several press releases, St. Mark’s (Alexandria) is referred to as a “pro-cathedral.” What is a pro-cathedral, and in what way is it distinct from a cathedral?
Thanks
TJ
Sounds like this is set up to accomplish exactly nothing. We will see.
It was definitely set up that way, Br. Michael, but we shall see if the GS Primates allow it to proceed that way. Methinks they are getting pretty tired of being played for fools by and are going to make sure something substantive comes from this meeting.
#2,
A pro-cathedral, as I understand it, is an existing parish church that agrees to take on the role of cathedral for the diocese (as opposed to one erected as a cathedral). Trinity, Pittsburgh, would qualify, having only become a cathedral in the 1920s.
#2, in our Archdiocese of Louisville there is located a proto-cathedral(the first cathedral) in Bardstown. The present cathedral is located in Louisville. Perhaps the “pro” is a shortened version of proto?
I defer to Jeremy.
This part of the story is very interesting:
Following the service a group photograph was taken. At the 2007 Primates’ Meeting, a number of primates declined to receive the Eucharist with US Presiding Bishop Jefferts Schori and objected to appearing in a group photograph with her. Organizers of the 2009 conference finessed the issue this time round as Bishop Jefferts Schori was not scheduled to arrive in Alexandria until the second day.
You know if the ABC and the AC is not going to do anything about TEC I wish they would just say so, but this deliberate ambiguity, that someday something might happen, is both deliberate and dishonest.
Amen, Br. Michael.
I thought this part was interesting:
[blockquote]In his sermon to the ebullient congregation of Alexandrine Anglicans, Dr Williams spoke of the city’s place in Christian history, and offered an oblique criticism to the conservative primates. Extolling the virtues of finding Christ in one’s neighbour, Dr Williams urged quietness, stillness and respect for diversity upon his peers. In a theme sounded at the Lambeth Conference and at past international Anglican confabs, Dr Williams urged toleration of dissent and diversity, arguing that by excluding or denigrating those who were different, we were excluding the Christ that was within them.
Asked after the service if he took issue with Dr Williams’ pointed words, a senior African primate smiled and declined to be drawn, saying only that he had “heard what he said.â€[/blockquote]
I read the Archbishop’s sermon the same way as Conger, and I could only wonder if the Archbishop realized the irony that his own acquiescence in TEC’s persecution of the orthodox in the US together with its scorched-earth lawsuit policy, and his past actions to subvert others’ efforts to provide adequate alternative oversight, such as declining to implement an effective panel of reference and discarding the Dar es Salaam Communique, might have some relationship to his remarks suggesting he should not “dismiss them or make little of them when I speak harshly to them or about them [as] I am [then] in danger of destroying that place which is a place where Jesus is.”
In other words, I tend to agree with him, and wish he would take some steps to make his allies in TEC and the ACoC refrain from dismissing the orthodox, and at a minimum, cease taking actions to support their efforts.
Alas, I suspect that instead it was merely pique at the Global South continually getting in TEC’s way.
The “Pro” in the Pro-Cathedral, refers to an existing parish that has taken on the Cathedral title/duties when the original cathedral is not available for use by the denomination; basically, it is a temporary cathedral. For example, St. Mary’s Pro-Cathedral functions as the “cathedral” of the Arch Diocese of Dublin because both St. Patrick’s Cathedral and Christ Church Cathedral went to the Church of Ireland (Anglican). A little shout-out to Wikipedia for the info on St. Mary’s Pro-Cathedral. Peace…
Two possible reasons for St. Mark’s to be a pro-cathedral:
1. The Diocese already has a cathedral: All Saint’s in Cairo.
2. The Anglican church in Egypt may want to avoid the appearance of challenging the Coptic Patriarch of Alexandria, whose cathedral is also named for St. Mark.
We used to worship at a “pro-cathedral” and we were told the “pro” stood for provisional.
Te ABC doesn’t have a role in disciplining TEC. These events aren’t about “doing” anything. They are about building collegiality and sharing a mission.
I find it childish that people won’t even be in a photograph with her. It exemplifies a meanness of spirit and lack of charity that simply confirms the accusation of atheists that religious people are the cause of violence since they can barely get along.
Re 15,
I concur. Not standing with someone for a picture is petty. It is not the same thing as taking communion with them.
A “fog of confusion” – what a perfect metaphor for the current state of the Anglican Communion!
Given the Presiding Plaintiff’s penchant for turning every non-display of disapproval into evidence that she and TEC are hunky-dory with the rest of the Communion, I don’t see the Primates’ refusal to be photographed with her as being out of line. Rowan Williams is striving to prevent any and all expressions of disapproval of TEC and the ACoC’s revisionist agendas, with the only remaining opportunities to make a statement being either these “petty” occasions or full-blown schism. He’s going to get the former, and, if he’s not careful, the latter as well.
Jefferson, the Primates can do what they want. Most of the primates would have the photographs taken with her, even those who “disapprove.” The others are full of puffery.
Childish. Boys who won’t let the girl play.
#19… How interesting. You think that being a Primate in God’s Church is a game, and one that everybody ought to get to play?
Do most reappraisers share your view that being a Primate is just a game?
[i]Primates’ Meeting opens in ‘fog of confusion’ [/i]
Something about “tone at the top.”
[i] Childish. Boys who won’t let the girl play [/i]
John [#19]: I can’t believe this statement actually reflects your understanding of why theologically conservative primates would object to KJS.
RE: “I find it childish that people won’t even be in a photograph with her.”
Of course you do. But then . . . you find it “childish” that reasserters believe that blessing immoral behavior is church-dividing too.
However, it’s best to have clarity and truth. And the truth is . . . reasserters believe that when a church and Primate bless and promote immoral behavior as holy and blessed they should publicly repudiate that heresy and not pretend as if it does not matter.
One of the delightful things about these Primates is that they don’t pretend — as institutionalists so desperately desire — that all is well.
A picture is worth more than a thousand words (as the saying goes):
At the last Lambeth Conference, at the sitting for the Official Lambeth Conference Photograph, the planners SPECIFICALLY directed (almost forcefully) a particular orthodox bishop to sit at a specific spot (as close to the ABC as possible).
Only a fool or a koolaid drinker would not know, or would ignore the politics, calculation, manipulation, and the “posturing†that go into the planning and execution of EVERYTHING (from the perspective of TEc and their liberal allies in high places in the Anglican Communion) that is currently going on in the Communion.
When it comes to efforts aimed at the proclaiming of the Gospel, the ABC and his cohorts/handlers may not score high marks, but when it comes to using every opportunity for the furtherance of the revisionist agenda, they certainly know what they are doing. You must give them their due credit.
Yes, on the surface, the primate resistance to taking photos with some person/s may appear “childish”. But given the context of the current environment, the action of the these primate is quite understandable, and an acceptable reaction to manipulative schemes that continue to unfold.
Windsor Report is now “Windsor Processâ€; Lambeth Conference is now “indabaâ€; “listening†has now taken on a whole new meaning, etc. ,
The orthodox primates might have been born at night, but they surely were not born last night. Trick me once, ……………
TEc, the ABC, and their bedfellows see all this as a game, and every opportunity of scoring a goal is to be exploited.
Fr. Kingsley Jon-Ubabuco
Arlington Texas
I personally believe that the end result of this meeting will be very substantive.
But not in the way that people might have thought.
The only thing that the ABC needs to accomplish, after all, for this meeting to be a “success” is that the Primates showed up and had “conversation.”
As long as “conversation” takes place with everyone at the table, then all is well, the communion has not divided, and his plan is working great! After all — what he has done over the past five years has been to keep everyone engaged and conversing.
I believe that the results of this meeting will be as follows:
1) Nothing substantive in the way of any resolution whatsoever.
2) After the close of the meeting, over the coming three to six months, 3-5 more Primates become supporters of the ACNA.
3) To great sturm und drang from some communion conservatives, 3-5 Primates will not attend the next Primates meeting a year from now.
The next Primates Meeting will be the Primates meeting, of course, where finally . . . at last . . . something Really Really Important was going to happen at which those Primates Really Really Needed to be there.
As with Lambeth.
But it won’t matter.
Every six months, another meeting occurs. And further division and distancing results.
I don’t think it will be any different this time around.
“The only thing that the ABC needs to accomplish, after all, for this meeting to be a “success†is that the Primates showed up and had “conversation.†”
….and take some photographs.
Oh, YAWN, still ANOTHER paid vacation for the Purple-Shirted Wonders who have led the Anglican Communion into the ditch of heresy and worse (if there is worse?!?) Why do we bother to report this stuff anymore? Very, very few folks are interested — theY’ve either left the AC, or are paying for their own Purple-Shirted Wonder (and family) to have a paid vacation while they themsevles struggle to pay the heating bills for their local congregation! WAKE UP! You’ve been HAD!!!
I agree with Sarah (#25) with a slightly different take on the likely results of this meeting. Sarah is entirely right that the ABC will prevent anything from happening at this meeting, and from his perspective, that is success.
The consequence will be that this is the Primates meeting that destroys the Primates meetings’ ability to function as an instrument of unity, just as, after last Summer, Lambeth can no longer serve that function. The ACC never managed to become an instrument of unity, but was merely labelled such. That leaves the ABC as the only instrument still standing, at least in Rowan’s own eyes. The interesting question is whether the ABC intends that result, i.e. the only instrument of unity left is his office. If so, those are cynical, high risk tactics for an ABC who supposedly holds a rather weak office, and supposedly is only trying to keep all the sides together.
I think Spiro in #24 fleshes out my inarticulate point quite well. ++Rowan knows the power of symbols, and a photo of the Primates in full regalia would provide a powerful symbol of a unity that, in fact, does not exist. This symbol would then be left refuted by an unequivocal sanctioning of TEC because ++Rowan has scheduled the Primates to spend their time digging rhetorical holes and filling them up the entire time.
Does anyone else remember a photo of Donald Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam Hussein and how that was trumpeted as irrefutable proof that Saddam was America’s creation, that we had armed him to the teeth and a whole host of other drooling nonsense? Does anyone doubt the revisionists would apply their polluted hermeneutic in such a manner here?
We will never know if the Primates would have their picture taken with KJS in Egypt because KJS was just getting on the plane after the EC meeting when the picture was scheduled to be taken. All of you who think there is some nefarious plot to keep KJS out of the picture should realize that she was too busy budgeting lawsuits to show up on time for the Primates meeting. I also hear she is leaving early, to make sure she gets back in time for her non-canonical appearance in Fort Worth.
And, if she wants to appear in photos with the Archbishop of Canterbury, perhaps she should not depose any more bishops of the Church of England. The schedule for the photo was set by the man standing in the middle. He could have scheduled it for after she arrived.
I am not in possession of any inside information, but Bishop Mouneer is very evangelical, in the sense of wanting the Church in Egypt to expand. The Alexandria School of Theology is an example of how the foundations for an expanding church in Egypt will be built. I think the idea is for St. Mark’s to become a Cathedral for a new diocese of Alexandria when sufficient numbers warrant it.
The Anglican bishop, Bishop Mouneer, is on very good terms with Pope Shenouda and the Copts. Pope Shenouda has taken a similar approach, strengthening Christian education among his people, and it has been very successful. I don’t think they view themselves as competing, so I doubt that the designation of St. Mark’s, Alexandria, as a “pro-cathedral” has anything to do one way or the other with the Coptic church.
This next comment is my own personal opinion, not based on anything I’ve heard at All Saints’ in Cairo. There are long-standing cultural issues which divide Copts and Muslims here. I think conversions from Islam to Christianity in this culture are more likely to occur going into the Anglican church or the Roman Catholic, because while the price of becoming Christian is very high for Muslims, these destinations would not carry the additional problems of joining a group with a long history of negative feelings from the Muslim side.
The customary manner in which you communicate to someone that they have stepped across the theological “red line” is by refusing communion with them, not refusing to be seen with them. You can’t communicate with someone you won’t interact with. And if you can’t communicate then you are not delivering the message of the Gospel.
That said there are clear lines that must not be crossed without consequences. Those who have strayed beyond the limits of Christian orthodoxy should not be admitted to communion or if they are presiding or being admitted to communion anyways then the orthodox must abstain and withdraw from participation.
In this instance I would approach the event the way I would an ecumenical gathering. We can all talk with each other but the absence of common faith proscribes the sharing of the cup. I would send advance notice to the Primates of my inability to participate in any liturgical action in which persons with whom I am not in communion are participating or communing.
[blockquote]The customary manner in which you communicate to someone that they have stepped across the theological “red line†is by refusing communion with them, not refusing to be seen with them. You can’t communicate with someone you won’t interact with. And if you can’t communicate then you are not delivering the message of the Gospel. [/blockquote]
That’s just the point, AO: The structure of the conference is preventing precisely that sort of communication. I’m quite sure the GS Primates would be more than willing to communicate their thoughts to KJS and Fred Hiltz and to put them on the official record. ++Rowan is preventing what you are prescribing while attempting to produce a photo that symbolizes a unity that is entirely illusory. If you have a problem with what’s going on, swing your brickbat at him, not the GS Primates who refuse to participate in the charade.
John Wilkins, you just don’t get it, do you? The primates who refused to be photographed and to receive the Eucharist with Katharine Jefferts Schori do so for very good reasons, and I don’t need to remind you about what those reasons are…..you already know them, since you’ve been around this blog for so long.
The plain truth is that, like so many reappraisers, you can’t handle the truth, can you?
Are you sure it’s “Can’t handle it” and not “deny it exists”?