CANA Responds to the Primates’ Communiqué

“We applaud their consistent stand for biblical truth and the importance of reconciliation between all peoples and their Creator.

“We welcome the Primates’ unanimous reaffirmation of the entirety of Lambeth 1:10 as the Church’s teaching on human sexuality although we are disappointed that they were not unanimous in their call to repentance for those who continue to defy this teaching.

“We also welcome a period of gracious restraint as the Primates describe it but are distressed by the reality that The Episcopal Church continues to initiate punitive litigation on a massive scale. To date, there are at least 56 lawsuits initiated by The Episcopal Church, or its dioceses, against individual churches, clergy and vestries across the country.

Read it all.


Posted in * Anglican - Episcopal, Anglican Primates, Anglican Provinces, CANA, Church of Nigeria, Primates Meeting Alexandria Egypt, February 2009

12 comments on “CANA Responds to the Primates’ Communiqué

  1. David+ says:

    And the law suits will continue to grow in number despite their outcome. The idea is to scare as many parishes as possible into not saying good bye and taking their property with them.

  2. Observing says:

    This [url=] quote [/url] from the ABC strikes me as important: (see from 17mins, 30 secs) – talking about ACNA

    [blockquote] “We want to honor the will of the people involved to remain in the Anglican communion” [/blockquote]

  3. MotherViolet says:

    The Primates meeting turned out more positive than many thought it would. They seem to be looking for ways to allow ACNA to become a province. The WCG offered several scenarios as to how this might happen.

  4. Brian from T19 says:

    Is there still a CANA? How does ACNA affect the differing memebers? ZDo their organizations dissolve into ACNA or retain their individual identity? If they retain their identity, then how are they a potential Province and not a parachurch organization?

  5. Dilbertnomore says:

    So +Rowan’s happy that the can gets kicked down the road for a little while longer. OK. First, do no harm. And Integrity’s upset. And that’s good. If they really are upset. And 815 is still whistling past the graveyard on their way to continue shopping for millstones for to wear upon their collective necks (and you know how that ends).

    Ready for the next move.

    This could actually be good for ACNA. Gives time to get the act together on consitutions and canons and women’s ordination. From the movie, “Young Frankenstein”, “This could work!”

  6. NoVA Scout says:

    If those who wish to depart the Episcopal Church would simply depart, quit the properties, and leave them with those who do not desire to depart, my guess is that the lawsuits would drop to zero overnight. Other than the sadness over the departures and the rents in the fabric of fellowship and Church, all elements would be better off.

  7. JoePewSitter says:

    Sorry NoVa…vestry’s have a responsibility to preserve these properties for their intended purpose, which leving them in TEC doesn’t accomplish.

  8. A Senior Priest says:

    Ummmm NoVAScout, #6, I SINCERELY doubt that a single one of the properties in VA which some in the TEC so evidently desire to get hold of would have ever been Episcopalian (however temporarily) if the donors had actually known…. Besides, it is a matter of ethical imperative that the orthodox leave as few preaching stations for heresy as possible when they change jurisdictions.

  9. Brian from T19 says:

    Besides, it is a matter of ethical imperative that the orthodox leave as few preaching stations for heresy as possible when they change jurisdictions.

    When TEC sues these people need “spiritual protection,” when they sue, it is the work of Jesus. Ridiculous.

  10. Dilbertnomore says:

    Oh, BfT19, you just don’t get it, do you? Sad.

  11. Brian from T19 says:

    I really don’t, former Dilbert. I don’t understand the dynamics and I don’t understand the double standard.

  12. NoVA Scout says:

    JPS and ASP: I have found that being a vestryman does not give me supernatural powers to discern the wishes of many generations of parishioners, living and dead, who have generously contributed to the survival of the parish. I would be very hard put to discern that my parish and its properties must depart the Episcopal Church “if the donors had actually known . . . .” (known what?). It seems a bit grand that a vestryman or someone else could discern that the portion of the parish that was uncomfortable with continued relationships with the Episcopal Church (or the Diocese of Virginia) could transfer ownership of the property (real and personal) of the Parish to prevent its use as “preaching stations for heresy” by those who have no wish to depart. This sounds like a fairly difficult and arbitrary rationale to effectuate over the universe of Anglican (as I use the term to include the worldwide Anglican Communion) churches. The difficulty is easily avoided by the simple and pragmatic approach of those who wish to leave, leaving, and those who do not wish to leave, staying. No doubt, in some parishes, the parishioners in the first category are sufficiently numerous that the properties cannot be maintained by the remaining parishioners. In other parishes that is not the case. But it completely disarms the lawyers’ relief program that has been fueled from both sides and provides more room for respectful, if saddened, respect from each faction toward the other.