Addressing directly developments in the United States and Canada, Archbishop Carey said, “Some provinces ”“ notably in North America ”“ press for total autonomy theologically from the Communion, while at the same time they impose total canonical autocracy within their dioceses. Ironically and oddly, in such a democratic nation as the United States, a system of ”˜prince bishops’ has arisen who appear to have unfettered control over their rapidly diminishing flocks [and] from which all who dissent from the regnant liberalism are being driven out.”
Nodding vigorously. And don’t forget the presiding bishop exercising universal jurisdiction when the old standing committee of San Joaquin, waiting on protocol, were sacked and replaced, probably because they were still too conservative even though they remained Episcopal.
That said there was never any authority really in the communion, just a latitudinarian gentlemen’s agreement to mind one’s own theological business but pay lip service to a 16th-century orthodoxy widely construed and more or less use the BCP.
No more British Empire (even the Commonwealth is eclipsed by the EU, or the Germans got their wish), no more communion.
[url=http://sergesblog.blogspot.com/]High-church libertarian curmudgeon[/url]
When did a left-wing putsch ever occur without a purge soon on its heels? Of course TEC will drive out anyone to the right of the Gang of Four.
Well, of course they will liquidate the orthodox. I told this to the person who is now my bishop about a week after GC approved GVR’s (invalid) consecration. He didn’t believe me then. I reminded him of my Cassandra-like prediction a couple of months ago at lunch and he shamefacedly -and with reluctance- averred that he now agreed that such would eventually be the case.
The latitudinarian gentlemen’s agreement, based as it was in national politics and empire building, will destroy Anglicanism as it presently exists. Unfortunately, Lord Carey’s astute observation about the present state of affairs should have included some acknowledgment that his various failures to act have only compounded the problem.
Amen #4. Isn’t this what Rwanda and South East Asia said in 2000?
I got to the end of this TLC article and was pleased to see that its author was an old friend of mine (Fr. Eric Turner). We once served together as co-chairs of the Commission on Church Planting for the Diocese of VA when it was first formed around 1990, back during Fr. Turner’s Richmond days. I would agree that, based on this report, Lord Carey’s assessment of the Anglican Communion’s current condition and future prospects was both “sober” and sometimes “bleak.”
Personally, I thought one of the most telling and sobering parts of this significant sppech was the former ABoC’s realistic acknowledgement (some might say, his pessimistic view) that the stubborn intransigence of the leaders of TEC in going ahead with the consecration of Gene Robinson in 2003 had precipitated the worst crisis in the AC’s history, and one “from which it is unlikely to recover.” That may actually be a rather British understatement. I myself assume that it’s virtually certain that the current institutional form of the AC won’t survive this crisis in anthing like its present form. After all, as the Master himself said, “A house divided against itself cannot stand.” The Instruments of Unity have utterly failed, as was demonstrated all too clearly at last summer’s Lambeth Conference. They will have to be replaced, or radically revamped and strengthened.
But while +Carey seems rather dismayed by this sad development, I will freely admit that I’m not disheartened by it at all. As a fervent supporter of the New Reformation, I’m totally coninced that the Old Anglicanism that we’ve always known and rightly cherished has to die, in order that a New and Better Anglicanism can be resurrected in its place. The Anglo-Saxon captivity of Anglicanism is finally over, or rapidly coming to an end. Thanks be to God.
The New Anglicanism, which is now being forged in the searing fires of bitter conflict, will not only be “Global” and “Post-Colonial,” (as +Bob Duncan the Lion-Hearted has rightly said), but it will also be Post-Constantian in character, which is an even more radical change. Given our state church heritage, that is in fact such a truly revolutionary and traumatic change that it could only come about through a severe crisis of this magnitude. And yet it is taking place, before our astonished and perhaps bewildered eyes.
Although I’m committed to the outside strategy and making the ACNA successful, I wish the Communion Partners also to be as successful as they can be.
David Handy+
GVR’s (invalid) consecration
You mean V. Gene Robinson? How according to Anglican sacramentology is it invalid? Anglicanism is not Donatist: an open and notorious evil liver can have valid orders.
[url=http://sergesblog.blogspot.com/]High-church libertarian curmudgeon[/url]
Baloney. Nobody is being forced to leave. They are leaving from their own will, their own conscience. It is patronizing to think they are leaving because they don’t have the tenacity or strength to stay.
No. 7 – I agree. No. 3 should tell us why
VGR’s consecration was invalid.
I think that +++Rowan used the term “irregular” to describe VGR consecration, just as he did the CANA, Uganda, and bishops from other provinces. Were one to take a stab at arguing the consecration was invalid, it seems to me one would have to focus on this:
[i]Bishop Will you guard the faith, unity, and discipline of the
Church?
Answer I will, for the love of God.[/i]
Since VGR seemingly never intended to guard the faith, unity, and discipline of the Church, perhaps one could question whether his consecration was valid? I tend to worry that such an argument drifts closely into donatism, as fogey notes above, but I understand its allure.
#8 – When the bishop of Mass. told the parish that wanted to calll me that he had “grave reservations” about me and would not allow it. And when I asked him about the “broad tent?” He admitted “the tent has narrowed.” Over and over the liberals systematically remove consevatives. To say otherwise is dishonest or delusional.
#11 I think that any bishop, in the interest of the church, is entitled to ensure that the priest would submit to his authority. If you are sure that you would have, then I think he was wrong. Otherwise, he was right.
#12 Exactly the revisionist reasoning. And the range of issues on which one has to submit now includes every innovation on the liberal agenda. I saw this little game played by the sociopath who was bishop of the last diocese I lived in. He even fired his tame plants when they annoyed him by their defiance. And closed a parish every year.