From here (posted earlier, but this section was not excerpted):
However, it was also drawn to Canon Kearon’s attention that another infringement of the requirements of the instruments of communion had been the continuance of the lawsuits against orthodox churches in North America by TEC and the Anglican Church of Canada. The cessation of these lawsuits was a requirement of the Dar-es-Salaam Primates Meeting in 2007 as part of the compliance required of TEC and the ACoC with the Windsor Report and thus a condition for the re-entry of TEC and ACoC delegates to the Councils of the Communion ( they had been asked to withdraw from ACC 13 at Nottingham, but attended as visitors). How was it that TEC and ACoC had not complied with a requirement of the instruments of communion, yet had been readmitted, and that Uganda was not complying with the embargo on cross-border jurisdiction and yet its selected delegate was barred? The answer given that Uganda as a province had not been barred, only its delegate who was a product of cross-border intervention.
Does not answer the question on why TEC was admitted to the meeting.
Intercessor
Kendall,
I’m glad you highlighted this point, which is indeed very important and deserves its own thread. This is the often forgotten “fourth moratorium” that TEC would very much like us all to forget permanently.
And I agree with Intercessor (#1), the real problem is that the representatives of TEC and the ACoC were invited to this meeting and given voice and vote again, unlike the last ACC at Nottingham in 2005, when the arrogant, spiritually blind and self=deluded leaders of those sick and heavily compromised institutions have shown no sign of genuine repentance whatsoever. None.
Shame on the ABoC. Shame on the JSC, etc. Meanwhile, the tear in the fabric of the AC just keeps getting wider and deeper.
David Handy+
Not only has Canada not complied with the moratorium on lawsuits, but they have continue to bless same sex unions, as well as add dioceses who are moving ahead with them.
I believe that allowing TEC and the ACofC back to the table when they have failed to comply on two of the moratoria, while disallowing the Uganda delegate as a “cross-border dissident”, even though he is in fact a cleric in good standing of the Province of Uganda, says something especially loud about the Anglican Consultative Counsel’s position on ACNA and it’s future within the current structures of the Anglican Communion. It also says to me (with Lambeth 2008) that Lambeth 1998 was an anomaly. From now on it will be (ironically) African “Indaba” style meetings that will insure the voices that were so strong in 1998 will never be heard that way again within the current instruments of communion, and ultimately insuring that GAFCON will become a new and rival Anglican entity in the world.
I am under the impression (and elves or other authorities please correct me if I am wrong) that bishop Roskam is both a TEC delegate to this ACC meeting AND a consecrator of VGR. Am I correct in this? (truly not wanting to make a false accusation) But if I am correct, this would seem to be a greater casus than being a deposed by TEC priest repping Uganda.
“The cessation of these lawsuits was a requirement of the Dar-es-Salaam Primates Meeting.” Cessation of lawsuits was not a requirement of the 2007 Primates meeting. The relevant section of the communiqué issued at the close of the meetings reads “The Primates urge the representatives of The Episcopal Church and of those congregations in property disputes with it to suspend all actions in law arising in this situation. We also urge both parties to give assurances that no steps will be taken to alienate property from The Episcopal Church without its consent or to deny the use of that property to those congregations”.
To “urge” is not to “require”. And the assurances about the alienation of property have clearly slipped the memory of Canon Dr Sugden, and of others.
Mere adiaphora, ya’ll, like the other items.
5, that’s right. But nothing is ever required is it? We are caught up in the meaningless of language. You are entitled to your 30 pieces of silver. Enjoy.
It looks like someone better placed is finally saying (better than I could) what I had said on May 4th in a SF post:
“….Please, I need someone smarter than I am to explain to me how it is alright for the Episcopal church, which is the cause of the fissure and the deep tear in the fabric of the Anglican Communion, to be comfortably seated in the meetings and Conferences of the Communion, BUT the faithful Provinces and their clergy are the ones that are being subjected to all forms of abuse and insults from the so-called Instruments of Unity of the Anglican Communion?…..”
Looking at what transpired in Jamaica, it is the height of insult to serious Christians (within and without TEc) that TEc and her supporters, with the overt and covert support of the +++ABC have succeeded in destroying the Anglican Communion and a good chunk of Christianity.
Whatever will be left of the Communion by the end of this year is never going to be what the Communion was when RW took over the helm.
But, by the Grace of God, and on the other hand, I believe the faithful (to the Lord) faction will actually be better off, when all is said and done, with less numbers, less prestige, and less real estate, but with the real presence and guidance of the Holy Spirit.
I pray God’s Blessings on the faithful but oppressed minority in North America, especially for Bishop Iker and his clergy, and all others under the threat of Katherine and company.
Fr. Kingsley Jon-Ubabuco
Arlington, Texas
It was fixed, it was always fixed, it will always be fixed. Period.
[9] I agree. Words mean what they want them to mean, which means that the speakers have about as much integrity as their words. Nothing will happen to TEC/ACC regardless of their egregious behavior, yet every GAFCON gnat is strained.
Yawn – these minor mafioso are boring, and their emo drama predictable.
; – )
Based on comment no. 5, can we agree that there was no moratorium on lawsuits and that the language was precatory, urging all factions to refrain from initiating suits or occupying/alienating property? If so, I guess this is not too much of an issue. I think the only lawsuits have been in the context of departing factions attempting to seize control of real estate and accounts. I’m quite sure that if that were not happening, there would be no lawsuits. I’m not aware of any circumstance where there has been litigation over individual or even group decisions to disaffiliate with the Episcopal Church in the absence of some effort to retain or alienate property.
Aside from the precatory nature of the communique (expressing a hope that no doubt is universally held), there would be great difficulty in implementing an actual moratorium on litigation. Property disputes in the various states are subject to secular procedural requirements, some of which are quite rigid. It is very unlikely that a court would accept as an excuse for failure to initiate litigation within a statutory limitations period that the plaintiff was complying with a moratorium issued in Dar es Salaam. That explains, in part, why the portion of the communique urging restraint on seizing property and changing its ownership is particularly important.
[11] While we’re at it, why don’t we all agree that the WCG was appointed by the ABC outside of the proper functioning of any other instrument, and thus the report about moratoria is merely a report to him. It is not binding on any other instruments or bodies of the communion unless they adopt it.
Perhaps we should go back to the DES Communique and see what the Primates think about TEC compliance (vice the separate body of the JSC)… at least there is the precedent of Lambeth resolutions granting the Primates’ Meeting the authority it was seeking to exercise, before it was thwarted by the ABC.
: – |
But then, that would be the proper functioning of the instruments in good order, and might risk discipline of TEC.
; – )
2. New Reformation Advocate, how about shame on the JSC for even admitting Katharine Jefferts Schori to their membership?
Cennydd (#13),
Why, yes, of course. I agree with you.
David Handy+