Bishop Edward J. Konieczny of Oklahoma told a convention news briefing that “when the statement was read, it was clear to everyone in the house that this was not a statement of division.”
Rather, “it was a statement of unity and acknowledging and recognizing that we have listened to one another intently and we’ve done that with open hearts and mind, and that there was a thankfulness for that on the part of all. That particular statement was not intended to be anything other than them sharing with the wider communion that we are working together on this difficult issue,” he added.
Bishop James Mathes of San Diego agreed, adding that Lillibridge’s statement “was offered in a loving and appreciative way of the conversation we had.”
It included “clarity of where they are, but also in appreciation for the listening [that went on] in earlier conversations in the last few days.”
I don’t know what to make of this. I assume all the signing Bishops voted no on the key resolutions. I will accept that it reflects real pain on the part of the signers.
However at the end of the day it does nothing. And based on this statement “when the statement was read, it was clear to everyone in the house that this was not a statement of division.” it seems to be a statement to TEC that they will do nothing of substance. It simply appears to preserve an option, if the Covenant passes and if the AC ever does anything to remove TEC from the AC they can claim, or attempt to claim membership in the TEC.
Its kind of like a mouse trying to reach an accommodation with a cat to avoid the inevitable end. The end may be delayed, and the cat may toy with the mouse but the end will come.
That’s “claim membership in the AC.”
#1, I disagree. This is a graciously worded statement that says that the reasserting bishops were able to put all of their arguments in front of the HOB and they were systematically rejected, and that the mind of the HOB is not in anyway ambiguous. It says to the rest of the AC (and the world) that TEC is this far reappraising; it is this far gone; and AC if you had any doubts, let your eyes be opened. So AC go ahead and do what you need to do to deal with this out-of-bounds organization that is your official representative in the US. And by the way, some of us still want to be and care if we are a part of the AC, so remember that when you start pulling the weeds.
Billy, maybe. We will see if the AC will do anything, but based on past performance I’ll believe it when I see it.
Twenty-six reasserter bishops avowing to observe the “three moratoria” is lovely, but not particularly helpful when the remainder, a supermajority, will not. It’s like pointing out that 99.99% of your right front tire doesn’t have a hole in it.
It is useful, however, if diocese can be independently recognized by Canterbury as being within the AC while their heretical province is not.
Certainly provides good proof of the weakness of the statement. Let us maintain collegiality! When I hear orthodox bishops talking about how well the revisionists are treating them, my conclusion is that the orthodox aren’t doing enough to provide witness.
I still don’t get it. How is this different from previous groups and statements? Can someone please, please help me understand?
Clemmitt
I’ve been following this since yesterday, and still haven’t seen any place where the signing bishops are identified. Is this a secret? Does anyone know where one might find this information?
The other point is how can they apply the non-binding moratorium in the face of the anti-discrimination canons? After all the canons overrule non-binding resolutions.
#8 – Dan – This was on Stand Firm:
Bishop Howe stated last night in the interview with Greg & Fr. Matt that this statement will not be released to the public with signatures until it is delivered to the ABofC.
I will be interested to see the list of signers……
-Sally
“I still don’t get it. How is this different from previous groups and statements? Can someone please, please help me understand?”
Well, we are the People’s Anglican Front, those people over there are the Anglican People’s Front (splitters!). The only thing we hate more than Episcopals is the Anglican Popular People’s Front (SPLITTERS!)
Letters of St Monty of Python (paraphrased)
Come to think of it the opening of the referenced scene relates almost perfectly to many of the resolutions and statements passed at GC this year
Doncha know? That’s the way diplomacy is conducted these days. The point is to be able to say “we made a firm response”. All that schism, sending in the marines, embargoing the ports stuff is all so “unChristian”.
[i] Edited by elf. [/i]