Very sad to see someone say something so patently and demonstrably incorrect.
If that were the case then Bishop Minns, for instance, who is “through Nigeria” would have been invited to Lambeth as a bishop of the Anglican Communion and all of the clergy and laity of the ACNA would be eligible to be nominated for seats on the ACC.
But clearly there are provinces and dioceses of the Anglican Communion that are “in communion with” Anglican entities whose bishops and clergy and laity are manifestly not “in communion with the See of Canterbury.” The Diocese of Sydney is in communion with CESA of South Africa, yet manifestly their bishops and clergy and laity are not at all in communion with the See of Canterbury. As has been proven it is perfectly possible to be a priest or bishop of a [i]Province[/i] in the Anglican Communion and yet not be a priest or bishop of [i]the Anglican Communion itself[/i].
Um, no, James Manley the resason why Bishop Minns was not issued an invitation was not because he was a “missionary bishop” but because he was considered in the same category of bishop as those of the AMiA — and those were the bishops with whom Archbishop of Canterbury George Carey also stated that he was not in communion with.
Here are the relevant remarks by Kearon on the lack of invitation to Bishop Minns, from the Church Times: http://www.churchtimes.co.uk/content.asp?id=39323&print=1
[blockquote]The second category was bishops belonging to the Convocation of Anglicans in North America (CANA), currently the Rt Revd Martyn Minns, consecrated by the Archbishop of Nigeria, the Most Revd Peter Akinola, earlier this month (News, 11 May). Canon Kearon said that he was being bracketed with the bishops of the Anglican Mission in America. In 2000, Lord Carey, then Archbishop of Canterbury, had called their consecration “irregular†and stated that he was not in communion with them.[/blockquote]
Rowan Williams has made it [i]crystal[/i] clear that he is taking the same stance as George Carey on Anglican entities connected to an Anglican Communion province but which are geographically within the territory of another Anglican Communion province without that province’s permission.
The fact that some people — [but not all] — are pretending otherwise tells me just how deeply we have all drunk from the well of TEC’s delusion, lying, and denial. One can take a person out of TEC, but it is very hard to take the TEC out of the person.
But, technically speaking, Fr. Wilson is NOT a clergy member of the ACNA since the Diocesan Convention of the Diocese of Ft. Worth has not voted to make the move from the Province of the Southern Cone to the ACNA. Being canonically resident in the Province of the Southern Cone DOES make him in communion with the ABC.
I think the folk in ACNA are trying to have it both ways. Of course ACNA is not in the AC: that is why this priest from TX is said by some to be in the SC. But one must “choose this day” which Province he is in : SC or ACNA. I do not think it is possible to be in both!
Here is a question: Is the AB of the ACNA in communion with ABC? Don’t think so!
Yet, technically, Katharine Jefferts Schori IS in communion with the See of Canterbury. You see what communion is worth to some, including denial, double-talk, and downright disregard for what has been always, everywhere, and be everyone believed to be faithful Christian teaching. I suppose there’s a point at which “communion” becomes an idol that must be discarded for the sake of faithfulness.
RE: “Being canonically resident in the Province of the Southern Cone DOES make him in communion with the ABC.”
No.
As I pointed out above, bishops of the AMiA are “canonically resident in the Province of” Rwanda.
Rowan Williams has made it crystal clear that he is taking the same stance as George Carey on Anglican entities — [i]and bishops and clergy and laity[/i] — connected to an Anglican Communion province but which are geographically within the territory of another Anglican Communion province without that province’s permission.
The fact that — literally in the same comment sometimes — people can prattle away about how 1) they don’t care that they are not connected with Canterbury or formally within the Anglican Communion, 2) they are hopeful that ACNA will apply for recognition from Canterbury and formal membership within the Anglican Communion, 3) they are really already recognized by Canterbury and within the Anglican Communion, and 4) they are outraged that oddly certain parties weren’t invited or recognized within one or more Instruments of Communion is just a sign, to me, of the massive dysfunction, denial, and rhetorical schizophrenia of *some* but not all Anglicans.
Whatever the reasons, Fr. Wilson is an outstanding priest and he will be successful in any ministry in the future. If he can’t be in Malawi, then I hope he will stay close to home here in FW.
Sarah1’s comment that the Southern Cone clergy of Fort Worth are not in communion with Canterbury is incorrect. Suzanne Gill’s comment is correct: I refer you to the published news reports from the primates meeting in Alexandria which affirmed that the breakaway groups were Anglican, but noted their status was undefined—as well as the published statements by Gregory Venables on this point.
The invitation or non-invitation to Lambeth does not confer “communion” with the Archbishop of Canterbury—such communion is defined by canon law and not the whim of the incumbent of Canterbury. Apart from the CANA, AMiA bishops etc, the Bishops of New Hampshire and Harare were not invited—-while a number of bishops and visitors from churches not in communion like the Salvation Army or the Russian Orthodox were invited and had the same degree of participation as bishops from the provinces of the Anglican Communion.
And, it is important to remember that George Carey’s views on the Amia consecrations changed over the course of his tenure as Archbishop of Canterbury—he backed away from his earlier strong comments—the news reports published when Kenneth Kearon made his comments (which were rather ill-informed) report this.
As an aside—the issues as stated in the underlying article are not entirely straight forward—it would be best to wait for all the news reports to come in.
Regardless of what he said or she said, a simple consideration of the chronology will show that Fr. Wilson is certainly a member of the Anglican Communion:
1) Nov. 15 – 2008 – Bishop Iker granted him letter dimissory to go to Southern Cone
2) Nov. 15 – 2008 – Abp. Venables accepted him and licensed him as a priest in the Southern Cone
At this point it was a done deal – released by his sitting Diocesan according to the rules. Iker had not been inihibited or deposed at this time. If only individuals can leave, then Fr. Wilson, the individual left TEC at this time in the usual and accepted manner for priests transferring to another province.
3) Nov. 21, 2008 – Schori issues letter of inhibition
4) Dec. 5, 2008 – Schori removes Bp. Iker from his office
5) July, 2009 – Fr. Wilson “inhibited” by Gulick along with most of the other clergy who transferred to S. Cone, long after the horse was gone.
The Diocese of Fort Worth will not vote on joining ACNA until Nov. 6, 2009 and remains part of the Southern Cone at least until then. If they do vote to join ACNA, Fr. Wilson could simply choose to remain in Southern Cone as a validly licensed priest there, or more likely be transferred to N. Malawi by Abp. Venables. Contrary to the misinformation as stated by the Bp. from Botswana, there is no canonical bar to Fr. Wilson becoming Bp. of Northern Malawi.
And what does the Bp. of Botswana have to do with it anyway?
[blockquote]he was considered in the same category of bishop as those of the AMiA[/quote]
Yes, Sarah1, precisely so. Thanks for stating my point more clearly than I did.
AMiA bishops are missionary bishops under the Rwandan canons just as CANA’s +Minns was under Nigerian canons at the time of the last Lambeth conference.
Fr. Scott Wilson remains in communion with the See of Canterbury through the Southern Cone. Reports to the contrary are in error.
RE: “Reports to the contrary are in error.”
Very sad to see someone say something so patently and demonstrably incorrect.
If that were the case then Bishop Minns, for instance, who is “through Nigeria” would have been invited to Lambeth as a bishop of the Anglican Communion and all of the clergy and laity of the ACNA would be eligible to be nominated for seats on the ACC.
But clearly there are provinces and dioceses of the Anglican Communion that are “in communion with” Anglican entities whose bishops and clergy and laity are manifestly not “in communion with the See of Canterbury.” The Diocese of Sydney is in communion with CESA of South Africa, yet manifestly their bishops and clergy and laity are not at all in communion with the See of Canterbury. As has been proven it is perfectly possible to be a priest or bishop of a [i]Province[/i] in the Anglican Communion and yet not be a priest or bishop of [i]the Anglican Communion itself[/i].
Sarah 1:
Only diocesan bishops are invited to Lambeth. +Minns was a missionary bishop of Nigeria and not a diocean at the time of the last Lambeth conference.
Can you identify a missionary bishop of [i]any[/i] other province who was invited to Lambeth?
Um, no, James Manley the resason why Bishop Minns was not issued an invitation was not because he was a “missionary bishop” but because he was considered in the same category of bishop as those of the AMiA — and those were the bishops with whom Archbishop of Canterbury George Carey also stated that he was not in communion with.
Here are the relevant remarks by Kearon on the lack of invitation to Bishop Minns, from the Church Times:
http://www.churchtimes.co.uk/content.asp?id=39323&print=1
[blockquote]The second category was bishops belonging to the Convocation of Anglicans in North America (CANA), currently the Rt Revd Martyn Minns, consecrated by the Archbishop of Nigeria, the Most Revd Peter Akinola, earlier this month (News, 11 May). Canon Kearon said that he was being bracketed with the bishops of the Anglican Mission in America. In 2000, Lord Carey, then Archbishop of Canterbury, had called their consecration “irregular†and stated that he was not in communion with them.[/blockquote]
Rowan Williams has made it [i]crystal[/i] clear that he is taking the same stance as George Carey on Anglican entities connected to an Anglican Communion province but which are geographically within the territory of another Anglican Communion province without that province’s permission.
The fact that some people — [but not all] — are pretending otherwise tells me just how deeply we have all drunk from the well of TEC’s delusion, lying, and denial. One can take a person out of TEC, but it is very hard to take the TEC out of the person.
But, technically speaking, Fr. Wilson is NOT a clergy member of the ACNA since the Diocesan Convention of the Diocese of Ft. Worth has not voted to make the move from the Province of the Southern Cone to the ACNA. Being canonically resident in the Province of the Southern Cone DOES make him in communion with the ABC.
I think the folk in ACNA are trying to have it both ways. Of course ACNA is not in the AC: that is why this priest from TX is said by some to be in the SC. But one must “choose this day” which Province he is in : SC or ACNA. I do not think it is possible to be in both!
Here is a question: Is the AB of the ACNA in communion with ABC? Don’t think so!
Eugene,
Yet, technically, Katharine Jefferts Schori IS in communion with the See of Canterbury. You see what communion is worth to some, including denial, double-talk, and downright disregard for what has been always, everywhere, and be everyone believed to be faithful Christian teaching. I suppose there’s a point at which “communion” becomes an idol that must be discarded for the sake of faithfulness.
Darin+
Sorry – should have been “by everyone believed”, i.e. Vincentian canon.
Darin+
[blockquote] Only diocesan bishops are invited to Lambeth. [/blockquote]
That used to be the case. However, suffragan bishops have been invited for the past two Lambeths.
[i] Comment deleted by elf. [/i]
RE: “Being canonically resident in the Province of the Southern Cone DOES make him in communion with the ABC.”
No.
As I pointed out above, bishops of the AMiA are “canonically resident in the Province of” Rwanda.
Rowan Williams has made it crystal clear that he is taking the same stance as George Carey on Anglican entities — [i]and bishops and clergy and laity[/i] — connected to an Anglican Communion province but which are geographically within the territory of another Anglican Communion province without that province’s permission.
The fact that — literally in the same comment sometimes — people can prattle away about how 1) they don’t care that they are not connected with Canterbury or formally within the Anglican Communion, 2) they are hopeful that ACNA will apply for recognition from Canterbury and formal membership within the Anglican Communion, 3) they are really already recognized by Canterbury and within the Anglican Communion, and 4) they are outraged that oddly certain parties weren’t invited or recognized within one or more Instruments of Communion is just a sign, to me, of the massive dysfunction, denial, and rhetorical schizophrenia of *some* but not all Anglicans.
Whatever the reasons, Fr. Wilson is an outstanding priest and he will be successful in any ministry in the future. If he can’t be in Malawi, then I hope he will stay close to home here in FW.
Paul, you are exactly right on that!
Sarah1’s comment that the Southern Cone clergy of Fort Worth are not in communion with Canterbury is incorrect. Suzanne Gill’s comment is correct: I refer you to the published news reports from the primates meeting in Alexandria which affirmed that the breakaway groups were Anglican, but noted their status was undefined—as well as the published statements by Gregory Venables on this point.
The invitation or non-invitation to Lambeth does not confer “communion” with the Archbishop of Canterbury—such communion is defined by canon law and not the whim of the incumbent of Canterbury. Apart from the CANA, AMiA bishops etc, the Bishops of New Hampshire and Harare were not invited—-while a number of bishops and visitors from churches not in communion like the Salvation Army or the Russian Orthodox were invited and had the same degree of participation as bishops from the provinces of the Anglican Communion.
And, it is important to remember that George Carey’s views on the Amia consecrations changed over the course of his tenure as Archbishop of Canterbury—he backed away from his earlier strong comments—the news reports published when Kenneth Kearon made his comments (which were rather ill-informed) report this.
As an aside—the issues as stated in the underlying article are not entirely straight forward—it would be best to wait for all the news reports to come in.
Regardless of what he said or she said, a simple consideration of the chronology will show that Fr. Wilson is certainly a member of the Anglican Communion:
1) Nov. 15 – 2008 – Bishop Iker granted him letter dimissory to go to Southern Cone
2) Nov. 15 – 2008 – Abp. Venables accepted him and licensed him as a priest in the Southern Cone
At this point it was a done deal – released by his sitting Diocesan according to the rules. Iker had not been inihibited or deposed at this time. If only individuals can leave, then Fr. Wilson, the individual left TEC at this time in the usual and accepted manner for priests transferring to another province.
3) Nov. 21, 2008 – Schori issues letter of inhibition
4) Dec. 5, 2008 – Schori removes Bp. Iker from his office
5) July, 2009 – Fr. Wilson “inhibited” by Gulick along with most of the other clergy who transferred to S. Cone, long after the horse was gone.
The Diocese of Fort Worth will not vote on joining ACNA until Nov. 6, 2009 and remains part of the Southern Cone at least until then. If they do vote to join ACNA, Fr. Wilson could simply choose to remain in Southern Cone as a validly licensed priest there, or more likely be transferred to N. Malawi by Abp. Venables. Contrary to the misinformation as stated by the Bp. from Botswana, there is no canonical bar to Fr. Wilson becoming Bp. of Northern Malawi.
And what does the Bp. of Botswana have to do with it anyway?
monika
[blockquote]he was considered in the same category of bishop as those of the AMiA[/quote]
Yes, Sarah1, precisely so. Thanks for stating my point more clearly than I did.
AMiA bishops are missionary bishops under the Rwandan canons just as CANA’s +Minns was under Nigerian canons at the time of the last Lambeth conference.