Dear All,
In response to requests for comments on the Lambeth Conference invitations, Archbishop Peter Akinola reaffirms that the Church of Nigeria is committed to the CAPA commissioned report “The Road to Lambeth”
(link here for Road to Lambeth doc)
Since only the first set of invitations had been sent, it is premature to conclude who will be present or absent at the conference. However, the withholding of invitation to a Nigerian bishop, elected and consecrated by other Nigerian bishops will be viewed as withholding invitation to the entire House of Bishops of the Church of Nigeria.
The Lord bless you as you remain in Christ
The Venerable AkinTunde Popoola
Director of Communications
Primate’s Office, 24 Douala Str., Wuse Zone 5, P.O. Box 212 ADCP, Abuja,
F.C.T., Nigeria.
Seems pretty clear to me….wonder if the PB of TEC will make such a clear statement.
Well, at least +KJS wouldn’t have to worry about breaking new ground.
The difference is that if ++Peter says we’re not going, no one will (and Lambeth becomes something of a farce). But ++Katharine does not have that command of all her Bishops (and Lambeth will do fine if only the Windsor Bishops are there).
That’s rather silly.
There will be many Nigerian bishops who will not be invited.
Still – it’s a position many will welcome from all sides.
“There will be many Nigerian bishops who will not be invited. ”
Why? Perhaps I am wrong but I thought “all” were invited if they were in communion with AB of C. Am not being funny, just want clarification…..
The thing (and yes, that is purposely not plural!) I like about ++Akinola is that you never need to question where he stands.
Personally I wish that Nigeria would not make this stand. For now, TEC is the “anglican” representation for the US. This may change and CANA may be fully included — but it hasn’t happened yet. By not going the statement will be made that Nigeria is abandoning the communion — and I personally hope that is not true. My prayer is that the process will work itself out and CANA will be acknowledged — but I think that acknowledgement rightly comes by the communion as a whole.
Dee, Since 1988 or 1998 (I don’t remember which), Lambeth has only included Bishops with Jurisdiction, such as the Bishop of a Diocese or the Bishop-Coadjutor. Bishops suffragan or Assistant Bishops or Assisting Bishops or retired Bishops are not invited.
On the post, I hope that +Akinola does attend Lambeth. His voice and the voice of the Bishops of Nigeria are important to hear.
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
Thanks Phil…..so in most cases, it seems to me because of age, a Bishop of a Diocese and/or the Bishop-Coadjutor gets one shot at being invited. Kind of like the senior prom……
This process will define many loyalties, one of which will be what TEC bishops take the tack ++Akinola takes. In other words, he has said “No Minns, No Nigeria”. Who in the U.S. will say “No Robinson, No TEC”. Of course, it won’t be “TEC”, but that particular bishop, since in the U.S. everyone does what is right in their own eyes.
I hope he does take a stand. He and his region have endorsed Bishop Minns, and that should be enough. To even remotely, by actions, equate Bishop Minns’ status to Bishop Robinson is insulting to all who have endorsed him.
I don’t follow “Anglican” events as much as I used to. I now remember why I don’t pay attention to it as much!
My church left the TEC is now an AmiA church and I’m happy we joined a group that is focused on mission. Seems like everything else that happens to the Anglican Communion is a distraction, right now.
#12, I shudder at the thought of what the Church would look like today had congregations, priest and bishops held that view at the time of Arian controversy and the formulation of our Creed. It seems to me that what is happening in today’s epic struggle centers around the very nature, purpose and mission of His Church.
I would say that the Anglican Communion, to the extent there was such a thing, is all but finished, and I don’t really see a justification for the episcopate at this point.
Phil,
I agree that ++Akinola’s voice needs to be heard, but won’t actions speak louder? And, won’t the entire Nigerian church’s not attending speak much louder than any words?
Reactionary,
“This is a true saying, if a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work” (1Tim3:1, KJV).
Some questions for the ABC:
1. Who does the ABC think he is fooling by requiring the RSVP from the invited bishops get to him (or made) by July 31st, considering the fact of the September 30th response date from the Primates to EcUSA/TEc?
2. Does this mean that no matter the response from EcUSA/TEc to the Primates’ Communiqué/demands, EcUSA/TEc is still in full communion in/with the Anglican Communion and no action is anticipated from the ABC and the Primates if the EcUSA snob and intransigency continues?
3. Does this mean that the September 30th date from the Primates to EcUSA/TEc is meaningless?
If the ABC thinks, for one moment, that ++Akinola and his bishops (same goes for some other Global South Provinces) are going to come to the Lambeth anyway, he is simply being unrealistic.
Spiros
Vox Popoolae, vox Dei.
The exclusion of Bp. Minns, if it persists, is a real slap in the face to ++Akinola. In view of this preliminary stab, and in view of past performance or lack of it from ++Williams, one might draw the conclusion that Lambeth 08, Sept. 30, and ++Williams are no longer worth considering anyway. As a new CANA congregant, with loyalty to +Minns and ++Akinola, I feel like I have been spat upon by this so-called Anglican “Communion”. My loyalty is to the Anglican concepts expressed by the 39 Articles and the 1928 Book of Common Prayer and the liturgical processes thereof; but, not to the crew running that railroad today. The word “communion” has turned into a bad joke.
The Windsor Report requests (and we recall that this was reiterated at Dromantine and other Primatial meetings) that the North Americans quit ordaining partnered homosexuals, and that bishops quit crossing canonical boundaries. While it’s clear that many TEC bishops are not Windsor bishop, it’s pretty clear that the primate of Nigeria isn’t, either.
Calm down, people. Only diocesan bishops were to be invited. Bp. Minns is not a diocesan bishop because CANA is not a diocese. Hence he was not invited. Q.E.D.
CANA is a missionary diocese of the Church of Nigeria
#16,
Bishoprics are a necessary office in a catholic body, which the Anglican Communion no longer is, if it ever was.
Can someone definitively point to where it is said that only Diocesan Bishops are invited please?
12: Our bishops weren’t invited either.
Re #24: There were about 800 invitations issued, which is about how many diocesan and coadjutor bishops currently serve in the Communion. To include assistant, suffragan, missionary, and other bishops without jurisdiction, the list would have had to be 1200 or more. When all those bishops were in attendance at previous Conferences, the size got unwieldy. In addition, most of the dioceses with more than a single bishop are—as one would expect—in the more affluent provinces, so some Global South bishops saw the extra attendees as “packing” the representation.
#26 Thanks Dale. So, for instance, UK Suffragans are not going this time? (They did in ’98 didn’t they?)….