Statement from Anglican Mainstream following the consecration of Mary Glasspool as Suffragan Bishop

In her letter to the Primates, the Presiding Bishop of The Episcopal Church (TEC) Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori, confirmed that the consecration of the openly gay Mary Glasspool is not a random event but comes from the settled mind of her church. Sadly, this shows that TEC has now explicitly decided to walk apart from most of the rest of the Communion.

Since that decision by TEC has to be respected, it should result in three consequences. First, TEC withdrawing, or being excluded from the Anglican Communion’s representative bodies. Second, a way must be found to enable those orthodox Anglicans who remain within TEC to continue in fellowship with the Churches of the worldwide Communion. Third, the Anglican Church of North America (ACNA) should now be recognized an authentic Anglican Church within the Communion.

Dr Philip Giddings, Convenor,

Canon Dr Chris Sugden Executive Secretary, Anglican Mainstream

Posted in * Anglican - Episcopal, Episcopal Church (TEC), TEC Bishops, TEC Conflicts, TEC Conflicts: Los Angeles

15 comments on “Statement from Anglican Mainstream following the consecration of Mary Glasspool as Suffragan Bishop

  1. Br. Michael says:

    Three consequences? Fat chance. The official offices of the AC will continue to do nothing. The ABC will continue to do nothing. The Global South will continue to go its own way and maybe create the way out, but the AC will never call TEC to account or offer succor to the faithful Anglicans in the US and Canada.

  2. Intercessor says:

    Respect it??? Respect willful sin and damnation??? You are nuts!
    Intercessor

  3. dwstroudmd+ says:

    “TEC has now explicitly decided to walk apart from most of the rest of the Communion. Since that decision by TEC has to be respected,” consequences should follow. But we are talking Rowan Williams here, so don’t look to Canterbury for any. And the prior ABC, Carey, is seeing here the results of his capitulation to Grizwoldian machinations!

    How’s that working out for ya, Lord Carey? Turns out you let the blight in. My, my, my, how the famine has got along.

  4. DTerwilliger says:

    I think it is safe to say that more and more Anglican/episcopal parishes will start to look at Benedict XVI’s offer of an Anglican Ordinariate as a truly viable offer.

  5. Cennydd says:

    A few may, but I doubt very much that mine will. Rome’s got problems of their own, and we don’t want to have any part of those problems or even be remotely associated with them. I can’t speak for other parishes in our diocese, but I wouldn’t be surprised if most feel the same way.

  6. Cato says:

    subscribe

  7. A Senior Priest says:

    I might agree with all those suggestions, yet have absolutely complete confidence that not a single one will be implemented.

  8. IchabodKunkleberry says:

    In an entirely secular setting in the 1980’s, President Reagan
    decertified PATCO, the organization representing air-traffic
    controllers. Can’t the ABC decertify TEC ? If TEC elites are so
    hell-bent on following secular trends such as gay marriage and
    non-celibate gay clergy, why should they howl if the secular
    notion of “decertification” is applied by the AC to TEC ?

  9. Bookworm(God keep Snarkster) says:

    Ichabod, because it erodes their alleged legitimacy.

  10. j.m.c. says:

    another response: Anglicans and Unity
    We are no longer a body that needs worry about schism; we ourselves have become a schism within the Church Catholic.

  11. Pageantmaster Ù† says:

    Today from the UK there has been a further comment from Fulcrum – Bishop Graham Kings writes:

    The consecration of Mary Glasspool took place yesterday, 15 May 2010, in Long Beach, California.

    It is worth rereading Fulcrum’s earlier statements on this issue:

    1. Fulcrum Response to Consents being Given to the Consecration of Mary Glasspool

    This is a clear rejection of the authority of the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Lambeth Conference, the Primates’ Meeting and the Anglican Consultative Council.

    We believe that it is vitally important for the Primates’ Meeting planned for January 2011 to go ahead, and that for this to happen the Presiding Bishop of The Episcopal Church should not be invited to attend. Actions have consequences.

    2. Fulcrum Article, ‘Consecration of Mary Glasspool: Where Do We Go From Here?’, published on Fulcrum and in the Church of England Newspaper, 26 March 2010, and republished on Fulcrum today, 16 May 2010.

    The latter article concludes as follows::

    The key question is ‘what happens next?’. This week a Fulcrum statement declared, ‘Actions have consequences’. The first and most obvious consequence of this development is that TEC as a body has revealed it is incapable of signing the Anglican covenant. This is not simply because they have once again categorically rejected the pattern of life together that it articulates and the shared discernment it presupposes. The more serious and deep-rooted problem is TEC’s particular polity (which allows for confusion and assertion in the place of coherent policy and practice) and their understanding of how the Spirit leads them. These make TEC as a province incapable of making meaningful or credible commitments to the Communion about their future conduct. The only hope now is for TEC dioceses to reject TEC’s path by committing to the covenant and for such commitment to be recognised by the Communion.

    But what about TEC and the current Communion? This emphatic further breaching of the bonds of affection shows that not only TEC’s promises about the future but its apologies and expressions of regret for the past are worthless. In particular, their 2006 regret relating to the events surrounding the election and consecration of a bishop for the See of New Hampshire – which the Primates accepted and which Windsor said “would represent the desire of the Episcopal Church (USA) to remain within the Communion” – is now shown to be either fraudulent or short-lived. If the Communion is committed to the Windsor and covenant vision of communion life and if the Communion is to keep wrestling with integrity in relation to its teaching and practice on sexuality then, despite the financial implications, it must now proceed in its common life without TEC.

    The nature of the Communion’s structures at present is such that effecting this distancing will require clear and decisive action by the Archbishop of Canterbury. At the very least he needs to make clear that bishops participating in the May consecration in Los Angeles will thereby exclude themselves from being invited by him to participate in the Instruments or to represent the Communion in any form.

    Unless he does this all that the Instruments have repeatedly said in relation to TEC’s conduct will be undermined. The sickness of TEC’s inability to say what it means and mean what it says to the rest of the Communion will then have infected the Instruments and will surely destroy the Communion. The fact the Presiding Bishop of TEC and Ian Douglas are on ‘The Standing Committee of the Anglican Communion’ (which according to the proposed covenant will have a crucial role in monitoring the covenant’s functioning) only highlights the need for decisive action if the Communion and the covenant are to retain any credibility.

    In fact, the situation is now such that it may be better for the Archbishop simply to state – as one of the Instruments and a focus and means of unity – that TEC as a body has rejected the Communion’s repeated appeals for restraint, made false promises, and confirmed its direction is away from Communion teaching and accountability. It has thereby rendered itself incapable of covenanting with other churches and made it unclear what it means when it claims to be in communion with the see of Canterbury and a constituent member of the Anglican Communion.

    Although decisive action is necessary, Archbishop Rowan’s limited powers within the Communion and his laudable desire to keep on going the extra mile to enable dialogue mean many think it unlikely. Some long ago gave up on him. Many, however, both within the Church of England and the wider Communion (particularly in the Global South which meets next month) have been patient and sought to work with him by supporting the Windsor and covenant processes. They need now to make clear that unless he gives a clear lead then all that he and others have worked for since the Windsor Report and all that is promised by the covenant is at risk because of the new situation in which TEC has placed us.

    Fulcrum Leadership Team

  12. Cennydd says:

    I really think it would be self-delusional of us to expect Rowan Cantuar to make any statement actually condemning TEC for their actions, given his track record thus far. He is a man of many words but no action, and thus far, his actions have been glaringly evident by their absence. He may issue a mild rebuke or two, but don’t expect him to do more than that.

  13. Cennydd says:

    I would dearly LOVE to have him prove me wrong, though. I won’t hold my breath.

  14. paradoxymoron says:

    Whoopee!
    1. The barn door should be closed.
    2. Only one person may close the barn door.
    3. Animals left in the barn should declare their intentions to stay in the barn.
    4. If the barn door is not closed, we are united in our belief that the barn door should be closed.

  15. Larry Morse says:

    5. Before the barn door is closed, there must be two committees, one to determine if in fact horses have been stolen or are missing from some other cause, if they are missing; and second, to determine who owns the barn and if that owner will be willing to have the barn door closed at some time in the future after the committees have reported to their bishops and the bishops have met in private session to examine whether the committees are to be recognized and by whom precisely. Recommendations must await the result of this deliberations. In the meantime, a moratorium is proposed on all horse stealing,. the rules for which will be established by a committee
    staffed by the owners of the barn. Larry