The Rev. Jim Simons of Pennsylvania asked whether provinces “engag[ing] in ”¦ jurisdictional incursions” will face any discipline. He said the Southern Cone and the Province of Rwanda are “functioning in [the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh] without licenses and laying claim to some of our parishes ”¦ in clear violation of the canons.”
Canon Kearon responded that the Province of the Southern Cone has received a letter relating to these matters and “there is a deadline to this response.” He added that questions related to breaches of the third moratorium of the Windsor Report, which calls for an end to interventions in other provinces, “[have not] been answered by any [instruments] of the Anglican Communion” and he “would like to see it on the agenda of the Anglican Communion.”
Later, the secretary general said he believed “the Southern Cone has breached [the third moratorium]” but refrained from making a similar statement about Rwanda. “What would it mean to be out of fellowship with Rwanda?” he asked.
“I don’t think [Canon Kearon’s] responses clarified matters,” the Rev. Canon Mark Harris told The Living Church.
Sarah Dylan Breuer of Massachusetts said she felt disappointed, particularly over “remov[ing] people from [ecumenical] conversation,” but added: “We have opportunities to get creative.”
Mark Harris did not hear clarifications. I wonder why not? This group only hears what it wants to hear.
As for ‘getting creative,’ where would one begin? This creativity has been at full throttle for some time, and it will now only ‘clarify’ itself all the way in the ‘new TEC’ of Exec Council making.
“Sarah Dylan Breuer of Massachusetts said she felt disappointed … but added: ‘We have opportunities to get creative.'”
‘Getting creative’ is TEC’s long suit. To paraphrase C. S. Lewis, via Screwtape, this is not an age in which we need to help TEC to be more creative.
I think that the high anxiety manifested by TEC officialdom is oriented, as anxiety always is, not so much toward the present as toward the future. They know that now there is a real chance of second-tier status becoming a reality. Hence they proclaim, “We are Anglicans, and nobody can take that away from us!”
But they realize that “full communion” may be a code phrase; it’s what Lutherans and Old Catholics have, after all. TEC could be ‘Anglican’ but organizationally second tier; and that reduced status would (a) turn off some more TEC members, whom TEC can’t afford to lose (without having more of its institutions fail); and (b) create additional incentive for a first-tier Anglican body to be recognized in the USA. Hence they’re personning the barricades and throwing everything but the kitchen sink into the breach.
Regarding (b): As I’ve said before, I can’t see how the archbishop of Canterbury can declare TEC unrepresentative but not at the same time say something to mainstream Anglicans in the USA who want to be affiliated with an Anglican (normatively speaking) ecclesial body.
[blockquote]“Do you sign on to … a punitive body of Christ?†she asked. “Are we now part of a punitive body of Christ?†[/blockquote]
I don’t think it’s an issue of being punitive, but of having some kind of definition or boundary. What do Anglicans believe? Is there enough congruence between what TEC says it believes and what it really believes as shown by its actions for it to continue to legitimately be defined as Anglican?
To put it another way, not everything that happens to me is the result of mean people doing things to me. Sometimes stuff happens as a direct consequence of my own actions.
Discipline and accountability is a one way street with these people. They also refuse to recognize that so called “border crossings” arose solely because of their actions, which the AC asked them not to take, and the total inaction on the part of the AC to protect the orthodox.
#3 There is simply no consistency. In the same session we have one person asserting that Southern Cone is behaving “against the canons” and action must be taken and another person implying that the church should never take any “punitive” action against anyone.
Spot on Brother Michael, you hit the nail squarely on the head.
I have been truly enjoying reading the HOB/D listserv that Louis Crew manages. All those commentators have been in a perfect tizzy over the ArchBishop’s recent decisions here. It’s truly amazing the level of faux outrage that something has actually happened.
#7. Archer_of_the_Forest
[blockquote]It’s truly amazing the level of faux outrage that something has actually happened.[/blockquote] I haven’t encountered this kind of angst and drama since I read “Rape of the Lock”.
#2. David Hein,
[blockquote]Hence they’re personning the barricades and throwing everything but the kitchen sink into the breach.[/blockquote] This reminds me of BP’s attempt to plug the leak. Same results.
No. 9: Yes, except that I have confidence that BP will eventually– slowly but surely–stop their leak.
Nos 3 & 4. “Are we now part of a punitive body of Christ?†[i]The[/i] question is just this: did you [i]really[/i] think you might act the way you have and to continue so acting, with impunity?!
[block]“Do you sign on to … a punitive body of Christ?..Are we now part of a punitive body of Christ?â€[/block]
Of all the low-hanging fruit EC provided for us this week (along with HRH Jefferts Schori’s petulant ecclesiastical tempertantrum in Southwark last Sunday), I found this to be the richest. Thus, I’m absolutely [b]shocked[/b] that no one has thrown this question back to them, vis-a-vis the countless depositions, lawsuits and voluntary (wink-wink) renunciations of vows since KJS ushered in a time of “shalom†(and a chicken in every pot) at her enthronement.