“The Standing Committee of the Anglican Communion has agreed that separating the Episcopal Church from the rest of the Anglican Communion “would inhibit dialogue and … would therefore be unhelpful,””
Unfortunately, for ECUSA, “dialogue” means that ECUSA speaks and the rest of the Anglican Communion ‘shuts up and listens’ and then ‘rubber stamps’ ECUSA’s innovations.
I believe this was cut off. it should have read: “..unhelpful to the process of convincing the benighted savages that make up 80% of the communion that the bible does not say what it says it says, and that the apostles didn’t say what they said that they said, and never really meant what they meant.”
Did those with attachment to or dependencies from TEC recuse themselves?
🙄
I did not think so.
This result could have been obtained directly from the secretariat of integrity. Of course the word ‘dialogue’ means the progressive revolution. Statements from unrepresentative and corrupt organizational relics simply memorialize waste and futility.
I think this problem originates int he 1960s. You see, many, many of those who wanted to avoid going to SE Asia in a military uniform used college/university as the means to do so. These people needed to chose a major and few new what life was about so they chose a Political Science major. These political science degree people could not get a job in real life so they went into politics (in government or church) and today we now see the effect that these cowards have on every part of society.
A small part of this opinion of mine comes from the fact that this “Indaba Process” is quite representative of what comes out of a political science class.
For any & all who like to see a tiny glimmer of hope in a dark sky –
I’m quite surprised that the ENS published this. I would have supposed that they would cast it aside with the excuse, “the resolution wasn’t carried.” I don’t see them preparing their flock to leave the Communion, and most of their reporting so far has tried to minimize “potential threats” to the Communion membership. I had guessed that this was to keep in those who still attach importance to the Communion.
This meeting is a travesty. It’s a travesty of a mockery of a sham of a mockery of a travesty of two mockeries of a sham. What’s more, there’s not a single homosexual on that committee.
(They’re all partnered!)
To my mind, the most revealing phrase in the ACNS report (not in the ENS version) was that “the overwhelming opinion” was that separation would inhibit dialogue. Stanley Isaacs is a very committed Global South Christian, who is also very committed to disciplining TEC. It appears he stands alone.
#10, he stands alone because 3 Archbishops have left the committee. Similarly, the reasserters in TEC stand alone because so many bishops and clergy have left. But I happen to believe that if there is only one left, God will find a way.
May I suggest you are all missing the main point? No one, not a single general synod of any church, has accepted the so-called “covenant.” This rump “steering committee” is operating as a governing body without a bit of legitimacy. As ++Nigeria has pointed out what it does to TEC it can do to others.
The motion regardless of whether you agree with it or not, was out of order — a clear violation of any snippet of legitimacy these people might claim. And it was not ruled out. In fact all they did was defer to study the financial impact of dropping TEC and one presumes eventually Canada into their presumed lake of fire. That was not theology it was raw power politics.
Jim, the synod of the Anglican Church of Mexico adopted the Covenant at their meeting in June. As far as I know they are the only church to have considered it so far.
I sit corrected. One province with no members in the junta/curia. Do the provinces that are “guilty” of “interventions” really want to put that much authority into Cantur’s hands?
The Anglican communion already has structures for ecumenical and interfaith dialogue. Let TEC separate from the Anglican communion and come back to chat as another faith group at one of those dialogue groups. This is the most honest course of action.
“The Standing Committee of the Anglican Communion has agreed that separating the Episcopal Church from the rest of the Anglican Communion “would inhibit dialogue and … would therefore be unhelpful,””
Unfortunately, for ECUSA, “dialogue” means that ECUSA speaks and the rest of the Anglican Communion ‘shuts up and listens’ and then ‘rubber stamps’ ECUSA’s innovations.
That has to be a typo. Surely they meant to write, ” would inhibit diatribe…”? 😉
Surprise, Surprise, Surprise! The AC is simply structurally incapable of disciplining TEC. 1 is absolutely correct.
I believe this was cut off. it should have read: “..unhelpful to the process of convincing the benighted savages that make up 80% of the communion that the bible does not say what it says it says, and that the apostles didn’t say what they said that they said, and never really meant what they meant.”
There. all fixed.
Did those with attachment to or dependencies from TEC recuse themselves?
🙄
I did not think so.
This result could have been obtained directly from the secretariat of integrity. Of course the word ‘dialogue’ means the progressive revolution. Statements from unrepresentative and corrupt organizational relics simply memorialize waste and futility.
I think this problem originates int he 1960s. You see, many, many of those who wanted to avoid going to SE Asia in a military uniform used college/university as the means to do so. These people needed to chose a major and few new what life was about so they chose a Political Science major. These political science degree people could not get a job in real life so they went into politics (in government or church) and today we now see the effect that these cowards have on every part of society.
A small part of this opinion of mine comes from the fact that this “Indaba Process” is quite representative of what comes out of a political science class.
Don
[blockquote]”and the group agreed to defer further discussion until progress on Continuing Indaba project had been considered,” [/blockquote]
ROTFLOL
For any & all who like to see a tiny glimmer of hope in a dark sky –
I’m quite surprised that the ENS published this. I would have supposed that they would cast it aside with the excuse, “the resolution wasn’t carried.” I don’t see them preparing their flock to leave the Communion, and most of their reporting so far has tried to minimize “potential threats” to the Communion membership. I had guessed that this was to keep in those who still attach importance to the Communion.
This meeting is a travesty. It’s a travesty of a mockery of a sham of a mockery of a travesty of two mockeries of a sham. What’s more, there’s not a single homosexual on that committee.
(They’re all partnered!)
To my mind, the most revealing phrase in the ACNS report (not in the ENS version) was that “the overwhelming opinion” was that separation would inhibit dialogue. Stanley Isaacs is a very committed Global South Christian, who is also very committed to disciplining TEC. It appears he stands alone.
#10, he stands alone because 3 Archbishops have left the committee. Similarly, the reasserters in TEC stand alone because so many bishops and clergy have left. But I happen to believe that if there is only one left, God will find a way.
I hope Global South Primates now view this meeting as I do, that is, entirely pointless and to be ignored.
All looking at the ordinariate and not seeing it as a lifeboat sent by God…..
Gak!
May I suggest you are all missing the main point? No one, not a single general synod of any church, has accepted the so-called “covenant.” This rump “steering committee” is operating as a governing body without a bit of legitimacy. As ++Nigeria has pointed out what it does to TEC it can do to others.
The motion regardless of whether you agree with it or not, was out of order — a clear violation of any snippet of legitimacy these people might claim. And it was not ruled out. In fact all they did was defer to study the financial impact of dropping TEC and one presumes eventually Canada into their presumed lake of fire. That was not theology it was raw power politics.
FWIW
jimB
[i] Slight edit by elf. [/i]
Jim, the synod of the Anglican Church of Mexico adopted the Covenant at their meeting in June. As far as I know they are the only church to have considered it so far.
FWIW The Anglican Church of Mexico has adopted the Covenant. http://www.anglicancommunion.org/acns/news.cfm/2010/6/30/ACNS4711
I sit corrected. One province with no members in the junta/curia. Do the provinces that are “guilty” of “interventions” really want to put that much authority into Cantur’s hands?
FWIW
jimB
Anybody calculated the carbon footprint for this foregone conclusion of the puppetmaster?
Looks like those South Sea Islands are gonna get it.
The Anglican communion already has structures for ecumenical and interfaith dialogue. Let TEC separate from the Anglican communion and come back to chat as another faith group at one of those dialogue groups. This is the most honest course of action.