Many voices have already been raised, denouncing the Bishops’ Statement as “non-compliance.” I disagree. I would characterize the decisions of the House of Bishops as being in partial compliance with what the Primates asked of us.
Unfortunately, the Bishops failed to even mention a third request from the Primates, that we put an end to the lawsuits that are being pressed in many Dioceses against congregations that are attempting to leave The Episcopal Church and yet retain “their” properties.
In our failure to do all that the Primates asked of us I was unable to vote for the Bishops’ Statement, but I was grateful to see a far higher level of concern for the unity of the Communion evident throughout our meeting than I have ever witnessed previously. Whether or not that level was high enough remains to be seen. Ultimately, of course, it is for the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Primates to make that call.
Well, when I say that my wife is not pregnant, I don’t mean that she is partially pregnant or capable of being pregnant….
C’mon John, you know better.
[blockquote]but I was grateful to see a far higher level of concern for the unity of the Communion evident throughout our meeting than I have ever witnessed previously. [/blockquote]
Considering that the previous level of concern consisted of upturned fingers, this is hardly a quantum leap in the expression of affection for the AC. The real question is, whaddya gonna do about it, Bishop?
“There is, however, an implicit acknowledgement that in some places private blessings are still being offered as part…”
Suppose the issue was one of the primates objecting to wiccan “blessings,” would the “implicit acknowledgement” by ECUSA’s bishops also be part of ‘the sense’ of the House of Bishops?
And, by the way, wiccan blessings are not a farfetched thing in ECUSA. Look at the husband-wife priests in the Diocese of PA and the publishing of a wiccan rite on ECUSA’s web page.
Howe quite incorrectly states that the third DeS request is to halt litigation. Halting litigation was an aside to the third request, admittedly an important one. The third request of DeS was the very specific APV scheme.
Howe is a former lawyer. I expect from him precise language. This makes the misrepresentation of the third request all the more troubling. He has been named as “visiting bishop” in the warmed over DEPO plan of KJS. I take by Howe’s manipulative language that he endorses and intends to participate in the sad distortion of the DeS scheme.
[i] Bishop Howard of Florida is a former lawyer, not Bishop Howe of Central Florida. [/i]
-Elf Lady
I thought the distinction being made was between approved Rites (the other side is very fond of that capital letter) and blessings using unapproved, ad hoc rites. If they really are drawing a distinction between public and private as Bp. Howe says, we have reached a new level of sophistry. In what sense is a blessing that is announced in the NYTimes “private”?
4. Robroy, +Howe is NOT a former lawyer. You’re thinking of +Howard in neighboring Diocese of FL, perhaps? Howe I believe went pretty much straight into the ministry. He was born in 1942, ordained in 1967 at age 25.
http://andromeda.rutgers.edu/~lcrew/bishops/0131.html