“[A] notion invented . . . to suit the political needs of a dissatisfied minority.” Rather says it all, doesn’t it? The original fundamental principles on which the Church was founded in 1789, and then re-established in 1901, have now — in the eyes of Mr. Naughton and his ilk — become the concoctions of a minority — and not just any minority, but a dissatisfied minority. (Could that possibly be a case of self-reference?)
Diocesan autonomy is not, and could never be, an “invented notion”; it is inherent in the very concept expressed by the word “diocese.” Mr. [Jim] Naughton’s claim that he will never “embrace the notion of diocesan autonomy” is on a par with claiming that he “will never agree that grapefruits taste sour”, or that “mosquito bites itch.” The roots of “diocese” go back to the Greek dio, “thoroughly”, and oikos, “house”, the combination of which yielded the verb diaoikein, “to control, govern, manage a house,” and the noun diaoikesis, meaning “government, province, administration.” When borrowed for the administrative units of the early Church, the word kept its connotation of governmental autonomy, under a single bishop.
Sovereign, autonomous dioceses came to this country with the founding of Jamestown in 1607 and the holding of the first communion service using a log nailed between two trees as an altar. The “Diocese of Virginia” thereby established was soon followed by similar autonomous branches of the Church of England in New York, Connecticut, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Maryland and Delaware. It was those autonomous dioceses (without, at first, any bishops) which came together in 1785 to 1789 to assemble the framework of a national Church.
The leadership of TEC needs to make up their mind on whether they want autonomy or not, and then apply it consistently. They think that individual dioceses should be completely and totally under the control of the National Church (i.e. have no autonomy), but yet, as provinces in the Anglican Communion, TEC should be, not only autonomous, but completely independent. If autonomy is consistently applied, then orthodox dioceses should be free to go. If autonomy is consistently not applied, then TEC has to adhere to the clearly-stated theology of the Anglican Communion as contained in Lambeth 1.10. The only way to have their own theology and force the orthodox into staying is to have the autonomy stop at the National Church level. Sorry guys and gals, can’t have your cake and eat it too.
Reappraisers and facts are not now, nor ever have been, reconcilable. I just love that the oft cited “rule” about diocesan “intervention” (CanonII) is from the same set of canons and council that defrocked a bishop and declared all his ordinations void (Canon IV – see http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.ix.viii.iii.html). They lack nuance. I’d say they cherry-pick, but that could be regarded as sexist and non-inclusive of the “New Thang Gozpell” and its only truth, so I won’t.
If autonomy is consistently not applied, then TEC has to adhere to the clearly-stated theology of the Anglican Communion as contained in Lambeth 1.10. The only way to have their own theology and force the orthodox into staying is to have the autonomy stop at the National Church level. Sorry guys and gals, can’t have your cake and eat it too.
[url=http://www.bestuninstalltool.com] Best Uninstall Tool [/url]