The Communiqué
CAPA Primates’ Meeting in Mauritius
5th October 2007
We, the Primates of the Council of Anglican Provinces of Africa (CAPA) meeting 3rd to 5th October in Mauritius, Province of the Indian Ocean, issue this Communiqué from our meeting:
Grace and peace to you from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ our one and only Saviour.
1. We have been greatly encouraged by our time together with the CAPA Council that has just completed its General Meeting. A separate Communiqué has been issued from these proceedings and we give thanks to God for the dedication of each of the delegates and the many signs of God’s blessing throughout our various provinces.
2. At the conclusion of that meeting we conducted elections for the CAPA leadership team and are pleased to announce that the Most Rev’d Ian Ernest, Bishop of Mauritius and Archbishop of the Province of the Indian Ocean was elected to serve as Chairman with the Most Rev’d Emmanuel Kolini, Bishop of the Diocese of Kigali and Archbishop of the Episcopal Church of Rwanda, elected to serve as Vice-Chairman. We are grateful for their courageous leadership and look forward to the work of CAPA going from strength to strength.
3. We are, however, aware that we live and serve within the context of the wider Anglican Communion and acknowledge that we are profoundly concerned by the current impasse that confronts us. We have spent the last ten years in a series of meetings, issuing numerous communiqués, setting deadlines and yet we have made little progress. As was clearly articulated by our brother bishop, the Most Rev’d Mouneer Anis, Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal/Anglican Province of Jerusalem and the Middle East when he addressed the House of Bishops of The Episcopal Church (TEC), “we want unity but not unity at any expense.” We have observed that his call for clarity in response to the Dar es Salaam recommendations and his appeal to them to turn back from their current path or acknowledge that TEC has chosen to walk a different way from the rest of the Anglican Communion was ignored. We believe, therefore, that a change of direction from our current trajectory is urgently needed.
4. While meeting in Mauritius we received a copy of the report of the Joint Standing Committee (JSC) of the Primates and the Anglican Consultative Council. On first reading we find it to be unsatisfactory. The assurances made are without credibility and its preparation is severely compromised by numerous conflicts of interest. The report itself appears to be a determined effort to find a way for the full inclusion of The Episcopal Church with no attempt at discipline or change from their prior position.
5. We are convinced that what is at stake in this crisis is the very nature of Anglicanism ”“ to understand it simply in terms of the need for greater inclusivity in the face of changing sexual ethics is a grave mistake. It is not just about sexuality but also about the nature of Christ, the truth of the Gospel and the authority of the Bible. We see a trend that seems to ignore the careful balance of reformed catholicity and missionary endeavor that is our true heritage and replace it with a religion of cultural conformity that offers no transforming power and no eternal hope.
6. In our considered opinion, however, there is a possible way forward. The Anglican Communion Covenant is the one way for us to uphold our common heritage of faith while at the same time holding each one of us accountable to those teachings that have defined our life together and also guide us into the future. We therefore propose the following actions:
a. Call a special session of the Primates Meeting. We believe that meeting together is essential if we are prayerfully to allow the Holy Spirit to work through our interactions and bring us to a common mind. We would need to:
i. Review the actual response made by The Episcopal Church ”“ both their words and their actions.
ii. Finalize the Covenant proposal and set a timetable for ratification by individual provinces.
b. Postpone current plans for the Lambeth Conference. We recognize that such an action will be costly, however, we believe that the alternative ”“ a divided conference with several provinces unable to participate and hundreds of bishops absent would be much more costly to our life and witness. It would bring an end to the Communion, as we know it. Postponement will accomplish the following:
i. Allow the current tensions to subside and leave room for the hard work of reconciliation that must be done.
ii. Ensure that those invited to the Lambeth Conference have already endorsed the Covenant and so can come together as witness to our common faith.
7. We make these proposals in good faith believing that they provide an opportunity for us to reunite the Communion consistent with our common heritage and give us a way forward. We also stand ready to work with the various instruments of the Communion to ensure their success.
8. We are very much aware of the plight of faithful Anglicans in North America during these difficult times. We assure them of our prayers, support and full recognition until the underlying concerns are fully resolved.
9. While these current difficulties are challenging for all concerned we do not lose heart because we know that the One we serve is faithful. During our time together we have heard numerous testimonies of God’s faithfulness in the face of enormous difficulties and we are confident that we will find a way forward that will bring honour to His Name.
10. We recognize the fellowship and participation of the following Archbishops who have announced their retirement: the Most Rev’d Bernard Malango, The Church of the Province of Central Africa, the Most Rev’d Most Rev’d Njongonkulu Ndungane, Anglican Church of Southern Africa, the Most Rev’d Donald Mtetemela, Anglican Church of Tanzania. We also give thanks to God for the dedicated leadership of our outgoing chairman, the Most Rev’d Peter J. Akinola, Church of Nigeria (Anglican Communion).
11. Finally, we acknowledge with grateful thanksgiving the hospitality of the Most Rev’d Ian Ernest and the opportunity to pay courtesy calls on the President of the Republic of Mauritius, Sir Aneerood Jugnauth, and the Prime Minister, the Honourable Dr Navinchandra Ramgoolam.
To Him who is able to keep you from falling and to present you before his glorious presence without fault and with great joy ”” to the only God our Savior be glory, majesty, power and authority, through Jesus Christ our Lord, before all ages, now and forevermore! Amen
What clear headed, Spirit-filled thinkers! May ++Rowan Williams take what they say to heart and act upon it soon before the Anglican Communion becomes even more shattered.
Add this to the ACI statement. Certainly the tidal wave that the HOB and ACO hoped to create with respect to the HOB statement isn’t working. First the mainstream media refused to buy it (thank you Bp. Bruno, for your disingenuousness that prompted their skepticism). Then the ACI. And now–although no surprise–CAPA piles on. Certainly Lambeth would be folly now. And some of the strongest language here is the line that going forward with Lambeth would “bring and end to the Communion, as we know it.” Certainly the ABC has to take note.
They do not appear to be backing down.
There is no way Lambeth 2008 will now be cancelled. It will go ahead and ‘The Road to Lambeth’ bluff will be called.
“While meeting in Mauritius we received a copy of the report of the Joint Standing Committee (JSC) of the Primates and the Anglican Consultative Council. On first reading we find it to be unsatisfactory.”
“On first treading…” – that’s what’s known as a get-out clause.
“We are very much aware of the plight of faithful Anglicans in North America during these difficult times. We assure them of our prayers, support and full recognition until the underlying concerns are fully resolved.”
Very interesting for Common Cause partners – recognition will be withdrawn at some point (when the ‘underlying concerns’ have been resolved). I thought CC was going to ‘replace’ TEC?
This sounds very much like a version of “Lead, follow or get out of the way.”
It’s harsh sounding, yes, but leadership is never tea and cupcakes.
I don’t think Lambeth will be postponed. I think that only because that by his actions, ++Rowan has consistently sided with TEC in their innovations.
It’s a wonderful statement and i do pray that it is heeded.
“8. We are very much aware of the plight of faithful Anglicans in North America during these difficult times. We assure them of our prayers, support and full recognition until the underlying concerns are fully resolved.
9. While these current difficulties are challenging for all concerned we do not lose heart because we know that the One we serve is faithful. During our time together we have heard numerous testimonies of God’s faithfulness in the face of enormous difficulties and we are confident that we will find a way forward that will bring honour to His Name.”
===================================================
Well crafted language!
especially
“We assure them of our prayers, support and full recognition until the underlying concerns are fully resolved.”
which tells me that CAPA will episcopally support the oppressed orthodox Anglicans in North America.
“Fully, resolved ” can mean an orthodox ‘stand-alone’ episcopal entity for North America, if ECUSA refuses to provide the opportunity for orthodox episcopal oversight, independent of KJS, for the orthodox Anglicans within ECUSA. Likewise for the Church of Canada.
CAPA is drawing a deeper and deeper ‘line in the sand’ while ECUSA is ‘burying its head in the sand.’
“It would bring an end to the Communion, as we know it.”
Yes, it would. Stark words.
Can anyone tell me why the Archbishop of York flew all the way to particpate in this meeting? What did he say and how did he participate? Anyone know?
Re #6: If you regularly read reappraiser blogs, you would see that they think “that by his actions, ++Rowan has consistently sided against TEC and its progressiveness.” That suggests to me that he is walking down the middle. The Archbishop clearly does not see it as his role to take sides in public at this time in a dispute which has a dozen or so provinces each on the left, right, and center. He thinks that aligning at this point with one side will drive the other side and part of the center out of the Communion. Unlike most people in either Common Cause or Integrity, he does not see that as desirable.
So, Abp. Rowan is trying behind the scenes and through emissaries to craft a settlement that will preserve the maximum level of communion possible between the maximum number of provinces and that will avoid propagating the dispute in North America to the internal life of any other provinces (especially England).
That may not be possible. That is certainly the conclusion both of reasserters who want him to follow the CAPA line and expel the Western provinces and of reappraisers who want him to follow the TEC line and allow unlimited toleration that will force the departure of the Global South provinces. Every day that goes by hardens the positions of all sides–not just reappraisers and reasserters, but even centrists. The 9 other signers of the JSC report, aside from the PB, are not likely to back down from their mediating position just because they are being shellacked from both directions. We may be reaching a point when the majority of provinces would be willing to accept the departure of both TEC and Nigeria if that is what it takes to preserve peace in the remaining Communion.
I doubt that would work, incidentally. The militant reappraisers, like the militant reasserters, follow an ardently missionary faith that would seek converts worldwide. England (the key player for historical reasons) has bishops from both factions that would countenance the actions of the missionaries in reproducing the North American schism on British soil… and everywhere else in the world where the local province cannot call for assistance from an authoritarian government (hence no problem in Rwanda or Singapore).
I have thought for years that the last best hope is to craft a “two integrities” solution with reasserter and reappraiser entities operating side by side in the same geographic territory, in impaired communion with one another but both retaining a connection with other provinces in the Communion, to the maximum extent consistent with principle. That’s why the Archbishop, the Windsor Report, the Consultative Council, and probably a majority of the Primates have been focusing on the Covenant and alternative oversight for American reasserters over the sexuality issue as such.
The cat may be irretrievably out of the bag. I still think is is worth putting out some cream before calling out the exterminators. I suspect the Archbishop of Canterbury agrees.
RE: “Very interesting for Common Cause partners – recognition will be withdrawn at some point (when the ‘underlying concerns’ have been resolved). I thought CC was going to ‘replace’ TEC?”
Yes — I’m sure that they are quaking in their boots . . . [roll eyes] . . . especially as this statement tracks with the Utterly Stamped-Upon-By-ECUSA Dar communique which also said the same thing, which incidentally the seemingly departing dioceses also fervently agreed with.
I keep seeing high praise for the ACI and little positive about Comon Cause. The ACI has produced a wonderful analysis and statement about the present situation. The problem is that these bishops are the ones who did not speak against the HOB statement in NOLA. A week or so afterwards they make this statement and are hailed as wise and courageous. They have shown that they can not or will not lead. We do not need more analysis. TEC is finished and anyone clinging to it will only join in the morbidity.
CAPA has made it clear that TEC’s actions have set it apart from the Faith and the communion. The support and recognition they pledge is not to those who can make profound statements while failing to act upon their convictions.
Common Cause has made the statement, and taken action. It is measured, thoughtful, visionary and orthodox. The CAPA statement, in my reading, when combined with the actions of CCP are the harbingers of a restoration of a faithful, orthodox presence in the
U. S.
[i]Yes—I’m sure that they are quaking in their boots…[/i]
CC et al are so set on schism that they will NEVER return to TEC, even if the entire Communion gives it a ‘clean bill of health’ and their overseas partners tell them to.
The CAPA primates call for an urgent Primates meeting to “finalize the covenant proposal and set a timetable for ratification by the individual provinces.” Yet, the Draft Covenant is no more than that, a draft; the intention is to have the draft discussed within each province. It will be one of the major topics of discussion at Lambeth 2008 (which I agree with take place–the ABC will not be stampeded out of it). It is not a finished product. We are only at any early stage of the process, and several provinces or primates have already expressed reservations about the draft or even of the advisability of having a covenant. This CAPA primates’ request is a non-starter.
The rest of the criticism , of the HOB statement and the JSC communique, not to speak of the stuff about biblical faithfulness, etc., and the message that some will continue to cross boundaries, contains no surprises and are consistent with previous statements.
I respect that the CAPA primates said all of this in a communique separate from the Meeting statement, which is as it should have been. They are giving a primates’ response as a GS group.
Mick, the “Communion” acting through whatever media you are envisioning, may give the TEC a “clean bill of health”, but the fact would remain that the TEC is post-Christian and heading down the non-theistic path previsouly blazed by the unitarians, though I bet they keep the bells and smells for the couple hundred thousand adherents they have left 20 years from now…
13:
How on earth will TEC receive a clean bill of health without undergoing treatment for the cancer that has possessed it?
Re #14: The CAPA Primates seem to want a Covenant that would eliminate local autonomy in favor of giving an outside body (probably the Primates) authority to settle disputes. They want every province invited to Lambeth to ratify such an undertaking in advance. Given that the Church of Nigeria (Anglican Communion) recently amended its Constitution specifically to eliminate references to outside authority in favor of local autonomy, how many of the CAPA provinces are really going to be willing to surrender their independence when it comes down to signing the dotted line?
Mick #5,
I do not think CAPA will consider things “fully resolved” until all their parishes are taken care of, and I see this in two scenarios. First, if TEC, by some miracle, fully repents, there will have to conditions in which parishes who have left are received back into TEC. Chances are extremely remote of this happening, but it would have to be part of the reconciliation efforts. Second, if TEC did not repent, then the Common Cause would ultimately have to become an Anglican province in America with its own Primate. Then they would be taken care of.
I would be careful not to read this statement as an indicator that CAPA would leave the Common Cause hanging out to dry. These primates have been solid in their leadership and I do not believe they would do that.
#15 & 16 – I rest my case. You claim the ‘mind of the Communion’ when it suits you.
Re – CAPA on the Covenant:
“ii. Finalize the Covenant proposal and set a timetable for ratification by individual provinces.â€
My reasons, unease (and displeasure) with placing a lot of hope on the Covenant as the solution to this crisis are:
1. We know that TEc does NOT think and act as Gentlemen (and Ladies), as far as entering into and keeping to agreements and understanding are concerned;
2. TEc does not have the integrity even of a used-car salesman in her dealings within and without;
3. TEc will sign on to anything, as long such steps keep her in the Communion, even as she does whatsoever pleaseth her;
4. Anything that brings more delaying and more talking (so long as TEc continues doing her thing) fits perfectly with TEc game plan of thumbing her apostate nose at the Communion and the entire Christian world; and
5. Worst of all, and most troubling, is the fact that TEc neither has, nor uses Christian principles and ideals in her words, thoughts, and deeds.
I am afraid, but not totally without hope, that most of us may never see the resolution of this crisis in our own lifetime. BUT, not to worry, God is still on the throne, and all is well.
The faithful will NEVER give up. We will continue to pray and to use all that is fair, honest, and true as we fight and struggle against the Evil One manifesting in the form of demanding for the right to engage in and to bless that which the Lord clearly says is abhorrent and despicable.
Meanwhile, we MUST continue to push for the CCP as the alternative (better still, the legitimate) North American Anglican body that is faithful to the Gospel and the Orthodox Christian doctrine.
Fr. Kingsley +
Arlington, TX
#12 writes: “I keep seeing high praise for the ACI and little positive about Comon Cause. The ACI has produced a wonderful analysis and statement about the present situation. The problem is that these bishops are the ones who did not speak against the HOB statement in NOLA.’
I don’t understand this statement. ACI has some wonderful features, especially as pertains to their theological work. But they have consistently been a disappointment in terms of on the ground work. They have argued again and again for discipline in the context of a system whose head will not exercize it.
In New Orleans, the Windsor Bishops collapsed. That is a real shame for the ACI.
As for Common Cause, it, too, has multiple problems. Peter Toon, to give one example, has explained many of these, not the least of which is how in the world there will be any real unity in a group that diverse.
Incidentally, you left out something important, the Network (ACN). What gives with that these days?
#13, the so set on schism line is very old and does not work. South Carolina did not have two elections because they were set on schism. There are a lot of people working hard against a system that is determined to pressure them to such an extent that someone as careful as Bishop Salmon used the word “oppression” to describe what they are experiencing.
Where is the documentation for the Archbishop of York’s presence in the CAPA meeting in Mauritus mentioned in #9 please?
I find myself agreeing with most of Dale Rye’s comments (#10) and especially his dismissal that ++Rowan always takes the side of TEC. As a re-asserter who still believes in and supports the leadership of the ABC, I think the best way forward is a Lambeth focused on the Anglican Covenant. I think we all owe the Communion, World Christianity and the world, this attempt at passing on Anglican Christianity. And this recommendation comes from someone who has first hand knowledge of the shenanigans of the TEC bishops.
#22 No offence, but schism often just seems to be ‘the American way’ to the outside world, and is just accepted. Have you actually counted how many thousands of denominations there are now in the US? No other country in the world has that number of denominations per head of population. The logic often seems to be – Don’t like the way your Church is going? Thar’s all right, we’ll just start a new one. Which is why CCP will eventually split too – be it over women, liturgy, authority, egos, whatever. The history of the Church shows that heresy, if it is indeed heresy, quickly burns itself out. Schism creates a wound that takes decades/centuries to heal.
I believe that Lambeth should a forum for discussing and agreeing to a covenant, but, it must be a forum for all bishops who have a right to be called Anglican bishops.
Also, I agree with the CAPA bishops, that Lambeth should be delayed, posibly for a year or two. Holding Lambeth now can have predictably disastrous results for the Anglican Communion.
Holding Lambeth, while orthodox Anglicans in North America are being oppressed by the revisionists is dangerous for the Anglican Communion. This situation of revisionist oppression is polarizing the Communion. Until some sort of immediate resolution of that oppression can be achieved, the polarization will continue.
Lambeth with polarized provinces attending will at best be a stalemate and at worst a total disaster.
#23, here:
“But maybe John Sentamu can bring some resolution. He is in Mauritius, for one night only, talking to CAPA.”
http://timescolumns.typepad.com/gledhill/2007/10/tec-gone-far-en.html#more
[blockquote] The history of the Church shows that heresy, if it is indeed heresy, quickly burns itself out. [/blockquote]
Oh, so Mormonism, the Watchtower Society, the Unification Church, etc., must be heresy free by now, correct?
Dale Rye spoke of the shellacking of the signers of JSC report from both sides. I have only seen applause from the left.
28″Oh, so Mormonism, the Watchtower Society, the Unification Church, etc., must be heresy free by now, correct?”
Within the Church Catholic. Since when did they ever constitute part of the Church Catholic?
Bp Pierre Whalon (Europe) says it well:
[i]”No, heresy dies out. Schisms last for centuries. Heresy invites its own reversal by awakening a dynamic orthodoxy. Schism freezes doctrine, interferes with its healthy development. Heretics after all passionately want to improve the church’s teaching. Their passion ignites a new passion in the church. Schism only provokes the passion of hatred, and its concomitant, war.
I reiterate, schism is always worse than heresy. For heresy is about doctrine – credo ut intelligam – while schism is about abandoning the commandment to love one another as Christ has loved us.[/i]
[blockquote] Within the Church Catholic. Since when did they ever constitute part of the Church Catholic?
Bp Pierre Whalon (Europe) says it well: “No, heresy dies out. Schisms last for centuries. Heresy invites its own reversal by awakening a dynamic orthodoxy…”
[/blockquote]
Ummmm… so why do we still have Protestants?
ACI is a think tank. AAC is a political action committee. I would prefer an average of the two, both in operating style and in spirit of content, and then I would feel represented.
Re: 25
Mick,
I think the history of schism is really one that is not restricted to the United States. It is simply most obvious here. Rather, it is generally a phenomenon that I think can be fairly associated with Western Christianity in general. The United States has been around for just over two centuries. The problems with the perpetual schisms can be traced to the Protestant Reformation and even before that.
With the possible exception of the Old Believers of Russia there has not been a single serious schism in the Orthodox Church over doctrine since Rome went her way at th end of the first millennium. Not saying the east has not had schisms, but they have not been over doctrine. To say that doctrinally based schism is an American phenomenon is simply to ignore almost the entire history of Western Christianity over the last thousand years.
There are many factors including vastly improved means of communication and information sharing which have made this situation among American Protestants more pronounced than in earlier times. But the fact remains schism is not the “American Way.” It is the “Western Way.” I am often perplexed by the tunnel vision among so many who see schism only in the context of the immediate situation or most recent crisis rather than looking for the roots of the problem. Does anyone wonder why Western Christianity has been in a constant and increasing state of fragmentation for the last thousand years?
Sorry, Mick, but it doesn’t wash, even if it came from the mouth of Bishop Whalon, who happens to be a TEC company man. (By the way, didn’t he make a couple of runs at Bishop before he got his current gig?)
I confess to being a little puzzled by CAPA’s insistence on the Covenant as the solution to the issues at hand. For one thing, “[f]inaliz[ing] the Covenant proposal and set[ting] a timetable for ratification by individual provinces” will push things down the road at least a few years, until all the provinces have had a chance to ratify the Covenant at their various conventions, synods, or whatever. It wouldn’t come up in TEC until 2009, just for starters. And this assumes that every province is willing to give a straight up-or-down vote on the Covenant, instead of doing the Anglican thing and arguing about wording.
And even if the Covenant is ratified in something like its present form, then what? The section on disputes (I’m looking at the text here) says:
So if we wake up one morning and discover that the Covenant has magically come into force overnight, then we have to decide if TEC has “[chosen] not to fulfil the substance of the Covenant,” which requires a decision by “the Councils of the Instruments of Communion” — so the Primates, the ACC, Lambeth, and perhaps the ABC all have to agree that this is the case. That takes at least until the next Lambeth meeting, which could be up to ten years away depending on when this happens.
And assuming that the decision is that TEC has indeed chosen not to “fulfil the substance of the Covenant,” then it will be considered to have “relinquished for themselves the force and meaning of the covenant’s purpose.” What exactly does that mean? That TEC is no longer a member of the Communion? That it’s in some kind of second-tier membership in the Communion?
Does it mean that some other organization — hypothetically, it’s initials might be “CCP” — is eligible to take TEC’s place in the Communion? The Covenant gives no hint that such a thing is possible.
In any case, the response called for by the Covenant to such a “relinquishing of the force and meaning” is a “process of restoration and renewal” for the wayward province. Setting aside the question of who decides what the process is or what its exit criteria are, the Covenant doesn’t address what happens while the process is going on or what happens if it never ends.
So, I don’t see where the Covenant — at least, the draft Covenant currently on the table — is actually going to do what CAPA or the reasserters seem to want it to do, i.e., provide a way of resolving these issues that’s materially different than what we have now. As I read the Covenant, all it points to down this road is more meetings and more processes; and that’s pretty much exactly what we’ve been doing for the last four years.
The Covenant may be the only way to save the Anglican Communion, yet with the belief system of our Primate and a few others, which is contrary to that held by most of the Primates, Lambeth may be more like the “Shoot out at OK Coral†than group of Christians seeking the Will of the Lord.
+++Rowan, must wake up to the mess he is letting us slide into. Something will occur to fill the vacuum that +++Rown is creating. Whatever it is, I fear will drive us apart even before Lambeth.
Mark 13:12-13Â (New King James Version)
12 Now brother will betray brother to death, and a father his child; and children will rise up against parents and cause them to be put to death.
13 And you will be hated by all for My name’s sake. But he who endures to the end shall be saved.
#23, 27
Or here:
http://new.kendallharmon.net/wp-content/uploads/index.php/t19/article/6660/#more
Note the striking difference of deference in this statement with the ACI with regards to the JSC (sorry, couldn’t resist the alliteration).
[blockquote]On first reading we find it to be unsatisfactory. The assurances made are without credibility and its preparation is severely compromised by numerous conflicts of interest. The report itself appears to be a determined effort to find a way for the full inclusion of The Episcopal Church with no attempt at discipline or change from their prior position.[/blockquote]
This contrasts markedly to the deference given by the ACI statement, which is by far the most troubling aspect. The JSC report brought its credibility to new lows when it clumsily excluded the opinion of critic and member ABp Anis and failed to recuse Schori from its assessment. Despite this outrageous behavior, the ACI calls on the continued JSC participation in the assessment of the HoB “Response”:
[blockquote]Unless those entrusted with oversight in the Communion are somehow enabled to discern the mind of Christ together, preferably through a gathering of the Primates [b]with the Joint Standing Committee[/b], there is now an even greater danger than before that this particular crossroads may lead to a large number of quite different paths being taken by provinces, dioceses and parishes.[/blockquote]
No. The primates made the DeS requests. The primates alone must judge the sufficiency of the response.
Mark Harris over at PRELUDIUM has noted that the CAPA Primate’s Communique has language listed right out of the Sept. 13 statement of the HOB of Nigeria: details at http://anglicanfuture.blogspot.com/. He notes that the CAPA statement says nothing about Windsor Report or Dromantine or DES communiques. If you compare the two statements carefully, CAPA has upped the ante. Watch out for another trap, +++Rowan.
[url=http://new.kendallharmon.net/wp-content/uploads/index.php/t19/article/6622/ ]Stephen Noll[/url] also [i]upped the ante[/i]. He called for the Episcopal Church to acknowledge and act according to the standard teaching (Lambeth 1.10) of the Anglican Communion. How shocking! How outrageous! Watch out, Rowan, indeed.
Re #38: You may want a coup d’eglise in which the Primates take over sole responsibility for the Communion and all other clergy and laity (whose only representative is the ACC) are systematically excluded. That does not match up with 150 years of Lambeth statements that Anglicans are led by bishops but synodically governed by representatives of all the People of God. If you want exclusive governance by bishops, you may be happier with the Bishop of Rome than in the Anglican Communion.
Both Bishop Duncan (ACN & CC) and Integrity have used the word “reformation” to describe what they believe is happening…each from their respective organizations. It might be helpful to remember that Luther never wanted schism…only to bring the church back to Holy Scriptures and to Christ. Also, it took approximately 200 years for the Reformation to be fully realized. – – – Just something to ponder.
#41: The ACC is less than forty years old. It has been compromised by many blatant distortions by Canon Kearon that he flung out while the ABC was on sabbatical. The sad line that, “oh, it has lay representatives”, is brought out to overlook its overwhelming faults. The primates still have credibility.
The primates asked. The primates must judge the response.
#42 Are you implying equivalency?
Re 42: “…it took approximately 200 years for the Reformation to be fully realized…”
I have heard the rather convincing argument made that the reformation was never truly realized, in that it did not substantially impact the polity of the Western Roman Church, nor its stand. Apologists for the Reformation claim certain influences into Roman changes over time – but effectively, the Reformation was a failure from a Church Universal perspective because it led to the fracturing of an already split Christendom. And worse the fracturing continues to this day, proceeding now from the denominations into non-denominational churches.