(Sunday Business Post) Anglican meeting to go ahead despite Conscientious Objectors Not Being Presen

There are no plans to cancel the meeting of Anglican Church leaders in Dublin this month, despite a boycott by up to a quarter of the primates, a senior Anglican has confirmed.

Up to ten of the leaders of the Anglican Communion’s 38 provinces have said they won’t attend the biennial meeting because of the presence of Katharine Jefferts-Schori, the presiding bishop of the Episcopalian Church of the United States and a supporter of gay bishops and same-sex marriage.

Read it all.


Posted in * Anglican - Episcopal, * International News & Commentary, Anglican Primates, Archbishop of Canterbury, Archbishop of York John Sentamu, England / UK, Ireland

19 comments on “(Sunday Business Post) Anglican meeting to go ahead despite Conscientious Objectors Not Being Presen

  1. ptuisd says:

    If you want to spend the cold winter safely, you must pay attention to warmth and appropriate exercise. We have come from Australia’s [url=http://www.uggsaustralia-outlet.com]Ugg boots outlet[/url], warm and [url=http://www.discount-moncler-jacket.com]discount moncler jackets[/url], stylish and [url=http://www.cheapchristianlouboutin.cc]cheap christian shoes[/url], sports health and [url=http://www.mbtsource.com]Cheap Mbt Shoes[/url], diverse [url=http://www.vibramfivefingers-it.com]vibram five fingers bikila[/url], real [url=http://www.authentic-nfljerseys.com]authentic nfl jerseys[/url]. We can meet all your needs.

  2. Ralph says:

    Along the same lines, I personally think that all of the primates must attend (having seen their doctor about any Low T issues before coming), man up, and confront KJS (and her supporters) openly and directly. (Jesus gives us a good example in the cleansing of the temple.) This is about heresy, plain and simple. The Boston homosexual wedding, with a diocesan bishop presiding, is yet another defiant action that demands a definitive response. Heresy can not be ignored. May God strengthen their resolve and guide them in their actions. This is not a time for more indaba, gentlemen.

    As for KJS, since the meeting is about her, it would be wrong for her not to be there to face the music.

    [i] Slightly edited by elf. [/i].

  3. Sarah says:

    Right — and once the actual non-moderate Primates have “confronted” her — then . . . there can be a brief moment of silence, and then they can all get about the business of the Communion.

    ; > )

    I mean — seriously? You think Yet Another Primates Meeting Confrontation is going to get anywhere?

    Why keep doing the same thing over and over and over? Why? What profit does it bring?

    No — I’ll be thankful — and shocked — if there’s 10 Primates who absent themselves. And I’ll pray for more than that for the *next* Primates Meeting.

    We need *more* Primates to cease playing RW’s game of “let’s all get together and demonstrate to the world that all is well as we indaba together.”

  4. tjmcmahon says:

    KJS faced the music at Dar. She lost. RW refused to carry out the provisions decided at Dar, and has refused since to put any confrontation or decision on the agenda for any subsequent meeting. There will be no music in Dublin, just worthless, false indaba. What would be the point in attending? The agenda is set by RW and the Standing Committee. The Standing Committee has already determined, in an 8-2 vote (at their last session, you can check the press at the time), that there is to be no consequence for TEC as a result of Glasspool. I am sure they can take another 8-2 (probably now 9-2 or 10-2, or 10-1, given their new self appointments) vote to approve what happened in Massachusetts, prior to the primates meeting. In any case, if the Anglican Communion remains a Christian Church, there is no need for all the primates to be there. The vote against TEC and the ACoC should still be 26-2. Of course, it won’t be, but there we have it. And even if such a vote took place (it won’t- no more voting in primates meetings, all their responsibilities have been given by RW to the Standing Committee), RW would no more enforce the decision than he did the “unanimous” decision at Dar.

  5. Ralph says:

    Sarah writes (from her snowbound city), “Why keep doing the same thing over and over and over?” Well, because that’s how the progressives have gotten where they are now. The operant phrase is “Never give up.” It works. Eventually.

    tjmcmahon: Yes, Dar was a beginning. It needs to continue, to be repeated. Although RW and the Standing Committee set the agenda, that does NOT mean that the primates have to agree with it, or follow it. What’s RW going to do if conservatives take over the meeting? Call the police? How much pressure can the conservatives put on him? A lot, I think.

    Silence is affirmation. The conservative primates need to regain control, An Inch at a Time.

  6. Bookworm(God keep Snarkster) says:

    “Traditional Anglicans are predicting that a quarter of the primates won’t show up in Dublin, and that another dozen conservatives who do attend ‘‘will have a truly eye-opening time’’.”

    “Eye-opening time”? In that their opinions won’t matter?

    It’s not hard to figure out where ++RW has driven this agenda-bus. I find his behavior appalling, because it flies in the face of traditional Christianity, and with all that intellect it’s not like he doesn’t know that. And he does not seem to care.

  7. David+ says:

    In short, why attend a meeting where, no matter what is decided, the chairman (Rowan Williams) is going to do what he wants anyway? I agree with many of the Primates who have decided not to spend their time and money to attend meetings that get you nowhere. Now, maybe if Her Majesty would appoint another Archbisop of Canterbury……

  8. robroy says:

    Indaba is a losing game. The way to win is to undermine the liberals. They are already dying in terms of numbers. In hindsight, the “cross border” interventions are exactly what needs to happen. And they need to happen in Great Britain, too. Only then, will Rowan stop kicking the can. The battle must be taken to England’s shores! (Comm-con heads popping.)

  9. Ralph says:

    From the catechism, BCP 1979:
    [blockquote]Holy Matrimony is Christian marriage, in which the
    woman and man enter into a life-long union, make their vows before God and the Church, and receive the grace and blessing of God to help them fulfill their vows.[/blockquote]

    The Bishop of Massachusetts has redefined the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony for his diocese. In US polity, a diocesan bishop is a prince of a principality. The national TEC and its general convention (for the moment, anyway) have no real authority over what a diocesan bishop does, the fundamental assumption being that a diocesan bishop is a righteous man. US polity has shown time and time again that it has no effective mechanism for dealing with heretical bishops.

    If one believes that homosexual sex is mutually defiling, then this redefinition of Holy Matrimony has the potential to interfere with salvation. Thus, it is outright heresy.

    If the other bishops of the Anglican Communion remain silent on this, I would take such silence as assent. (I would hate to hear, once again, that it’s apathy.) The Archbishop of Canterbury is not a pope. He can set all the agendas he wants, he can ignore what he chooses to ignore – but his fellow primates are under NO obligation to agree with him. They must take a stand, again and again. This can either be via the Anglican Communion, or via GAFCON.

    The primates, and the other bishops, have a moral obligation (with a strong Biblical basis) to denounce heresy as it emerges in the Anglican Communion. For them not to do this endangers their own salvation.

    I also think that the living Patriarchs, even if they don’t recognize the validity of Anglican orders, should weigh in on the Boston matter.

  10. Ad Orientem says:

    [blockquote] I also think that the living Patriarchs, even if they don’t recognize the validity of Anglican orders, should weigh in on the Boston matter. [/blockquote]

    These and other issues have been addressed by the apostolic churches before. I am not sure what good any additional commentary would do. A number of the Orthodox churches, most notably the Russian Church and the OCA, have broken off all ecumenical dialogue with TEO. And of course none of the “Patriarchs” hold communion with it. In the tradition of the Church refusing communion is usually about as far as one can go in expressing grave disagreement with someone short of anathematizing them.

  11. tjmcmahon says:

    You are right Ralph.
    So, what is the name of YOUR bishop?

    On what day did he recognize broken communion with either the diocese of Massachusetts, and its bishop, or the whole of TEC? (Or when was your bishop deposed by TEC, which would have the same result).

    If he did not, on what day did you break communion with that bishop, and establish communion with a bishop who has recognized broken communion with Massachusetts, or the whole of TEC?

    You really can’t have it both ways. To the best of my knowledge, to date no TEC bishop has recognized broken communion with Massachusetts. Therefore, everyone who is in TEC remains in full communion with him, and perhaps should stop complaining about what the bishops of other provinces, or other Churches, do or don’t do about it. The primates who are not attending the meeting in Dublin have already done something- they are no longer in communion with TEC leadership, or with any bishop who carries on this way, and haven’t been for most of the last decade. There is not much else they can do.

  12. bettcee says:

    [blockquote]“We won’t know how many primates are coming until pretty close to the time because the primates make their own travel arrangements“[/blockquote]
    If this means that the Primates pay their own way, it is easy to understand why some of them do not want to spend their church’s money to go to a pointless meeting where it is possible that they and their church will be humiliated. The money probably would be better spent on a meeting like Gafcon.
    Not all churches in the communion have limitless funds to spend on meetings.

  13. dwstroudmd+ says:

    They have much better things to do than allow the colonialists to inadaba and make a pretence of their agreement by presence. When even failure to take communion failed to move the obdurate, why go? They are being correctly observant of their duty to their service and saving the planet by not traveling and by not contributing to the global warming exacerbated by all the blather. Besides, they know the communique is already written. (Past behaviour is the best predictor of future behaviour, even for the ABC and “Instruments of Communion” heretofore manipulated.

  14. Ralph says:

    The anathema is appropriate here. Let it be pronounced, lest silence be misunderstood as affirmation and assent.

    Have any of the TEC or ACNA bishops spoken out against the doctrinal changes brought about by Boston Massacre? What about Bp Lawrence?

    From the days of Bp Pike onwards, TEC has had no effective way to deal with outright heresy being taught by a diocesan bishop. That’s OK. God will get him.

  15. Cennydd13 says:

    Bettcee, not only would they be humiliated; they’d be deliberately [i]ignored.[/i] So, what would be the use in showing up? They’re making a very powerful statement, it seems to me, by NOT showing up. It’s called ‘taking a courageous stand in the face of blatant outright heresy.’

  16. Ralph says:

    Is not showing up taking a courageous stand, or is it cowardice? Should a bishop, a primate, be afraid of potential humiliation, or (gasp…tremble) being ignored?

    Humiliation? Really? Is anyone who would be at that meeting capable of [i]humiliating[/i] an orthodox primate who takes a stand for orthodoxy?

    Being ignored? No. Not showing up is less of a news story than showing up and being ejected. Should the latter happen, a pub down the street would have a private room to which the news media could be invited.

    Go. Make a stand for cleansing the Temple of God. Don’t let them them shut you down. Link arms, and sing “We Shall Overcome.” If need be, force the liberals and moderates to call law enforcement to escort you out of the meeting if they want to get on with Rowan Williams’ agenda. (They wouldn’t DARE do that.) Heresy demands that being “polite” or “nice” be tossed out the window. Matt 21:12-13. Does one read that as an example of Jesus being nice?

    The time for listening, for conversations, for yabba-dabba-indaba – has passed.

  17. tjmcmahon says:

    I just don’t recall hearing about anyone named “Ralph” getting in KJS face about anything, or getting himself ejected from GC, or publicly pronouncing anathemae. The GS bishops have ex-communicated TEC bishops. TEC’s sees are (mostly) vacant. Not much else to do. The GS don’t meet with TEC because they are not in communion with them. There is no Anglican Communion to save, because it is not a church, much less The Church, and it is no longer even a “communion of churches.” The “Communion” in Anglican Communion is a fiction being maintained by Rowan Williams. Just an association of churches that were at one time in communion with each other, but are no longer.

    Not meeting with KJS IS the pronouncement of anathema.

  18. bettcee says:

    Ralph, The Primates represent their churches and their congregations at meetings such as this, I doubt that they are as concerned about their own personal treatment as they are about the misrepresentation and possible humiliation of the churches and congregations which they lead.
    Would that Presiding Bishop Schori was as concerned about misrepresenting and leading astray the churches and congregations which she represents with her peculiar understanding of the gospel.

  19. Larry Morse says:

    The real problem is this, that it makes little difference to anyone whether this meeting goes forward or not. In the real world, it is of little importance; nothing of substance hangs on it. Larry