Forward in Faith Assembly Resolution on TEC

From here:

FiF Assembly Resolution on TEC
Oct 24, 2007

The FiF National Assembly, having heard Bishop Jack Iker’s Report, passed nem. con. the following emergency Resolution on the situation in The Episcopal Church:

Resolution 2007/09

This Assembly notes with concern that the actions of the House of Bishops of The Episcopal Church consistently fail to match its words and assurances. The Assembly cannot agree with the Joint Standing Committee of the Anglican Consultative Council and the Primates’ Meeting that the response to the Windsor Report and the Dar-es-Salaam communiqué was adequate or honourable.

Proposed by the Reverend Dr Geoffrey Kirk

Seconded by the Reverend Prebendary Sam Philpott

Posted in Uncategorized

14 comments on “Forward in Faith Assembly Resolution on TEC

  1. Grandmother says:

    Question: What does “nem. con. ” mean?
    Thanx,
    Gloria

  2. midwestnorwegian says:

    In other words – they’re a bunch of liars.

  3. Wilfred says:

    “nem. con.” is an abbreviation of the Latin [i] nemine contradicente [/i] = “no one contradicting”. That is, it was unanimous.

  4. Pageantmaster Ù† says:

    I followed the link and listened to the speech in support by Dr Kirker
    [url=http://www.forwardinfaith.com/audio/2007-20-res08.mp3]here [/url]

    Ouch!

  5. Pageantmaster Ù† says:

    Sorry that is Dr Kirk not Kirker

  6. Phil says:

    Straight talk. May we have more of it.

  7. Connecticutian says:

    Dr. Kirk: “We ought also be considering… what we can do to see that the structures of the Anglican Communion are not manipulated in this really rather disreputable way.”

    Well spoken.

  8. Brian from T19 says:

    Oh no! I’m running scared now! The most irrelevant of para-church groups is commenting on something that no one asked them about. Revisionists beware.

  9. Pageantmaster Ù† says:

    #8 Let’s not throw stones now Brian

  10. Newbie Anglican says:

    I don’t think anyone asked you either, Brian.

  11. Connecticutian says:

    Brian, you oughtn’t speak about the ACC that way, no matter how you feel about the JSC “report”.

  12. D. C. Toedt says:

    Maybe in England it’s accepted practice to (implicitly) call someone dishonorable. It strikes this Texan as a declaration of complete and utter rejection, on a par with “let him be accursed.” In this context, it also sounds a bit like a toddler jumping up and down, waving his hands in the air, in the hope that the grown-ups would interrupt their grown-up conversation and turn their attention to him instead.

  13. Sarah1 says:

    RE: “. . . is commenting on something that no one asked them about.”

    When waiting on being “asked” has ever stopped an Episcopal organization of any sort from expressing their opinion, nay their Very Strong Feelings, is beyond me.

    Commenting on things that nobody asked one about is de rigeur for Episcopal organizations.

  14. robroy says:

    “Logic” of D.C.:

    The JSC report wasn’t honourable. Members of the standing committees are dishonourable. Members of the committees are accursed.

    Hey, I like it! But why stop there? Members of the standing committees have exceptionally smelly feet. Members of the standing committees put Sweet ‘N Low in their tea (gasp). Members … Well, you get the idea.