One of the largest provinces in the Anglican Church has voted to “extend its jurisdiction” to cover the whole of the US.
The decision marks the formal start of a “realignment” of the Anglican Communion in the row over gays and could help stave off actual schism.
The province of the Southern Cone, which includes Argentina, Peru and Chile and is headed by expatriate British Bishop Greg Venables, is offering itself as a “safe haven” for traditionalist US dioceses that wish to secede over gays.
The plan will allow disaffected US dioceses to leave the oversight of The Episcopal Church Primat Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori but to remain within the body of the Anglican Communion and in communion with the Archbishop of Canterbury.
According to well-informed insiders, Dr Rowan Williams, while opposed to separatist solutions to the Anglican crisis, has described the plan of Bishop Venables as a “sensible way forward.”
Read it all and also see the entry on her blog here which includes this:
The Archbishop of Canterbury’s recent letter to John Howe was apparently one of the documents which encouraged Southern Cone bishops to take this path of extending provincial jurisdiction to the US.
In keeping with laudable and true Catholic tradition, Rowan made it clear in the letter that diocesan autonomy is paramount. The Southern Cone solution also offers a means of maintaining unity while allowing a degree of separation within that unity. But it does demand a new frame of mind from archbishops and bishops, one that permits a new form of structure, with extra-geographical boundaries. This will be resisted, for reasons of ecclesiological tradition. But I do have to ask, if doctrine can be changed unilaterally, why not structure? It seems to me the latter is and should be the lesser ‘sin’, as sin it will certainly be deemed by some to be.
I have it on impeccable authority that Rowan’s response to Bishop Greg, while not exactly falling over himself with joy, was that this was a ‘sensible way forward’. Bishop Greg discussed it briefly with the Archbishop in London in September, I understand, but Greg himself declined to tell me what the Archbishop said.
Just for the sake of simple fact-finding. 1. This was a meeting that took place in August in Southern Cone; 2. In September +RDW said a scheme as described was ‘satisfactory’; 3. this is now mid-November and the ‘satisfactory’ scheme is now attached to subsequent communications re: CFL regarding the diocesan unit, and subsequent developments, post-Sept., in respect of Common Cause. It would be good if the details could be filled out. It has never been clear that +RDW was in favour of Common Cause and a separate province. Is this no longer the case? Has the Southern Cone ‘satisfactory’ scheme a different logic that has not been revealed? It would be good if the account could find amplication and confirmation so one could better assess what it entails.
blockquote] The Archbishop of Canterbury’s recent letter to John Howe was apparently one of the documents which encouraged Southern Cone bishops to take this path of extending provincial jurisdiction to the US.[ [/blockquote] Of all the recent actions and inactions of the Archbishop of Canterbury, the letter to Bishop Howe may turn out to be the greatest [i]faux pas[/i] of his career, with the greatest number of unintended consequences.
Might RDW’s action…….or inaction…….be a sort of de facto recognition? Could this be possible? I don’t think he’s told us everything.
1. Seitz-ACI,
This is a Gledhill report. Beware.
#1. Prof. Seitz
I would have thought that if anyone had the inside track on this it would be you?
I placed the following comment on the Ruth Gledhill piece’s thread. It grows more a propos by the hour:
If Fort Worth and San Joaquin (not to mention Quincy) go in for this, then it is truly a case of Quos Iuppiter vult perdere delirescit prius. These dioceses have been witnessing to a Catholic vision of Anglicanism for 30 years on the issue or women’s “ordination” — and now they are willing to throw themselves into an arrangement with an Evangelical province which does not “ordain” women except to what they purport to be “the diaconate,” but which will also accept +Duncan’s Pittsburgh, where women are “ordained” and will continue to be ordained; and which will probably purvey “rich Anglican fudge” on WO in general; on which, see:
http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/7441/
and especially the comments placed on the thread on 11-09-07 by me at 5:40 am, by Archbishop Venables at 7:39 am and by me again at 10:16 am?
This has all the makings of an absurd ecclesiological farce, in which the Anglican Catholics, who ought to be aiming at returning to the status quo of 1973 (before the advent of WO) or even 1929 (before the Lambeth Conference in that year started the process of doctrinal and moral “revision” by accepting contraceptive practice), will awake to find that they have only returned to 2002, and will then have to relive the next few years over again. It will be a tale worthy to rival that portrayed in the film “Groundhog Day” — and about as edifying as well.
Posted by: William Tighe | 9 Nov 2007 21:53:17
[i] Please don’t turn this thread into a discussion of WO. [/i]
-Elf Lady
I hope that this will ease the way for Pittsburgh, Fort Worth to leave ECUSA with a minimum of pain and expense and tranfer to an evangelical province. However the process of secession from ECUSA has already begun, and it has begun regardless of RW’s ‘sensible solution’!!! As far as RW goes, I find it hard not to feel continued contempt for him. His is the minimalist’s action or rather non-action since he lends nothing to the secession other than this weak ‘sensible solution’. His hope, I believe, is to thus guarantee the attendance at Lambeth of the Southern Cone, minimize the orthodox ‘outcries’ in the States and further leave the African provinces isolated. My dearest hope is that ++Venables will take the departing dioceses and, along with the Africans, South Asia Indian Ocean and West Indies, leave Canterbury and other liberal provinces to walk their own path. We know the direction that is being taken by ECUSA and the CofE is less and less its own master and is increasingly subordinated to a highly liberal and secular government.
The Southern Cone may be one of the largest provinces in square miles but I understand that it is one of the smaller provinces in terms of congregants. Someone correct me if I am wrong.
Bill Channon
I think #9 is correct.
Is this not a case of “test all things and see what is good”? Non-geographic dioceses have a certain pedigree, as Allen Brent documented in a book on the early church prompted by certain developments in NZ. I wonder if this might not be the least bad of all possible non-sectarian options, indeed ecclesiologically perhaps the most hopeful thing I’ve heard for a while. Perhaps St Rumpelstiltskin of the Eyebrows comes through after all? Si tacuisses, philosophus mansisses – and perhaps posterity will judge that this is just what he did by keeping shtum all this time and speaking only in occasional Delphic hints?
#9 and #10. Yes, Southern Cone numbers around 40,000 members.
Re: #6
I concur completely with Dr. Tighe’s very insightful post Having slid well down the slippery slope towards unitarianism it is implied that these gentlemen will be content to climb back up a foot or two and wait patiently until they resume their slide down the slope. The only real solution is to get off the slope altogether.
Thanks, P-master, I have a view of course about what I think is going on, and information, but my note is an effort to see if there is any other wisdom abroad. It struck me that a lot of conclusions were being reached without much data. As yes, not only was it a ‘Gledhill story’ (John 316) but it was not one distributed in the Times, but only online…the point of which may have been less ‘news’ and more ‘goosing the system’ for reactions…I just don’t know why the story is abroad and what it means within its framework.
Thank you Prof Seitz.
God bless
PM
I do no understand why the Southern Cone would cause such heartache to American Anglo-Catholics; after all, I believe +Quincy & +San Joaquin already ordain women to the diaconate.
praise God that He has given the mantle of leadership to other Primates of the Communion and has not hardened +Rowan’s heart against them.
“I do no understand why the Southern Cone would cause such heartache to American Anglo-Catholics; after all, I believe +Quincy & +San Joaquin already ordain women to the diaconate.”
As does +Fort Worth. None of the FIF/UK bishops do, however, and while a few FIF/UK parishes do have “female deacons” on their staff, they are not allowed to function liturgically whenever a FIF/UK bishop is present. I should add that even this “concession” on the part of FIF/UK is a cause of disagreement between them and the TAC, as is to a much greater degree the practice of the FIF/NA and American Continuing Anglicans of all sorts.