1. Is not the domain name of the site, ‘united-anglicans.org’, somewhat ironic – especially in the light of the context of the meeting and its groups? See the Anglican Communion Institute background article on:
2. Is not the stress on ‘autonomy’ in the Articles of Federation, also ironic in the light of the Windsor Report’s critique of The Episcopal Church’s use of this concept?
Each Common Cause Partner will continue to live out its unique role, maintaining its distinctive ministry and character, noting the provision of the Articles of Federation that “the autonomy of the individual Jurisdictions and Ministries, and their constituent bodies, is in no way restricted or superseded by membership.”
3. What is Martyn Minns’ official position?
4. Was the pre-announcement of a ‘separate ecclesiastical structure’ not fulfilled?
Last week, the Anglican Communion Network, presided over by Bob Duncan, pre-announced that the Common Cause meeeting would inaugurate a ‘“separate ecclesiastical structure†in North America’ and that ‘following this meeting, Common Cause will be in a place to seek official recognition from the Primates of our Communion.
There has been some discussion about the meaning of this and whether and why the creation of (according to the communique) ‘the structure necessary for building a federation of orthodox Anglicans in North America’ is different from the pre-announced ‘separate ecclesiastical structure’ in North America.’
Greg Griffith on the Stand Firm site yesterday, while the meeting was still going on, firmly announced, with the claim for an impeccable source, that Common Cause would not be announcing a new Province at the meeting.
5. Why did one partner, the Anglican Province of America, not ratify the new structure?
Ten Common Cause partners were present at the Orlando meeting. The partner which did not sign up – and perhaps is unlikely to do so in the near future? – is the Anglican Province of America, whose Presiding Bishop is Walter Grundorf:
This is good news. It may not be good news for those of you who feel called to remain in TEC, but for so many, this news is greeted with cheers of joy!
I appreciate Bishop Grundorf’s comments. The APA contiues the Episcopal Church in which I was raised. Members of that church have had experience with some of the difficulties of church fellowship and I am grateful for the presence of the APA in the Common Cause Partnership.
Graham Kings, who once saved my life in an English Pub by keeping me from eating too many of these really delicious potatoes that had been boiled in fat, is perfectly in league with the Goodard, Radner, Seitz line of reasoning.
Their perspective is, as we have seen in several recent articles, contrary to the basic focus and efforts of Common Cause.
I can attest that the Common Cause leaders who were most recently or still are in TEC, in September 2006 at a meeting called by Bishop Salmon, held in St. Louis, and at which Phil Turner and I represented ACI, agreed to put on the back burner their efforts toward a new province in the Ameircas, and to wait for the possibility of a larger and more effective coalition to be developed through the Windsor Bishop’s scheme.
When the Windsor Bishops proved ineffective or a least silent in the face of the various events of the past 10 months, the Common Cause partners, who had given the ACI/Fulcrum plan a good and earnest chance, were seemingly free to then pursue the next logical step.
At the very least I think you all need to be thankful for the pressure they are putting on the system–otherwise TEC conservatives would be stuck in business as usual and simply defeat by attrition.
Notwithstanding this significant step by those committed to reasserting orthodox Christianity expressed and lived in an historically Anglican manner, new leaders in holy orders must be cultivated and supported by the current leadership of the movement if the movement is to survive its founders. New congregations must come to support new clergy ordained by newly consecrated bishops, for the movement will simply burn out if it relies only on priests and bishops whose are either retired from or self-exiled from The Episcopal Church and Anglican Church of Canada.
I read Graham Kings’s questions above, and was struck by them. It is somewhat demoralizing to realize how much denial those questions appear to represent, unless they are merely rhetorical questions designed to mask anger or passive aggressive behavior or simply posturing for an audience he wishes to impress. I prefer the first option I guess of sincerely not knowing the answers to these questions.
If somebody like me — someone with zero interest in participating in Common Cause, and who desperately longs for the Anglican Communion to hang together and who is firmly committed to a Canterbury solution, until I realize that it is truly hopeless — can easily and simply “put myself into the shoes of the average CCPer” and answer these questions, then I’m very surprised that someone of the level of a Graham Kings cannot.
Here’s my stab at answering the questions, from the last upward.
[i]6. Why was no official comment made from Common Cause on the Archbishop of Canterbury’s Advent Letter?[/i]
I’m assuming — given that various Common Cause partners had hung on for meaningful discipline of the Episcopal church and had made crystal clear over the past years the criteria whereby they believed the Canterbury-centered Communion to be viable and worthwhile — that Common Cause found nothing in the Advent letter relevant to their intentions, goals, values, or needs. Because the Advent letter simply does not address what various lay and clergy individuals, parishes, and now dioceses need in order to remain within the Communion proper, it is essentially irrelevant, speaking to an audience that a place like the diocese of San Joaquin or six parishes in Florida are not a part of since it does not provide any solution to their vital concerns.
I certainly understand that. To read the letter, Rowan Williams is back in late 2003 proudly announcing the formation of the “Lambeth Commission” — [i]yet another committee[/i].
Words fail to describe how distinctly underwhelming that idea is for dealing with the catastrophic failure of Dar Es Salaam, Dromantine, the Windsor Report, the Panel of Reference, and much else that has been held up like so many twigs to stem the tide of raving foaming-at-the-mouth revisionism in the Episcopal church. And of course, average lay peons who read the Internet recognize the formation of yet another committee as simply a classic RW delaying tactic in order to be able to claw one’s way the remaining few months to Lambeth while taking absolutely no substantive disciplinary action in the meantime.
[i]5. What are the reasons and the implications of this?” [the APA not joining CCP][/i]
I’d assume that it is in large part related to the APA’s Continuing-Catholic theology. But obviously nobody can speak for the APA but the APA. Its leader has clearly stated that the issue of participating as members of the CCP has divided that church, and he will not force it to do anything. I think that’s a good call.
Maybe years from now, the APA will be ready. Maybe not. But it’s a good thing for entities not comfortable with joining to not join. The implications are that 1) the APA is a church of integrity and will only be a part of something that it can fully buy into and, 2) the CCP won’t be for every Anglican entity.
In other words . . . the implications are not that heavy.
[i]4. Was the pre-announcement of a ‘separate ecclesiastical structure’ not fulfilled?[/i]
It was fulfilled — see Communique. The group seems to be trucking right along with its publicly announced timeline — one posted and available for all to see.
It’s rather plain that, yes, a “separate ecclesiastical structure” has been fulfilled.
[i]3. What is Martyn Minns’ official position?[/i]
I thought it was as the head of CANA. Is there another one he should be in?
[i]2. Is not the stress on ‘autonomy’ in the Articles of Federation, also ironic in the light of the Windsor Report’s critique of The Episcopal Church’s use of this concept?[/i]
Not really — so long as there is established a means and instrument of discipline, something which is distinctly and determinedly lacking in the Anglican Communion. When there is a means and instrument of discipline, then one has both autonomy and interdependence . . . you know, what the Anglican Communion fancied that it had but doesn’t and what everyone keeps talking about with regards to unity in essentials and freedom in non-essentials.
[i]1. Is not the domain name of the site, ‘united-anglicans.org’, somewhat ironic – especially in the light of the context of the meeting and its groups?[/i]
No, not really. They are uniting with those who wish to unite with them. Seems pretty straightforward. I’m sure they would be happy to receive the application of Rowan Williams and the Anglican Communion as well. Or . . . they’d be glad to remain a part of the Anglican Communion — if a means and instrument of discipline were established in the Anglican Communion, which has not and appears highly likely will not ever happen.
Again, I do not offer the above rather starkly clear answers in order to be sarcastic. I am taking the writer of the questions at his word and assuming that he sincerely does not know the answers to the questions.
Sarah–I’ve been really mad at God for a long time now. He took 6 days to create the entire universe, which was way too long for me. Also, he never sought my opinion once. Frankly, he used names for things, or let Adam use names, I find ironic. Also, why Adam? There are lots better names out there. (For all you people who aren’t Sarah–David uses satire alot).
Graham, your rhetorical questions 1, 2, and 4, are right on target. RE #4, What had been touted as a “separate ecclesiastical structure” seeking approval from the primates has been scaled back to a “federation” with no statement about going to the primates. Approaching the primates was a curious matter anyway, since the ABC is the one to recognize dioceses as part of the AC, and the ACC is the Instrument that admits new provinces to its membership (by a 2/3 vote). Evidently this body has decided to not move so fast. RE, #2, it IS ironic. And so is #1, as this body is hardly “united.”
Apparently, this federation’s leadership is going to wade in the shallows until they receive strong encouragement them to swim. Better than diving in head first and hitting rocks.
RE: “What had been touted as a “separate ecclesiastical structure†seeking approval from the primates has been scaled back to a “federation†with no statement about going to the primates.”
Here’s the order of events, which the CCP so helpfully publicly released back in September:
[blockquote] “Appendix 2: Timeline
A. College of Bishops organized: September, 2007
B. Theological Statement and Articles ratified by all Partners
C. CCP Leadership Council 1 (Article 4): week of December 3 or January 6 a. Organizing meeting b. Leadership elected c. Communications office created (Article 6) d. Committees named: i. Executive (Article 4) ii. Admissions (Article 5) iii. Mission (Article 7) iv. Education (Article 8) e. Additional task forces created: v. Prayer Book task force vi. Episcopate task force vii. Budget adopted
D. Province by province visitation and appeal for recognition of the “separate ecclesiastical structure in North Americaâ€
E. CCP Leadership Council 2: Advent, 2008 a. Reports and adoption of work from committees and task forces
F. Constitutional convention for an Anglican union held at the earliest possible date agreeable to all the Partners”[/blockquote]
Just in case you still manage to maintain your deep level of confusion and grasping, the CCP appears to be at Letter “C” above — right on scedule.
Please note the next letter after “C” which would be the letter “D”.
Perhaps more understanding of what the CCP intends to do would be attained by reading their printed and posted communications.
I suspect Sarah is way too charitable above. Her alternative explanation of the questions is far more likely to be accurate. Read around the Fulcrum web site and draw your own conclusion.
And, uh, because BfB still doesn’t seem to get it . . . it appears to me that the CCP does not intend to seek “recognition” from the ABC as a member of the Anglican Communion.
So when BfB says this — “since the ABC is the one to recognize dioceses [sic] as part of the AC” — it reveals further denial. If one listens to and reads CCP communications — which appears not to be happening — one sees quite clearly that the CCP wishes to be recognized as a separate entity (eventually, according to their order of events listed above) by individual provinces that they actually care to be in communion with.
Thus — I very very very much doubt that the CCP will be approaching, oh, say Wales, to be recognized, or [drum roll] ECUSA to be recognized. I would expect them to approach some 15 to 20 provinces individually for recognition, and let it go at that.
It appears that the CCP is just going to plod forward, serenely aware that the ABC will not provide recognition — and they’re okay with that now, after the past four years of his leadership.
Just for the record, is this view factual and verifiable from CCP leaders? It would be very helpful to have this in the record. Can we have verification from CCP leaders? Thanks.
“If one listens to and reads CCP communications…one sees quite clearly that the CCP wishes to be recognized as a separate entity ….by individual provinces that they actually care to be in communion with…I would expect them to approach some 15 to 20 provinces individually for recognition, and let it go at that.”
I’m sure it’s “verifiable” if I’ve actually interpreted their writings and public communications correctly and if they were so inclined to verify. But if I have interpreted incorrectly or if they were not so inclined, then I would expect it [i]not[/i] to be verifiable.
; > )
#19 — I am confused. A confident declaration is made about CCP. I am just trying to find out if it is accurate. Can someone help? I suspect verified is preferable to “verified.” You made a very clear statement (see #18). Is it accurate?
Dr Seitz, it’s verified, follow the link then scroll down to the bottom and see the copyright & address info, this is from the CCP (new) website. The new part may be confusing as this is different than the ACN website. So I’d say it’s official.
#21–thanks, KAR, do you mean that it is ‘verified’ that CCP has no interest in support from Canterbury, Instruments, Provinces as a whole, and instead will be satisfied with whatever support they can summon? See, e.g., #17 above.
I’d not go that far. This is a very conservative statement, much more conservative than some of the previous releases indicate. I think there are tensions behind close doors. Some maybe have no interest, some may, but those discussions are not in our preview. Remember CANA makes some strong statements about WO on a Thursday (though some vagueness with internal references of “two integrities” the next Tuesday), then the ABC Advent letter, which would effect Dio Pitt but not REC. So probably they went with a minimal reply until more consensus is built, so far CCP is only another version of FACA, much less than a governing body, but this may be where they are at this day.
Thanks KAR. Typical blog confusion; this is not making any progress.
I was not asking for an appraisal of CCP as such, via web inquiring.
I was asking if the declaration of ‘Sarah’ in #17 was factual in respect of CCP’s stated purpose. That is, is CCP, as Sarah indicates, seeking whatever support it can find from whomever will give it, apart from Canterbury and Instruments? Does it, consistent with her statement, find itself quite content to operate with individualised primatial support — a federalistic ‘hard alternative’ to what anglicanism has said it is?
Well, Seitz-ACI — I’ve been pretty clear. I stated this — that I was putting “myself into the shoes of the average CCPer,” that I myself had no involvement with the CCP, and that I was basing my answers solely on the CCPs writings and public communications. I furthermore used the word “appears” frequently to make triple clear that I was an outsider looking in and observing and stating opinions based on what I read of the CCP documents — which incidentally are out there for all to see.
Seitz-ACI, if you desire something “for the record” then might I suggest that you approach the moderator of the CCP and ask him “for the record” the answers to whatever questions that you may have? Unless, of course, your comments above are merely “casting your bread upon the blog waters” in the hopes that some random person with a blog name of “Duncan” will swing by and respond “for the record.”
I can assure you that I will not be speaking “for the record” since as has been repeatedly made starkly plain on this thread I am not a CCPer but am speaking as a person who reads CCP documents and observes their actions from afar.
Sarah, BfB also reads CCP statements, press releases, communiques, theological declarations, and understands English. After perusing your lengthy commentaries on the most recent communique, I was beginning to think that you were in on all of the action, but you assure us that you are only observing from afar. So, interpret as you wish, I shall stick by my analysis.
RE: “I was beginning to think that you were in on all of the action . . . ”
LOL.
Yes, you could tell that I was right in the thick of things when I said that I was “someone with zero interest in participating in Common Cause, and who desperately longs for the Anglican Communion to hang together and who is firmly committed to a Canterbury solution, until I realize that it is truly hopeless.”
I can see, now, how you could faithfully read all the CCP statements and press releases and communiques and theological declarations and still marvel at why on earth the CCP had “scaled back to a “federation†with no statement about going to the primates” rather than simply seeing that letter “C” comes before letter “D” in the timeline.
Yep — your intense interest in the CCP documents is abundantly clear.
“If one listens to and reads CCP communications…one sees quite clearly that the CCP wishes to be recognized as a separate entity ….by individual provinces that they actually care to be in communion with…I would expect them to approach some 15 to 20 provinces individually for recognition, and let it go at that.â€
Thanks for stating this in plain English. We shall see whether this ‘firm rebuttal’ to BfB proves to be *opinion* you can say was never more than that, or *fact* as you assumed this to be. I thought you meant this to be both, but accept that this may now not be so clear for you, upon reflection. Bloviating–I’ll take third place behind you in that race!
I agree Elf Lady! Just trying to understand the categorial summations regarding CCP from a blogger, if they are fact or opinion. I did not ‘lead us into temptation’ on this matter, but did try to sort out what was being said…
In all seriousness, if ‘Sarah”s view is in earnest and factual, that would be of significance for the public’s assessment of CCP, as she indicated that it was quite happy with a federal linkage to this or that Province and would happily move forward in that basis. Is this true? It would be good to know if Sarah meant her position to be a mere opinion or an informed declaration intending to be taken seriously as such.
RE: ” I thought you meant this to be both, but accept that this may now not be so clear for you, upon reflection.”
LOL.
Is that the best you can do at recovering?
I have been utterly consistent for the entire thread, and am quite confident that people viewing it will see that, no matter how you cut out all of my “appears” and numerous qualifications, consistently and repeatedly stated above. ; > )
I have stated again and again from whence I gain my perspective. And yes — I’m confident in my opinion, while — as is obvious — having no standing whatsoever in the CCP or inside knowledge.
RE: “In all seriousness, if ‘Sarah’’s view is in earnest and factual . . . ”
It’s certainly in earnest. But as said above, you’d have to inquire of the CCP leadership to discover whether it is “factual”.
RE: ” . . . that would be of significance for the public’s assessment of CCP” . . .
Why ever so? I’m not a leader of the CCP.
RE: “It would be good to know if Sarah meant her position to be a mere opinion or an informed declaration intending to be taken seriously as such.”
It’s an informed opinion, based — as now stated many times above — on the written publications of the CCP.
Those written publications of the CCP are available for all to read . . . but it appears that certain members of the Anglican Communion wish to pretend deep and profound “confusion” and post offended comments on blogs about those who believe that the confusion is odd, considering the written declarations of the CCP, which are fairly easily interpreted.
I am not trying to recover from anything as I did not weigh in with a declaration about CCP’s agenda, with gusto, as you did.
Contests on blogs–advancing nothing factual–was never of any interest. I thought you were indicating something about CCP’s planning in the realm of public fact. Apparently you did not mean anyone to take that away.
Which Common Cause partner did NOT adopt the Articles of Federation? Did it simply not YET adopt them, or does it object?
APA must wait on its internal processes: a leader’s meeting in January, and ratification of its synod later in the year.
Six questions come to mind:
1. Is not the domain name of the site, ‘united-anglicans.org’, somewhat ironic – especially in the light of the context of the meeting and its groups? See the Anglican Communion Institute background article on:
http://anglicancommunioninstitute.com/content/view/124/1/
2. Is not the stress on ‘autonomy’ in the Articles of Federation, also ironic in the light of the Windsor Report’s critique of The Episcopal Church’s use of this concept?
Each Common Cause Partner will continue to live out its unique role, maintaining its distinctive ministry and character, noting the provision of the Articles of Federation that “the autonomy of the individual Jurisdictions and Ministries, and their constituent bodies, is in no way restricted or superseded by membership.”
3. What is Martyn Minns’ official position?
4. Was the pre-announcement of a ‘separate ecclesiastical structure’ not fulfilled?
Last week, the Anglican Communion Network, presided over by Bob Duncan, pre-announced that the Common Cause meeeting would inaugurate a ‘“separate ecclesiastical structure†in North America’ and that ‘following this meeting, Common Cause will be in a place to seek official recognition from the Primates of our Communion.
http://www.acn-us.org/archive/2007/12/separate-structure-next-week.html
There has been some discussion about the meaning of this and whether and why the creation of (according to the communique) ‘the structure necessary for building a federation of orthodox Anglicans in North America’ is different from the pre-announced ‘separate ecclesiastical structure’ in North America.’
Greg Griffith on the Stand Firm site yesterday, while the meeting was still going on, firmly announced, with the claim for an impeccable source, that Common Cause would not be announcing a new Province at the meeting.
http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/8470/
There is further discussion on the Stand Firm thread on the communique of the meeting:
http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/8477/
5. Why did one partner, the Anglican Province of America, not ratify the new structure?
Ten Common Cause partners were present at the Orlando meeting. The partner which did not sign up – and perhaps is unlikely to do so in the near future? – is the Anglican Province of America, whose Presiding Bishop is Walter Grundorf:
http://www.anglicanprovince.org/
What are the reasons and the implications of this?
6. Why was no official comment made from Common Cause on the Archbishop of Canterbury’s Advent Letter?
++Walter Grundorf has explained why the APA is only taking observer status for now here: http://www.anglicanprovince.org/bishopepistlejan2008.html
As for the other questions, I’m tempted to add “Enquiring minds want to know.” 😉
This is good news. It may not be good news for those of you who feel called to remain in TEC, but for so many, this news is greeted with cheers of joy!
I appreciate Bishop Grundorf’s comments. The APA contiues the Episcopal Church in which I was raised. Members of that church have had experience with some of the difficulties of church fellowship and I am grateful for the presence of the APA in the Common Cause Partnership.
Tom Rightmyer in Asheville, NC
Graham Kings, who once saved my life in an English Pub by keeping me from eating too many of these really delicious potatoes that had been boiled in fat, is perfectly in league with the Goodard, Radner, Seitz line of reasoning.
Their perspective is, as we have seen in several recent articles, contrary to the basic focus and efforts of Common Cause.
I can attest that the Common Cause leaders who were most recently or still are in TEC, in September 2006 at a meeting called by Bishop Salmon, held in St. Louis, and at which Phil Turner and I represented ACI, agreed to put on the back burner their efforts toward a new province in the Ameircas, and to wait for the possibility of a larger and more effective coalition to be developed through the Windsor Bishop’s scheme.
When the Windsor Bishops proved ineffective or a least silent in the face of the various events of the past 10 months, the Common Cause partners, who had given the ACI/Fulcrum plan a good and earnest chance, were seemingly free to then pursue the next logical step.
At the very least I think you all need to be thankful for the pressure they are putting on the system–otherwise TEC conservatives would be stuck in business as usual and simply defeat by attrition.
Notwithstanding this significant step by those committed to reasserting orthodox Christianity expressed and lived in an historically Anglican manner, new leaders in holy orders must be cultivated and supported by the current leadership of the movement if the movement is to survive its founders. New congregations must come to support new clergy ordained by newly consecrated bishops, for the movement will simply burn out if it relies only on priests and bishops whose are either retired from or self-exiled from The Episcopal Church and Anglican Church of Canada.
I read Graham Kings’s questions above, and was struck by them. It is somewhat demoralizing to realize how much denial those questions appear to represent, unless they are merely rhetorical questions designed to mask anger or passive aggressive behavior or simply posturing for an audience he wishes to impress. I prefer the first option I guess of sincerely not knowing the answers to these questions.
If somebody like me — someone with zero interest in participating in Common Cause, and who desperately longs for the Anglican Communion to hang together and who is firmly committed to a Canterbury solution, until I realize that it is truly hopeless — can easily and simply “put myself into the shoes of the average CCPer” and answer these questions, then I’m very surprised that someone of the level of a Graham Kings cannot.
Here’s my stab at answering the questions, from the last upward.
[i]6. Why was no official comment made from Common Cause on the Archbishop of Canterbury’s Advent Letter?[/i]
I’m assuming — given that various Common Cause partners had hung on for meaningful discipline of the Episcopal church and had made crystal clear over the past years the criteria whereby they believed the Canterbury-centered Communion to be viable and worthwhile — that Common Cause found nothing in the Advent letter relevant to their intentions, goals, values, or needs. Because the Advent letter simply does not address what various lay and clergy individuals, parishes, and now dioceses need in order to remain within the Communion proper, it is essentially irrelevant, speaking to an audience that a place like the diocese of San Joaquin or six parishes in Florida are not a part of since it does not provide any solution to their vital concerns.
I certainly understand that. To read the letter, Rowan Williams is back in late 2003 proudly announcing the formation of the “Lambeth Commission” — [i]yet another committee[/i].
Words fail to describe how distinctly underwhelming that idea is for dealing with the catastrophic failure of Dar Es Salaam, Dromantine, the Windsor Report, the Panel of Reference, and much else that has been held up like so many twigs to stem the tide of raving foaming-at-the-mouth revisionism in the Episcopal church. And of course, average lay peons who read the Internet recognize the formation of yet another committee as simply a classic RW delaying tactic in order to be able to claw one’s way the remaining few months to Lambeth while taking absolutely no substantive disciplinary action in the meantime.
[i]5. What are the reasons and the implications of this?” [the APA not joining CCP][/i]
I’d assume that it is in large part related to the APA’s Continuing-Catholic theology. But obviously nobody can speak for the APA but the APA. Its leader has clearly stated that the issue of participating as members of the CCP has divided that church, and he will not force it to do anything. I think that’s a good call.
Maybe years from now, the APA will be ready. Maybe not. But it’s a good thing for entities not comfortable with joining to not join. The implications are that 1) the APA is a church of integrity and will only be a part of something that it can fully buy into and, 2) the CCP won’t be for every Anglican entity.
In other words . . . the implications are not that heavy.
[i]4. Was the pre-announcement of a ‘separate ecclesiastical structure’ not fulfilled?[/i]
It was fulfilled — see Communique. The group seems to be trucking right along with its publicly announced timeline — one posted and available for all to see.
It’s rather plain that, yes, a “separate ecclesiastical structure” has been fulfilled.
[i]3. What is Martyn Minns’ official position?[/i]
I thought it was as the head of CANA. Is there another one he should be in?
[i]2. Is not the stress on ‘autonomy’ in the Articles of Federation, also ironic in the light of the Windsor Report’s critique of The Episcopal Church’s use of this concept?[/i]
Not really — so long as there is established a means and instrument of discipline, something which is distinctly and determinedly lacking in the Anglican Communion. When there is a means and instrument of discipline, then one has both autonomy and interdependence . . . you know, what the Anglican Communion fancied that it had but doesn’t and what everyone keeps talking about with regards to unity in essentials and freedom in non-essentials.
[i]1. Is not the domain name of the site, ‘united-anglicans.org’, somewhat ironic – especially in the light of the context of the meeting and its groups?[/i]
No, not really. They are uniting with those who wish to unite with them. Seems pretty straightforward. I’m sure they would be happy to receive the application of Rowan Williams and the Anglican Communion as well. Or . . . they’d be glad to remain a part of the Anglican Communion — if a means and instrument of discipline were established in the Anglican Communion, which has not and appears highly likely will not ever happen.
Again, I do not offer the above rather starkly clear answers in order to be sarcastic. I am taking the writer of the questions at his word and assuming that he sincerely does not know the answers to the questions.
Don Armstrong #9 and Sarah #11:
Very well said. Thank you.
Sarah–I’ve been really mad at God for a long time now. He took 6 days to create the entire universe, which was way too long for me. Also, he never sought my opinion once. Frankly, he used names for things, or let Adam use names, I find ironic. Also, why Adam? There are lots better names out there. (For all you people who aren’t Sarah–David uses satire alot).
Graham, your rhetorical questions 1, 2, and 4, are right on target. RE #4, What had been touted as a “separate ecclesiastical structure” seeking approval from the primates has been scaled back to a “federation” with no statement about going to the primates. Approaching the primates was a curious matter anyway, since the ABC is the one to recognize dioceses as part of the AC, and the ACC is the Instrument that admits new provinces to its membership (by a 2/3 vote). Evidently this body has decided to not move so fast. RE, #2, it IS ironic. And so is #1, as this body is hardly “united.”
Apparently, this federation’s leadership is going to wade in the shallows until they receive strong encouragement them to swim. Better than diving in head first and hitting rocks.
Er, Bob?
RE: “What had been touted as a “separate ecclesiastical structure†seeking approval from the primates has been scaled back to a “federation†with no statement about going to the primates.”
Here’s the order of events, which the CCP so helpfully publicly released back in September:
[blockquote] “Appendix 2: Timeline
A. College of Bishops organized: September, 2007
B. Theological Statement and Articles ratified by all Partners
C. CCP Leadership Council 1 (Article 4): week of December 3 or January 6 a. Organizing meeting b. Leadership elected c. Communications office created (Article 6) d. Committees named: i. Executive (Article 4) ii. Admissions (Article 5) iii. Mission (Article 7) iv. Education (Article 8) e. Additional task forces created: v. Prayer Book task force vi. Episcopate task force vii. Budget adopted
D. Province by province visitation and appeal for recognition of the “separate ecclesiastical structure in North Americaâ€
E. CCP Leadership Council 2: Advent, 2008 a. Reports and adoption of work from committees and task forces
F. Constitutional convention for an Anglican union held at the earliest possible date agreeable to all the Partners”[/blockquote]
Just in case you still manage to maintain your deep level of confusion and grasping, the CCP appears to be at Letter “C” above — right on scedule.
Please note the next letter after “C” which would be the letter “D”.
Perhaps more understanding of what the CCP intends to do would be attained by reading their printed and posted communications.
I suspect Sarah is way too charitable above. Her alternative explanation of the questions is far more likely to be accurate. Read around the Fulcrum web site and draw your own conclusion.
And, uh, because BfB still doesn’t seem to get it . . . it appears to me that the CCP does not intend to seek “recognition” from the ABC as a member of the Anglican Communion.
So when BfB says this — “since the ABC is the one to recognize dioceses [sic] as part of the AC” — it reveals further denial. If one listens to and reads CCP communications — which appears not to be happening — one sees quite clearly that the CCP wishes to be recognized as a separate entity (eventually, according to their order of events listed above) by individual provinces that they actually care to be in communion with.
Thus — I very very very much doubt that the CCP will be approaching, oh, say Wales, to be recognized, or [drum roll] ECUSA to be recognized. I would expect them to approach some 15 to 20 provinces individually for recognition, and let it go at that.
It appears that the CCP is just going to plod forward, serenely aware that the ABC will not provide recognition — and they’re okay with that now, after the past four years of his leadership.
Just for the record, is this view factual and verifiable from CCP leaders? It would be very helpful to have this in the record. Can we have verification from CCP leaders? Thanks.
“If one listens to and reads CCP communications…one sees quite clearly that the CCP wishes to be recognized as a separate entity ….by individual provinces that they actually care to be in communion with…I would expect them to approach some 15 to 20 provinces individually for recognition, and let it go at that.”
I’m sure it’s “verifiable” if I’ve actually interpreted their writings and public communications correctly and if they were so inclined to verify. But if I have interpreted incorrectly or if they were not so inclined, then I would expect it [i]not[/i] to be verifiable.
; > )
#19 — I am confused. A confident declaration is made about CCP. I am just trying to find out if it is accurate. Can someone help? I suspect verified is preferable to “verified.” You made a very clear statement (see #18). Is it accurate?
Dr Seitz, it’s verified, follow the link then scroll down to the bottom and see the copyright & address info, this is from the CCP (new) website. The new part may be confusing as this is different than the ACN website. So I’d say it’s official.
#21–thanks, KAR, do you mean that it is ‘verified’ that CCP has no interest in support from Canterbury, Instruments, Provinces as a whole, and instead will be satisfied with whatever support they can summon? See, e.g., #17 above.
I’d not go that far. This is a very conservative statement, much more conservative than some of the previous releases indicate. I think there are tensions behind close doors. Some maybe have no interest, some may, but those discussions are not in our preview. Remember CANA makes some strong statements about WO on a Thursday (though some vagueness with internal references of “two integrities” the next Tuesday), then the ABC Advent letter, which would effect Dio Pitt but not REC. So probably they went with a minimal reply until more consensus is built, so far CCP is only another version of FACA, much less than a governing body, but this may be where they are at this day.
Thanks KAR. Typical blog confusion; this is not making any progress.
I was not asking for an appraisal of CCP as such, via web inquiring.
I was asking if the declaration of ‘Sarah’ in #17 was factual in respect of CCP’s stated purpose. That is, is CCP, as Sarah indicates, seeking whatever support it can find from whomever will give it, apart from Canterbury and Instruments? Does it, consistent with her statement, find itself quite content to operate with individualised primatial support — a federalistic ‘hard alternative’ to what anglicanism has said it is?
Well, Seitz-ACI — I’ve been pretty clear. I stated this — that I was putting “myself into the shoes of the average CCPer,” that I myself had no involvement with the CCP, and that I was basing my answers solely on the CCPs writings and public communications. I furthermore used the word “appears” frequently to make triple clear that I was an outsider looking in and observing and stating opinions based on what I read of the CCP documents — which incidentally are out there for all to see.
Seitz-ACI, if you desire something “for the record” then might I suggest that you approach the moderator of the CCP and ask him “for the record” the answers to whatever questions that you may have? Unless, of course, your comments above are merely “casting your bread upon the blog waters” in the hopes that some random person with a blog name of “Duncan” will swing by and respond “for the record.”
I can assure you that I will not be speaking “for the record” since as has been repeatedly made starkly plain on this thread I am not a CCPer but am speaking as a person who reads CCP documents and observes their actions from afar.
Thank you for the clarification — if that is the right term.
You’re welcome. You’re probably right — “clarification” is probably not the right term, “repetition” is probably the correct one for what I offered.
Sarah, BfB also reads CCP statements, press releases, communiques, theological declarations, and understands English. After perusing your lengthy commentaries on the most recent communique, I was beginning to think that you were in on all of the action, but you assure us that you are only observing from afar. So, interpret as you wish, I shall stick by my analysis.
Repetition without clarification? Agreed. No dispute there.
RE: “I was beginning to think that you were in on all of the action . . . ”
LOL.
Yes, you could tell that I was right in the thick of things when I said that I was “someone with zero interest in participating in Common Cause, and who desperately longs for the Anglican Communion to hang together and who is firmly committed to a Canterbury solution, until I realize that it is truly hopeless.”
I can see, now, how you could faithfully read all the CCP statements and press releases and communiques and theological declarations and still marvel at why on earth the CCP had “scaled back to a “federation†with no statement about going to the primates” rather than simply seeing that letter “C” comes before letter “D” in the timeline.
Yep — your intense interest in the CCP documents is abundantly clear.
RE: “Repetition without clarification? Agreed. No dispute there.”
Yep, as it is clear that none, in fact, was needed, and that the “questions” and “confusion” were simply blog bloviation and posturing.
A pity, that.
[i] Let’s go back to a discussion of Kendall’s post, please. [/i]
-Elf Lady
“If one listens to and reads CCP communications…one sees quite clearly that the CCP wishes to be recognized as a separate entity ….by individual provinces that they actually care to be in communion with…I would expect them to approach some 15 to 20 provinces individually for recognition, and let it go at that.â€
Thanks for stating this in plain English. We shall see whether this ‘firm rebuttal’ to BfB proves to be *opinion* you can say was never more than that, or *fact* as you assumed this to be. I thought you meant this to be both, but accept that this may now not be so clear for you, upon reflection. Bloviating–I’ll take third place behind you in that race!
I agree Elf Lady! Just trying to understand the categorial summations regarding CCP from a blogger, if they are fact or opinion. I did not ‘lead us into temptation’ on this matter, but did try to sort out what was being said…
In all seriousness, if ‘Sarah”s view is in earnest and factual, that would be of significance for the public’s assessment of CCP, as she indicated that it was quite happy with a federal linkage to this or that Province and would happily move forward in that basis. Is this true? It would be good to know if Sarah meant her position to be a mere opinion or an informed declaration intending to be taken seriously as such.
RE: ” I thought you meant this to be both, but accept that this may now not be so clear for you, upon reflection.”
LOL.
Is that the best you can do at recovering?
I have been utterly consistent for the entire thread, and am quite confident that people viewing it will see that, no matter how you cut out all of my “appears” and numerous qualifications, consistently and repeatedly stated above. ; > )
I have stated again and again from whence I gain my perspective. And yes — I’m confident in my opinion, while — as is obvious — having no standing whatsoever in the CCP or inside knowledge.
And you know it.
RE: “In all seriousness, if ‘Sarah’’s view is in earnest and factual . . . ”
It’s certainly in earnest. But as said above, you’d have to inquire of the CCP leadership to discover whether it is “factual”.
RE: ” . . . that would be of significance for the public’s assessment of CCP” . . .
Why ever so? I’m not a leader of the CCP.
RE: “It would be good to know if Sarah meant her position to be a mere opinion or an informed declaration intending to be taken seriously as such.”
It’s an informed opinion, based — as now stated many times above — on the written publications of the CCP.
Those written publications of the CCP are available for all to read . . . but it appears that certain members of the Anglican Communion wish to pretend deep and profound “confusion” and post offended comments on blogs about those who believe that the confusion is odd, considering the written declarations of the CCP, which are fairly easily interpreted.
I wonder why?
I am not trying to recover from anything as I did not weigh in with a declaration about CCP’s agenda, with gusto, as you did.
Contests on blogs–advancing nothing factual–was never of any interest. I thought you were indicating something about CCP’s planning in the realm of public fact. Apparently you did not mean anyone to take that away.
[i] This thread is closed [/i]