A South American Anglican archbishop who adamantly opposes homosexual relationships is coming to Vancouver on Friday despite being told to stay away by Canada’s top Anglican.
Archbishop Gregory Venables, who claims to represent 15 breakaway Anglican congregations in Canada, will speak Friday at a gathering in Delta of the conservative Anglican Network in Canada.
Venables, who has been criticized as a rogue archbishop by Anglican colleagues in South America and elsewhere, is recruiting Anglican congregations in Canada and the U.S. that have opposed the ordination of homosexuals and the church blessing of their relationships.
The ROGUE provinces aren’t responsible for ANY of this, of course. A rogue is a rogue is a rogue comes to mind.
Biased “reporting” much? Why not just come right out and call ++Venables the anti-Christ?
For some reason, “recruiting” is not the word that comes to mind when it comes to Archbishop Venables.
Good grief! My Journalism 101 prof would have failed me in a heartbeat for a biased piece like this. Where’s the editor, any editor? What a hack job!
The ACoC ought to be thankful that ++Venables is not going around “recruiting” parishes or people. If he were, the ACoC would be in serious trouble. Any rel primate with Venables’ ability going around Canada “recruiting” people to ANiC could strip dioceses of orthodox parishes and parishioners very quickly.
In fact ++Venables accepted primacy only on a temporary emergengy basis until an orthodox Anglican North American province gets its act together.
He didn’t ignore the request, of course. He responded with a gracious reply, declining to change his plans.
It wasn’t hard to find this fiction writers email address and explain the facts to him. I doubt he has guts enough to reply to me. He and his boyfriend are probably too busy getting ready for Vicky Genes “wedding”.
So much for “Windsor Compliant”
Oh Susan, give it up. Compliance with Windsor, Canons, or Scripture by revisionists like yourself happens only when it is convenient or expedient. Otherwise, they are largely ignored or mocked as “outdated”. Much the same with being “welcoming” or “inclusive”….only when we agree with you.
BINGO, Daniel! You smacked the nail with a twelve pound sledgehammer! Seems like some people just don’t can’t stand to hear someone else’s version of the truth, do they?
Susan,
I’ll make a deal with you. I’ll not invite any bishop into the Diocese of Dallas nor will I attend any liturgical service where a bishop of the Anglican Communion who does not have Bishop Stanton’s authorization celebrates and I will urge my brothers and sisters in the Diocese of Dallas to do the same. You, in turn, will not bless any more same sex unions and you will urge your brothers and sisters in the Diocese of Los Angeles to also refrain from blessing same sex unions. That way, we will both be Windsor Compliant.
If you are not willing to be Windsor Compliant; if it is not important for you to hold and teach what the Church teaches, then why is it important for others to be Windsor Compliant?
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
And Mr Todd noted that Archbishop Rowan Williams “condemned” conservative Anglican bishops for taking action to help reasserters in the U.S. and Canada, but I disagree with him.
+++Rowan has criticized their actions, to be sure, but he did not go so far as to condemn them for what they’ve done and are still doing.
Mr Todd needs to get his facts straight.
TEMPLE NEWS:
Claiming to be prophetic, a certain John has been agitating the venerable institution of our Temple for quite some time. He is clearly working outside of the normal permissions and approvals that would be available to worthy prophets.
Temple attendance remains high. All is well.
In a related story, a carpenter’s son has gathered for himself a group of disreputable persons and has gone through the villages giving permission for those citizens to leave our venerable traditions to follow his interpretation. Private warnings have gone unheeded. Temple attendance remains high. All is well.
[i] Comment deleted by elf [/i]
I grew up in Vancouver, and Doug Todd has long been the Vancouver Sun’s religion editor. (As an aside, ironically, David Virtue was the religion editor many years ago for the Vancouver Sun’s sister morning tabloid paper, the Vancouver Province). Todd has always been very sympathetic to the Ingham/Dalai Lama/United Church of Canada style of make-it-up-for-yourself-as-you-go-along religion and his reporting has always been very biased to that end. Recognize that Vancouver is one of the most liberal cities in North America and its newspapers dance very much to that tune.
I agree with the above commenters that this was a very biased report. As you can see at, [url=http://communities.canada.com/vancouversun/blogs/thesearch/default.aspx]Todd’s Blog[/url]
The reporter is the…
[blockquote]”Award-winning spirituality and ethics columnist Douglas Todd….”[/blockquote]
Who hands out those awards? Send this story to the Get Religion website!
#8: Susan, Under Windsor, the quid pro quo for no boundary crossing was the Panel of Reference. The POR proved to be illusory. Dar es Salaam was another attempt to provide alternative oversight, but it was strangled in the cradle by Rowan Williams in New Orleans.
11 Philip Snyder in Dallas makes a good proposal. I fear that the lack of trust on both sides is such that no agreement to end both invitations to foreign bishops and blessing of same-sex unions can hold. Until the leadership of General Convention abandons its present “dog in the manger” attitude and acknowledges that there are several ways to be Anglican in the United States, and the leadership of those who have rejected the authority of the General Convention acknowledge that disagreements about moral theology are not of necessity church-dividing, the civil war continues. One place to begin might be to suspend all the lawsuits without prejudice and go to binding arbitration over property.
Tom Rightmyer trightmy@juno.com
Another Susan Russell drive by blogging. Remember, don’t feed the trolls.
I still have to ask: If ++Venables were going to Canada to promote Amway, would he be prohibited by ++Hilz to speak at a sellers’ conference? Likewise, if Pope Benedict XVI were going to Canada to speak to Roman Catholics, would he be prohibited by the Anglican Church in Canada and ++Hilz to speak to the Catholic faithful?
Is ++Venables indeed speaking to those who have LEFT the Anglican Church under ++Hilz’s authority?
Please help me: I am confused!
Besides, the Windsor Report “was written by man, and it can be changed by man.” It was never adopted or given consent by the majority of the Communion.
#19 – that’s an open and somewhat touchy question; if the answer is that the Southern Cone and the ACoC are [i]out[/i] of Communion, then the “abandonment” proceedings are justified. If, on the other hand, the ACoC is still in communion with the Southern Cone, then the protocol for bishops would apply (but then, the abandonment proceedings would clearly be wrong.) The other landmine is that if the ACoC as currently constituted is out of the Anglican Communion, then it’s in violation of the 1893 Solemn Declaration – and the secular courts might well decide that the reasserters actually [i]are[/i] the real Anglican Church and get all the property.
If the reappraisers had followed the canonical amendment process, that argument wouldn’t be available – but they didn’t. The ACoC continues to try to have it both ways, something which seems to not be working overly well.