The paper, commissioned by Dr Williams, made clear that bishops who had transgressed diocesan and provincial boundaries in search of “orthodox” primacy were considered guilty of undermining collegiality. An even worse sin, it suggested, was boycotting the conference.
The warning was published in the Lambeth Reader, a document intended only for delegates but seen by The Times. “Given the present state of the Anglican Communion it is the special collegial responsibility of the bishop to be at prayer for and with fellow colleagues,” the paper said.
“This is particularly relevant for those bishops who are in conflict with one another. Their failure to attend fervently to this ordinal vow weakens the body of Christ for which they have responsibility. This in turn weakens the bonds that all the baptised share with one another.”
The paper, written by the Inter-Anglican Theological and Doctrinal Commission, represents the start of the fightback by Dr Williams, who has been accused of showing inadequate leadership.
Is it this paper from October 2006 that the Times is on about?
http://www.anglicancommunion.org/ministry/theological/iatdc/docs/2006theses.cfm
All the quotes seem to tie back to that. If that is the paper being referred to, given it was written in 2006, the spin put on it here
[blockquote] “The paper, written by the Inter-Anglican Theological and Doctrinal Commission, represents the start of the fightback by Dr Williams, who has been accused of showing inadequate leadership” [/blockquote]
Just seems way off base.
Had the ability to be part of a parish under the oversight of an orthodox bishop (in this case – Southern Cone) been unavailable, I would have severed all ties with Anglicanism.
Dr. Williams’ delay in providing meaningful alternative oversight was thankfully remedied by others filling the void.
It is informative to note the Inter-Anglican Theological and Doctrinal Commission would have preferred my departure from the communion.
St. Athanasius of Alexandria in his refusal to compromise with the Arian Heresy often crossed diocesan and provincil boundaries in defense of orthodox belief.
Alexandria is just down the road from Falls Church, so I’m sure if TEC can just get an address for service of process on this Athanasius fellow, they’ll add him as a defendant.
To late #4 he was born in 296 and died in 373, however the Inquisition did dig up the dead so they could burn the remains. However I doubt the good saints bones are lost by now.
“fellow colleagues”? When the English is so bad, what hope is there for sound theology?
“Collegial responsibility of the bishop” apparently trumps caring for the people crying out for help in RW’s book. The puppet strings of TEC become more apparent every time he opens his mouth.
When I was growing up, I was told there was only ONE (1) “unforgivable sin”, I never was told what it was.. All other sins were equal in God’s sight.
You don’t suppose this “trespassing thing” is it do you?
It sure seems to be a “biggy”in some folk’s minds…
Naahhhhhhhh
Gloria in SC
The ABC just threw the orthodox under the bus.
What a puppet.
I’m not as edumacated as the ABC and members of the IATDC, but it strikes me as disingenuous to suggest that working out conflicts is an imperative, yet the conference is structured so as to avoid any conflicts. And it’s apparently alright to chastise those who chose to absent themselves, but equally alright to fail to invite others at all. I guess the ABC in his wisdom has decided which conflicts are worth paying lip service to, and which contenders’ fervent attendance is unnecessary.
And yes, I wish all of the reasserting bishops had agreed to attend, and I would not have objected if Bp Robinson had been included as long as Minns et al were.
4. pendennis88 wrote:
Alexandria is just down the road from Falls Church, so I’m sure if TEC can just get an address for service of process on this Athanasius fellow, they’ll add him as a defendant.
^^^^^^^^^^^^
Sorry, I can’t post a thought right now as I have laughed my head off and I need to go in search of it.
Don
This is a strange article, and conveys a very different tone from that given by Archbishop Rowan in his first address to the bishops yesterday.