So what does the content of this WGC document mean?
It means that the people in charge of this process have at last realised, perhaps thanks to Gafcon, that the African provinces who are boycotting Lambeth are serious. There is a desperation to keep them on board to prevent the Church from splitting.
If this new Commission enforces the new canon law blueprint in a way that is strictly in line with Lambeth 1.10, it also means there will be huge anger in the US. The Episcopal Church could well find itself riven by a formal split, leaving questions over which will be recognised by Canterbury. (Maybe those behind the name change from the former PECUSA saw this coming and that was a preparatory step.)
But we are fools if we think just the US will be affected. There are many traditionalist, catholic parishes in the Church of England that might well prefer to be aligned with a liberal TEC than a strictly conservative evangelical province.
The key to this in the UK will be where the moderate conservatives go. The extreme end of Gafcon, it is accepted, might already be lost. But will the Bishop of Durham Tom Wright, the respectable and intellectual face of orthodoxy, and others of his ilk, who are disliked by the far right, go with this? Gary Lillibridge, Bishop of West Texas, is a member of the Windsor Contination Group and is a highly-respected conservative bishop, in similar mould to Dr Wright.
My sources tell me the moderate conservatives are on side with this….
Ruth Gledhill links to [url=http://geoconger.wordpress.com/2008/07/24/tense-times-behind-the-scenes-at-the-lambeth-conference-cen-72508-p-16/]George Conger’s blog[/url] where I find this:
[blockquote]
“I have nothing to talk†to Gene Robinson about, Dr. Deng said. “First he must confess and then is the time to talk†about the divisions within the Communion, the Sudanese leader said.
[/blockquote]
Though I think Bishop Robinson should have been invited to Lambeth, I think it unseemly for him to be there “in the market” just as I also think it was unseemly for Bishop Duncan to have lurked on the fringe of the Primates meeting at Dromantine.
That said, how can we avoid interpreting this statement from Archbishop Deng as other than marginalization of Bishop Robinson. So, in this vein, is the archbishop “in compliance with” 1998 Lambeth I.10?
[blockquote]
This Conference:
…
3. recognises that there are among us persons who experience themselves as having a homosexual orientation. Many of these are members of the Church and are seeking the pastoral care, moral direction of the Church, and God’s transforming power for the living of their lives and the ordering of relationships. We commit ourselves to listen to the experience of homosexual persons and we wish to assure them that they are loved by God and that all baptised, believing and faithful persons, regardless of sexual orientation, are full members of the Body of Christ;
[/blockquote]
Likewise, how should we interpret that action of those who refuse to exchange the peace on account of this issue? Or those who [b]announce[/b] that they are not going to receive the Sacrament on account of this issue?
Re 1 above
stabill,
[blockquote] Likewise, how should we interpret that action of those who refuse to exchange the peace on account of this issue? Or those who announce that they are not going to receive the Sacrament on account of this issue?[/blockquote]
This is not complicated and it requires no interpretation. They have been completely upfront and crystal clear in what they are doing. They have announced that they are NOT IN COMMUNION with TEC because it is a heretical body. Severance of communion (that is the prohibition of communication in sacris i.e. the sharing of the sacred things) is the customary way of dealing with heretical groups or sects. It is actually mandated in the ancient church canons in cases of heresy.
“Let any Bishop, or Presbyter, or Deacon that merely joins in prayer with heretics be suspended, but if he has permitted them to perform any service as clergymen, let him be deposed.” Apostolic Canon 45.
“Let any clergyman or layman who enters …, or of heretics, to pray be both deposed and excommunicated.” Apostolic Canon 65.
“That one must not join in prayer with heretics or schismatics.” Canon 33 of the Council of Laodicea.
St. Maximus the Confessor said: “Even if the whole universe holds communion with the [heretical] patriarch, I will not communicate with him. For I know from the writings of the holy Apostle Paul: the Holy Spirit declares that even the angels would be anathema if they should begin to preach another Gospel, introducing some new teaching.” The Life of St. Maximus the Confessor.
“Chrysostomos loudly declares not only heretics, but also those who have communion with them, to be enemies of God.” St. Theodore the Studite, Epistle of Abbot Theophilus.
“All the teachers of the Church, and all the Councils, and all the Divine Scriptures advise us to flee from the heterodox and separate from their communion.” St. Mark of Ephesus.
ICXC NIKA
[url=http://ad-orientem.blogspot.com/]John[/url]
So the orthodox Catholics won’t join Gafcon?
Well having just been kicked hard where it hurts by Synod I would question that. We Catholics have just been given the two fingers from the liberals- why in the name of all things holy would we now choose to work with them????
Bizarre!
rugbyplayingpriest,
I don’t know what happened, but the sentence on the T:19 page about catholics is different from the sentence in the actual article if you follow the link. On the T1:9 page it reads:
“There are many traditionalist, catholic parishes in the Church of England that might well prefer to be aligned with a liberal TEC than a strictly conservative evangelical province.â€
But the sentence in the actual Gledhill article reads:
There are some catholic parishes in the Church of England that might well prefer to be aligned with a liberal TEC than a strictly conservative evangelical province.
Notice the original “some†became “many†while the word “traditionalist†has appeared. Don’t know what happened there. I guess it’s not all cut and paste and our kind hosts are human.
Thus I am led to believe, reading Gledhill’s article, that she is referring to that curious wing of the church known as “Affirming Catholic.†You know, all the trappings of Catholic worship but none of its orthodox substance. I seriously doubt she is referring to the FiF crowd led by Bishop Broadhurst. Although, a lot of that crowd may end up in Rome after all.