Regarding the observations put forward by the Windsor Continuation Group, he said they were covering ground the Primates had already looked at.
“Since the Primates haven’t been able to move it along some of us don’t have much hope it will take us anywhere.
“Dar-es-Salaam put forward the idea of a pastoral council and the House of Bishops in the States didn’t want it. They want their autonomy.
“The North Americans have said they’re not going to move back and those who have left their national churches are unlikely to go back.
“Unless we talk about the real reasons why we are divided there’s little hope of putting it back together again.”
““It looks like GAFCON is about separation, and that’s not where I want to be.”
How does ++Venables define “separation” in this comment which seems to be taken from a context to which the reader is not privy?
Does this “separation” mean a separation from those holding radically different and heretical beliefs?
Does this “separation” mean a schism between believers in “…the Faith once given…” and heretics?
Does this “separation” mean a schism between believers in “…the Faith once given…?”
#1
None of the above. He’s saying he does not want to separate from the Anglican Communion as defined by those churches in communion with Canterbury.
I found the author comment after the article more interesting than the article itself:
[blockquote]I have asked and not received an answer how the new “Forum of Reference” is any different from the old “Panel of Reference”. The old was headed by a left leaning liberal with a propensity for doing nothing, and the new…ditto. The Dar communique at least had a deadline. One of the failings of the the Panel of Reference was that despite called for urgency, it took RW 6 mos to name +Carnley, and then over year for its first report – a report which told the churches of New Westminster to “chill”. [/blockquote]
The orthodox are being played for suckers…again.