Archbishop Gomez said there was “a very high approval rating” for the ministry of the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Lambeth Conference, but he noted that the bishops raised questions “about the place of the Anglican Consultative Council (ACC), and there were a lot of questions about the role of the primates’ meeting in Anglican polity.”
The Covenant Design Group will meet in March 2009 to develop a new draft and prepare a report to the ACC for its May 1 to 12, 2009 meeting in Jamaica.
Archbishop Gomez said he anticipates it would take three to five years for the provinces to sign up once a final draft was ratified by the ACC. “There is a strong feeling in some parts of the communion that the covenant, setting out our mutual responsibilities as a family of churches, needs to be in place as quickly as possible ”” although there are other voices which still believe we have a way to go before we arrive at a mature text,” he said.
People are not going to wait this long….they are leaving now.
The truth is the Covenant need to be in place 4 years ago. For the orthodox in North America, the AC as a means of assistance and support, has been little more than a mirage. That is why I keep asking, “Why should the AC be of any importance to us?”
In his dreams … did Gomez miss the memo that the Church of England is constitutionally unable to sign onto anything that gives power to the primates over the Queen? “A mature text” would require mature thinkers at the table … mature to the concept that there are four orders of ministry in the church and the bishops do not rule by fiat. Big surprise they give high marks to the ABofC and Lambeth and have “questions” about the ACC.
This whole Covenant Process is a weapon of mass distraction … time to say this emperor has no clothes!
RE: “did Gomez miss the memo that the Church of England is constitutionally unable to sign onto anything that gives power to the primates over the Queen? . . . ”
Actually there are three possible ways for the COE to sign on to the Covenant without violating their country’s rules. I’m sure that Rowan Williams is considering them all, in varying degrees, with his advisors.
But you know . . . it’d be too depressing for the radical revisionists to comprehend those three solutions to the legal issue. ; > )
<== Laughing Uproariously .....
Another revelation of the problem with ECUSA/TEC/GCC/EO-PAC, the confusion of its polity with the role of bishop. What do they teach in seminaries these days? It’s obvious what wasn’t taught when………
Try dictionary.com for episcopal and see “ruled by bishops” as the very definition of episcopal.
The problem that I have with this is that five years is plenty of “wiggle time” for The Episcopal Church to “bend the rules” to suit themselves, and I’m not at all sure that this is something we need, because it may not be workable in any case.
Ms. Russell is stating an obvious mindset, “no way”. The GLBT Church formerly known as Episcopal Church in the USA will never accept anything that takes away their precious autonomy. They are constitutionally unable to accept governance, (see situation in California over Prop 8) other than their own.
[i] Slightly edited by elf. [/i]
I doubt that the then ABofC Jeffrey John will be in any rush to sign.
Intercessor
Don’t these people have the Internet and email??!! No wonder Western paperwork is being outsourced to India and China. Thye do it overnight.
[i] Comment directed toward another commenter deleted by elf. [/i]
Always its the next step that is going to save “Episcopal Church Classic.” First it was San J. leaving (that will teach them). Then it was the Primates (that will reign them in). Then Lambeth to the rescue. Now the Covenant will save the Church. Frankly it sounds like the triump of hope over experience.
[i] Slightly edited by elf. [/i]
I’m unclear exactly what the Anglican Covenant is supposed to do or how it will work. I’ve read various accounts and potential purposes, but even if they come up with a unified Covenant for people to sign onto or not, what happens if Provinces or Dioceses refuse?
I mean, the premise seems to be, and please correct me if I’m wrong, that if they don’t sign on, then they either get kicked out or are relegated to some secondary status. Isn’t that back door coercion? And if its coercion, isn’t it really morally non-binding?
Aren’t we then back to the drawing board? I’m just having trouble following this whole process.
I suspect all this “time table” news is really propaganda to get the idea OFF the table:
“Gosh, guys, you have a good idea, but at the current rate of movement, it will take five years to get the Constitution signed, 10 years for the next Lambeth to indaba it, and hell will freeze over before TEc agrees to it. So you might as well give up now and save yourselves some trouble.”
oops, meant “covenant” not “constitution”. Sorry, my mind was on an e-mail from another site.
It’s clear to me that the leaders of the Anglican communion simply do not grasp the gravity of the situation that we are in. We do not have the luxury of waiting five years for a fix that probably won’t even work.
This stalking horse left the barn years ago. The barn is collapsing as we speak.
This is apparently an older article that was just posted on the ang journal site. I couldn’t find it on ens this morning and should have known better.
Since the covenant topic is relevant, I am leaving up the comments.
It originally ran on ens on oct 22,2008