The Episcopal News Service has its report here. It includes a mention of Fort Worth Via Media's January 19 event feaaturing Tom Woodward.
Read Mark Harris' take here. His Pollyanna Assessment of an Invitation is an excellent analysis. Here is an excerpt:
"It would appear that the Standing Committee of Fort Worth is gladly and cheerfully headed down the path to accepting the invitation from the Province of the Southern Cone. They are glad for the invitation, glad that everything in the Southern Cone is orthodox and wonderful, glad to be rid of the Episcopal Church. Glad, glad, glad.
"You can read the whole of the report HERE, and HERE, and HERE.
"Or you can read a few corrections to the gladness of the day, here:
"They said in the report, "The leadership of TEC has threatened us with false claims of canonical power to correct and discipline us while condoning or even promoting in other dioceses false teaching and sacramental actions explicitly contrary to Holy Scripture."
"The fact of the matter is the leadership of TEC, that is the Presiding Bishop and her staff, have not threatened but rather have pointed out the implications of actually withdrawing from union with the General Convention. That was done prior to Fort Worth taking their first vote so that it would be clear to all that voting to leave the Episcopal Church was canonically invalid. The accusation that the leadership of the Episcopal Church is "condoning or even promoting....false teaching and sacramental actions explicitly contrary to Holy Scripture" is rot.
-------------------------------------
Could he make it more clear? The accusation by our diocesan leadership that TEC is "condoning or even promoting . . .false teaching and sacramental actions explicitly contrary to Holy Scripture" is "rot."
Please read it all.
A commenter on Mark's blog said...
" Fascinating. They expressly acknowledge that their diocesan "autonomy" within TEC is *limited*; indeed, they cite this as part of why they want to go to the Southern Cone's purportedly more autonomy-friendly polity.Yet they seem not to understand that this acknowledgment of having only limited autonomy in the first place *contradicts* and *undercuts* their claim to have sufficient autonomy in the first place to *leave*.Apparently, logical argumentation and consistency are not among the strong suits of that diocese's leadership."
Other reactions and observations also are interesting.
Jake puts the report in a wider context here. He reports on the Anglican Church in Canada's response to the Southern Cone poaching in its dioceses and parishes. They don't like it at all.
---------------------------------------------
"In light of these provisions, as well as of ancient canons of the church, statements of successive Lambeth Conferences, the Lambeth Commission on Communion (the Windsor Report), and the 2005 and 2007 communiqués from the Primates, we believe that recent interventions by another province in the internal life of our church are unnecessary and inappropriate. Our concern was voiced publicly in recent statements by the Council of General Synod (Nov. 16, 2007) and in a joint Pastoral Statement from myself and the Canadian Metropolitans (Nov. 29, 2007). I have appealed to the Archbishop of Canterbury in his capacity as one of the Instruments of Communion and as chair of the Primates' Meeting to address the very serious issues raised by this intervention and to make clear that such actions are not a valid expression of Anglicanism..."
------------------------------------------
The continuing silence of the Archbishop of Canterbury on the incursions of the Southern Cone doesn't please the Canadians either.
-------------------------------------------
"...It is in this context that we deplore recent actions on the part of the Primate and General Synod of the Province of the Southern Cone to extend its jurisdiction into Canada through the Essentials Network Conference. This action breaks fellowship within the Anglican Church of Canada and the Anglican Communion.
We affirm the statement unanimously agreed to by the Council of General Synod which appeals to the Archbishop of Canterbury “to make clear that such actions are not a valid expression of Anglicanism.” We too appeal to him in his capacity as one of the instruments of communion and as chair of the Primates' Meeting to address the very serious issues raised by this intervention.
The actions by the Primate of the Southern Cone are not necessary. Our bishops have made adequate and appropriate provision for the pastoral care and episcopal support of all members of the Anglican Church of Canada, including those who find themselves in conscientious disagreement with the view of their bishop and synod over the blessing of same-sex unions. These provisions, contained in the document known as Shared Episcopal Ministry, were adopted by the House of Bishops and commended by the panel of reference appointed by the Archbishop of Canterbury.
The actions by the Primate of the Southern Cone are also inappropriate. They contravene ancient canons of the Church going as far back as the 4th century, as well as statements of the Lambeth Conference, the Windsor report and the Communiqué from the Primates' Meeting earlier this year. Furthermore these actions violate Canon XVII of the Anglican Church of Canada which states that “No Bishop priest or deacon shall exercise ordained ministry in a diocese without the license or temporary permission of the Diocesan Bishop.”
Any ministry exercised in Canada by those received into the Province of the Southern Cone after voluntarily relinquishing the exercise of their ministry in the Anglican Church of Canada is inappropriate, unwelcome and invalid. We are aware that some bishops have, or will be making statements to that effect in their own dioceses..."
-------------------------------------------
Please take time to read these articles. It will help make sense of the events unfolding here in the Diocese of Fort Worth.
No comments:
Post a Comment