tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10326675.post115279466003587256..comments2024-02-15T03:32:25.686-05:00Comments on Preludium, Anglican and Episcopal futures: Keep it SimpleMark Harrishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06871096746243771489noreply@blogger.comBlogger13125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10326675.post-1153228766769855772006-07-18T09:19:00.000-04:002006-07-18T09:19:00.000-04:00(1) why you wrote that we "partly" refused to give...<I>(1) why you wrote that we "partly" refused to give in (emphasis on the partly part)</I><BR/><BR/>That was a reference to B033.<BR/><BR/><I>(2) who do you think are "those who would make an idol out of the AC?"</I><BR/><BR/>Oh golly, where to start ? The Abp. of Canterbury & York, the "scholars for hire" at the ACI, and the extremist "conservatives"* of the AAC/ACN (that last bunch will be fickle supporters, of course - they'll be fans of the AC precisely as long as it suits their political agenda).<BR/><BR/>* as opposed to the traditional conservatives of TEC, who may or may not be supportive of this new "Roman Catholic" style AC that some are pushing for, but for different, and non-political, reasons.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10326675.post-1153145763663612322006-07-17T10:16:00.000-04:002006-07-17T10:16:00.000-04:00David,If you allow me a couple follow-ups, I'm int...David,<BR/><BR/>If you allow me a couple follow-ups, I'm interested in reading:<BR/><BR/>(1) why you wrote that we "partly" refused to give in (emphasis on the partly part); and<BR/><BR/>(2) who do you think are "those who would make an idol out of the AC?"<BR/><BR/>Also, wouldn't your idea of all TEC bishops refusing to attend if any are not invited make an idol out of TEC?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10326675.post-1153144601017962542006-07-17T09:56:00.000-04:002006-07-17T09:56:00.000-04:00No, gyre, it wasn't that we "had the chance to KIS...No, gyre, it wasn't that we <I>"had the chance to KISS and we couldn't do it,"</I> but that we (at least partly) refused to give in to the complex machinations of those who would make an idol out of the AC.<BR/><BR/>I'd also hope, barring ++Williams extending invitations to everyone, that TEC would simply refuse to go if <I>all</I> its bishops aren't invited.<BR/><BR/>I'm, as usual, with the Good Prior on this. It's <I>"so very sad about invites to tea & crumpets at Lambeth being the point of the Gospel..."</I>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10326675.post-1153140974550133272006-07-17T08:56:00.000-04:002006-07-17T08:56:00.000-04:00I guess the problem facing ABC right now is that h...I guess the problem facing ABC right now is that his blue ribbon panel of advisors (aka the Lambeth Commission) unanimously agreed that the bishops of TEC had given the rest of the AC reasonable cause to believe that the TEC bishops had decided to "walk apart" (which one would think would mean no tea and crumpets).<BR/><BR/>Fortunately, the same blue ribbon panel made a slew of suggestions that TEC could do that would demonstrate our commitment to walking together. Unfortunately, TEC agreed with a few suggestions, disagreed with a few other suggestions, ignored a couple suggestions, then changed its collective mind on a particular suggestion but ending up modifying that suggestion, all for the purpose of saying, "We do ever so much wish to have tea and crumpets with you at Lambeth." <BR/><BR/>Seems like it was TEC that had the chance to KISS and we couldn't do it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10326675.post-1153096585008890232006-07-16T20:36:00.000-04:002006-07-16T20:36:00.000-04:00Well, I think I made my point. Keep it simple is a...Well, I think I made my point. Keep it simple is a great slogan, but hard to apply. Somewhere a choice is made as to who is invited. Marshall supplies his criteria - they may be well argued but they are not simple. Nobody's criteria are. We have a complicated history.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10326675.post-1153083151946051412006-07-16T16:52:00.000-04:002006-07-16T16:52:00.000-04:00Right! And, heaven knows why this post awakened t...Right! And, heaven knows why this post awakened the mother's instinct in me, but to give in to spoiled children once is a serious mistake and invites only further protest, never appreciation. Twice and you'll never get past the temper tantrums.Anniehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16953544682005776731noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10326675.post-1153065558415578402006-07-16T11:59:00.000-04:002006-07-16T11:59:00.000-04:00It may be fair to ask if Nigeria's actions don't p...It may be fair to ask if Nigeria's actions don't put it about where AMIA and REC live. If it does, should they get an invite?<BR/><BR/>FWIW<BR/>jimBJimBhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17312606954135884910noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10326675.post-1152997970195198552006-07-15T17:12:00.000-04:002006-07-15T17:12:00.000-04:00Obadiah:We might, of course, argue over "properly ...Obadiah:<BR/><BR/>We might, of course, argue over "properly consecrated." My point is not per se historic succession, nor action of the Holy Spirit. However, CESA is specifically not in communion with Canterbury. AMiA is a bit more ambiguous, but Carey didn't recognized them and neither has Williams. If we do acknowledge them as bishops of the provinces of Rwanda and Southeast Asia, then they constitute the single most pervasive "boundary violation" - which, it could be argued, was the specific intent of their consecration. That is also a violation of "bonds of affection," as referenced in Lambeth, the Windsor Report, etc. Would inviting them constitute "rewarding bad behavior?"<BR/><BR/>After the row in Southwark, I don't think he can invite CESA, any more than I would expect him to invite Lutherans, whether under Porvoo, Called to Common Mission, or the Canadian concordat. There is, perhaps - perhaps! - a tenuous claim for AMiA; but one might argue the same claim for the Reformed Episcopal Church, and they are not recognized as "in communion."<BR/><BR/>I do think he should, perhaps, invite as broadly as "properly consecrated," as he interprets that, might allow. There will be a more clear and more personal statement then in who chooses not to come.Marshall Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02807749717320495495noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10326675.post-1152914308580239372006-07-14T17:58:00.000-04:002006-07-14T17:58:00.000-04:00"He must make it plain and public that all properl..."He must make it plain and public that all properly consecrated bishops will be invited to the next Lambeth Conference"<BR/>So let's invite evryone including AMiA and CESA. Martyn Minns too. <BR/>Unless you want a communion that rules some people in and others out?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10326675.post-1152900626892392072006-07-14T14:10:00.000-04:002006-07-14T14:10:00.000-04:00Let's go back as well to this:'Such a meeting woul...Let's go back as well to this:<BR/><BR/>'Such a meeting would not be competent to make declarations or lay down definitions on points of doctrine.'<BR/><BR/>Lambeth has become something it was never meant to be: a legislative body and a place to define doctrinal correctness.<BR/><BR/>It was meant as sort of a 'sick-kids' camp' (the 'illness' being the Anglican episcopate). It was a place to come together with people sharing similar life concerns; concerns not shared by people who don't have a close variant of the same condition. That way, they could come together and be with people who understood them, who didn't think it weird that they did the things they did or worried about the things they worried about. Afterwards, the hope was to go back, strengthened and renewed, with fresh ideas to cope with their particular oddities.<BR/><BR/>So, what happened to Lambeth, and why was it allowed?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10326675.post-1152884263921689292006-07-14T09:37:00.000-04:002006-07-14T09:37:00.000-04:00Something else from the Church Times on what a cov...Something else from the Church Times on what a covenant is really about<BR/><BR/>"It’s a relationship, not a doctrinal quiz"<BR/><BR/>http://churchtimes.co.uk/churchtimes/website/pages.nsf/httppublicpages/7497825FB8E610AB802571A30031C612Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10326675.post-1152836402275697372006-07-13T20:20:00.000-04:002006-07-13T20:20:00.000-04:00Mark --Do you ever have a bad post -- I had forgot...Mark --<BR/><BR/>Do you ever have a bad post -- I had forgotten the Church Times recommendation -- pity Rowan didn't just do it.<BR/><BR/>And so glad to be reminded about those who refused Longley's invitation -- something so very sad about invites to tea & crumpets at Lambeth being the point of the Gospel...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10326675.post-1152821605459471692006-07-13T16:13:00.000-04:002006-07-13T16:13:00.000-04:00What a blessed thought! If only we see it lived o...What a blessed thought! If only we see it lived out.<BR/><BR/>It would, of course, put in perspective the "instruments of unity." It would require acknowledgement in the wider Communion that these are bonds of affection, and not of jurisdiction, even when we seek some consistency of canon law. It would reflect what the Archbishop has himself recently said: that he does not have jurisdictional authority, and we all come by consent - his and our own.<BR/><BR/>We can always pray.Marshall Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02807749717320495495noreply@blogger.com