Do you have a link to the source document?

Working on it Scott first I have to get the post right.

Gracious restraint—gracious words.  A civilized, measured response directing us to the next steps.  Again.

So here’s a plan for a response:

Let’s have lots of meetings and conferences.  Of course we MUST have lots of scholarly papers, analyses and in-depth studies.

Let’s have some committee reports.  And discuss them. 

Let’s convene a commission to make requests and suggestions

That we ignore.

Let’s discuss this some more.  And—Oh!—listen to each other.  And seek to walk together

For ANOTHER Seven Years

And then what?

Oh, dear—what’s that sound?  I fear it is the sound of the Covenant dying as it seeks to be born.

See the latest from the Curmudgeon:
http://accurmudgeon.blogspot.com/

A series of speculations, but interesting. The Archbishop of Canterbury finds himself at another crossroads.

...yawn…

Headmaster Rowan: throw that again and I will have to talk to you very sternly indeed!
Naughty Child: So what?
RW: right that is it - one more word and I will expell you!
NC: Dont care
RW: right that is IT! We will have a serious talk - SERIOUS you understand me
NC: go ahead- you know you want to throw it too really
RW: hmmm that is not the point. Ok I have spoken in my indaba group and decided that you you are still a school member but you may one day be an outer-wheel school member and you need to know it must NOT happen again because the other children are upset
NC: then watch this- weeee
RW: right enough. We are going to have to have a serious talk
NC: I thought you were going to expell me? Only i pay your wages dont I? .........

Archbishop of Canterbury: “Stop or I shall be forced to say ‘Stop’ again!”

#7
And I’ll stamp my foot so you’ll know I’m really upset.

Sometimes a leader is defined as much by what he chooses not to do as he is by what he chooses to do.

I think that ++Rowan has clearly defined himself over the past several years as a supporter of ‘modern thinking,’ aka revisionism, by the decisions he has not made and the actions he has not taken.

If he fails to act decisively to punish ECUSA for this latest disregard for his authority as the ABC and ECUSA’s disregard for the majority position of the Anglican Communion, in total numbers and in total ASA, then he will clearly define himself as the ‘revisionist’ Archbishop of Canterbury.

Remember:  This is typical Britishese for “there could be consequences.”  Notice that I said “could be.”  No guarantee, of course.

Note that it was the actions of Rowan Williams in 2007-2009 related to such things as the DES Communique, the 2008 Lambeth Conference invitations and planning, and the 2009 Jamaica ACC meeting which emboldened TEC’s bishops to give consent to Glasspool.  Had Rowan Williams used his moral authority in these situations (e.g. by declining invitations to the Robinson consecrators, by using his influence to keep TEC members off of the JSC, by upholding the DES Communique, etc.) then I have no doubt at all that Glasspool would NOT have received the consents.

What is becoming increasingly clear is that there is a game being played - Rowan Williams expresses his displeasure at what TEC is doing, then works very hard behind the scenes to manipulate the processes to ensure that nothing is ever done to hold TEC accountable.  And that is exactly what will happen again and again until the moderate Primates see the light and stop trusting him.

Verified Scott with Lambeth Palace press office.

It started before Rowan, with Carey completely misunderstanding the reaction of Rwanda and SE Asia in moving to help conservatives.  So it’s not just Rowan, but a mindset.  A Bishop for the whole Church.  Open wide, Anglican Communion.

Who is this statement from?  The ABC typically signs his own name to his statements.  Is this from the bureaucrats? It sounds like it.

Another can to be kicked down the road no doubt. Such a disgrace.
Intercessor

While I am pessimistic about +Cantuar’s response, we are going to have to give him some time.  I don’t expect much, but I suggest prayer.  My expectations are not necessarily in line with what God can do, to my discredit.

#14 A Lambeth Palace spokesperson.

That is why it is titled the way it is.

Katherine,

I disagree completely.  Any leader worth his salt anticipates outcomes and his/her responses to them.  If +Cantuar had any notion that Ms. Glasspool would not be confirmed, he was delusional.  But even if so, he ought to have had a response in mind - he’s had many months to be in prayer about this situation.  Knowing as he surely did that the confirmation was likely, he also ought to have had a response in mind.  It’s certainly the case that Integrity and AAC both had their responses well-crafted in advance, as one would expect.

If in fact he is that removed from the urgency of this matter, the Communion is indeed over as we have known it.

Fr. Darin Lovelace+
St. John’s Anglican
Park City UT

A pathetic, impotent statement.

The question remains:  is there any such thing as a bottom line?

We have been in free fall for seven years over this.  Does this well have a bottom, or we are caught in a theological “black hole?”

If the Covenant process tries to go forward including TEC, then it seems most probable that large chunks (at least) of the Global South with remove themselves from it.  The strategy so far has been to try to keep everyone under the big tent, and it just can’t be done under the circumstances.  Refusing to face up to this will simply continue the slow bleed into oblivion.

Do we really care what God thinks about all this?  Did He give us the Holy Scriptures merely to be interpreted at our own whim?

Does our Lord put a cobbled-together “unity” above Truth and the Moral Good?

If we can’t bring ourselves to come to grips with these questions, then we are not the Church of Jesus Christ.

Then Jesus asked the Pharisees, first answer Me this: the Baptism of John—did it come from God or from man?

The Pharisees conferred together and said: If we say, “from God” then He will say, “then why did you not receive him?” and if we say, “from man” then the crowds will turn against us.

So they said to Jesus: “We do not know”

And Jesus answered them: “then neither will I tell you on whose authority I do these things.”

We don’t play word games with the Kingdom of God, even in the name of trying to accomplish some “deeper purpose.”

And yes, Fr Darin, I fear the Communion is indeed over as we have known it.  That is the price of continuing the word game.

Darin,

I agree.  I expect the ABC had a statement thought out well in advance.  I can also understand that he might delay releasing it while he makes some personal phone calls.

I hope that this present statement was given out by some well meaning person trying to anticipate his bosses needs.  What can I say…I’m incurably an optimist.

#16 . Katherine,

While I am pessimistic about +Cantuar’s response, we are going to have to give him some time.

I agree with Fr. Darin. RW has failed to appreciate the gravity of this situation and should have had a ready response. This is not a sudden turn of events. It has been a long time coming. What is he willing to allow to keep TEC in the WWAC? I think just about anything.

Fr. Darin, Fr. Dale, your responses would be valid for a man who is a leader.  Does Rowan Williams qualify?  I think not; and yet, we ought to pray for him until his failure to act rightly is clear once again—and afterwards, because we always hope for repentance.  His end-of-dithering date appears to me to be before the Global South Singapore meeting.  It seems likely that if Jefferts Schori is not excluded from further Standing Committee meetings and if TEC is not excluded from further ACC meetings, the existing Communion structure is dead.  I think we should plan for that eventuality and pray that Williams will turn his ways.  An immediate and clear response is not in his DNA, sadly.

Re # 5
What you wrote… ditto.

There will be the usual hyperventilating from the usual quarters.  Beyond which nothing of note is gong to occur.  Anyone who was ever, for any reason, going to leave TEO has probably already done so (SC might be forced out the door soon but they are the exception).  Those who remain have nailed their flag to the masthead and are resolved to go down with the ship.  They remain impervious to the admonitions of both scripture (Titus 3:10) and the immemorial discipline of the Church which forbids being in communion with heretics and apostates.  Nothing will ever move them.

Speaking only for myself, I know longer recognize TEO as a Christian entity.

ANATHEMA!

The soft cushions have not worked.  Cardinal Fang!  Fetch…THE COMFY CHAIR!

Sort of depends who he is consulting with-
1. (most probable) he is consulting with Cameron, Kearon, Morgan, Aspinall on a nuanced approach to make it sound like something is actually happening.
2. (not unlikely) he is consulting with moderate GS primates about the minimum he will need to do in order for them to sign the Covenant.
3. (unlikely but possible) he is actively consulting with TEC about damage control.
4. (highly unlikely, but possible) he is consulting with ++Venables, ++Orombi, ++Anis, etc about what actually needs to be done.

One is inclined to humbly advise the ABoC that this is a job for +NT Wright rather than Kearon.  Just a suggestion.

#23. Katherine,

Fr. Darin, Fr. Dale, your responses would be valid for a man who is a leader

Sorry Katherine but I don’t buy it. this is just one more excuse for the man. We have the right to expect leadership from him. To not expect leadership is codependency.

TEC to ABC and AC—> “Go take a flying leap !”

You are spot on #26

No, I’m not making excuses, just facing the reality.  The man is either a leader for the other side, or he’s completely ineffectual.  He may be a combination of both.  We have a right to expect Christian leadership from him, but he has not provided that.  I do think that there’s probably some consultation going on, as #26 describes, and we will see what the results will be, if any, but probably not immediately.

Would Neville Chamberlain have been an effective ABC?

MatthewA (#7),
Hilarious.  That was brilliant, and so, so funny.

Jamesw (#11),
As usual, a very incisive and astute comment.  I agree 100%.

Fr.Dale (#22),
It’s really nice to be able to call you Father Dale now instead of Deacon Dale.

A little observation of my own, apart from that comical farce of a last line, “Further consultation will now take place…” (Oh, TEC, aren’t you quaking in your shoes?), I also thought the preceding bit about this latest TEC outrage violating “the existing moratoria” was a hoot.  Come on now, what moratoria??  You’ve got to be kidding.

Yeah, it’s just a game, all right.  And ++Mouneer Anis finally got tired of it.  Like jamesw, I just hope some other GS primates catch on and decide to stop playing ++RW’s pathetic game.

David Handy+

OK, let’s just settle this mess.
Either it’s going to be handbags at Noon in the street, TEC runs the show (like now), the ABC man-up to his duty, or the Global South call Jerusalem the new center of the Communion and leaves the rest behind. But, for pity’s sake, let’s stop dying the death of a thousand cuts. My father would say something about either “something” or get off the pot. Incessant talking and keeping vastly opposed people at a table just rocks the table to the point where it won’t hold anybody’s dinner up anymore.
GET ON WITH IT!

“in December the Archbishop made clear that the outcome of the consent process would have important implications for the Communion.”

Not to split hairs, but it is worth remembering that what the Archbishop actually said in December was:

The election of Mary Glasspool by the Diocese of Los Angeles as suffragan bishop elect raises very serious questions not just for the Episcopal Church and its place in the Anglican Communion, but for the Communion as a whole.

I’m in full agreement with jamesw #11 and I just posted a similar comment on StandFirm.  Watch the guy’s hands, not his lips.

#34, so he has escalated then. We’ve gone from ‘serious questions’ to ‘important implications’. If TEC doesn’t watch their step he may very well ‘view with concern’ next. Will such a horrible prospect deter them from their chosen path?

As I read it, the Global South has stuck to their game plan from ten years ago, they have not wavered, they have been persistent and dogged.  Their game plan was rooted in 1 John 2:19: would the Americans “go out” or “stay with” the larger Church.  Therefore, strategy all along has been for the Global South to declare their commitments while giving TEC the opportunity and space to finally declare their commitments openly.  TEC has now done that.  TEC has walked apart.  History will show that the GS turned the cheek, showed grace and restraint, and gave TEC every opportunity to turn back from their mistakes and heresies.  I can not read the signs of what the exact next steps will be—but the Global South is now positioned to continue doing what they have done all along, to proclaim the Faith once received, and soon without the distractions of the TEC.

The strategy has the wisdom of avoiding the trap of treating the AoC as a pawn, to be pushed and pulled.  The strategy has allowed the AoC to watch the American trajectory for himself and draw his own conclusions.  The fact that a spokesperson released this statement, rather than the Archbishop himself, appears significant.  He must make his own decision—not as a pawn of the Global South, but as the Archbishop of Canterbury standing by himself.  Now I wish I could predict what his response will actually be, but the nature of the strategy has been to give him space to be his own man in this process.  I for one am praying that in this lonely moment of time, God will give him the courage and directness to reaffirm the faith once received and to reject the independent-minded-ness and self-centered-ness of the Americans.

...more consultation?  Indaba has failed…

Spirits of Becket, Cranmer, and Laud witness to Rowan, we beseech thee.

why not have a big indaba, wring hands and carry on regardless!

Enjoy….I shall be heading for the Ordinariate methinks!

Critical point Pageantmaster (#34).

The wording

The election of Mary Glasspool by the Diocese of Los Angeles as suffragan bishop elect raises very serious questions not just for the Episcopal Church and its place in the Anglican Communion, but for the Communion as a whole.

suggests that the “questions” will be answered by the consent decision, and that the answer will impact TEC’s place in the Communion.  In other words, this wording suggests consequences.

However, the wording

in December the Archbishop made clear that the outcome of the consent process would have important implications for the Communion.

suggests that there would be “important implications” for the Communion.  This is simply stating the obvious - anybody could say that the outcome will have important implications.  But it steers away from the earlier language which implied that the consent outcome would be an “answer” that would have consequences for TEC’s place in the Communion.

Yet the latest instance of Rowan Williams’ earlier words being shown to have little credibility.

How far apart are RW and KJS in terms of the “social” gospel?

A famous John Cleese quote comes to mind.  “Or Ah shahl townt yew eh saycon tahm!!”

Reading this terse statement, I get the feeling that there might have been a second paragraph:

“If anyone moves that a commission of inquiry be set up to report on the implications and consequences of this decision at the first meeting next year, why then it will be given due consideration.  But until then, no interviews without appointment except between nine and ten p.m. on second Saturdays.”

Given that the Anglican Communion, along with the Commonwealth Games, is one of the few remaining vestiges of the Empire, it ought to be incumbent upon Elizabeth II in her role as Fide defendorum to sack Mr Williams and appoint a successor without guidance from the Government.

Given that she has yet to discipline her own dithering and sorry son, who (DV) will never live to become Charles III, I do not entertain much hope in that regard. Both Rowan Williams (b. 1950) and HRH The Prince of Wales are cut from the same absolutely miserable Baby Boomer cloth, and exhibit many of the same social pathologies that have got us all into repeated trouble during the Boomers’ era of power.

“They remain impervious to the admonitions of both scripture (Titus 3:10) and the immemorial discipline of the Church which forbids being in communion with heretics and apostates.”  So when a bishop strays from the ethical norm of the church is that herasy or apostacy?  I think it would be interesting to keep track of how many times a month certain contributors here threaten to go to the Romans or to exit in some other way.  For some, making such remarks seems to have become a lifestyle.

#41 jamesw
To be fair the advice of Glasspool’s consents came out late yesterday.  The Episcopal Cafe website notes “from the Episcopal Church Office of Public Affairs about 6pm Lambeth time” so deliberately or otherwise this was time to be released after close of business in London yesterday.  I am not sure whether the Archbishop is travelling, so this may well have been a response quickly put together by his staff over the telephone.  Again it is a response rather than a position paper so it may not be fair to read too much into its wording.

But that said, I thought that the difference in wording was worth flagging up.

As one or two other commenters have also said, I take note of what Rowan Williams does, and less of what he says, nowadays.

The ABC will continue to do nothing.

Oooooh!  A response!!!
Can we expect a Sternly worded admonition next?
Will the ABofC furrow his brow; emit a disconsolate sigh? We await with bated breath the further response of Dr. Williams. 

But will anything happen?  Come now!  This is the Anglican Communion (Lambeth based) with which we are dealing.

We urge commenters to tone down the sarcasm. Please.

-Elf

Consiliarity is dead. 
Mutual bonds of affection are dead. 
Interdependency is dead.
Inadaba is dead.
Look what EcUSA/TEc hath wrought.

It seems to me that the statement contradicts itself.

the outcome of the consent process would have important implications for the Communion.

Why would additional consultation be needed at this point

Further consultation will now take place about the implications and consequences of this decision.

when the first statement indicated that there was already an understanding of what the implications were. Is this primarily an attempt to buy time or an attempt to diminish expectations about the level of response? I think it is the latter.

50. Thanks elves, this is a serious matter and the level of sarcasm is getting a little tiresome.

Perhaps but is the sarcasm not simply because people are now dealing with farce? I don’t even get surprised or angry anymore it is all so shoddy and predictable

I would hope that ++RW does not let the entire Communion go down the tubes because of a unilateral, corrupt agenda.  That is not leadership…Mr. Spock did better with a “greatest good for the GREATEST number” philosophy. 

The character Octavian in the HBO miniseries “Rome” was most interesting because he had an ability to read play a couple moves ahead of everyone else, and had an uncanny knack for predicting the future(not in an occult way); plus was gifted in using how things “looked” instead of how they “were” for his own chess maneuvers and personal gain.  That said, I hope ++RW realizes that his moves to date look like one of the following:

1. He’s either colluding right along with TEC; or
2. TEC is playing a massive game of “chicken” with him, daring him to step up and in that process they care naught how much he may look like a fool. 

There are many factors to consider prior to executing his next move.  God sometimes challenges us to do things we’re not comfortable doing, in service of His Kingdom and for our own personal growth. 

I hope Dr. Williams realizes it’s time to step up before TEC destroys this Communion any further.  There are always decisive moments in history in which we are acutely judged, and this is one of those for him. 

I have made it clear I have not liked or respected his actions to date.  But, I believe that leopards CAN change their spots, and for the good.  He has my prayers…

I beg forgiveness for any sarcasm. But we have danced this weary little dance so many times before. When can we expect the next ponderous statement from the ACI? It is about due now.

It should be clear to Dr. Williams that TEC has no desire to accommodate the Communion’s requests for restraint, gracious or otherwise. The requested moratoria, despite all the whining from the LGBT crowd, were never in place. The election and consent to election of Mary Glasspool make that abundantly clear.

But still, the ABC (or the Communion Office spokesperson) issues Delphic oracles of the sort posted here. This is nothing new. Just when wll the Communion act? What will it take to awaken Dr. Williams to the reality of the situation?

The lawsuits continue, the lawlessness of the Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church is unchecked, the vaunted Covenant is no nearer being passed, and even if it is, it is so watered down that it cannot address the current crisis within the Communion, much less any future ones.

How many times does TEC have to throw sand in the Anglican Communion’s face before someone has the intestinal fortitude and courage to actually do something which will indicate that TEC’s lawlessness will no longer be tolerated?

So far, all the veiled warnings of the AB of C have amounted to,
“Stop, or I shall be forced to say ‘Stop!’ again!” 

But since this state of affairs seems to suit so many, I shall have no more to say about the situation.  I am sorry I even bothered.

I’d like to be clear about this. You say that you have verified the statement with Lambeth Palace, but nowhere does the statement appear on the Lambeth Palace website and you have not provided any link to the statement, even though you have been asked to do so. Please tell us whether in fact you wrote this statement and then consulted Lambeth Palace. I shall also be enquiring at Lambeth Palace, referring them to the statement that you claim is from them.

I cannot imagine a situation that would be any more devastating and dispiriting than continually expecting those in authority to exercise discipline only to see nothing happen again and again. it is a kind of slow torture. There is a certain irony to me to watch the PB and her attorneys overreach their authority and impose punishment on so many while at the same time, there is an unwillingness to exercise any authority on the part of the ABC and by some appearances even to thwart those who would intervene. I said to myself, “Surely, something will happen with Lambeth, the Primates meeting, the ACC, the Covenant process, the ABC.” The only rays of light for me have been GAFCON, the formation of ACNA and the Jerusalem declaration. All of these are because Canterbury and the instruments of unity have failed to address the problems. Is it an inherent structural issue? Can the WWAC survive an ABC that is not up to the task of leadership? All of this is taking place while at the same time, Roman Catholicism has failed to exercise discipline in its own house while speaking orthodoxy. The church is under attack. the indecision, infighting and confusion is evil and abrogates the Gospel message we are called to preach. God have mercy on His church. We are under His judgment.

Canon Godsall-
Canon Harmon is merely quoting the Episcopal News service, which released this several hours before his article went on line.  He went to the trouble to check the source as well.  While I consider it unfortunate that ENS remains the “official” Anglican news service in the US, there you have it.  It was presumably sent directly to their offices.  And I quote:

But a March 18 statement e-mailed to ENS from Lambeth Palace, Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams’ London residence, said: “It is regrettable that the appeals from Anglican Communion bodies for continuing gracious restraint have not been heeded,” referring to calls in late 2009 from the communion’s Standing Committee and its Unity, Faith and Order commission.

“Following the Los Angeles election in December the archbishop made clear that the outcome of the consent process would have important implications for the communion,” the Lambeth Palace statement said. “Further consultation will now take place about the implications and consequences of this decision.” http://ecusa.anglican.org/79901_120935_ENG_HTM.htm (the article has been re-edited since yesterday- I note the date is revised, but the quote appeared at that time)

Now, it is quite possible that someone at Lambeth released the statement without the Archbishop’s approval- I recall that happening at least once in the past.  But if you are going to charge someone with fabrication, it should be the Episcopal Church, which sent this to every electronic subscriber they have in the world, and one assumes it will soon appear in print as well.

Fr. Dale-
In truth, this looks like a boilerplate statement written several weeks ago, so the poor fellow who had to answer the phone at 7pm GMT when the Glasspool announcement was made would have a generic response that would not openly offend anyone- it is a paraphrase of the Archbishop’s remarks upon Glasspool’s election.
And one imagines that ++Rowan’s sense of fair play would prevent him from developing plans before the consent process was complete.  For that matter, it will not surprise me much if, when his personal statement on the matter is released, he punts the ball downfield by stating the obvious- she has not yet been consecrated- as though it was even conceivable that KJS and Bruno won’t lay hands on her.  Maybe ++Rowan plans to go himself, and stand to object when they reach that point in the consecration service.  Who knows.  But while it is fair to condemn ++Rowan’s past inaction, and his own violation of his commitments at Dar, it is only fair to give him a few days to compose his response to the latest TEC outrage, and to the fact that the commitments personally made to him by TEC bishops have been violated.
But will there be consequences?  Of course there will- does anyone here imagine, for instance, that ++Mouneer will carry on the same level of cordiality with TEC in the future?  That the next primates meeting will be another indaba Delphi session?  That the GS Encounter will result in a vote saying they have all been wrong for the last 7 years, and suddenly accept that TEC is the prophetic voice of the Anglican Communion?  I don’t think so.

For clarity tjmcmahon I do not accuse anyone of fabrication. I ask for clarification because:
1. Scott Gunn wrote:
Do you have a link to the source document?
March 18, 10:01 am | [comment link] 
2. Kendall Harmon wrote:
Working on it Scott first I have to get the post right.
Now, if KH was ‘working to get the post right’, why had he already posted it? And why could he not say: ‘It was e-mailed to me by the ENS’? Transparency is very important in the Christian community isn’t it?

On “Thinking Anglicans”, Canon Andrew Godsall wrote

“Kendall Harmon’s website has trumpeted a statement from Lambeth Palace, which has been repeated in the usual places. He has been asked to provide a link to the statement, but has failed to do so, instead writing that he has ‘verified’ it with Lambeth Palace. I have written to Lambeth Palace and asked them to verify the statement - it does not appear on their website. ”

With his statement at #57 which asks

“...you have not provided any link to the statement, even though you have been asked to do so. Please tell us whether in fact you wrote this statement and then consulted Lambeth Palace. I shall also be enquiring at Lambeth Palace, referring them to the statement that you claim is from them.”,

this seems to me to be a clear, if implied, accusation of falsehood by Kendall Harmon. Such an accusation, and the scornful way in which it is delivered, is unchristian and unbecoming from a member of the chapter of an ancient cathedral. To my mind an apology is in order.

It’s a straightforward request for clarification. I note none has been forthcoming and with the previous comment ‘Working on it Scott first I have to get the post right’ it is unclear who worked on what post. So, I repeat, it is seeking clarification, and for the avoidance of any doubt, no accusation is intended or implied. Aplogies to thsoe who have read it that way.

I got the material from three sources.  I checked it with what Lambeth Palace Press office emailed to make sure I had it right.  I was told by Lambeth Press Office that there was nowhere to link to, and they were emailing/sending it to those contacting them and asking for a response.

Does Canon Andrew Godsall even read the T19 threads on which he comments?

RE: “1. Scott Gunn wrote:
Do you have a link to the source document?
March 18, 10:01 am | [comment link] 
2. Kendall Harmon wrote:
Working on it Scott first I have to get the post right.”

Comment #12:
http://www.kendallharmon.net/t19/index.php/t19/article/28900/#410706

Verified.

And Comment #17.

And then . . . waaaaaaaaaay down the thread, after comments 12, and 17, enters Canon Andrew Godsall, saying such vacuous pieties as “Transparency is very important in the Christian community isn’t it?”

Yeh. 

Reading is “very important” too.

RE: “Such an accusation, and the scornful way in which it is delivered, is unchristian and unbecoming from a member of the chapter of an ancient cathedral.”

Hey Midlander—I think it’s perfectly fitting and suitable for revisionist Anglican activists to behave that way.  Let’s not give them standards, please, that they should not have to live up to.  I think in order to call their behavior “unbecoming” one would have to a false view of who they are.

Re # 46
Deacon Mark,

So when a bishop strays from the ethical norm of the church is that herasy or apostacy?

It is neither.  Heresy is the persistent rejection of defined doctrine of the Christian Faith.  (i. e. embracing Arianism or rejection of the any of the articles of the Creed or the infallibility of Scripture)

Apostasy is the persistent and firm rejection of core articles of the Christian Faith. (i.e. the essential role of Christ in Salvation as also acceptance of multiple gods or paths to salvation, Unitarian Universalism or of course a formal renunciation of Christianity.)

On this basis I believe that TEO is unquestionably a heretical institution and a strong argument could be made that it has de facto if not yet de jure departed from any recognizable form of Christianity.  This is not to say there are no Christians in TEO.  It is to say that institution is no longer in fact a confessionally Christian church.

And before anyone points of that the Creed of the Council Lyons is still recited (at least in most parishes), yes I am aware of that.  But if very few people take it seriously and you have clergy and even bishops openly rejecting articles from the Creed and “crossing their fingers” during large parts of it that does sort of call into question whats going on.

If you disagree with me then I would simply ask you to identify one single article of Christian Faith one is absolutely required to subscribe to as a condition to receiving communion in an Episcopal parish?  I’m not asking for a long list or a whole catechism.  Just one will do.

I think it would be interesting to keep track of how many times a month certain contributors here threaten to go to the Romans or to exit in some other way.  For some, making such remarks seems to have become a lifestyle.

I am inclined to agree. Which was kind of my point in my comment #24.  For the most part those who might leave for any reason already have.  Whatever protestations to contrary they may offer, those remaining after everything that has happened are unlikely to leave no matter what.

[May we request that commenters exercise gracious restraint and keep to the words of the Lambeth Palace statement rather than its circumstances, or any other topic please - thank you - Elf]

My apologies, I did not mean to cause such a stir with my #59.  More correct would have been to state that Canon Harmon was quoting the same statement that ENS was quoting.  I took Canon Harmon’s #12 and 17 as adequate evidence that he had verified the statement with the appropriate persons at Lambeth, and remain sure that is the case.  But my apologies to Canon Harmon, Canon Godsall and the elves, for any confusion I caused.

I remain of the opinion that this is probably not the last word of the ABoC on the subject, although being Friday evening GMT, it is unlikely we will have anything more definitive in the next few days.

tjmcmahon no apology needed but thank you for your posts.
The ‘ancient’ Cathedral to which Midlander referred and of which I am a part is like every other ancient Cathedral foundation in England - neither ‘liberal’ nor ‘conservative’ but simply mainstream Anglican (which is nothing to do with the website/organisation of that name). Where we stand on issues such as same sex relationships is where Bishop James Jones has identified that he and the Diocese of Liverpool stands. We have both clergy and laity on our foundation and as part of our community who take a variety of views on the issues of human sexuality. We enjoy debate and discussion about it. We don’t trade on pointing fingers but on supporting each other as members of the same body of Christ. Bishop James Jones has done the whole of the C of E a great service in spelling out what is actually the case. He has done so with integrity - and we rejoice in that.