“To lose that historic office is a cost of such magnitude that God must be doing a new thing,” he said.

I would disagree on Bp Duncan on this. To cause the demise of the once great Episcopal church is really a remarkable and ignominious feat, one couldn’t have happened simply by a few misguided people. We Anglicans don’t like to use the e(vil)-word, but…

robroy, can you clarify your comment?  It’s not clear from what you write who you think has caused the demise of the Episcopal Church.  Your words are strong and I want to make sure other commenters don’t react on an assumption you are saying something you are not.

Thanks in advance.

—elfgirl

“The American province is lost and something will have to replace it,”  That is stronger language than he’s used previously, right?

“Never, ever has he spoken publicly in defense of the orthodox in the United States,” Bishop Duncan said of the Most Rev. Rowan Williams, adding that “the cost is his office.

“The fact is that the Archbishop of Canterbury has not led in a way that might have saved his office and might have saved Lambeth,” Bishop Duncan said.

Also going farther than he had previously in criticizing +++ABC?  (perhaps this is the first time he has even criticized him at all?)

The Archbishop of Canterbury could save his office and save Lambeth tomorrow, if he so wished.  Not that I am predicting it.

Methinks that the USA conservatives ( the Network) do not understand the ABC.  Too bad for them.  It will all end in a mess with several Primates backing Bishop Duncan but the rest staying with the ABC.  That is not good for US property matters but might allow all the reasserters to get on with the business in rented facilities.  LORD have mercy

“...but might allow all the reasserters to get on with the business in rented facilities….” 
I am curious to know what you mean by ‘business’, Eugene.

#6 asked “what you mean by ‘business’”

I meant getting on with the worship of God in new facilities, not the buildings which belong to TEC.  Sorry for the confusion. 

This is based on my assumption that the only hope the US reasserters have of retaining their buildings is to be part “of the Anglican Communion” which is by definition part of the Communion under the authority/ oversite/ supervison of the ABC

#7 - And it may allow the ABC to get on with the business of an Anglican Communion of approximately half its current size.  His choice, of course.

Though I must have missed it where the ABC located some authority, oversight or supervision of the Anglican Communion.  I thought much of this resulted because he had none.

Eugene, I am not sure what understanding that the ACN is lacking.  There was hope—against hope—that the ABC would eventually come out in favor of the orthodox in north America. The standing committee report he authored, which would have essentially endorsed TEC’s non-compliance with Windsor, was a strong indication that hope was misplaced. The invitations were an even stronger indication.  I suppose if the ACN is guilty of any misunderstanding, it is of placing too much hope in the ABC.  In doing so, it had a lot of company, including some that are still arguing that you should stay under TEC, and Canterbury, regardless of the consequences.

robroy, can you clarify your comment?  It’s not clear from what you write who you think has caused the demise of the Episcopal Church.  Your words are strong and I want to make sure other commenters don’t react on an assumption you are saying something you are not.

Far be it from me to put words in robroy’s mouth, but I understood his post to mean that he disagrees with +Duncan’s view that the doctrinal drift at 815 is due to the intervention of God.  Quite the contrary, it seems RR views it to be the work of ol’ Snagglefoot, a sentiment I find hard to disagree with.

The obvious flaw in +Duncan’s argument is that the ABC can never lose his office.  There may be a paradigm shift relating to his office, but he can not lose it.  Anglicanism is defined by being in communion with Canterbury and, by extension, the ABC.  Since +Duncan and perhaps others are removing themselves from that communion relationship, the ABC loses only numbers.

Issobvious that +Duncan’s comment was a slip of the tongue/pen/whatever.  The point is that the institution of Anglicanism as it has been defined will be diminished and the ‘office’ will be diminished.

Eugene,
If the US Reasserters and the African Reasserters and the Asian reasserters and the South American Reasserters do not understand the ABC’s plan to save the communion, perhaps it is because the ABC has not been clear in communicating that plan.  There is a possibility that the reasserters do understand the ABC all too well and this is the result.  I don’t know which it is, but if it is a lack of understanding, the ABC should be more clear about his plan to save the communion and protect the Anglicans under his spiritual leadership.

YBIC,
Phil Snyder

I think the fundamental error was the hope that the ABC was a Christian.  It looks like it will be a flawed hope.  I do hope that Brian and the ABC will be happy together.
Even if the ABC does the right thing from the orthodox perspective at the end, I cannot respect him at this point.  If the ABC represents Anglacanism I am no longer sure that I want to be a part of it.

Brian from T19, Seabury didn’t consider Canterbury necessary to be either in communion with or to have valid Apostolic orders. So I doubt that +Duncan and a rapidly growing number world wide consider it necessary in order to be Anglican, if they ever once did. The CCP joins many that had already reached that conclusion.

Re: ” think the fundamental error was the hope that the ABC was a Christian.”
That was uncalled for. There may be much to disagree with in his handled of the crisis, but nothing he has said or done indicates that he is not a Christian.

If the US Reasserters and the African Reasserters and the Asian reasserters and the South American Reasserters do not understand the ABC’s plan to save the communion, perhaps it is because the ABC has not been clear in communicating that plan.

Indeed, ++Rowan’s approach to this over the past four years has been marked by a distinct lack of resolve, obvious dithering, the occasional 10,000-word, chin-tugging missive (that nonetheless manage to avoid the salient issues) and general aloofness.

In short, ++Williams has become to this process what a referee is to a WWE event: irrelevant to the actors, ineffectual in moderation, and impotent to control a process that is now completely aflame.  Barring a direct insertion of spine into our ABp by God, his will be remembered as a thoroughly incompetent and contemptible mandate.

“In short, ++Williams has become to this process what a referee is to a WWE event”
LOL

Br. Michael wrote:
I think the fundamental error was the hope that the ABC was a Christian

I am afraid that is the mentallity of the majority of the reasserters who want to pull out now.  Claim that the other side is non-Christian!  There was never a “hope” that the ABC was a Christian.  This was not in doubt.  The “hope” was that he would see things “our” way.  He has not.

#11 Brian from T19 says:

The obvious flaw in +Duncan’s argument is that the ABC can never lose his office.  There may be a paradigm shift relating to his office, but he can not lose it.  Anglicanism is defined by being in communion with Canterbury and, by extension, the ABC.

That’s not entirely true.  Anglicanism has been so far a somewhat nebulous concept, which was never strictly defined because everyone knew who was Anglican and who wasn’t and there wasn’t much incentive to argue about it.  “Being in communion with Canterbury” was one of the definitions commonly tossed around when the question came up; but the implication of that is that the Archbishop of Canterbury has absolute and final authority on who is in the Anglican Communion and who isn’t—simply by declaring who he is and is not in communion with—and that doesn’t really square with the ABC’s presumed status as “first among equals” within the Communion.  But, again, because nobody really pushed the issue it never had to be resolved.  Until now.

It seems almost certain that however this plays out, we’ll end up with at least two (maybe more?) organizations, explicitly out of communion with each other, but each claiming to be “Anglican.”  Possibly one will be in communion with Canterbury and the other won’t; possibly Canterbury will recognize both of them in some sense.  Either way, continuing to rely on the “communion with Canterbury = Anglican” definition seems somewhat pointless.

The question for TEC, the CCP, GS provinces, and any other interested parties, is not whether they want to be in communion with Canterbury in order to be part of the Anglican Communion.  The question should be, do they want to be in communion with Canterbury because they actually want to be in communion with Canterbury?

I can’t speak for TEC, of course; but just for myself, I would like very much to be in communion with Canterbury, because I believe we share a lot of heritage and culture and have a lot of value to give each other.  But I don’t consider it necessary to my identity as an Episcopalian or as an Anglican.  If I were forced under cruel torture to proffer a definition for what it means to be “Anglican,” I would say that it has more to do with heritage than anything else… and willy-nilly, TEC, Nigeria, Uganda, and the CCP are all equally Anglican by that definition and will remain so no matter what they do.

What the ABC and the Lambeth Conference are in danger of losing is thier position as a focus of the AC communion when they lose the participation of most of the reasserters.  The offices will still exist of course unless some other action is taken.  However, if the direction of the two instruments goes forward as planned and the threat of the ABof York is carried out against those who do not attend, the AC may remain, but it will be different, dimenished by anyones account.  Regarding the comments about whether the common cause group will be Anglican or not, I don’t think it matters what they/we are called as long as we carry on the faith delivered to us by Jesus and his apostles.  The TEC and ABC can carry on with its new thing, meetings, conferences, focus groups, and redefinition of its faith without the orthodox getting it their way.  I’m sure they will have a very different Lambeth without the “federal reasserters”.  IMO, this is what happens when we make an individual the “focus of unity” instead of Christ.

I for one belive that the ABC is a Christian and a well meaning institutional liberal who favors the reasserter positon - but knows that now was not the time.  I expect he views time in centuries not months. We of course live in an age of months.  I think and may well be proven wrong that he is unwilling to send of the troublesome Americans because he agrees with their position and if given time they will slowly prevail (the frog in the pot metaphor).
Having said that - what if the ABC is a bad guy - if the ABC is a bad guy why would Anglican Christians want to be in Communion with him - I think we would then be honor bound to withdraw from Communion for a season until a new ABC was appointed - Lets further the argument and say that England is in terminal decline and is fast becomming a post modern majority secular humanist nation - its national church is in the clutches of socialists who are cultural and moral relativsts (which of course they are) - why would traditonal Americans wish to remain in such a communion -would not we be better off saying we are Anglicans in the old sense (prior to the fall) and remain a beacon and hope for the future.  I think Brian is giving too much credence to a brand name which is fast falling into ill repute - we are Anglicans whether Canterbury says yea or nay - exile with a hope of restoration beats submission any day of the week.

The scope and function of Anglicanism has grown beyond the Church of England and the See of Canterbury.  It’s precepts and traditions are global and no longer an entity defined by adherence to Canterbury.  Anglicanism exists wherever a church or province adheres to the Holy Scriptures, the 39 Articles, and the Book of Common Prayer, and is Christian by all defined standards.  I sadly agree that ECUSA has lost its commitment of the Great Commision that Jesus enjoined on us, namely to bring other souls to the acknowledgement of our fallen nature and our need for salvation and transformed lives through the death and resurrection of Jesus.

Sorry, but I think that +++Rowan is TOO Christian for this muddle. He can’t bring himself to cast anyone out or aside and he takes his episcopal promise to promote the Unity of the Church of Christ very seriously. Alas, many TEC bishops must have had their fingers crossed when they uttered those same words.