They blinked,

It seems to me that they’re continuing to listen.

If they “continue the listen process,” they blinked.

I think there is an implication of fear (not the holy kind) in the use of the term “blinked.”  This does not feel to me like a fear-based action.  Of course, I may be wrong.

I would be interested in what resolutions passed.

They did more than blink; they’ve destroyed themselves.  When San Joaquin completes the process of secession in December, and Fort Worth initiates it in November, Quincy will be a year behind, and as the smallest and weakest of the three FIF dioceses, they have left themselves wide open to bear the full brunt of 815’s legal efforts to smash them—which it will.

Which gives rise to another question—why did the “Biretta Belt” Anglo-Catholic dioceses abandon their witness so supinely and spontaneously—Springfield by choosing +Beckwith in 1991 (who brought in WO—even if he has, perhaps, begun to see that it was a mistake); Fond du Lac by choosing +Jacobus in 1994 (ditto, except that he gives no sign of returning to the Anglo-Catholic orthodoxy of his youth); and Eau Claire by choosing the “Affirming Catholic” +Whitmore in 1997 as successor to +Wantland?  And now (effectively) Quincy.

Poor Charles Grafton and Stanley Atkins, betrayed by their successors.

No, Quincy did not “blink.”  I do not have the precise wording (and my native tongue is Lutheran), but the Synod (for first reading) changing references in the Constitution from PECUSA and General Convention to “the Anglican Communion Province to which it is associated.”  They reaffirmed their desire to remain in the Anglican Communion and their earlier request for alternative primatial oversight, and declared their desire to affiliate with either a new North American Province or one outside of North America.  The Standing Committee is to firm up some (for lack of a better term) “practical” issues for presentation at a later Synod. 

I’d liken it to counting the cost of departing now, recognizing that doing so entails significant risks that, with a bit more time, they will be able to resolve.

Pax, Steven+

Cards played close to the chest.

I hope also close to the heart.

Ok, #6, since you keep asking, “...why did the “Biretta Belt” Anglo-Catholic dioceses abandon their witness so supinely and spontaneously” each time Quincy is mentioned, you must know the answer.  Tell us.  Please.

Father Dean A. Einerson
Rhinelander, Wisconsin

Dr. Tighe,
I must respectfully disagree with you.  As a priest of Quincy who was present at Synod (as was Pr. Tibbets, BTW), I must say that the whole affair was prayerful, principled, at times tense, but at all times charitable.  I feared that those observing only from the blogosphere (and/or from another part of Christendom) would see our actions as “blinking” or backpedaling.  It is, however, unsurprising for comments like this to come from one who had already come to the conviction that there was no hope for Anglicanism, which, in turn, led you to become a Roman Catholic.  You should know that our actions were taken in consulation with others who are in the midst of the realignment process.  We are working and moving together.  Will it work?  I don’t know.  I have no naive or blind faith in all of this.  But there are those who believe that traditional Anglicanism still has a vocation, and until that conviction dies (and it may yet), we’ll keep plugging along, even if the show doesn’t go exactly according to the script we’ve written.

BTW, those of you who have such charitable assessments of Quincy Synod may wish to know that Bishop Ackerman spent most of the Synod on his back trying to keep his blood pressure (which was dangerously high most of the time) under control.  One of our seminarians is an ER doc of 20 years experience and Bp. was under his observation and care the whole time.  So when you are finished offering your criticisms, please offer up prayers for our shepherd at this time.

Prayers rising for Bp. Ackerman.  May he know himself completely held in God’s love and care.

Re: #9
I don’t “know the answer;” that’s why I asked—but it is clear that Eau Claire, Fond du Lac and Springfield (and Chicago and Milwaukee for good measure) did abandon it, or else that would be standing firm right up there beside Fort Worth and San Joaquin to this day, as stalwart in their opposition to WO as to SS.  And Quincy?  Well, I admire and respect Bishop Ackerman—but as a FIF/NA diocese they should be aware if anyone should that the “great fall” took place in 1976, not 2003—and after 31 years ECUSA is farther than ever from reversing it.  IMHO (and I stress O) it is high time that they got out while the going is good, or at least possible (cf. Bishop Iker’s address two days ago to the Forward-in-Faith annualassembly in London), rather than to delay, and so render their plight remediless.

And re: #10,

I hope it does work—but cf. my response above, the real problem from a Catholic Anglican standpoint is WO (to which SS is but a logical and, in the present cultural context, inevitable sequel); and if Quincy (and other FIF/NA dioceses) takes such steps as to uproot the root of the evil, its outgrowths will inevitably wither of their own nature.

Forgottonia (#10) that is reassuring news. Since a great deal of the planning for this risky course must be done out of sight, it becomes frustrating here in the blogosphere. I am beginning to become convinced that my argument is not with the people involved but with God; i.e., God does not seem to proceed according to my schedule.

I was aware that Bishop Ackerman had challenging health issues and I did pray for him today while talking to the wife of the next-to-last ACN member in Nevada, who died last year. She thought highly of Bishop Ackerman and I thought about his health. We were talking after a church service led by the last ACN priest in the Diocese of Nevada.

I must assume from your postings that those of you who fear that Quincy has “blinked” have read neither the Constitution of the Diocese (extant) nor the Replacement Motion (as amended) which was passed yesterday afternoon. In actuality, our Constitution already allows withdrawal from TEC with a single majority vote (the opinion of our legal staff) at any future Synod.
That such disparaging comments as I read above might be directed toward Quincy from other faithful must surely have the Evil One chuckling in his cave.

Please, quincyquintessence, please post the resolution and/or constitutional amendment that was adopted yesterday. I have seen hints that events there were not as dire as they appear. But what does the text adopted actually say? I cannot find the text anywhere on-line. Do you have it? Could you post it as a comment here? Thanks in advance.

God bless Quincy and Bishop Ackerman.