ACI—Enhanced Responsibility: What Happened? Three Points and Four Questions in Our Present Season
Given this situation, we would make the following points and raise the following questions:
1. ACI has defended not only a collaborative understanding of the Instruments of Unity, but their integrity as well. The failure of the ABC publicly to state that the Dar es Salaam Communiqué is alive and well has been injurious to our common life. It has also been intimated in certain quarters that the adjudication of the Communiqué will be undertaken by a Joint Steering Committee of the Primates and the ACC. We trust that this rumor is mistaken. The Primates have worked hard and declared their intention, and their recommendations and requests are fully within their remit as an Instrument with enhanced responsibility, whose present character was requested by other Instruments of Communion. Lacking any clear understanding of the precise fate of the Communiqué has left the field open for manipulation and the multiplication of other initiatives, borne of fear, concern, power balancing and so on.
2. ACI has sought to work with the Windsor Report, the Covenant, and within the US, the Windsor Bishops. One can watch with curiosity and concern the proliferating of various groups within the conservative ranks, most recently, a Common Cause College of Bishops (as proposed), CANA, and others. The Anglican Communion Network would appear to have split into those bishops now headed toward the Common Cause College, and those who wish to continue on the Windsor path. But to the degree that the Windsor Bishops have no clarity about the future of the Primates' Tanzanian Communiqué, and hence a comprehensive, ordered response to their Communion life in troubled times, they will collapse altogether. Indeed, one wonders what role they might be expected to exercise in the light of such unclarity.
3. It is our understanding that the recent issuing of Lambeth invitations was done in the light of organizational concerns and the timing of the Archbishop of Canterbury's leave. The ways in which the Archbishop has reserved to himself all manner of options, discernment, and counsel regarding the ultimate character of invitations--which is his right to do--means that speculation about the character of the conference is bound to be only that. Still, it is speculation capable of generating unease and reaction that is not always constructive.
1. badman wrote:
“No one with the authority to do so has rescinded these proposals”
Is authority needed to rescind a proposal? Surely the authority lies with the body to whom the proposal is made, to accept or reject it.
The Dar Communique (paragraph 35) explicitly presented its primatial council proposals “in particular to the House of Bishops of The Episcopal Church”.
It seems unrealistic to argue that the rapid and emphatic rejection of those proposals by the US House of Bishops is in some way irrelevant, or that the “proposals” should be implemented in spite of that rejection.
June 5, 9:13 am | [comment link]
2. EmilyH wrote:
There are terms here that need to be addressed if there is to be meaning. What is meant by “enhanced” responsibility? What is an “emergency” situation and who gets to define it? Can decisions be made affecting the entire communion that are solely made by its clergy? To what extent is a “request” made by the primates, in fact an order? If the primates are, in fact, to have an executive , judicial and legislative role, who made this decision? How was it ratified? Will their decisions be by a simple majority,2/3 majority, 3/4, plurality etc. Will resolutions modified from the floor (like 1.10) be acceptable to Lambeth? Is it, in fact, a committee of the whole, a legislative body?
I am, of course, operating out of a presupposition of democratic principles of governance. I assume that both orders, clerical and lay should be involved. I realize, for example, that that is not the case in many parts of the Communion where either autocracy or oligarchy are prevalent modes of governance, but it seems to me that for the house of bishops and executive council of TEC to imply tacit assent to facts on the ground (the development of the primates meeting) establishing precedent before these issues definitions and powers are truly addressed (discussion of the covenant), is a serious mistake. The ACI letter asks that the Windsor bishops do exactly that.
June 5, 9:40 am | [comment link]
3. Publius wrote:
The Pastoral Council/Vicar approach assumed TEC’s cooperation. That is the reality, notwithstanding the fact that, technically, the Primates and ABC can still appoint their members of the Council, etc. The Plan was never intended to be imposed over TEC’s intransigent opposition.
The point is that the Plan is dead. To the extent ACI is trying to breathe life into the Plan, they will fail. New structural arrangements, imposed on TEC over its opposition, must now be devised. The silence of the ABC and the Primates may indicate the abdication ACI correctly criticizes. The silence may also indicate that new plans are being formulated for imposition after TEC’s rejection becomes final on Sept. 30. If there is no new plan, then ACI is right: the Communion is finished.
June 5, 9:40 am | [comment link]
4. Brian from T19 wrote:
I think the ACI is looking at the Tanzania ‘agreement’ as a contract. In this case there was an offer and, supposedly, an acceptance. At that point the ‘contract’ was formed. Now, under that ‘contract,’ several parties have rights and duties. In order for the ‘contract’ to become ‘null and void,’ one or more of the parties must either repudiate it or be held accountable for non-performance. In that sense, it is still an ongoing venture.
The view that has been expressed by all the Instruments of Communion in recent years is that <u>interventions are not to be sanctioned</u>. - Archbishop Rowan Williams
June 5, 9:47 am | [comment link]
5. Festivus wrote:
I do appreciate the ACI comments. I pointed out 4 years ago while we were waiting on the Panel of Delay (Preference) that we would be at this point within the ACN - no clarity and fragmentation. I warned one of the ACN deans that Windsor would not be palatable by ECUSA and the Panel would delay responding and when they did, would have no ability to assert discicipline (which was wongly being hoped for by many that did not understand the limitations of the panel and AC). His reply: be patient. The goal seeemd to be to keep the orthodox unified and take joint action at some future point. I saw orthodox leaving ECUSA churches for AMiA, REC, etc., and I warned that we were bleeding a slow death. Then came the lawsuits from Windsor Bishops on the orthodox - silence. Then came the attacks from the revisionist Bishops - no ACN plan to counter-attack (and it was an attack). Then one-by-one, parishes started leaving, some their property, some retaining their property. Then another primates meeting… and again, TEC cannot comply with the primates request. And still, the attacks continue on the Orthodox while the ACN meets again. I hate to say it, but there is nothing expedient about the episcopal mindset in matters, and it infects both liberal and orthodox. And now finally, some ACN/Windsor bishops have finally understood after much carnage what is reality. And while I respect the ACI, I never believed the scheme of a Primatal Vicar would be accepted by TEC nor could it be applied by the AC to TEC. Now having said that, the ACN has one last shot at providing unity and keeping us all in the ark. But let it be known, a growng number of Bishops and laity will not keep letting parishes and members picked off one by one. Come September, ACN and the Common Cause partners need to have a College of Bishops in place. If they don’t, expect the ACN to continue to fracture as people look for a shelter in the storm.
Don’t step in the indaba!
June 5, 9:58 am | [comment link]
6. EmilyH wrote:
I think the ACI is looking at the Tanzania ‘agreement’ as a contract. In this case there was an offer and, supposedly, an acceptance. At that point the ‘contract’ was formed.
You may be correct, but a contract presupposes that the negotiators have the authority to negotiate and sign binding the parties. +Schori would deny that she has such power…the remark that it would be a hard sell..
June 5, 10:00 am | [comment link]
7. Ephraim Radner wrote:
The setting up of the Pastoral Council, according to the Communique, is not dependent on any formal action taken by TEC’s House of Bishops. The Primates did not and need not ask the HoB for their permission—or the Executive Council, for that matter. (Their requests of the HoB are about other matters.) Rather, the Council, once set up, is itself to “negotiate” with TEC to provide appropriate pastoral care in this divided and conflicted time.
The HoB’s preemptive rejection at this time is unfortunate, and certainly does not bode well for such potential “negotiations”, but it is irrelevant to the actual setting up of the Council, whose purpose is not designed to “impose” or “oppress” or make “incursions” or “coerce”. It is to negotiate and then, within such a negotiated context, provide oversight and coordination, etc. in a way that is acceptable and helpful to all parties. In my mind, this approach was/is both reasonable and necessary, given the many individuals and groups and interests and convictions involved. Those who have labeled the proposal a coercive affront to TEC are just plain wrong. Those who want the proposal to be dead are in fact, to my mind, encouraging further unilateralist actions by the conflicted groups involved—the real source of coercive engagement in the Communion, as the term “coercive” is properly understood.
The PB has stated—and reiterated this statement in the HoB itself—that she believes she has the authority to move forward with the Council on her own. However, she has not, nor has she had much to say about it since the HoB meeting in March. Likewise, we have heard nothing about the Council from the other parties potentially involved. Perhaps the Council proposal really is dead. But then let those who proposed it and accepted it (e.g. Primates, including the PB and the Archbishop of Canterbury) say so clearly.
June 5, 10:29 am | [comment link]
8. pendennis88 wrote:
A last call to follow the communique. And the ACI has faithfully called all of the instruments of unity to do their duty. But the ACI should not be surprised at all that CANA and other common cause churches are taking action. Instead of complaining of it, they should just observe that it is the natural result of other instruments (other than the primates) failing to do what the primates have been asked be done. ACI in particular has failed to recognize a way in which orthodox parishes in revisionist diocese can protect themselves. But what are these parishes to do, become revisionist? Should the lay people just leave and go to non-Anglican churches? The new CANA and AMIA churches have taken their actions in order to not cease to exist. I think ACI should be more understanding of that. Fr. Radnor (I think) once suggested that those churches should engage in civil disobedience. Though I don’t think he elaborated on it, it seems to me they have. But it is not they that have made a split in the Anglican communion more likely than ever. It is the many failures of the ABC, the ACC and TEC. It is they that have made choices that have brought us to the present situation. Complaining of others taking actions only as a last resort in reaction to the failure to act by others is pointless.
June 5, 10:59 am | [comment link]
9. robroy wrote:
I don’t think anybody questions the ability to form a pastoral council which may be composed of only three without the two designated from the PB. My question is regarding the alternate primatial vicar. The DeS scheme requires ceding of powers from the PB. She has neither the political capital nor the inclination to cede any power of any relevance. Indeed, the DeS communique scheme was not intended to be imposed on and over the objections of the TEc. Any such imposed APV is not the consistent the DeS communique and is questionable in efficacy. Why bother with step one of a plan whose second step is unworkable? I still have not heard anyone addressing this point.
Non serviri, sed servire.
June 5, 11:01 am | [comment link]
10. The_Elves wrote:
A key link in understanding the emergence of the concept of “enhanced responsibility” for the Primates is the study “To Mend the Net” which was written by Drexel Gomez (Primate of the West Indies) and Maurice Sinclair (former Primate of Southern Cone if memory serves) and published in Jan. 2001.
Here is a brief summary online.
Must reading for those who have not seen it before. It lies very much at the heart of the current debate re: authority and interrelationships among the Instruments of Unity.
June 5, 11:02 am | [comment link]
11. The_Elves wrote:
Another link on the whole history re: “enhanced responsibility” is new to me, however: Lambeth 1988 (yes 88, not 98) resolution #18:
Lest anyone doubt that the concept of increased authority of the Primates WAY predates the crisis so greatly exacerbated in August 2003.
June 5, 11:10 am | [comment link]
12. EmilyH wrote:
On the primates and Lambeth
2.(a) Urges that encouragement be given to a developing collegial role for the Primates Meeting under the presidency of the Archbishop of Canterbury, so that the Primates Meeting is able to exercise an enhanced responsibility in offering guidance on doctrinal, moral and pastoral matters.
I have read “To Mend the Net”. I realize that Drexel Gomez is an old friend of ACI, I bleive he has sat on its “Board” since SEAD etc. came together. But, who said such “enhanced responsibility” would be that as defined by +Gomez in this document?? That is my point. Who defines such terms? Who has the authority to? Because +Drrexel Gomez wrote it (or was it in fact written by the ACI?), does it make it a fact?
June 5, 11:45 am | [comment link]
13. Ephraim Radner wrote:
I continue not to be in favor of AMiA- and CANA-like initiatives (no surprise to anybody), in part because I believe they have made it harder, not easier, for the Primates to work together and so exercise their calling. The founding of AMiA initially caused some rifts among the GS Primates, and created a kind of “no-fly” zone in terms of certain discussions among them. CANA’s founding has also created some rifts. These are not insuperable, however, and the motives for something like CANA are obvious in their demand, as many here know well. The point, however, is that unless the Primates do indeed find a way to act together and move forward together on the matters of discord that TEC has managed almost single-handedly to sow within the Communion, no set of local initiatives, however understandable, is going to allow the Anglican Communion to carry on as a coherent witness to Jesus Christ. The proposals of the Communique may not be the best of all possible worlds, but they continue to represent the ONLY common way forward that the Primates themselves—and therefore the churches they represent—have placed before us. It is not, in my mind, a matter of denial of reality—just the oppposite!—to urge with all passion and faith the prosecution of this proposal and the encouragement in this of all parties within our churches.
June 5, 11:46 am | [comment link]
14. William#2 wrote:
Dr. Radner, I don’t follow your argument that the TEC Bishops speedy rejection of Dar Es Sallaam is merely “unfortunate.” Are Bishops now just politicians then? I am neither a Bishop nor a priest, but I do read my Bible, and from a Biblical perpsective, if when the Bishops of a Church speak as a whole forcefully and firmly there is no brief, sir, to act as if they have not spoken and go merrily on our way. Are not Bishops called by God to be the apostolic leaders of a church? Do they not speak with an authority that no one else has, within a church?
June 5, 11:53 am | [comment link]
I say this from the perspective of a reasserter who has left your church precisely because of its rebellion against God led by your church’s leaders. Your argument that the TEC Bishop’s stance is merely an “unfortunate” event that we can breeze past seems dysfunctional from a Biblical perspective.
And isn’t the Biblical perspective the only one to have within a church?
15. The_Elves wrote:
I can’t resist one more historical link: Abp. George Carey’s (then Abp. of Canterbury) response to the publication of To Mend the Net in Jan01.
RESPONSE TO THE BOOK ‘TO MEND THE NET’
During the Lambeth Conferences of 1988 and 1998 the role of the Primates within the Anglican Communion was discussed. Resolutions proposed that the possibilities for Primates acting more collegially should be examined. Primates continue to contribute to this debate publicly and privately.
I welcome the proposals in the book ‘To Mend the Net’ by Archbishop Gomez and Presiding Bishop Sinclair as a serious contribution to that debate. ‘To Mend the Net’ will also be studied by the new Inter- Anglican Doctrinal Commission chaired by Bishop Professor Stephen Sykes. The mending of the net referred to in this book is an apostolic task and we mend nets best when we are faithful to the gospel and in step with one another. This and other useful contributions will assist the Primates in developing, collegially, their role within the Anglican Communion.
Members of the Anglican Communion should heed that while much may be gained by healthy debate in ‘communion’ much will be lost by action which challenges lawful authority in the body of Christ.
Those who claim +Akinola et al are merely trying to ursurp authority at the current time are so wrong. This proposal for enhanced authority and responsibility has been around for 20+ years, half a generation, before any of the current Primates took office.
Would that ++Carey’s plea against “actions which challenge lawful authority in the Communion” had been heeded by Canada and ECUSA in 2003.
—elfgirl (all the “elves” comments above are mine as well)
June 5, 11:58 am | [comment link]
16. Christopher Wells wrote:
Following on elfgirls notes, paras. 104-07 of the Windsor Report are important here, effectively updating the discussion of primatial responsibility vis a vis other “instruments of unity” and posing searching theological questions for the Communion’s collective discernment, “and especially the Anglican Consultative Council” as they put it parenthetically at 107. The Lambeth resolutions from 1988 and 1998 re: primates are cited at para. 104, along with To Mend the Net.
June 5, 12:21 pm | [comment link]
17. alfonso wrote:
I’m tracking with those who say the primatial vicar is off the table and a non-starter, that is, dead. I don’t see the Primates in any way imposing this over the outright rejection of TEC While they may have the “right” to do so, at this point it would be beneath them to engage in such a power struggle, or indirect discipline. The time for upping the ante is over. Since it is known that TEC will reject the communique, they need to be held accountable for that action. One appropriate approach, after Sep 30, would be to: a) keep VGR off the invite list, b) downgrade status of all TEC invitees to “observers”, even Network, c) invite at least +Martin and +Chuck as special guests, and d) state/reiterate Covenant process and reconciliation paramaters. Official recognition/status of Network can wait as long as some Primates reaffirm they are supported and in communion. Again, the Primates would be lowering themselves on several levels to set forth an incremental P-Vicar scheme at this point.
June 5, 12:24 pm | [comment link]
18. Festivus wrote:
Just a reminder and a scorecard for those trying to keep up with the Tanzania agreement, which involved far more than the Pastoral Council/Primatal Vicar:
• Set a Sept. 30 deadline for the Episcopal Church to issue a statement that it will not authorize rites or blessings for same-sex unions or approve any more openly homosexual bishops “unless some new consensus on these matters emerges across the Communion.”
* Blessings by some Episcopal clergy have continued and use unauthorized rites. To be discussed at the HOB September meeting.
• Established a five-person pastoral council to provide spiritual care for parishioners whose churches dissent from the Episcopal Church. About 10% of the nation’s 7,200 parishes have refused to accept the sacraments from any bishop who approves of homosexual bishops or blessing same-sex unions.
* No progress reported.
• Accepted Jefferts Schori’s idea to allow a vicar to oversee the dissenters under her authority.
* HOB clearly rejected the Primatal Vicar interim solution proscribed by the Primates and agreed to by TEC’s Presiding Bishop.
• Called for an end to further interventions if the Episcopal Church follows through on these requests. Some churches have aligned with conservatives Bishops in Africa or South America.
* No progress reported; continued interventions. Point 34 of the Communique reads: “Those who have intervened believe it would be inappropriate to bring an end to interventions until there is change in The Episcopal Church. Many in the House of Bishops are unlikely to commit themselves to further requests for clarity from the primates unless they believe that actions that they perceive to undermine the polity of The Episcopal Church will be brought to an end. Through our discussions, the primates have become convinced that pastoral strategies are required to address these three urgent needs simultaneously.”
• Called both for an end to lawsuits over properties and for the seceding churches to continue to be open to people who disagree.
* Lawsuits by Dioceses and TEC have continued.
Don’t step in the indaba!
June 5, 12:30 pm | [comment link]
19. pendennis88 wrote:
Dr. Radnor said: “The point, however, is that unless the Primates do indeed find a way to act together and move forward together on the matters of discord that TEC has managed almost single-handedly to sow within the Communion, no set of local initiatives, however understandable, is going to allow the Anglican Communion to carry on as a coherent witness to Jesus Christ.”
I tend to agree. However, my point is that the role of local initiatives is to be temporary safe places to protect the orthodox until they are brought back into communion at the time that the place of the sowers of discord such as TEC are disciplined on the assumption they will not change. I believe that will enable the Anglican communion to carry on as a coherent witness to Christ, if that is what the instruments of unity want it to be. In other words, if the Anglican communion welcomes the individual initiatives back (and not in the way TEC wants them back, so as to destroy them), the communion will be furthered. I believe Akinola has said he would hand CANA over to the communion, so they know this.
June 5, 12:36 pm | [comment link]
20. Festivus wrote:
Dr. Radner, Thank you. I do appreciate your willingness to clarify and add to the discussion. I was blessed to hear you and a several theologians address our Diocese shortly after the Windsor report was published. I know your love for the Communion, but my observation is that the communion is mortally wounded and the wound extends far beyond TEC. The fabric is not mendable and a new garment must be woven (although I welcome my Lord to show me otherwise). I welcome the time when the ACI can begin the process of assisting the many orthodox factions to unify and revive a communion with zeal for our Lord.
Don’t step in the indaba!
June 5, 12:50 pm | [comment link]
21. chips wrote:
In response to Emily H and the contract discussion. EmilyH may be right - but I think in a light most favorable to the Presiding Bishop - she certainly left the other Primates believing that 1) she personally supported the Communique; and 2) she would be putting the weigth of her office behind the “sell job”. I think it is clear from events that she did not personally support it and that she made no apparent effort to sell the communique or issue a dissent from those who shot it down. The only good that can come of her actions is that she likely has zero credibility with the Primates.
June 5, 1:42 pm | [comment link]
22. badman wrote:
See also Lord Carey’s “Letter to the Primates of the Anglican Communion” dated 20 February 2000, addressed to “the Bishops of the Anglican Communion & the United Churches”, which is on the web at http://www.anglicancommunion.org/acns/acnsarchive/acns2025/acns2037.html.
It says, in part:
“Over the past few months there has been a growing expectation placed upon the meeting of Primates which takes place at the end of March. It is assumed that at the end of a week-long consultation, we shall produce an authoritative answer to the searching questions of faith and morals which are currently challenging the Communion. That is unrealistic. Perhaps I need to remind everyone that the Primates’ Meeting is consultative. Although the 1998 Lambeth Conference suggested developments in the role of the Primates acting collegially, there has been no opportunity for us to explore these proposals in any detail. We have no authority to impose our will on any Province. To talk of the Primates disciplining the Episcopal Church of the USA or any other Province for that matter, goes far beyond the brief of the Primates’ Meeting.”
June 5, 1:43 pm | [comment link]
23. William#2 wrote:
“I continue not to be in favor of AMiA- and CANA-like initiatives (no surprise to anybody), in part because I believe they have made it harder, not easier, for the Primates to work together and so exercise their calling,” says Dr. Radner.
June 5, 3:53 pm | [comment link]
Well, it is not a surprise, but it is a disappointment that Dr. Radner and many others cling to this view despite the fact that years of effort at a concilar solution have also made things “harder, not easier for the Primates to work together and so exercise their calling.” Also disappointing that the Radner solution is for those of us who are unwilling to support the rebellion against God by staying under the leadership of those who forment it have only one acceptable option: to leave “Anglicanism” altogether.
It does begin to look like fiddling while Rome burns, and even the music is not pleasing to the ear. Another disappointment, Dr. Radner: while “Anglicanism moves slowly” and this sorry sinful drama plays out, those of us who seek an evangelical, Great Commission oriented ministry model deal with the consequences on a DAILY basis as we encounter the unchurched who find church as a whole a rather unpleasant and disgusting business, rife with lawsuits, hypocrisy, the celebration of sin, and finally embodied by your Presiding Bishop, no real agreement about what “christianity” is in the first place.
24. FrankV wrote:
It seems to me that Dr. Radner’s position is analagous to Nero fiddling while Rome burns.
June 6, 12:56 am | [comment link]
25. EmilyH wrote:
For Festivus? You mentioned that the primates accepted the +Jefferts-Schori proposal of a primatial vicar under her authority. The statement I think is only partly true. +Jefferts-Schori did propose the concept of a PV, but the primates removed the PV from under her authoity (the discipline of TEC) and made him accountable to something else. them. Here is where I think real progress could be made. For the Americans, that is their form of governance sticky wicket. Even the HofB’s mind of the house resolution did not preclude a plan that would make the PV accountable to TEC through her. +Duncan’s request to the GS Steering his unwillingness to be subject to her or TEC discipline through her. If the PV scheme could be worked out in a manner that maintains TEC’s ultimate authority over its own province, I don’t think it is necessarily dead. Can the Reverends Seitz, Radner etc. suggest a model that will accord TEC its rightful autonomy? Would Bishop Howe of be a candidate for PV or another conservative, nominated, by the “Windsor” bishops, and approved by and accountable to her (or possibly the Exec Council) be a way forward? There still may be a way for her plan to work.
June 6, 8:09 am | [comment link]
26. dwstroudmd+ wrote:
How could we possibly know what was in the PB’s use of the words she uttered at Dar es Salaam? She apparently doesn’t know what they meant at the time since they have meant many different things since, depending on the date of many statements she has made since then from NYC to Arkansas.
June 6, 1:38 pm | [comment link]
The Red Queen approach to language is currently titled postmodernism.
27. Festivus wrote:
EmilyH - here is the quote from the communique:
“We recognise that there are individuals, congregations and clergy, who in the current situation, feel unable to accept the direct ministry of their bishop or of the Presiding Bishop, and some of whom have sought the oversight of other jurisdictions.
We have received representations from a number of bishops of The Episcopal Church who have expressed a commitment to a number of principles set out in two recent letters . We recognise that these bishops are taking those actions which they believe necessary to sustain full communion with the Anglican Communion.
We acknowledge and welcome the initiative of the Presiding Bishop to consent to appoint a Primatial Vicar.
On this basis, the Primates recommend that structures for pastoral care be established in conjunction with the Pastoral Council, to enable such individuals, congregations and clergy to exercise their ministries and congregational life within The Episcopal Church, and that the Pastoral Council and the Presiding Bishop invite the bishops expressing a commitment to “the Camp Allen principles” , or as otherwise determined by the Pastoral Council, to participate in the pastoral scheme; in consultation with the Council and with the consent of the Presiding Bishop, those bishops who are part of the scheme will nominate a Primatial Vicar, who shall be responsible to the Council;
the Presiding Bishop in consultation with the Pastoral Council will delegate specific powers and duties to the Primatial Vicar.
Once this scheme of pastoral care is recognised to be fully operational, the Primates undertake to end all interventions. Congregations or parishes in current arrangements will negotiate their place within the structures of pastoral oversight set out above.
We believe that such a scheme is robust enough to function and provide sufficient space for those who are unable to accept the direct ministry of their bishop or the Presiding Bishop to have a secure place within The Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion until such time as the Covenant Process is complete. At that time, other provisions may become necessary.
Although there are particular difficulties associated with AMiA and CANA, the Pastoral Council should negotiate with them and the Primates currently ministering to them to find a place for them within these provisions. We believe that with goodwill this may be possible.”
So, power is delegated by the PB (Schori). As Dr. Radner so noted, the Vicar is not something that was designed to be imposed upon TEC. Hope that clarifies things.
Don’t step in the indaba!
June 6, 6:10 pm | [comment link]
28. Festivus wrote:
Of course, if one wants to read between the lines, we can say that:
1) the initative of the PB </i>was</i> begun,
2) both the pastoral council and the PB have not formed a pastoral scheme, and
3) powers of the Primatial Vicar have not been determined.
Maybe what the primates and the +++ABC need to do is remind TEC publically they are still waiting on items 2 and 3. Its possible that door was closed at the last HOB meeting. If so, it would be just easier if the HOB delcared the scheme dead.
Don’t step in the indaba!
June 6, 6:18 pm | [comment link]
© 2017 Kendall S. Harmon. All rights reserved.