THE MCJ

The paper, commissioned by Dr Williams, made clear that bishops who had transgressed diocesan and provincial boundaries in search of “orthodox” primacy were considered guilty of undermining collegiality. An even worse sin, it suggested, was boycotting the conference.

GAFCON/Jerusalem Declaration Drafter-Signers: "We are in *FULL* communion with the See of Canterbury and the Church of England!"

GAFCON/Jerusalem Declaration Drafter-Signers: "We are in *FULL* communion with the See of Canterbury and the Church of England!"

- the continuum;

- Anglican Use Catholic parishes;

or - cutting the Anglican ties outright.

When an actual copy is available, it might be an entirely different story...

Then again, there is also the possibility it was ghost-written in NYC.

They said:

1. The GAFCON group will not take c--p off anyone including the ABC 2. They are NOT in Communion with any apostates and heretics. 3. They do not recognize the territory or authority of Apostates. 4. They will not allow heretics to exercise any authority over them.

And last, but not least, they said: 5. The GAFCON Movement IS THE Anglican Communion now.

Currently people are working on structures.

Signatures of individuals and parishes (even CoE parishes)and new GAFCON 'support groups' are increasing weekly.

This is a quiet, no fanfare, reform, restoration, realignment that cannot be stopped. If someone is heretical, they invalidate themselves and thereafter will be disregarded and irrelevant.

There are GAFCON bishops who will be attending Lambeth and ,most likely, partaking in the Holy Eucharist with Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams.

Dr. Mabuse: "When it's a report of the Archloser acting in character and taking a dump on conservatives, I believe it.

That's a funny visual. Let me add to it. In addition to the vote to ordain women bishops and having two gay priests "wed" in the diocese of London, the ABC and the CoE General Synod should just go ahead and do what the ++Wales suggested, and ordain an active, unrepentant GLBT'er ala +VGR.

While that's happening, the ABC and the ACO should send correspondence to GAFCON to have the Jerusalem Declaration printed on thick toilet paper. After the ordination of a GLBT'er bishop in CoE, the ABC should just defecate and then have ++Venables wipe his dirty arse with the Jerusalem Declaration toilet paper, saying "You're still in Full Communion with me. So clean up this mess too with your Jerusalem Declaration toilet paper. This bowel movement is what I think of it."

After all, if Windsor, Dar, Camp Allen, etc. were disregarded by them, why should the orthodox regard their paper documents with any respect? Hah.

Hah! indeed. Your point is well-taken. Then the Anglican Draft Covenant, any official Lambeth 2008 documents, and any resolutions from TEc's General Convention in 2009 should likewise be printed on thick toilet paper and sent to the GS Bishops for MDG consumption. After fecal smearing the revisionist-apostate toilet paper, it should be wrapped up and sent to the ACO with a note inscribed: "Anglican Fudge - Special Delivery."

Here's a detailed point by point ACC response to GAFCON:

http://www.anglicancatholic.org/gafcon.html

As soon as Robinson became a bishop in the Anglican Communion, the battle was won, right there, right then. He won't be the only openly gay bishop, in time there will be more, and in the end, like women's ordination those who stuck with Anglicanism will just have to lump it.

Ignore TU&D's language, for which he has apologized, and follow his link above; scroll down for the picture of the bishop's wife showing off her tatoos. What a circus.

And I thought I was older than dirt!

GB, please explain further what you mean about the phrase "Anglican Catholic Church":

Do you mean that the Anglican church is the Catholic Church in England? if so what is the Church headed by the Cardinal Archbishop of Westminster?

Or do you mean that even after the Edwardian and Elizabethan settlements and later developments, the Anglican Church remained Catholic even though it rejected so much of what is essential doctrine to the definition of Catholic?

Do you mean some other definition, and if so how would it fit the definition of Catholic. To the extent that for some four hundred plus years it was limited to the British Isles and expatriates Brits, it could not claim the title catholic in the sense of geographically universal; and its "broad church" approach in the sense that it is not a "magisterial" church and has always accepted a wide range of differences in matters of doctrine and liturgical practices, which is celebrated with great pride as one of the main markers of Anglicanism over the centuries, it also does not seem to fit the definition of Catholic in the sense of unified doctrines. Indeed it is this very lack of cohesion in matters of doctrine, beliefs and practices that are coming to a head at the moment and is pointing to schism and divisions to the point of threatening to destroy Anglicanism

While I understand the term "Anglicanism being part of the church catholic (small initial).I also know that lots of other christian sects and denominations claim this title I am really intrigued by the term "Anglican Catholic Church", (all capitalized initials). I would also be interested when the term came into common use.

Awwww, just admit it. You laughed.

A chuckle perhaps?

Not even a bemused expression like +++Rowan Williams?

An experience of a visual mental image?

If so, then that image is virtually what these people think of the other side's documents and behavior.

Indaba groups? Wipe.

Jerusalem Declaration? Wipe.

Amendments for the provision of those who object to the ordination of Women Bishops? Wipe.

You get the picture right?

But I'm a sailor.

It all begins with the conviction that the Catholic Church simply is. She is not one option amongst many. People who become alienated from their own churches will sometimes think that the next step is to go down to the marketplace and see what is on offer: which church is going to give me the best deal? Those people seldom find the Catholic Church because they have missed the essential point – the fullness of Christ’s blessings is not distributed across the ecclesial landscape but flows from the one Church.

“The one Church of Christ, as a society constituted and organized in the world, subsists in the Catholic Church, governed by the Successor of Peter and the bishops in communion with him.” This is the ecclesiological North Star. On the other hand, Anglicanism’s branch theory of Catholicism cannot be located on the map because it is a utopia, ou topos, a place of nonexistence. This is a difficult truth, but the idea that Catholic Anglicanism exists sui generis is an illusion that must be let go of in order to experience the fullness of Catholic life. Many Anglicans have intuited this, but it is hard to overcome the notion we were taught, that Catholicism is simply the sum of all the Christian churches, kath’holos, according to the whole. The Catholic Church has a different understanding: “Particular Churches are fully catholic through their communion with one of them, the Church of Rome, ‘which presides in charity.’”

The extent to which Anglicanism does indeed depend on the Catholic Church is remarkable, a relationship that runs much deeper than the normal interchanges between two great church traditions. Let me give a personal example. There were many times in my 28 years of ordained Anglican ministry where, at critical pastoral junctures, what I needed to say to my parish or my diocese or to individual souls was, “This is what the Church teaches.” However, there was so little to which I could point and say clearly and unambiguously, “the Church teaches.” In the Anglican churches the exercise of authority is almost always personal and provisional, and as a result, the care of souls tends to lack that firm grounding which makes spiritual progress possible. In the quiet of my study, what kept me focused and connected were the writings of John Paul II. “He’s my pope too!” I would say to myself, and I am sure that many Protestant clergy were saying the same thing. John Paul II exercised the Petrine ministry beyond the visible sheepfold of the Catholic Church, and during his long and fruitful pontificate he gave much hope to a multitude of separated brethren.

Anglicanism has for the last quarter century proceeded quite intentionally from the principle that truth not only is discerned primarily in the experience of the Christian community but also that the community itself has priority over truth. This approach has produced a very meager and inconsequential harvest, and the great legacy of Anglican theological scholarship has been lost. The contrast with the Catholic mind is striking. As an Anglican I would take in hand, for instance, The Catechism of the Catholic Church and ask, could my church have produced a work so penetrating and comprehensive? No, it has neither the capacity nor the confidence to speak its mind in such a way. Why? Because it has deliberately cut itself off from the tradition.

Pope Benedict XVI has called for the Church to engage in a hermeneutic of continuity, and this is an enterprise of extraordinary spiritual power. His Wednesday audiences are astonishing, as he opens up the rich treasury of Christian thought and faith and invites all to participate. For those who yearn for a living encounter with the apostolic tradition, the impact of this is transformative.

That must be some feat.

diane, remembering that, if you have to explain a joke, then it really wasn't as funny as you thought it was...LOL!

TU&D, you and Ed the sailor and others here are men, as nearly as I can tell online. There are differences between men and women (I hope this doesn't shock you). Women are often but not always considerably more averse to the use of vulgarities. And there it is. We're different.

Long, long ago, before I retired to take on motherhood, I was a financial and systems analyst. This was in the days when women in professional positions in large companies were unusual. There was one man I worked with who used bad language routinely. In fact, we could tell how angry he was by what type of words came out. He used profanity at the first level, bathroom language at the second, and sex talk when he was really furious. He was a nice man, and he really tried to tone it down when I joined the group. I never lectured him, but he knew, and he did try. Poor man, there were days when he could hardly express himself at all because he had to use regular words. I think it was good for him.

(I post this stuff here because I think being chastised by certain commentrices regarding my being disrespectful to person who only deserve disrespect to be a symptom of the state of denial that they live in.)

Frankly, I grow more weary of this Anglican soap opera. It passed tedious months ago, maybe even years ago. The problem is that I just love Chris's writing and most of the commentors here. But sometimes I wish we could discuss something that was more relevant since I think most of us are in agreement that the Canterbury-based AC is irrelevant and hopefully on its way to the historical garbage dump.

As I told my older daughter the other day, sometimes following this stuff, both here on MCJ and the other place makes me feel as though I'm watching a cut-off branch on the ground slowly die and turn brown. Do you ever feel as though it's reporting on the progress of rot and decay? A blow by blow discussion of how bad it smells? At any rate, it's almost impossible not to be a gawker at a really bad train wreck.

To tell the truth, as an catholic evangelical (as opposed to an evangelical catholic, there is a difference), I have come to feel sorry for the apostates, heretics and cowards, but most especially Rowan Williams. Strictly judging from behaviour and words, he doesn't strike me as the kind of guy that fears God or believes in any kind of judgement, be it particular or general. I do believe that there will be a judgement for all and that each one of us will be accountable to God for the life we have lived and most especially our Christian witness. While I know in my heart that I am forgiven and I have the promise of Christ's redemption, I also know that I must accept accountable before the judgement seat for the times and the ways in which my life has "weakened the body of Christ". Think about the judgement that Rowan Williams faces if he continues down this perditious path he has set his feet and his heart upon. For his own soul's sake, this man stands in dire need of true conversion and repentance.

Your comment puts me in mind of a colleague at a past job. She was mother to two young children and an attorney. (While women tend to use less foul language than men do, women who are attorneys tend to use foul language much more often than do women who aren't attorneys.) She took to always saying "Oh bananas!" in lieu of anything saltier. It was both endearing and funny.

Yeah, what is it about husbands? Aren't they supposed to be strong and tough and manly? How come a little bit of green baby diarrhea throws 'em for a loop? LOL.

I'm guilty as charged!

Yaaaacck!

http://tinyurl.com/6av96k

Here is an excerpt

"Christ offers more! Indeed he offers everything! Only he who is the Truth can be the Way and hence also the Life. Thus the "way" which the Apostles brought to the ends of the earth is life in Christ."

Except, GB, that the Broad Churchers, or Latitudinarians, like Williams and Schori have been a feature of historic Anglicanism since the beginning. Anglicans, whether of the Continuum or of Canterbury, are still, at their core, Protestants. From the Latin perspective, this means that they've taken at least one fork in the road and, from the Greek perspective, at least two side excursions. Unless you and the ACC hold to some Anglican version of the “Baptist Bride” theory, to claim some kind of special authenticity for the ACC is ludicrous.

Oh, yeah, Daniel, they're right out there with those who say, “If the King James Bible was good enough for Jesus, it's good enough for me.” With Protestantism, anything goes.

In Christian charity I accept your advice.

Intellectually and rationally however, given your claim that "in my case,(i.e.GB's) history--and church history in particular--is my professional field, in addition to theology." your reply is what we in Australia call a cop out!!!!!! You don't or won't or can't answer the question for yourself even given your claimed expertise. We are very straight forward in the "land down under!

The question and the issue I raised in my earlier post is a genuine one. If anyone else can help I would be very grateful.