While I will not be holding my breath waiting for a real showdown to happen in Egypt, the fact is that such a showdown is long overdue. The revisionists and cowards among the orthodox have been tippy-toeing around this issue since long before 2003, it is time for the Anglican Communion to decide whether it wants to be a conciliar Church or not. This has nothing to do with the Covenant. The Covenant can go take a walk, for all I care. What does have to happen is that there is a move to be actually unified in doctrine and in practice. No more pussy-footing around.

Of course, I do not expect that to happen. But I would be greatly satisfied for a parallel province to be accepted. Then ACNA and TEC & AC 9f C can have the Gamaliel contest: Whichever body survives and thrives will be the one blessed by God.

+++Rowan will not like that to happen, but it is time for him to be the Archbishop of Canterbury instead of just another English political appointee.

I’ll believe it when I see it – after all, whom is he (Mr. Rowan Williams) asking to speak on the issue but both “primates” of the USA and Canada (+ South Africa {liberal prelates!!}, Pakistan {liberal, in TEO’s bribery pocket contrary to his subordinate clergy!} and Uganda {token conservative but pro-WO!})!!!!

Even if the others force his hand (which is by no means guaranteed – his open contempt for whatever conservatives do has been seen repeatedly!!!), I expect then that he’ll openly go liberal (even as “archbishop” of Canterbury, his loyalty is to the mostly-liberal and anti-Christian UK than to anybody else!!!) but even then still try to fudge just enough so as to still leave people confused – it’s confusion and lies that he’s been using ALL THE TIME!!!! If the others force him and his fellow-liars into the open, it will in itself be a major victory – and if the schism THEN indeed happens, that would be a marvellous MIRACLE!!!

[I say yet again: better schism, day or night, than heresy - let alone apostasy (which is the real thing the "liberal" Commies have really perpetrated!!). Forget "cooler heads prevailing" and all the rest of that NONSENSE!!!!!]

“Don’t look now but the long-awaited Anglican confrontation may just finally happen at the upcoming Primates Meeting in Egypt:”

Ho Johnson, you’re a card! That was my best laugh of the day, thanks.

If Rowan and TEC think they will lose a vote to recognize ACNA, I think Rowan will simply refuse to allow a vote.

Option #3- Kick the can…..

con’t… Time honored Anglican tradition.

WannabeAnglican, if Mr. Rowan Williams tries to refuse to allow a vote, THAT’S WHEN the others MUST FORCE it (and if they do and it comes to a schism, what better??)!!!

Sorry Chris, Dreaming again? Finally time for rehab?

Rowan has shown an amazing ability to delay, obfuscate, and thwart anything remotely resembling a decision. I can’t believe he’ll be defeated at the one thing he’s good at. If anything concrete comes out of this meeting, it will be done sans Rowan, and without the aproval of Canterbury.

Which I feel is long overdue. The Continuum has managed quite nicely for 30 years without having any association with Canterbury – it’s just a figurehead for something that doesn’t exist, Centralized Anglican Authority. There’s nothing Rowan or any AofC can do to make sacraments performed by validly ordained/consecrated clergy invalid, and there’s no additional grace obtained in any sacrament by saying that it is sanctioned by Canterbury. The kind of fellowship that is meaningful is that which is based on The Faith As Received, The True And Complete Gospel Of Christ As Written In The Scriptures. And there appears to be a group of Primates who recognize that, and will do something about it. My guess is that the break will occur – but Rowan won’t acknowledge it, and will continue with his “All Is Well, Indaba-Daba-Doo” routine.

Didn’t you see the “if” and “may” up top there, Warren?

But if Morgan admits that his side doesn’t have the votes to beat back a new province, the primates have a look at it. Whether or not they take the shot is up to them.

Morgan was in Virginia to oversee them going over the inclusivity cliff this past weekend. I really don’t see how Rowan can keep up this charade, but I have no doubt he’ll try.

They’ll kick the can again by forming a listening group to study the challenge. That group will come back in five years saying that more time is needed to listen but that the listening process is being hampered by unwarranted diocesan and provincial boundary crossings.

Not to add to the problems facing the Anglican Communion, but the Catholic Church is ready to offer the Traditional Anglican Communion status as a personal prelature (like Opus Dei) inside the Church.

For more information click here: http://the-american-catholic.com/2009/01/29/personal-prelature-for-traditional-anglican-communion/

In Jesus, Mary, & Joseph,

Tito

Oh look let’s be absolutely clear. Barry Morgan is absolutely right in terms of scripture, Anglican (especially) tradition, and reason.

There can be no overlapping jurisdictions in the Anglican communion.

The problem, of course, is not and has never been APNA. It is TEC. Frankly I cannot imagine any Global South primate being able to live with themselves – or remain in the communion – if TEC remains.

TEC must be thrown out

only after that does it make sense to consider what kind of representation makes sense for US Anglicans; yes it should be APNA. But to discuss recognising APNA before eliminating TEC is more than just putting the cart before the horse – it is, as the Global South and even the Windsor Report said: being complicit with departure from the Christian faith.

In simple English: it means betraying Christ.

Sounds like this is the appropriate theme song. It’s rather Anglican, full of power chords, smoke and flashing lights, and ultimately not a lot of meaning. It’s also dated and European.

First, whenever a liberal Primate makes a statement, assume that it is strategic rather than candid. Assume everything Archbishop Morgan says is political, and ask “why is he saying that, in this way, today?” (if the answer “because it is true” pops into your mind then you are rather naive).

As noted above, approval of ACNA would be in some ways a very liberal solution: “if we can’t live together in our provinces then let’s accept our diversities and live together in one happy global communion.” So why are the liberals opposing it? Some ideas:
1) Maybe they don’t mind ACNA, but think that by opposing it vociferously they can get concessions of some sort
2) Maybe they are worried that approving ACNA will give legitimacy to the conservatives and might help them keep some of their property – property that the liberals want to sell to Walmart to finance liberal programs. I’m not sure that ACNA will help in court, however.
3) Maybe they are worried that ACNA is the template for ACEurope and ACOceania and we’ll have parallel jurisdictions in England and Western Australia.

Of course, overlapping jurisdictions do exist, mostly for ethnic reasons. Anglicans have a few, it more or less describes Orthodoxy, at least in the U.S., and Catholics have them de facto, and, arguably, de jure.

Michael D –

It’s not necessary to attribute political motives to Abp. Morgan, in opposition to theological motives. You could be correct, but it’s unknowable. I have little doubt the man is a True Believer in the homosexualist ideology he is promoting. Hence, his moves are political, but (most likely) based on (aberrant) theology. Unless TEC is paying him off somehow, he really doesn’t have a motive other than ideological to carry water for them. TEC does have other motives, as they are in the thick of battle to hold their turf and, as you say, protect their assets (or protect something with a similar spelling).

I’m still not understanding why ACNA would lose by becoming a recognized province. They are currently billing themselves as members of the Anglican Communion, through they covering provinces. They are, mostly, in (at least) impaired communion with TEC at this time. Besides, my impression is that the ACNA folks are functionally congregationalists, with a history of tolerance for deviance at the diocesan and national levels, until it impinged on them. I can’t see recognition as anything but a win for ACNA.

Tito Edwards, I’ll believe it when I see it coming from the Vatican rather than from the TAC Australian website. They have indulged in wishful thinking in the past.

I note the proposed (by the ACO) agenda: “an agenda that includes business sessions on global warming, international finance, coordination of development work among church agencies, and the Communion’s theological working group.” Only the last two can really be said to be the church’s business, unless they mean international Church finance, and I’d bet they mean instead pretending they are secular leaders rather than religious. As to “global warming,” that’s a waste of their time.

If George Conger, who has connections, thinks the new province has a majority of Primates in favor, that is indeed news. We’ll see. I’m going to avoid believing speculative reports while the meeting is in progress. Only the final communique and press conference will be definitive.

Tito Edwards, I’ll believe it when I see it coming from the Vatican rather than from the TAC Australian website. They have indulged in wishful thinking in the past.

Unfortunately, any action will be too late to have any real effect in Alexandria. However, it may have a bearing on future decisions by Anglican prelates when they realize that there is a place where “dissidents” will be welcome.

Katharine’s right – until it’s announced by the Vatican, I’d hold off embroidering crossed keys on the kneelers. Even when rumours DO come true (as in the case of the Motu Proprio), the Vatican has a habit of choosing its own mystifying time for acting, often years after the first excited announcement. However, I’m quite happy to see the rumour put about and widely believed, because it’s another pound of pressure on Rowan Williams, who now has to worry about OTHER people acting and swiping his members because of his feckless stalling. In his endless indulgence of TEC he’s starting to remind me of Anytime Annie: “He only ever said ‘No’ once, and then he didn’t hear the question.”

[...] there anything to any of this?  Commenters down here as well as the Bovina Bloviator urge caution.  These things, they say, take time, lots of time, [...]

The political strength of the GAFCON primates will be tested against Archbishop Morgan and supporters of The Episcopal Church. The proposed agenda, however, seeks to avoid a direct decision, calling for further dialogue on the issue of rites for the blessing of same-sex unions, the consecration of non-celibate homosexual clergy to the episcopate, and the violation of traditional diocesan boundaries by overseas bishops.

If the agenda stands as is stated, then the TEC supporters will have won. Such an agenda would indicate that Resolution I.10 from Lambeth 1998 is considered non-operative. Such an agenda would be supportive of TEC and the revisionists.

That is why the GAFCON primates must act now and insist on a show of hands on this issue. There has been too much dithering about this issue for much too long. But as Bill (Not IB) has pointed out, who really needs Canterbury any more? Dr. Rowan Williams has demonstrated the utter vacuity of the office. He has turned an office which once had enormous spiritual meaning into just another political post. Of course, recent ABC’s have have their hand in moving the office of the ABC toward that direction, but Dr. Williams has put his indelible stamp upon it.

So much for the Anglican Communion being a part of the Church Catholic. It is little more than a revisionist debating society now.

I personally see little chance that the agenda will stand. That doesn’t mean I think it will necessarily end the way conservatives want, but I don’t think it will go smoothly on +Cantuar’s plan as Lambeth did.

I like Dr. Mabuse’s idea. This puts pressure on Williams from another direction, although I’m not sure that Anglo-Catholics in England would go with the TAC as a first choice.

By the way, I expect tomorrow to get a look at two Archbishops, one of them from Sudan. This doesn’t mean I will TALK to them or have any inside information, but I consider it a privilege to worship with such a man. US conservatives are losing property. His people are being murdered for the faith.

It’s very simple. Before the meeting we send in Jack Bauer to take the ABC hostage, fix a lamp cord to his canonicles and yell, “Who are you working for!”.

It may sound outlandish, but it can’t be any sillier than the path we have trod so far.

I agree. These are just rumors. But I pray they are true.

CJ: “And that means that Rowan Williams will have to do something no Anglican ever likes to do.

What will happen? Stay tuned.”

Naaaaaa. Your analysis falls a bit short. The key element is not what Rowan does. Rowan will decide to not decide, or as someone else put it, to kick the can down the road some more, to buy and stall for more time. For example, setting forth an agenda so that no vote can be taken decisively. Whether that agenda remains, remains to be seen.

ABC Rowan Williams is an Institutionalist-Enabler of soul-destroying heresy and apostasy. Hence, he is not the key player here.

The key players, and where the heavy focus should be, is upon the GAFCON/GS primates. It’s what THEY DECIDE TO DO that will be the key. Not Rowan.

They must make the Archbishop of Institutionalist-Enablers face the music by being the ones to administer consequences for his purposeful dithering in creating ecclesiastical cover for the spiritually abusive practices of apostasy and heresy in TEc and the ACoC.

It’s a waste of time to blather and confront the apostates and heretics. You have to confront forcefully the Institutionalist-Idolator-Enablers of soul-destroying apostasy and heresy. You must confront the ACI and the ABC and the Communion Partners and others of that ilk for enabling the continuance of the profane and perverse mockery of God in TEc … which will only accelerate in its descent over time.

GAFCON/GS primates must do what is necessary. And if it entails enduring the banshee screeching and screaming of the Institutionalist-Idolator-Enablers, then so be it. Rowan will certainly make decisions, but it’s the GAFCON primates decisions that will make him reap what he has foolishly sown.

P.S.

Dr. Steven Noll understands this. He has written the following in direct refutation of ACI and their beloved Covenant process:

“It is my conviction that the Anglican Communion is a house divided against itself, and that no covenant can ignore this fact without becoming irrelevant and hypocritical.

The Covenant process, like the Windsor process, is the brainchild of the Archbishop of Canterbury and several of his top advisors. This fact cannot be ignored. Rowan Williams has repeatedly expressed the view that, given enough time for patient listening and dialogue, the two apparently opposite theological poles, which I shall call orthodox and revisionist, can be reconciled in a creative synthesis. No doubt this philosophical position is reinforced by the real fear that having to choose one side or the other would lead to the division of the Communion. So in any process the Archbishop requires that all must have a voice.

But it is more complicated than that. The Archbishop and his advisors seem to have concluded that within the orthodox and revisionist camps, the “fundamentalists” of both groups should be excluded and the leadership be inhabited only by the “moderates,” namely, those who agree with the premise that “unity” is the preeminent virtue and that schism is the ultimate vice. In practical terms, this means that only “institutionalist” evangelicals and catholics on one side and establishment revisionists, i.e., those who are not notorious unilateralists on the other, are participants in these processes.

The idea of a Covenant, or call it a Communion Constitution and Canons, is necessary if the Communion is to maintain the special identity of Anglican theology, worship, polity and mission. The current covenant process established by the Archbishop of Canterbury will not be able to reach that end, because it is compromised by failing to identify the brokenness of the Communion and by including those who have broken it in the Covenant process itself.”

Read it all.

As noted above, approval of ACNA would be in some ways a very liberal solution: “if we can’t live together in our provinces then let’s accept our diversities and live together in one happy global communion.”

Absolutely. We must daily remember what these people have done to our Lord.
They have literally taken Jesus down from the cross and tortured him again.
(I was going to say something more graphic, but, you can work it out).
How can their province be allowed to remain in the church?

That’s why this is completely the wrong question: the right question is: how can we throw ECUSA out, and throw out every single province, diocese, or parish that maintains any kind of communion with such a “church”?
Get the answer to that question right, and the answer to the other question is itself resolved. Get the answer to that question wrong, and no matter what you decide about APNA, the result is organisational chaos, theological incoherence, the complete victory of postmodernism — in other words, joining in with the liberals in torturing Christ.

So why are the liberals opposing it? Some ideas:
1) Maybe they don’t mind ACNA, but think that by opposing it vociferously they can get concessions of some sort

For a few of them, particularly Anglo-Catholics, the resulting organisational incoherence is itself a denial of Christ. Furthermore, the blatantly federalist and congregationalist constitutions and canons of APNA (of which APNA is so stupidly proud) are grounds enough to deny recognition. If I were setting up APNA, I’d do it right:
1) all existing “APNA” bishops reduced to clergy status.
2) new bishops and archbishops appointed from outside the US, to head new geographical diocese, each covering a bunch of states. Future bishops appointed only by the college of bishops. None who has ever been ordainded or held a diocesan or national position in ECUSA is permitted to be consecreated bishop in APNA until at least 2030.
3) any parish that wants to join must tie its property to the new province in perpetiuty.
4) Robust clergy discipline processes (at least as much as the CoE).
5) The ABC (or some primates committee, or the ACC) should be incorporated into the cannons as the final, legal, decision-making authority over the whole damn province.

instead of which, APNA is a post-modern congregationalist mash-up with bishops. That is frankly reason enough to tell them to go away and make a real Anglican province with real diocese and real structures.

2) Maybe they are worried that approving ACNA will give legitimacy to the conservatives and might help them keep some of their property – property that the liberals want to sell to Walmart to finance liberal programs. I’m not sure that ACNA will help in court, however.

The US courts aren’t going to give a damn what the communion says. IT doesn’t matter to them if the communion dumps TEC and picks up APNA: they’ll decide based on US laws. That’s why the new province constitution and canons should explicitly incorporate some authority outside the US.

But I really doubt Morgan or anyone cares about this. Why should he?

3) Maybe they are worried that ACNA is the template for ACEurope and ACOceania and we’ll have parallel jurisdictions in England and Western Australia.

This one is the rub. The ABC has (acutally) been telling TEC for years to stop suing people: it’s not the English way. Of course, it’s pretty damn obvious he has no power to make TEC do anything (or stop doing anything). But if the communion sets up APNA in parallel with TEC, and says, we don’t like you suing, and you should let people transfer between the two, then that really opens up cans of worms mostly for the CoE, and also for Australia & South Africa. (NZ is mostly too damn small; church attendance is the smallest of basically any country in the entire world:

In the primates meeting, it seems clear that

* the Christians have the votes to make a new province

* The Christians do not have the votes to throw ECUSA out of the communion.

Ironically, in the ACC, there will be a clearer majority for a new province, and a majority to throw ECUSA out.

Remember Nottingham – where the Christians brought a motion to the floor to throw ECUSA and Canada out, effectively immediately, and Rowan stopped the vote?