The only hope is what is being done, not what is being said and written…

First, +Duncan gives no indication of backing down or stopping.
+Orombi and +Venables don’t sound like they’ll be turning their refugees over to ‘Episcopal escrow’ or ‘Episcopal visitors’ (scary thought).

I think TEC will continue full steam ahead and so will ACNA…whether or not Canterbury approves or supports them.

We need a unified clear response from the FCA (GAFCON, Jerusalem Declaration) group.

Like Newbie Anglican, I’d rather start another clean Communion without the Western Provinces…I’m not convinced the Covenant will escape the connivance and contrivance of Canterbury as handled by KJS (et al)

I don’t know if any of that’s going to happen and I’m not sure I care anymore. I agree with Newbie that we need a clean Communion. I’m just not sure that anybody else wants one badly enough to sever the Lambeth connection.

I assume you have all now watched the actual conversation on Anglican TV. It is clearly the source of Conger’s quotes. It is a strange conversation, no doubt. But having watched it all I don’t think now that ++Orombi and ++Venables sold out the ACNA group. Venables seems in truth to be saying he thinks the present Anglican Communion is finished. Venables is at peace, it seems, because he doesn’t think there will be much further effort to hold liberals and conservatives together in the Communion now that they truly have come to understand each other. Of course, it seems this “end of the Communion” will be brought about solely by God’s activity and not by “legislation,” so I am not clear exactly when we will know that it is over.

Another oddity is Orombi’s clear belief that if only the ACNA folks will have a private meeting with the ABC he will understand our trials and then support the new province! Doesn’t he know that ABC has been fully informed all along? Williams simply is unwilling to do anything despite multiple private meetings! Yet another private meeting between Duncan and Williams won’t accomplish anything, but Orombi still thinks it is the key to resolving the matter. I don’t understand Orombi’s disconnect with reality, but I think he is still strongly pro-ACNA.
What all this means in the coming months I can’t imagine.

And this “panel of theologians” debating liberalism vs. traditional Christianity that seems so important to Orombi is just a titanic waste of time. Maybe for a Ugandan who seldom deals with liberals it is necessary for everyone to put his theological cards on the table, but everyone in North America has known the shape of things for generations and we don’t need more talk to sort it out.

After viewing the “primates’ debriefing” on Anglican TV to the end, I am sure these men did not mean to “sell us out.” I think they have just given up on keeping the Communion together and think this meeting was a key step on closing things down gracefully. But how this can be sorted out in practice is beyond me.

The Anglican Church, as worldwide communion, ceases to exist. WCG mentions our “ecclesial deficit” to, in broad terms, discpline TEC. This is of course nonsense. Our leaders, especially the ABC, failed to uphold the basis (scripture n tradition) of church order and discipline. Our Catholicity has been torn to shreds.

Are we part of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolick Church?

Sorry, but as an outside observer, Orthodox, I am again confused by the Anglican dithering. When Metropolitan Sergius issued his infamous declaration in 1927 making himself and his Synod subservient to the atheistic Bolshevik regime, the truly orthodox Russian bishops immediately separated themselves from communion with him. Now, it seems to me, in Anglicanism, you have the so-called Gafcon and Southern Cone bishops dithering and wringing their hands over the efficacy of withdrawing from communion with groups, such as TEC, which they have identified as heretics and apostates and seemingly unable to separate themselves from Lambeth, i.e. unable to end communion with a druid installed as a usurper, along with his predecessors, in a former Catholic See by a late British monarch, who not only tolerates, but seems to embrace a homosexualist and apostate “religion” which will eventually lead many to condemnation. Where are the cries of “Anathema?” Why are self-professed Christians unable to discern the heresy and apostasy with which they choose to continue to align themselve? Is it money? Is it “prestige?” I know what it is not - it is not following Christ. To quote a journalist, I believe Dorothy Parker, when it comes to the TEC and its followers, “there is no there there.” And the same now seems to be true of the Gafcon and Southern Cone leaders. It is time for Christ’s sheep to come out of Babylon, IMHO.

Donald R.Janousek,
“there is no there there.” is not a quote from Dorothy Parker, but rather from the famous lesbian writer Gertrude Stein.

Folks, it’s game, set and match. We lost a long time ago, and they won. Alexandria just highlighted, underscored and reinforced that fact. Why in the heck can’t the orthodox recognize that, cut the heretics loose and move on to a post-TEO world? We can’t continue to drag that carcass behind us without compromising the mission of the Church. How many times must we be reminded that historic Christianity no longer exists in the TEO? The Anglican Communion as we have known it is no longer. Let’s acknowledge that fact and move on.

Freddy XIII claims ACNA agents are infiltrating the ACoC. He was recorded using that word several times.

“I was walking home one night and a guy hammering on a roof called me a paranoid little weirdo. In Morse code.”- Emo Philips

Freddy better watch out or the Holy Spirit will infiltrate the ACoC and there will be a revival at National Synod - tongues of fire that even that not even the Council of General Synod will be able to extinguish.

If Freddy is Mr. Fred Hiltz and saying such things, he truly is at best paranoid - at worst he’s utterly insane!! [Sounds like the Devil has got him firmly in his clasp - God truly has turned him over to Satan!!...]

Paraphrasing from Berg’s “Wozzeck”: ‘er hat eine köstliche “Aberratio partialis mentalis, dreizehntes Spezies”…’

[Alban Berg was one of the two main and best disciples (the other was Anton von Webern) of Arnold Schönberg, the bogeyman of classical music.]

Translating the German: “he [Franz Wozzeck] has a rare (and therefore valuable for the “Doctor” using him for crackpot experiments) “partial mental aberration, 13th species”.

The original has “2nd [zweites] Spezies”… Sorry…

Perpetua: I do apologize for attributing the “there is no there there” quote to the wrong person. Comes from being to lazy to do a fact check first, I guess. Anyway, as Bugs Bunny once said, “What a maroon!” And, I am certain I am attributing THAT quote to the right…er….wabbit.

Raph mused:

“Are we part of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolick Church?”

Sorry, no. You are not.

I’m saddened that Venables and Orombi, et al. are compromising themselves. They speak of an obvious split that will happen “some day” (cf. Virtue’s latest interview) because there are two different religions being espoused; yet they pull back from any call to repentance, from any hint of discipline. These are the “conservative” primates, and they think the Holy Spirit just wants them to ride this out by acquiesing to a great lie.

To use the Captain’s illustration, sometimes it is just best to leave one (addict/sinner) to their own devices. But is the path of love to say in this case, “we are going to respect what you believe as legitimate (even though we don’t share that belief)” and thus do nothing–when there are spouses and children in the midst of abusers, wolves, false prophets, idolators, etc.?!?

To say “we support non-proselytizing” even if that only refers to those in TEC (which it does) is to treat TEC as an equal in the faith. Or so it seems. That disgusts me.

But mid post, I had an epiphany. I have up until now, thought Venables, whom I met, as being wiser and so much more godly than my small mind. The current debacle still hasn’t shaken me of that yet, as much as his communication confuses me. If the Holy Spirit is really leading him, Orombi, and Akinola in this, perhaps the operative biblical paradigm is the example of shaking the dust off one’s feet in the face of repeated rejection of the gospel; and not of treating those wilfully in TEC as innocent victims in the face of wolves.

And whether or not that is truly the Global South perspective, perhaps it should be mine.

That would mean the “spouses” of the abusers (the ACNA and others tied to TEC) are being judged as well. If they haven’t gotten out by now, it’s on them.

More poetically,

Yes, some people say there’s a ++woman to blame, but you know, it’s their own damn fault.

alfonso, is that from “Wastin’ Away in Anglicanville?”

The Captain: “The current Primates’ Communique may be seen as the date that the Anglican Communion formally became TEC’s co-dependent and enabler, and drew back from the brink of confrontation with TEC.”

Hey! There’s that word “enabler”. I love it. I write about them all the time as in “Institutionalist-Idolator-Enablers“.

The Captain confirms what I’ve been saying and thinking for a long time: The Anglican Communion is an enabler for TEc’s soul-destroying heresy and apostasy.

CJ: “Given their disgraceful performances in Egypt, I would certainly not vote to have my Anglican parish overseen by Peter Akinola, Henry Orombi, Gregory Venables or any other GAFCON primate.

I think that answers Fr. Rob Eaton’s comments on the previous MCJ thread.

“Was Alexandria a sell-out? I don’t see how you can describe it as anything else.”

Agreed. But the difference this time is that it is the GAFCON/GS primates who have channeled Aspinall to produce the spin that it was not a sell-out.

“I don’t see how Anglican conservatives can view Alexandria as anything other than a defeat.”

Go read the ACI blog. Or the Covenant-Communion blog. Or read some of the commenters over at SFIF. These staunch Anglican conservatives will rejoice with ++Orombi, ++Venables, and ++Akinola who also don’t see Alexandria as a defeat.

DRJ, I found your thoughts to be valuable to me.

One thing about all this fascinates me. Everyone is talking about a split in the Anglican Communion. Up above, there’s mention of a split in Orthodoxy when a bishop sold out to the bolsheviks. Ok. I get all that desire to split from heretics. But, all this seems to be political in nature, meaning that you’re looking more at organizational changes than anything else.

What are the theological implications of a split within Anglicanism for those that split? If you claim valid orders for your priests, how do you maintain that once the split is made? If you acknowledge the invalidity of Anglican orders, then the split is of little consequence - in fact, it’s a good thing. But there are theological implications that I’ve not seen ANYONE address. (Not to mention Paul’s condemnation of schism.)

Maybe this is why Akinola and Orombi are rather hesitant to split.

I’ve had my Latin corrected once before but lost the correction. So with apologies for my errors:

Intra eccliseae anglicanae nolo salus!

When +++Akinola, Venables and Orombi decide to retire I know where they would fit in..at the Security and Exchange Commission here in the States. They just love individuals that talk a good game of oversight and enforcement but just can’t seem to implement it.

And one other observation. To the orthodox it has been appparent for some time that TEC and the ABC with other enablers have indeed become the Great Whore of Babylon rejecting the Catholic Faith in thought and/or deed. Why does +++A, V, and O who should possess the gift of discernment continue to sit in conversation with these utter pagans? They don’t need further discussions, they need an exorcism. Complete dissappointent in these three men is such an understatement that words fail me.

“If you claim valid orders for your priests, how do you maintain that once the split is made?”

This really is not an issue outside of Rome or Constantinople. For Anglicans, schism from the “mother” church, especially one that is heretical, does not invalidate their ordination or consecration. Akinola remains a bishop and his ministers remain ministers. They don’t need any interference from Canterbury to validate that. Akinola can continue to confer valid orders on to new ministers. When he retires, as long as they can dredge up three bishops recognized as being in Apostolic Succession (Anglican definition) his diocese can consecrate a new (arch)bishop. And so the cycle continues…

re: the pilgrim February 7, 2009
Raph mused: “Are we part of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolick Church?”—-Sorry, no. You are not.– (I am tempted to make some joke about the Apostate Toe Lick church that TEO has become… but I won’t.) Actually, if the baptism is in valid form, The Catholic Church recognizes it as a valid Catholic sacrament and they are Christians in the One, Holy, Catholic Church; just not in full communion.

Actually, we are Christians in the One Holy, catholic and apostolic church. Because we have that faith and hope in Jesus Christ. It is what is separating us from TEC, or rather what TEC and its allies are separating themselves from.

What I understand as I read the VOL interview is that FINALLY it was seen and admitted by all that, yes,
1. There are two incompatible religions under the Canterbury-defined communion.
2. Neither can continue to walk the same path.
3. Canterbury-defined communion has chosen TEC at the sacrifice of those who follow the Biblical/historical/traditional faith in Christ and will never recognize a parallel organization to TEC.
4. Canterbury-defined communion will not help those choosing to leave TEC on any level.
5. This frees the GAFCON primates to minister to those of us who chose to defend the faith rather than abandon it.

TEC runs free unchecked. Lawsuits continue.

My take on what was said is that GAFCON will continue to move ahead. No quick solutions, but I agree with the shake the dust off your feet understanding. There is a peace when finality is achieved.

Matthew 3:8-10 has come to mind a lot lately.

As a former Episcopalian (now RC), I don’t have much skin in this game. However, I’d invite my Anglican friends to re-examine their history. When the Protestant Episcopal Church was first organized in these united States, there was no “communion with Canterbury”. In fact, as we all know, Samuel Seabury sought ordination from the Scottish Episcopal “non-jurors” - that is, Scottish bishops who were not in communion with Canterbury due to the oath of allegiance to the British crown.

If you wish to be Anglican, there is no real reason why you need the approval or blessing of Canterbury. Seabury, and the entire PECUSA, started without it!

No reason for ACNA to attach too much importance to communion with Canterbury. Keep in mind that the CoE will be in the same place as ACoC/TEC 20 or 30 years from now and not worth being in communion with. The comments of Bishop Venables are consistent with a failure to get exercised about ACNA admission to a communion that is likely to fall apart before it could be approved anyway. In a few decades the Alternative Anglicans of England will be seeking admission to the communion that eventually evolves out of GAFCON.

alterative Anglicans of England will be seeking admission to the communion that eventually evolves out of GAFCON.

actually, there were “alternative Anglicans” at GAFCON. And GAFCON/FCA is the alternative communion.

The only question is: when with GAFCON break with Canterbury. And the answer seems to be: never

GAFCON are under the impression that Canterbury will fade away and that it is Canterbury which has broken away from the orthodox centre of the anglican communion. They are banking on the Lord of history to vindicate them.

Minuteman:

“re: the pilgrim February 7, 2009
Raph mused: “Are we part of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolick Church?”—-Sorry, no. You are not.– (I am tempted to make some joke about the Apostate Toe Lick church that TEO has become… but I won’t.) Actually, if the baptism is in valid form, The Catholic Church recognizes it as a valid Catholic sacrament and they are Christians in the One, Holy, Catholic Church; just not in full communion.”

As an individual, yes: Raph may be a member of the church universal, but since Raph asked if “we” were members I was referring to TEO as an organization, which is no longer a member of said universal (catholic) church.

I would submit that any organization that gives its full weight to unlimited abortion, performs same-sex marriage ceremonies, ordains women priests, consecrates women bishops, ordains and consecrates gays living in open sexual relationships, finds common worship with Hindus, Buddhists, Muslims and witches,and submits to a hierarchy that proclaims “Christ is A way” instead of Christ as “The Way,” and also gives communion to anybody who happens to walk in the door (regardless of whether or not they are baptized)…well that organization has relinquished the right to call itself part of “the holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.”

Furthermore, members who, through either assent or ignorance, submit to those leaders, take part in those common worship ceremonies and encourage those policies relinquish their membership in the “one Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church” as well.

Ok, here’s my question: last year, a guy with some vestments and church ornaments set up shop in a motel in Dallas, claiming to be a Mexican bishop and selling baptisms at $120 a pop. He also did some other sacraments, offering a bundled rate for baptism and confirmation.

So are the baptisms valid? Are confirmations? Of course, they aren’t licit, but are they valid?

http://www.fox11az.com/news/topstories/stories/dallas-20080812-church-warning-fake-bishop.3cf2e4a8.html

FW Ken,

I’d have to say that the confirmations are definitely invalid, since no Bishop in apostolic succession was involved as required by the nature of that sacrament. The baptisms are a thornier question. Usually, the unworthiness of a minister is not seen as invalidating a sacrament, as in receiving Communion from a priest who’s an adulterer is still a partaking in a valid Communion. However, in the instance of the fake bishop I don’t think it’s the worthiness of the minister that matters so much as the intent. In order to have a valid sacrament, there must be:
1) Proper form (as in the words, “I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost”)

2) Proper matter (as in water - not beer, milk, etc.)

3) Proper intent - the distinct and deliberate intention to perform the sacrament.

When someone is pretending to be clergy and charging for their services, it sure sounds like a “con artist” to me - someone whose intent is monetary gain, not performing a sacrament. That in and of itself would invalidate the baptism.

It’s often been said that anyone can perform a baptism in extreme circumstances, which is quite true. However, as I understand it the Roman church will not recognize that kind of baptism as a valid sacrament for purposes of official recognition. If a newborn baby appears to be in extremis and the mother baptizes her, if she survives she would still be required to have a baptism (possibly conditional; depends on the diocese/priest) performed by a clergyman before a notation of baptism could be made for the child.

As Bill (not IB) said: intent would be the defining clause here.

My late mother-in-law was a Catholic, an RN, and worked in an infant ICU nursery for over thirty years. I have NO idea how many newborns she baptized in her work, all of them done as the child was not going to live.

I do know, however, there must have been one huge crowd of infants waiting to meet and hug her as she crossed over into the light!

Bill (not IB) -

Thanks for the reply. Actually, I think that a baptism in extremis is recognized by the Church, and, if the person lives, simply needs recording. Also, in the Catholic Church (and, I believe, in Orthodoxy), a priest can confirm, with permission of the bishop. That’s assuming these “clergy” were actually ordained in any valid sense.

My question has an under-layer, however. My understanding is that in the old days, conversion to the Catholic Church involved baptism, at least conditional, but today, we accept all baptisms that meet the criteria you list. Myself, I was baptized in the Baptist Church, with no reference, either by me or the person baptizing me to washing away the stain of original sin or any other sacramental effect. It was strictly an “ordinance”. Different theologies, different intent?

Which is only a side-track to the bogus bishop story, but one I’ve pondered on.

[...] here. However, I see that this has been dissected with clarity in many places, such as here and here. A pithy summary of this document would be that it contains paragraphs of turgid Anglican prose [...]

Maybe what is going on is that ++Venables, Orombi, Akinola, et. al. are letting the Anglican Communion do its thing, knowing full well that ACNA is not going to be bound by this silly non-proselytization clause.

I believe they also know that there is no chance of a reconciliation between ACNA parishes and TEC or AC of C.

So basically, the GAFCON primates seem to be playing TEC’s game of agreeing to whatever the Anglican Communion comes up with while they intend to continue to do what they believe is the correct thing.

If my analysis is correct then this signals the end of the Anglican Communion as we have known it.

Interesting times indeed!

I agree with Allen Lewis’s assesment. The GS Primates should have spoken from their hearts and not play “hide and seek” with us.