Windsor Report:Scripture, Tradition, and Reason--Anglican/Old Catholic ONLY

[gitlance]

Please refrain from discussing homosexuality on this thread.

Extreme Conservatives: "Windsor is Law, Except the Bits We Choose to Ignore"

Here's part of a report from Friday's Telegraph:

...In a revolt that threatens to embroil the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, three men were ordained as deacons in south London by a bishop "parachuted in" from South Africa.

The ordinations were backed by Reform, the evangelical network, whose 600 clergy members are increasingly rejecting the spiritual authority of their bishops in protest at their "unbiblical" stance on gays...​

From the Windsor Report:

155. We call upon those bishops who believe it is their conscientious duty to intervene in provinces, dioceses and parishes other than their own:

<li>to express regret for the consequences of their actions
<li>to affirm their desire to remain in the Communion, and
to effect a moratorium on any further interventions.
​

From the Archbishop of Brazil to the Archbishop of the Southern Cone:

I am deeply disappointed by your letter in which you recognised and take under your supervision the deposed bishop and a group of deposed clergy that once belonged to the Diocese of Recife...

We do follow the Anglican Tradition that intentionally seems not to be of the interest of many nowadays, which is to recognise the right of each province to act according to their canon laws to maintain their discipline, since they avoid that their canons laws would affect the life of and decisions of other provinces. Your action, yes, has been of interference in the Brazilian jurisdiction without any previous contact with its Primate Bishop, as you had once personally given your word to me. We are saddened as well as rebut this action from your side.​

From the Windsor Report:

155. We call upon those bishops who believe it is their conscientious duty to intervene in provinces, dioceses and parishes other than their own:

<li>to express regret for the consequences of their actions
<li>to affirm their desire to remain in the Communion, and
to effect a moratorium on any further interventions.
​

As a reminder of the identity of the deposed bishop referred to in the above letter, here is the incident that occurred the day after the Windsor Report was released:

Saying that the Episcopal Church lacked accountability, the rectors of two parishes in the Diocese of Olympia told the Rt. Rev. Vincent Warner on Oct. 19 that their congregations had voted overwhelmingly to seek independence from the Episcopal Church and to affiliate with the Rt. Rev. Robinson Cavalcanti, Bishop of Recife in the Anglican Province of Brazil.

Contacted in London by telephone on Oct. 20, Bishop Cavalcanti said his decision to accept pastoral care for the two parishes was “a temporary pastoral response to an emergency and the continued defiance [of Windsor Report recommendations] by North American bishops.” Bishop Cavalcanti added that he is prepared to offer oversight to at least two other Episcopal churches and that there would be many more unless the American and Canadian bishops honor the moratorium on further same-sex blessings and the ordination of non-celibate homosexual persons called for by the Lambeth Commission on Communion in the Windsor Report.

“We did not create this problem,” Bishop Cavalcanti said. “There are moments in history when we must be willing to make a stand"...​

The former bishop was also the only foreign bishop to partcipate in the irregular confirmations in Ohio last year. Apparently, Mr. Cavalcanti did not read the Windsor Report, which might be one explanation as to why he is no longer a bishop. If he had read it, he may have noted the following:

155. We call upon those bishops who believe it is their conscientious duty to intervene in provinces, dioceses and parishes other than their own:

<li>to express regret for the consequences of their actions
<li>to affirm their desire to remain in the Communion, and
to effect a moratorium on any further interventions.
​

There are numerous other examples of this flagrant disregard for the Windsor Report by the extreme consevatives. Allow me to point out just one more, as it is rather unique regarding the form of attempted subterfuge that it utilizes. From Archbishop Akinola's address at Nigeria's recent Synod:

...A significant outcome of the current crisis has been the need to cater for the spiritual needs of thousands of Nigerian Anglicans in the USA who must not be abandoned to the vagaries of a confused ECUSA. At least three (3) teams of Bishops (including: The Most Rev. M.S.C. Anikwenwa, Rt. Rev. M. Owadayo, Rt. Rev. Peter Adebiyi, Rt. Rev. E. Chukwuma, Rt. Rev. H. Ndukuba, and Rt. Rev. Ikechi Nwosu) went to the US on our behalf to study the potentials for fruitful ministry and their reports have been a guiding light in further moves.

Also a considerable number of American Bishops and clergy have indicated a desire to collaborate with the mission of the Church of Nigeria's Mission to America known and called Convocation of Anglican Nigerian Missions in USA (CANA)...​

Archbishop Akinola, have you read the Windsor Report? One last time, let me point out the relevant clause:

155. We call upon those bishops who believe it is their conscientious duty to intervene in provinces, dioceses and parishes other than their own:

<li>to express regret for the consequences of their actions
<li>to affirm their desire to remain in the Communion, and
to effect a moratorium on any further interventions.
​

In words penned by Dylan, but made immortal by Jimi, "So let us not talk falsely now, the hour is getting late." Some, possibly the majority, of the leadership of the extreme conservatives have no intention of abiding by the recommendations of the Windsor Report, if those recommendations were to ever become actual requirements for all Anglicans. They will pick and choose the parts they like, and disregard the rest.

Some moderates and even progressives in the Episcopal Church are beginning to show support for the WR, not because they don't see its flaws, but because they believe it is the only way to make peace with the extreme conservatives. This is a false hope, if past behavior is any indication. The extremists appear to have no intention of following Windsor.

So let's drop this phoney olive branch and start speaking the truth.

 

[gtsecc]

I still like us better than RC and EO.

Even with our Parachuting openly female bishops, the Eucharist which has gone to the birds, half of the parishners in England having no ecclesial understanding, I still think we are part of what Jesus started.

 

[Polycarp1]

Yeah, but unfortunately it's starting to sound like the appropriate question is going to be: "Which half of us?"

Anybody want to summarize the Colenso Affair for historical perspective?

It strikes me that what we have is a revolt by the traditionalists, a sort of "Society of St. Henry VIII" anti-establishment. While I agree with the American Church, I understood how others could feel offended by unilateral action on our part. Now, however, the entire fabric of the Anglican Communion is being rent by those claiming to defend it.

I'm sadly reminded of the Vietnam Era quote: "To save the village, we had to destroy the village."

 

[gtsecc]

Unilateral action is a Sin.
Breaking Communion is a Sin.
ECUSA should have said we stand for these new ideas, but we won't do them against the will of the communion.

 

[gtsecc]

Which is a more difficult change for the church?

A radical change of the understanding of Sacramental Orders - ECUSA (Openly female Bishops)

Or denial of the Sacrament of the Eucharist - Australia (feeding it to the birds)

When my OE friends sincerely ask me "How can you even get your brain around it all? You guys don't stand for anything - you have no doctrine."

I have to admit they are correct.

We claim to be a Church, but we are not willing to act like one.

I am too liberal to go to Rome.
I don't liek the liturgy of the EO.
I am basically left with Anglicanism.

 

[Fish and Bread]

Which is a more difficult change for the church?

A radical change of the understanding of Sacramental Orders - ECUSA (Openly female Bishops)

Or denial of the Sacrament of the Eucharist - Australia (feeding it to the birds)

When my OE friends sincerely ask me "How can you even get your brain around it all? You guys don't stand for anything - you have no doctrine."

I have to admit they are correct.

We claim to be a Church, but we are not willing to act like one.

I am too liberal to go to Rome.
I don't liek the liturgy of the EO.
I am basically left with Anglicanism.

I have to admit, I am beginning to feel as though I am in the very same boat. Historically, it seems as though there was a lot of times a diversity of opinion within Anglicanism, but the various factions respected that they had to live in the same church together and respected the authority of their bishops. Now, nobody respects anyhow else. The system is essentially congregationalism. Each province, diocese, parish, and even person makes up whatever they want to do and to heck with everyone else.

This isn't really catholicism in any sense of the world. At the very minimum, catholicism means universality and nothing is universal at all about Anglicanism anymore. Even within the Episcopal Church, for example, we can't even all agree to follow the the prayerbook. The liberals do it -- I went to the national cathedral several months back and they were doing Eucharistic Prayer G from the New Zealand BCP. What in the world? The conservatives do it, too -- I've been to evangelical parishes that cut out large swaths of the BCP. Some extremist liberals in the US are baptising in the name of the "creator, sanctifier, and redeemer" and some extremist conservatives in Sydney are moving towards adult-only believers baptisms and no confirmations. The only thing that holds us together is Jesus and the scripture -- and we can't seem to even agree on if Jesus was really a person, if the Gnostic preaching at one parish I went to was any indication, or how many books the scripture contains. You know, I love Anglicanism, but if we can't at least accept the same bishops and follow the same prayer book, I don't know how much longer they'll be anything recognizeably Anglican left to point to. We always used to be held together by the creeds, the two major sacraments, the bishops, and the prayer book -- now there's nothing.

John

 

[ahab]

Yeah, but unfortunately it's starting to sound like the appropriate question is going to be: "Which half of us?"

I think its worth pointing out that it isnt going to be half and half. The significant majority of the communion believe the action of the ECUSA (and support from Canada) has impaired the communion of these two provinces with the rest. The problem is obviously the developing division within provinces as well. For the majority of the communion there isn't much division but for the provinces such as the ECUSA, Canada and the CofE and Southern Cone, divisions are emerging.
The ordination in Southwark was irregular but why a license should be withdrawn for this and is not clear to me. In fact when it comes to ordination Paul writes 1 Tim 5 "Do not be hasty in the laying on of hands, and do not share in the sins of others. Keep yourself pure. " and we can note that passage also deals with marriage and about not letting sensual desires overcome dedication to Christ. Furthemore those who have the wrong spirit given may become gossippers and "saying things they ought not to." even about other Christian churches and denominations giving the enemy no opportunity for slander "Some have in fact already turned away to follow Satan. "

peace

 

[Timothy]

It strikes me that what we have is a revolt by the traditionalists,

Nope. Reform are about as far from 'traditionalist' as you can get. If it was just the traditionalists, no biggie. If it was just the reformites, no biggie. The problem is they've banded together... they appear to agree with each other on no other matters of ecclesiology, ontology, theology, or any of the other 'ologies', except for the matter of the ordination of women.

Timothy

 

[higgs2]

Nope. Reform are about as far from 'traditionalist' as you can get. If it was just the traditionalists, no biggie. If it was just the reformites, no biggie. The problem is they've banded together... they appear to agree with each other on no other matters of ecclesiology, ontology, theology, or any of the other 'ologies', except for the matter of the ordination of women.

Timothy

They don't even agree on that. Unless "women" is a euphemism for something else unmentionable.

They will eventually rip each other apart and their coalition will shatter.

 

[Timothy]

They don't even agree on that. Unless "women" is a euphemism for something else unmentionable.

No, their shaky alliance started in the seventies over women, as far as I can tell, and it has eventually strengthened into a marginally more solid version since then over the unmentionables.

Timothy

 

[Iron Sun 254]

I think the point of the article in the first post is that it is hypocritical to for anyone to say "Because the ECUSA is acting contrary the Windsor report, we feel it is justified that we take actions which are also contrary to the Windsor report." Guess what? You can't have it both ways. If the Windsor Report represents "the law," then you'd better follow it even if you don't like the fact that the ECUSA is not. If you don't believe it's "the law," then how can you have a problem with the ECUSA not following it?

 

[Polycarp1]

They don't even agree on that. Unless "women" is a euphemism for something else unmentionable.

Elephantum non ordinandum est.

wave: @ Pam and Bill)

 

[ahab]

I think we ought to remember that the Windosr report is an attempt to hold the communion together. I think that the thing that has been forgotten about Windsor is that it has recognised that Lambeth 1.10 for the majority is a line in the sand. For bishops to be entertaining and promoting contary to Lambeth 1.10 is actually worse for the majority than being contrary to Windsor.
What is alarming is that we now have a bishop preaching contrary to wishes of the significant majority of the Communion and also attacking another denomination over the very issue that threatens schism of his own denimination. How a licence can be removed from one and not the other is beyond belief.

peace

 

[higgs2]

I think the point of the article in the first post is that it is hypocritical to for anyone to say "Because the ECUSA is acting contrary the Windsor report, we feel it is justified that we take actions which are also contrary to the Windsor report." Guess what? You can't have it both ways. If the Windsor Report represents "the law," then you'd better follow it even if you don't like the fact that the ECUSA is not. If you don't believe it's "the law," then how can you have a problem with the ECUSA not following it?

But we are following it.

 

[higgs2]

No, their shaky alliance started in the seventies over women, as far as I can tell, and it has eventually strengthened into a marginally more solid version since then over the unmentionables.

Timothy

yes, but they've been joined by new people who are okay with female ordination. It's going to be very interesting.

 

[Timothy]

yes, but they've been joined by new people who are okay with female ordination. It's going to be very interesting.

Indeed, and that's weakened the alliance once again. Basically they've got a shaky agreement on this, but if they tried to split off, issues of doctrine, worship, would become major. In effect the moderates, that's you, me, pretty much the entire non-vocal section of the communion don't want a split. It's the vocal 10%, some of the hard-liner ACs and hard-liner reformites who don't. It's not whoever pays the piper that calls the tune, it's whoever drowns the quiet ones who does...

Timothy

 

[higgs2]

Indeed, and that's weakened the alliance once again. Basically they've got a shaky agreement on this, but if they tried to split off, issues of doctrine, worship, would become major. In effect the moderates, that's you, me, pretty much the entire non-vocal section of the communion don't want a split. It's the vocal 10%, some of the hard-liner ACs and hard-liner reformites who don't. It's not whoever pays the piper that calls the tune, it's whoever drowns the quiet ones who does...

Timothy

Well, if they go, they go. It's a sad situation.

 

[PaladinValer]

gtsecc, actually, Lambeth said that women's ordination is allowable.

 

[gtsecc]

gtsecc, actually, Lambeth said that women's ordination is allowable.

Not the Lambeth Quatralateral.

 

[TomUK]

I still like us better than RC and EO.

Even with our Parachuting openly female bishops, the Eucharist which has gone to the birds, half of the parishners in England having no ecclesial understanding, I still think we are part of what Jesus started.

Where on earth did that come from?