www.american-anglican.fsnet.co.uk
(I shall print the text and then make a brief comment.)
The Archbishop of Canterbury requests the Commission:
1. To examine and report to him by 30th September 2004, in preparation for the ensuing meetings of the Primates and the Anglican Consultative Council, on the legal and theological implications flowing from the decisions of the Episcopal Church (USA) to appoint a priest in a committed same sex relationship as one of its bishops, and of the Diocese of New Westminster to authorize services for use in connection with same sex unions, and specifically on the canonical understandings of communion, impaired and broken communion, and the ways in which provinces of the Anglican Communion may relate to one another in situations where the ecclesiastical authorities of one province feel unable to maintain the fullness of communion with another part of the Anglican Communion.
[Regrettably the Archbishop has here succumbed to the propaganda of the LesBiGays and the Prioritization of the Homosexual issue by the Evangelicals in the way he has stated the issue before and the decision of the Episcopal Church. The issue before the General Convention was whether or not to confirm as bishop-elect a man who is divorced and who is not celibate. Whether his present sexual partner is a woman or man is secondary in terms of his basic status in canon law. The canonical and moral question is whether a divorced priest is a suitable candidate for Bishop, bearing in mind that the Bishop is to be an icon of Christ, the Bridegroom, of the chaste Church, the Bride. The issue in Vancouver, British Columbia, over same-sex blessings is rightly stated; but, the Commission needs to know, that there we have a situation where Archbishop Crawley of BC and the Yukon, now pursuing Bp. Buckle who is seeking to help the “orthodox” in New Westminster diocese, is himself at least twice married and thus ought not to be an active bishop.]
2. Within their report, to include practical recommendations (including reflection on emerging patterns of provision for episcopal oversight for those Anglicans within a particular jurisdiction, where full communion within a province is under threat) for maintaining the highest degree of communion that may be possible in the circumstances resulting from these decisions, both within and between the churches of the Anglican Communion.
[As yet there seems to be nothing in the Anglican Family to equal the C of E system of Provincial Episcopal Visitors – flying bishops. Further, the Commission should address the question of Communion with the Faithful Anglicans who are outside the official Anglican Family of Churches. For example, there are probably 75,000 or more such persons in North America, but also sizeable groups in places like South Africa.]
3. Thereafter, as soon as practicable, and with particular reference to the issues raised in Section IV of the Report of the Lambeth Conference 1998, to make recommendations to the Primates and the Anglican Consultative Council, as to the exceptional circumstances and conditions under which, and the means by which, it would be appropriate for the Archbishop of Canterbury to exercise an extraordinary ministry of episcope (pastoral oversight), support and reconciliation with regard to the internal affairs of a province other than his own for the sake of maintaining communion with the said province and between the said province and the rest of the Anglican Communion.
[It is regrettable that herein there is no statement that intervention is also for the maintaining of the Reformed Catholic Faith, based on the Bible, the Creed and the Anglican Formularies. It is no good getting unity on false foundations!]
4. In its deliberations, to take due account of the work already undertaken on issues of communion by the Lambeth Conferences of 1988 and 1998, as well as the views expressed by the Primates of the Anglican Communion in the communiqués and pastoral letters arising from their meetings since 2000.
[Much of the work done on KOINONIA is flawed for it is based upon a doctrine of “the Social Trinity” and from this flawed foundation makes deductions that are false. The Biblical Doctrine of Koinonia, together with the Patristic Doctrine of the Trinity and the use by the Fathers of this word/concept has to be done afresh, if it is to be truly helpful (see my critique of the use of Koinonia in my essay/booklet, “Reforming Forwards? The Doctrine of Reception and the Consecration of Women as Bishops” from the Latimer Trust of London.) ]
The Revd Dr Peter Toon, October 30, 2003
No comments:
Post a Comment