Posted on 09/02/2004 7:59:20 PM PDT by ahadams2
Anglicans to shun gay-row bishops By Jonathan Petre, Religion Correspondent (Filed: 03/09/2004)
Liberal American bishops face having their invitations to Anglican summits withdrawn by the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, if they continue to defy the worldwide Church over homosexuality.
Under tough proposals likely to be recommended by the Lambeth Commission next month, the liberal leadership of the American Episcopal Church could be excluded from policy making and shunned by the vast majority of Anglicans. Bishops who publicly support the consecration of Canon Gene Robinson as Anglicanism's first actively gay bishop last year or who authorise gay "marriages", both of which breach official Anglican policy, would be penalised.
They would only be readmitted to the councils of the worldwide Church if they reversed their position and repented.
The 19-strong commission, which was set up by Dr Williams to avert a schism over the issue, is to finalise its recommendations at a meeting in Windsor next week, but it is thought to have reached a broad consensus at earlier meetings.
In its final report, which is due to be published in October, the commission is expected to resist calls from hardline conservatives to expel the Episcopal Church immediately.
But if its liberal leadership has not recanted by the time the next Lambeth Conference of Anglican bishops convenes in 2008, the whole church could still face ejection.
Although debate over homosexuality will not be stifled, only bishops who abide by the Church's official line will be welcome at Anglican summits, and new bishops will also be required to sign up to the policy.
Many of the suggestions emanated from the Anglican Communion Institute, an evangelical think-tank sponsored by Lord Carey, the former Archbishop of Canterbury.
Members of the commission are understood to have favoured this approach because it avoids a formal split in the Church and relies on the already existing role of the Archbishop of Canterbury to invite bishops to summits.
If adopted, the proposals could prove enough to placate the conservative wing of the Church, which has been threatening to break away and set up a rival organisation if its demands for the liberals to be disciplined were not met.
But they will cause consternation among liberals, who will see them as a severe personal blow and a setback to the cause of homosexual rights within the Church.
The report could prove particularly embarrassing to the Primate of the Episcopal Church, Bishop Frank Griswold, who could find himself shut out of the annual meetings of the primates, the heads of the 38 provinces which make up the Church. The measures could also apply to the liberal Bishop of New Westminster in Canada, the Rt Rev Michael Ingham, who triggered the crisis by authorising a rite of same sex blessing in his diocese 15 months ago.
The commission, which is chaired by the Primate of Ireland, Archbishop Robin Eames, is due to present its final report to Dr Williams later this month.
The report is expected to be debated by the primates at their meeting in Northern Ireland in February, and could be implemented soon after.
More on discipline of ecusa ping.
The ECUSA bishops supporting homosexual marriage are heretics. They are proof of the severing of apostolic succession introduced by the novel beliefs of King Edward and Cranmer 500 years ago.
You wrote "The ECUSA bishops supporting homosexual marriage are heretics. They are proof of the severing of apostolic succession introduced by the novel beliefs of King Edward and Cranmer 500 years ago."
I'm sorry, but that's not logical. If, by logic, the 'novel beliefs' caused homosexual marriage to be supported, then it would have shown up before now. Further, if you are attempting to claim that the heresies (actually apostasies) involved in clergy who support the homosexual agenda are evidence of lack of apostolic succession, then considering the current scandals with in the American branch of Roman Catholicism, it would be logical to conclude that Roman Catholicism no longer maintains valid apostolic succession either.
So9
What are the chances that the conservative Bishops would have the courage to break with the liberals?
If they did so, what are the chances that they would be willing to exercise oversight for conservative parihes trapped in liberal areas?
My Bishop, William D. Persell of Chicago, supported the consecration of V. Gene Robinson. So did his Assistant, Victor Scantlebury. My diocese, and the majority of ECUSA parishes, won't be represented at Lambeth. The ECUSA won't be represented at the annual Primates' Meeting. And the Anglican Consultative Council won't accept most of our bishops (I wonder what they'll do about priests and laity).
This will be interesting. These are certainly sanctions. They don't throw us out of the Anglican Communion. What it does do is partition the ECUSA into those who can participate in the Anglican Communion's Instruments of Unity, and those who can't. That'll pretty much set up a structure whereby if the proponents of GC 2003 don't publicly repent, the opponents will be set up as a separate structure that will end up being recognized as the AC's national church in the USA. Will the AC then simply tell the opposing bishops, "You are no longer part of the ECUSA"? Is this a way for the AC to change the ECUSA without dissolving it?
No, not at all. Cranmer and King Edward divorced sacramental reality from the intent of the celebrant, especially regarding ordination of priests. The ECUSA has made the belief that homosexual behavior is acceptable a tenet of belief, something the Roman Catholic faith has not done. In Roman Catholicism, homosexual behavior is not moral, is not acceptable, is not part of being a bishop, all of which is now a tenet of the ECUSA. That sin is present in the RC church is not new: that it is not wrong is part of the new ECUSA.
If what has been reported comes to pass, *only* the conservative bishops will be recognized as ecusa by the Anglican Communion. Therefore, as Anglicans it would seem to me that they (the conservative bishops) would have a responsibility to take conservative parishes under their wings, without regard to the geographic location of those parishes. Also, if the heretics haven't repented by 2008 then their removal from the Anglican Communion becomes permanant; at which point the conservative bishops will be separated from the heretics. I expect frank the heretic and company to algore this situation with as many different legal attacks on the conservatives as they can, but how much success they'll have is hard to predict.
You wrote " That'll pretty much set up a structure whereby if the proponents of GC 2003 don't publicly repent, the opponents will be set up as a separate structure that will end up being recognized as the AC's national church in the USA. Will the AC then simply tell the opposing bishops, "You are no longer part of the ECUSA"? Is this a way for the AC to change the ECUSA without dissolving it?"
in order:
1. Yes if they haven't repented by 2008.
and
2. Yes.
You wrote "The ECUSA has made the belief that homosexual behavior is acceptable a tenet of belief, something the Roman Catholic faith has not done. In Roman Catholicism, homosexual behavior is not moral, is not acceptable, is not part of being a bishop, all of which is now a tenet of the ECUSA. That sin is present in the RC church is not new: that it is not wrong is part of the new ECUSA."
ah, I see, where you're confused is that you mistake ecusa's actions for those of the Anglican Communion. The Anglican Communion (as with the Roman Catholic church) is in the process of correcting the sinful errors propagated by some within ecusa. Homosexual behavior is no less a sin in Anglicanism than it is in Roman Catholicism. In the same manner, those Roman Catholic leaders in the US, Austria, and elsewhere who are trying to change that fact are no more representative of Roman Catholicism than ecusa's leaders are representative of Anglicanism.
You realize, of course, that the Anglicans on this board for the most part oppose the ECUSA's current policy.
Anglican ecclesiology is different from that of Roman Catholicism. We don't have the concept of a "Magisterium" in our Church. No one, not even the Archbishop of Canterbury, speaks for the entire Church, and certainly not ex cathedra. In fact, such an idea is repugnant to most Anglicans.
You may regard this as a defect in our Church, but many of us regard it as one of Anglicanism's chief strengths. Yes, this approach can let heresy in, but it can just as readily drive it out.
And that's what's happening right now. The story is not over, stick around for the ending, it may surprise you.
Well stated.
What would happen to Gene Robinson? Would they make him a "non-bishop" and pretend it never happened? I doubt if he'll go quietly. These people never do.
No, the only solution I see is either a split in the church or a total "cleansing of the temple" by the conservatives.
The current leadership of Griswold in the USA, and Williams, worldwide makes Geezer's point pertinent. The current Pope is viewed as a moral and good man, a competant spiritual leader. (However, there have been bad, immoral Roman Catholic popes in history, which was harmful to the faith). As long as Griswold uses his bully pulpit wrongly, the faith is harmed; homosexuality is shaded in the green light of cleanliness, not the red light of sin. As long as Williams tries to remain medial between sin and righteousness, the faith is harmed. They weild power, even if they are not officially 'Magisterium'.
I'm proud to say that the Anglican Communion Institute is a ministry of my parish. The "suggestions" are covered in the booklet Communion and Discipline, which was published in June, at the request of Rowan Williams.
Note that this whole approach makes one major assumption: that those who face exclusion by the Communion, are actually interested in being part of the Anglican Communion. It is not at all clear to me that this is so.
I suppose the Lambeth Commission's report will tend to force the issue, but what happens after that is a huge question.
The useful thing about the ECUSA structure is that Pres. Bp. Griswold is going to lose his bully pulpit at the next General Convention. At GC 2006, his successor will be elected.
The other interesting thing that's going to happen at GC 2006 is that in one fashion or another, if what's predicted above actually happens, there will be a debate over whether or not the ECUSA intends to remain in the Anglican Communion. It could possibly be an overt vote, or it could simply be a series of votes on whether or not they are going to comply with the various demands presented above. And it will likely greatly affect the candidacies and votes for Bp. Griswold's successor.
And one more thing. It's entirely possible, and perhaps even likely, that before 2008 another Diocese will elect another openly homosexual Bishop in a non-chaste relationship and propose him or her for confirmation to the rest of the ECUSA. It might happen at GC 2006, but the odds are that it will simply go out to the Standing Committees of the other ECUSA Dioceses. They will then vote it up or down without the opportunity to discuss it as a group as they did at GC 2003. I wonder what effect the proposals of this report will have on that process?
Actually, it's commonly understood that the Missouri Synod of the Lutheran is the One True Church.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.