tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10205805.post8743887711607838316..comments2023-10-09T10:54:03.005-05:00Comments on Whitehall: cana and the acnUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger43125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10205805.post-29567569426046477742007-05-09T09:52:00.000-05:002007-05-09T09:52:00.000-05:00I knew it! - there are few problems in TEC that ca...I knew it! - there are few problems in TEC that can't be blamed, somehow, on the baby boomers!<BR/><BR/>But seriously, it's encouraging to see the rise of a new, or rather a new movement in the same, Anglican orthodoxy.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00347789123483096164noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10205805.post-35349379460398114912007-05-08T23:00:00.000-05:002007-05-08T23:00:00.000-05:00I'm an evangelical Presbyterian-becoming- Anglican...I'm an evangelical Presbyterian-becoming- Anglican seminary student. My seminary (RTS) is very evangelical, and very reformed. Part of the reason I'm becoming Anglican is because from my education here, I'm becoming more convinced that the Puritan legacy found in conservative Presbyterianism is quite reactionary...while I'm more concerned with being catholic, and focusing on the beauty and graciousness of our Lord--which I think is best expressed in conservative orthodox Anglicanism.<BR/><BR/>I can tell you that at my very evangelical seminary the "womens' issue" is not even an issue. The under-30 generation of evangelicals I know are VERY conservative (but not fundamentalist), and looking just at scripture--without reference to Tradition, they see no role for women in the ordained pastoral ministry. These guys have grown up with Politically Correct feminism jammed down their throat, and they don't buy any of it...<BR/><BR/>There is a bright line in evangelicalism, dividing the liberal wing from the (growing stronger all the time) conservative wing--which rejects women's ordination. Like I tried to say above, this is especially evident the YOUNGER students are. I'm in my 40s, and amidst baby-boomer types older than I, evangelicals are without much conviction on women's ordination....but the next generation, Gen X and especially Gen Y, are returning to traditionalism--even amidst those who just look to scripture, and devalue tradition--as evangelicals do tend to do.<BR/><BR/>So, do not assume all, or even most, evangelical folk in CANA or other parts of American Anglicanism will fight the ordinals. The feminists will--but they are a distinct, and I believe shrinking, group.Ralphhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01966235952396411164noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10205805.post-46254724161520640892007-05-08T08:19:00.000-05:002007-05-08T08:19:00.000-05:00Clergy (except the recently ordained) don't lose t...Clergy (except the recently ordained) don't lose their pensions when departing ECUSA.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10205805.post-15688120996901472202007-05-07T20:10:00.000-05:002007-05-07T20:10:00.000-05:00Hey, it's a great pension.Hey, it's a great pension.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00347789123483096164noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10205805.post-57925841560344855252007-05-06T19:39:00.000-05:002007-05-06T19:39:00.000-05:00Texanglican wrote:I would be most surprised if the...Texanglican wrote:<I>I would be most surprised if there is not substantial unity between CANA, AMiA, and ACN (at least those portions of ACN who are able to act[i.e., have bishops who are courageous enough to act definitively and who are not intractable TEC institutioanlists at heart]), before March of 2008.</I><BR/><BR/>My question is, how can a genuinely Anglican province and Archbishop (assuming we've all had enough of "Presiding" Bishops) emerge out of "substantial unity" between CANA, AMiA and the ACN? To my mind this can only be accomplished if CANA and AMiA relinquish any pastoral and episcopal claims to the diocese and parishes currently under their care, and defer to the Covenant process outlined by the ++ABC in his essay <A HREF="http://www.archbishopofcanterbury.org/sermons_speeches/060627%20Archbishop%20-%20challenge%20and%20hope%20reflection.htm" REL="nofollow">The Challenge and Hope of Being an Anglican Today</A>. Any meaningful long-term Anglican unity in North America cannot be sustained under an indirect relationship to Canterbury by way of an African province. <BR/><BR/>It will be difficult enough to unite catholic and evangelical factions into new diocesan structures -- if we have AMiA, CANA, ACN and the Communion itself all proposing their own versions of these structures, our definition of "substantial" unity may become a moving target. <BR/><BR/>Maybe one of the leaders in this collection of acronyms really does have a grand scheme in mind and the political clout and statemanship to unite these bodies into something genuinely Anglican. But so far this does not appear to be the case. I see no deliberate or visionary leadership among the ACN leaders, catholic OR evangelical, and the recent news of a potential 5-diocese block leaving <I>en masse </I> speaks to a fundamental division among the ACN leaders. <BR/><BR/>The developments of the last 4 months have trended towards more fragmentation, not less. This is just consistent with the history of Anglican groups that precipitously break with Canterbury. <BR/><BR/>It's discouraging to see the ACI's genuinely catholic rationale of patience and trust in episcopal structures painted with the broad brush of "TEC institutionalism." Surely Ephraim Radner's nuanced and thoughtful ecclesiology deserves more than that. Not everyone who advocates patience at this point is doing so out of concern for their pensions (although I'm sure there are a few.)Dave Simshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08752907013311339501noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10205805.post-5408033490134549532007-05-06T14:57:00.000-05:002007-05-06T14:57:00.000-05:00Anonymous --"...if you must consider yourself out ...Anonymous --<BR/><BR/>"...if you must consider yourself out of communion with someone like me..."<BR/><BR/>There's no perfect being-in-communion this side of the eschaton. I'm sure I'm much "more in communion" with you than I am with the vast majority of North American Anglicans. We can rest assured that we come closer into communion with one another as we come closer into communion with Christ, by believing in him through the whole doctrine of the Apostles (John 17.20).gwbhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00126771210414634962noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10205805.post-36130489734306783012007-05-06T13:43:00.000-05:002007-05-06T13:43:00.000-05:00Indeed, the quote from Bishop Minns is excellent. ...Indeed, the quote from Bishop Minns is excellent. I would be most surprised if there is not substantial unity between CANA, AMiA, and ACN (at least those portions of ACN who are able to act[i.e., have bishops who are courageous enough to act definitively and who are not intractable TEC institutioanlists at heart]), before March of 2008. But perhaps once a new province is actually up and running and is recognized by a dozen Primates as legitimate, even Bishops Stanton and Howe will come on board! Let us hope and pray it will be so.Texanglican (R.W. Foster+)https://www.blogger.com/profile/07490925636491370254noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10205805.post-79447519829327657672007-05-06T05:21:00.000-05:002007-05-06T05:21:00.000-05:00An interesting tidbit in the Washington Times toda...An interesting tidbit in the Washington Times today:<BR/><BR/>"When asked whether CANA is the seed of a new Anglican province in the United States, [Minns] said, 'I see ourselves as a building block for that.' "Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10205805.post-35121724478893526662007-05-06T00:27:00.000-05:002007-05-06T00:27:00.000-05:00Dr. Tighe,Dave is right. The signigicance of Cant...Dr. Tighe,<BR/><BR/>Dave is right. The signigicance of Canterbury is its historic connection to Rome, as the mission of St. Augustine. And the significance of Rome is that it stands among Antioch, Constantiople, Alexandria, and Jerusalem. <BR/><BR/>One thing that bears consideration at this time, though its pragmatic usefulness is rapidly slipping away, is the Pastoral Scheme of Dar es Salaam. It's a window into the way that world-wide Anglicanism views our 'continuum.' The Primatial Vicar (in the Primates' plan, not PB Schori's) should have been a way to unify all (58, is it?) splinters under one ecclesiastical leadership with a clear connection to Canterbury. To the Primates, then, all our splinters and all their interventions are temporary anomalies that suffer, more or less, from a lack of connection or a distant connection to Canterbury. They aren't meant to stand alone, for the most part. Splinters like the REC, of course, have been standing alone for some time. Regardless, this disease of splintering does not fit the Anglican system, in their minds. The only acceptable pattern is the direct recognition by and responsibility to Canterbury that have always characterized legitimate Anglican leadership.<BR/><BR/>So my prediction is: look for these splinters to be gathered up. No matter the fate of TEC, Cantuar and the Primates don't seem satisfied with the splintering phenomenon. At some point, they'll make an attempt to link all the splinters together through the same Anglican Covenant, if not the same leadership (e.g. the Primatial Vicar).Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00347789123483096164noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10205805.post-77616961561092833912007-05-05T20:24:00.000-05:002007-05-05T20:24:00.000-05:00Yes my friend I am competent -- and father wb -- i...Yes my friend I am competent -- and father wb -- if you must consider yourself out of communion with someone like me -- then your communion is not so large. Thank God I don't consider myself out of communion with you -- I do consider myself out fo communcion with most in TEC. Have a joyful and blessed Lord's Day!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10205805.post-9715677849314247002007-05-05T20:00:00.000-05:002007-05-05T20:00:00.000-05:00Anonymous -I don't mean to question whether you're...Anonymous -<BR/><BR/>I don't mean to question whether you're intelligent, or love the Lord, or have a heart for the Gospel. I just mean to say that once you decide that there is a coherence and integrity to the Apostolic teaching, down through history, that things become much easier. You don't have to worry about figuring this stuff out. You just ask: What has the Church always taught?<BR/><BR/>For my part, and with respect to the Protestant innovations embraced by portions of the Anglican Communion, I would say this: I would rather be out of doctrinal communion with them and in doctrinal communion with Aquinas, and Hildegard, and Gregory the Great, and Gregory Naz., and Basil, etc. etc. etc. Not to mention the overwhelming majority of Christians alive today, East and West. The Tradition of the Universal Church, as Chesterton said, is a democracy of the dead.gwbhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00126771210414634962noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10205805.post-60248405762740492162007-05-05T19:41:00.000-05:002007-05-05T19:41:00.000-05:00I know this has always been the teaching in the an...<I>I know this has always been the teaching in the ancient branches of the church</I><BR/><BR/>Just to be clear, then: you consider yourself more competent than the earliest apostles to determine the will of Christ for his Church?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10205805.post-9342620825041554642007-05-05T19:02:00.000-05:002007-05-05T19:02:00.000-05:00Always and everywhere been taught where? Always a...Always and everywhere been taught where? Always and everwhere taught now -- where? I know this has always been the teaching in the ancient branches of the church -- but it has not always and everywhere been taught in all branches of the protestant world. The Anglican church is not a "catholic" church in the definition you give to catholic. Some pockets are -- many are not. In that reality -- we all must ask the same question -- where do we belong in all of this? Are we the excluders -- or the excluded according the the "no brainer" senario you present. I personally have a brain -- a devoted love for the Lord Jesus -- a heart for evangelism -- and a different conclusion than yours.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10205805.post-47687219018970011682007-05-05T18:40:00.000-05:002007-05-05T18:40:00.000-05:00Anonymous,I would suggest: saying it doesn't make ...Anonymous,<BR/><BR/>I would suggest: saying it doesn't make it so.<BR/><BR/>The Lord was clear that the unity he gives he gives through those who believe in him through the teaching of the Apostles. And who says? Well, Paul says in 1 Timothy that the Church is herself the pillar and foundation of truth. And since the government of the Church was given to the Apostles, and since they handed on this ministry to their successors, and so on and so on, in the episcopate, from their day to ours, we have to look to the duly ordained bishops (all of them, living and dead) to divide the wheat of Apostolic doctrine from the chaff of schismatic / heretical innovation. In the case of WO, this determination is really a no-brainer. Once you give up deciding for yourself and submit to that which has always and everywhere been taught, the truth is clear. (I don't mean "you" personally, but "one". Maybe "you" personally are seeking to do this. I hope so. If you do, I think the truth will become clear to you (personally). Because its clear objectively.)gwbhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00126771210414634962noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10205805.post-43644901155212095752007-05-05T18:30:00.000-05:002007-05-05T18:30:00.000-05:00What about anglicans (it is not only women who sup...What about anglicans (it is not only women who support WO) who consider themselves "catholic" in the sense that we are one body but are evangelical and protestant?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10205805.post-57116072812412253572007-05-05T18:25:00.000-05:002007-05-05T18:25:00.000-05:00Anonymous and IRNS --"Do you have no place for us ...Anonymous and IRNS --<BR/><BR/>"Do you have no place for us unless we renounce WO?"<BR/><BR/>Well, let's not be hasty. Its true that we must renounce WO -- because we are called to bend the knee of the heart, and submit to the teachings of the Bible as they are expounded by the Universal Church.<BR/><BR/>But with regard to Anonymous' question: it depends on what you mean by "us". There is no place in the cathoic priesthood for women, because the catholic Church teaches that Holy Orders are only for men. However, that doesn't mean that there is no place for women in the ministry of the Church. This may seem obvious, but I think its a fact taht has been neglected, and its neglect contributed to the WO innovation within ECUSA. We went along acting like the only ministry within the Church (or the only worthwhile ministry) was that of priests. Horse hockey.<BR/><BR/>I think the order of deaconesses should be revived. Let us be clear (along with the Council of Nicea) that this is a lay order, distinct from the order of the diaconate. But the ministry of deaconesses is a catholic ministry, and it could be very helpful in this day and age. Let women share in pastoral work; let them preach; let them catechize. Pay them for their work. Let them wear collars. But let the ministry of the sacraments be reserved to men, as it always has been.<BR/><BR/>I think catholic-minded Anglican women who feel a call to full-time ministry, should go to their bishops and tell them: "I don't believe in women's ordination. It is an anti-catholic, schismatic innovation. Make me a deaconess." What a fantastic witness that would be to semi-orthodox bishops - to have intelligent, capable women demanding this! <BR/><BR/>Hope springs eternal.gwbhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00126771210414634962noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10205805.post-87774685237123671712007-05-05T18:04:00.000-05:002007-05-05T18:04:00.000-05:00Do you have no place for us unless we renounce WO?...<I>Do you have no place for us unless we renounce WO?</I><BR/><BR/>Well, not in any church that claims to be catholic, no.<BR/><BR/>I'm speaking for myself, of course.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10205805.post-30585783045302715812007-05-05T17:13:00.000-05:002007-05-05T17:13:00.000-05:00There are those of us who have prayerfully conside...There are those of us who have prayerfully considered WO and have come to terms with it but who also abhor what TEC has become. Not all to the right of middle are anglo catholics -- some of us are protestant. Some of us are ordained persons whose ministries were discerned and blessed by godly bishops (such as Stephen Jecko). Where would you have us go? Do you have no place for us unless we renounce WO? Thankfully, that is not the mind of all -- if it is your mind -- where do be belong?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10205805.post-2224208929590408772007-05-05T16:20:00.000-05:002007-05-05T16:20:00.000-05:00One of the reasons that TEC (in the person of Scho...<I>One of the reasons that TEC (in the person of Schori and her blogger flaks) is howling so loudly is that it is getting a taste of its own medecine, and it has found out just how awful that is.</I><BR/><BR/>My own feeling is that KJS and Beers and company are loving every minute of this, because it's more likely to pull any possible primatial swing votes their way when it comes to to respond to the Sept. 30 deadline. The primates did ask CANA and AMiA to cease and desist, remember. <BR/><BR/>Kendall says KJS "protests much," but I suspect it's just as likely that she's leaving a very calculated public trail of exaggerated anger and frustruation with CANA that she can bring to bear on ++Williams and the primates. Watch for Minns' consecration to be Exhibit A in TEC's defense to the primates after Sept. 30.Dave Simshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08752907013311339501noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10205805.post-952029159117604092007-05-05T16:11:00.000-05:002007-05-05T16:11:00.000-05:00I was reading Kendall's live blogging, and I agree...I was reading Kendall's live blogging, and I agree to some extent that had not CANA intervened in places like Virginia, perhaps a good number of parishes and parishioners would have been lost. <BR/><BR/>But -- and I hate to keep harping on this -- the appeal of CANA, over any of the existing Alternatative Primatial Structures (read: the continuum) has always been its connection to Canterbury. But it seems increasingly like CANA's connection to Canterbury will be on its own terms, or perhaps not at all. <BR/><BR/>At this point, the fact on the ground seem to be this: you can get to Canterbury through Windsor, or through this awkward and tenuous relationship with Nigeria or Uganda. The only difference between the two is that one has the legitimacy of primatial endorsement, but will take anywhere from 6 to 24 months longer to materialize, and the other is a quick-fix novelty with poor prospects for the future, if history is any guide. I don't really have a dog in this hunt -- yet -- and I'm sure the intentions of CANA and Minns seem right and good to them at this time. But if there is any hope of real Anglican catholicity in this day and age, CANA doesn't look to me like a good prospect. It's too novel, too awkward, too <I>ad hoc</I>. I'll be delighted and thrilled two years or so from now to be proved absolutely wrong, and I'll happily down that plate of crow if it comes to it. I hope I have to.Dave Simshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08752907013311339501noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10205805.post-19705365902841633982007-05-05T15:52:00.000-05:002007-05-05T15:52:00.000-05:00Again I ask -- is it not profoundly duplicitous fo...<I>Again I ask -- is it not profoundly duplicitous for CANA to tout itself as an orthodox path to Canterbury, while it clearly doesn't give two figs for the catholicity (however truncated in Dr. Tighe's view) that Canterbury represents?</I><BR/><BR/>Well, maybe not <I>profoundly</I> . . . <BR/><BR/>Seriously, it seems to me that, re: Canterbury, CANA and Nigeria are doing what the heterodox in TEC did for a long time---acting unilaterally and creating "facts on the ground," then telling everyone else to accept it. One of the reasons that TEC (in the person of Schori and her blogger flaks) is howling so loudly is that it is getting a taste of its own medecine, and it has found out just how awful that is.<BR/><BR/>What this does it not create an impossible situation for the ABC---it creates a situation where he has to <I>choose</I>, something he clearly does not want to do. Whether or not CANA was inevitable, making that choice was inevitable. All that CANA has done is to create different "facts on the ground" and thereby up the pressure on ++Williams to make the <I>right</I> choice.<BR/><BR/>Again, I'm not endorsing CANA, and it may be that this "outside" strategy will backfire. But the "inside" strategy of the ACI has failed.<BR/><BR/>BTW, it is worth reading Kendall Harmon's "liveblog" on the CANA event on either Stand Firm of T19. It inspires mixed feelings in me, but these days, mixed is better than almost anything else.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10205805.post-62842360871451720162007-05-05T15:34:00.000-05:002007-05-05T15:34:00.000-05:00It is indeed sad that this thread has the appearan...<I>It is indeed sad that this thread has the appearance of a quarrel. I don't wish to quarrel with cyber-friends. It is, in fact, a measure of how confused and desperate the times are that we are discussing this at all. Certainly to that extent the CANA phenomenon is regrettable---but I still maintain that something like it was inevitable.</I><BR/><BR/>If it's a quarrel, it's one with no animosity. Consider it a polemic. But I think it's one that needs to happen, because the future of Anglicanism is at stake. With the current developments moving as they are, there is a disturbingly high probability that ++Williams will find himself in the next 18 months having executed a "voluntary exclusion" of TEC, while the Windsor process and the Covenant -- and with them the significance of his own office -- dwindle into irrelevance. He will have done virtually everything the Primates asked of him, only to watch those very primates develop parallel ecclesiastical structures that effectively marginalize him.<BR/><BR/>The history of Anglican splinter groups, and as Fr. Thorpus points out, the history of the Church in general teaches us that any hope for the future of Anglicanism lies with Canterbury, not CANA or any splinter group, and the only path to Canterbury from where we are is the Windsor process. Too many rash voices seem to be betting the farm that Nigeria and CANA can buck history and rejuvenate Anglicanism in North America. Color me deeply skeptical.<BR/><BR/>Again I ask -- is it not profoundly duplicitous for CANA to tout itself as an orthodox path to Canterbury, while it clearly doesn't give two figs for the catholicity (however truncated in Dr. Tighe's view) that Canterbury represents?Dave Simshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08752907013311339501noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10205805.post-84402305208200931102007-05-05T15:23:00.000-05:002007-05-05T15:23:00.000-05:00IRNS -"It is indeed sad that this thread has the a...IRNS -<BR/><BR/>"It is indeed sad that this thread has the appearance of a quarrel."<BR/><BR/>Perhaps. It doesn't seem overly quarelesome to me. At least compared with many threads out there these days. I love yall. I even agree with most of what all of you said -- even Dr. Tighe, with whom I'm not in Communion. There is an awful lot of common ground among the commenters on this thread. Let's remind ourselves of that.<BR/><BR/>Substantively, IRNS, I'm not sure I agree that this was all inevitable, as you say. I will grant, however, that CANA is now a fact, and it is becoming more and more of a fact even as I write this (with Minns' ongoing installation in VA). But there was nothing to stop everyone from following the course of action advocated most clearly by ACI.<BR/><BR/>But I agree that winds have shifted, and if unity among the North American orthodox will be achieved, it will almost certainly have to be a post hoc unification. Perh. all the orthodox (and semi-orthodox) jurisdictions will get together and elect a primate. That seems sadly unlikely, but I continue to hope for it. I really, really hope that they can manage to achieve a single coherent provincial structure to replace TEC.<BR/><BR/>This all seems endemically American. As Fr Thorpus said, we Americans do love our "freedom" (=autonomy). Again: that's how we got into this mess. And the recent HoB letter was chock-full of ecclesial libertinism masquerading as anti-colonialism. Its just that the American orhtodox are all too susceptible ot the same disease. Argh.gwbhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00126771210414634962noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10205805.post-65750571999143542722007-05-05T15:06:00.001-05:002007-05-05T15:06:00.001-05:00This is turning into a disaster and a scandal -- o...<I>This is turning into a disaster and a scandal -- on top of the disaster-scandal that is TEC.</I><BR/><BR/>Correct. But it is also, to some degree, inevitable. Therefore, how do we align ourselves and work for unity? On what grounds or principles? Those are the important questions, and I don't think the "Windsor process" answers them anymore, if it ever did.<BR/><BR/>I must respectfully differ with Dave. The HoB, for all realistic intents and purposes, has signalled its position, and there has been nothing---not one thing---since its last meeting to indicate that it will do anything different before September 30. If anything, the words that have come out of the movers and shakers in the HoB--Bruno, Chane, Lee and co., not to mention the Presiding "Bishop"---have demonstrated just how dug in the majority is. I agree that September 30 is an important formality, but that is what is has been reduced to. It is not too soon to be considering what to do and where to go, and if CANA wants to put in a bid for my interest, fine.<BR/><BR/>It is indeed sad that this thread has the appearance of a quarrel. I don't wish to quarrel with cyber-friends. It is, in fact, a measure of how confused and desperate the times are that we are discussing this at all. Certainly to that extent the CANA phenomenon is regrettable---but I still maintain that something like it was inevitable.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10205805.post-67700429686942734602007-05-05T15:06:00.000-05:002007-05-05T15:06:00.000-05:00Far be it from me to question Dr. Tighe on anythin...Far be it from me to question Dr. Tighe on anything related to church history, but Canterbury seems to me to carry much more significance than Abuja or Armagh. How does 1531 compare to 597? If nothing else it's a simple matter of the older see carrying more weight. Of course Canterbury is not in the same category as Constantinople, but it's nearly millenium closer to it than Uppsala.<BR/><BR/>And beyond that, the symbolic and politically unifying effect of Canterbury cannot be ignored. Whatever your abstract definition of "catholicity," catholic-minded Anglicans are much, much more likely to rally around the ++ABC than ++Abuja, all things being equal. From a simple pragmatic standpoint alone that gives Canterbury more unifying power and therefore more catholic significance in the context of the present crisis.Dave Simshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08752907013311339501noreply@blogger.com