into great silence

I have been itching to see this since I first heard about it. The New Liturgical Movement has held out the possibility of offering the DVD to those interested. It seems to be the end of their interest-gathering time period. I urge you, if you are interested, to inform them of the fact.

jim naughton's response to canon harmon's response to jim naughton: this is absurd

Read Naughton's response in its entirety here. Read Canon Harmon's piece, to which Naughton is responding, here. Essentially Naughton is asserting that the Dar es Salaam Communique was made intentionally ambiguous in order to preserve the "status quo" (Naughton's phrase) in the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion.

Naughton avers:

My own sense... is that ambiguous language is employed deliberately by those who perfect that [sic] final versions of these documents so that a “unanimous statement” can be released that keeps the Communion together long enough to argue another day.

....

Obviously, if Williams expects us to ban blessings (and then police the ban), Bishop Jefferts Schori will have a much harder time persuading our Church to accept the Primates’ recommendations than if Williams simply expects us to maintain what is essentially the status quo.

Good grief. This is patently absurd. As though ambiguity in the service of disagreement (what liberals often and speciously call "Anglican comprehensiveness") were the raison d'être of the Church. If the Communion exists so that the world can see our disagreement and disunity, then the sooner it falls apart the better. Naughton would do well to remember the Primates' statement in paragraph 21 of the Communique:

However, secondly, we believe that there remains a lack of clarity about the stance of The Episcopal Church, especially its position on the authorisation of Rites of Blessing for persons living in same-sex unions. There appears to us to be an inconsistency between the position of General Convention and local pastoral provision. We recognise that the General Convention made no explicit resolution about such Rites and in fact declined to pursue resolutions which, if passed, could have led to the development and authorisation of them. However, we understand that local pastoral provision is made in some places for such blessings. It is the ambiguous stance of The Episcopal Church which causes concern among us.

Compare the nonsensical celebration of ambiguity and argument with our Lord's own prayer in John 17, where he explicitly links his gift of unity to truth in Apostolic doctrine in such a way that the world may see and be compelled by it. If ECUSA ambiguity and the disunity it fosters are so compelling, then why are we leaking members like a sieve in the face of enormous increases in the secular population? And don't cite horse hockey, as Schori has attempted to do, about our comparatively low birth rates. The Lord didn't bestow his unity so that we could maintain ourselves (even this we can't seem to manage), but so that we could bring in those outside the economy of salvation, the so-called "unchurched".

People tempted to deceive themselves into thinking that the Communique means to allow ECUSA to continue its practices which are at variance with Christian teaching as received by the Communion (what Naughton calls "the status quo") would do well to ask themselves 1) whether the Communion's visible unity is in jeopardy, and if so 2) why its in jeopardy. If they really believe that ECUSA can continue tacitly authorized practices at odds with the Communion's doctrine without deepening this crisis, they are delusional.

my catholic quiz results

I took this twice and twice got the same results, so I suppose they must be accurate. I was so sure I'd be "New Catholic" or "Evangelical Catholic":

You scored as Traditional Catholic. You look at the great piety and holiness of the Church before the Second Vatican Council and the decay of belief and practice since then, and see that much of the decline is due to failed reforms based on the "Spirit of the Council". You regret the loss of vast numbers of Religious and Ordained clergy and the widely diverging celebrations of the Mass of Pope Paul VI, which often don't even seem to be Catholic anymore. You are helping to rebuild this past culture in one of the many new Traditional Latin Mass communities or attend Eastern Catholic Divine Liturgy. You seek refuge from the world of pornography, recreational drugs, violence, and materialism. You are an articulate, confident, committed, and intelligent Catholic.

But do you support legitimate reform of the Church, and are you willing to submit to the directives of the Second Vatican Council? Will you cooperate responsibly with others who are not part of the Traditional community?

http://saint-louis.blogspot.com - Rome of the West Traditional Catholic 62% Evangelical Catholic 50% New Catholic 50% Neo-Conservative Catholic 41% Radical Catholic 31% Liberal Catholic 17% Lukewarm Catholic 10% What is your style of American Catholicism? created with QuizFarm.com

on serving at the altar

....

Having served hundreds and hundreds of low Masses, sung Masses, Solemn High Masses, etc., I can say that they have changed me as a human being. And I only learned to serve when I was twenty-one. When you serve in the old rite, you have to take on another persona. It is the most self-emptying and transformative experience you can go through, at least if you take it seriously. The way I was taught, you always have your hands folded, you always look down, each step is subtle and measured, and all movements are supposed to be slow and elegant. When you are before the throne of God, you should act like it. This act grafts you into the continuous worship of God that has gone on since before time began, as it goes on in heaven continuously, and as our ancestors prayed before us. This is the ultimate democracy of the dead (to quote Chesterton): that we should continue to worship as they did, emptying ourselves of our own modern ideas of how worship and religion should be.

Liturgy is gravely serious business, but the paradox is that this is what makes it so fun. Children will often behave like angels for their parents because they know that their parents like it that way. They may be little devils most of the time, but when they know they should behave, they can do it on cue and earn even more appreciation from their parents for their efforts. This is how I feel when I serve Mass. Yes, I am a dissipated, foul-mouthed, hypocritical, uncouth runaway ex-monk. But at least I can be angelic in front of God for twenty five minutes on a Wednesday evening. It is my way of trying to show God that I might not be such a terrible scoundrel after all. It is my poor attempt at the widow’s mite.

And when it is done right, when it is true rational service mixed with humility and bodily motion, a low Mass can be even more beautiful than a starry sky, a craggy sea shore, or a snow covered mountain that shoots up into the clouds. This is what we are here for, it is our eternal vocation: to serve, to dance, and to be joyful before the throne of the Lamb. Ecce Agnus Dei…..

Read it all here.

my catholic quiz results

This is via All Too Common and Texanglican. Here are my results. Apparently I am 311% Catholic. Hahaha! Take that Fr Kimel!

I don't know what these categories really mean. What's a "New Catholic"? Or a "Radical Catholic"? Etc. Also, I don't really think of myself as having an immature faith. Perhaps that's a sign of the immaturity of my faith...?

You scored as New Catholic. The years following the Second Vatican Council was a time of collapse of the Catholic faith and its traditions. But you are a young person who has rediscovered this lost faith, probably due to the evangelization of Pope John Paul II. You are enthusiastic, refreshing, and somewhat traditional, and you may be considering a vocation to the priesthood or religious life. You reject relativism and the decline in society that you see among your peers. You are seen as being good for the Church.

A possible problem is that you may have a too narrow a view of orthodoxy, and anyway, you are still a youth and not yet mature in your faith.

http://saint-louis.blogspot.com - Rome of the West New Catholic 83% Traditional Catholic 76% Radical Catholic 52% Neo-Conservative Catholic 43% Evangelical Catholic 38% Liberal Catholic 14% Lukewarm Catholic 5% What is your style of American Catholicism? created with QuizFarm.com

not encouraging

In light of the Dar es Salaam Communique's request that all civil litigation between and among ECUSA entities be halted because it is fundamentally anti-Christian, the Presiding Bishop's Chancellor, David Booth Beers, has responded with clarity to attorneys asking whether ECUSA's suits against dissenting parishes in Virginia would, in fact, cease:

[Episcopal News Service] Lawyers for the Episcopal Church have told two attorneys representing some of the 11 Diocese of Virginia congregations involved in a legal dispute over possession of church property that "there is no basis at this time" to put that litigation on hold.

....

In their February 26 reply, David Booth Beers, chancellor to Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori, and his colleague Heather H. Anderson, first reminded the two attorneys that the Anglican Communion is a federation and not a "juridical or legislative body."

Thus, they wrote, it "has no legal authority over the affairs of its members."

Indeed. I don't, however, think anyone was suggesting that the Communion does have any legal authrotiy over the affairs of its members. On the other hand, the Primates do have moral and doctrinal authority. Whether ECUSA recognizes that fact is another matter. The actual question being put to Schori, Beers, et al., was: Are you and your clients going to do what is right? Is your behavior in the civil arena going to be in accordance with God's law?

Clearly not. But thanks for being clear.

Read it all at Stand Firm.

presiding bishop briefs 815 staff on the primates' meeting

From ENS here.

This is, to my mind, most remarkable. For all those of us who heard the Mother Jesus sermon after the PB's election and who have since despaired of any moderation in her hard-charging, MDG-espousing, let's-just-forget-the-theology-and-get-on-with-the-[progressive]-mission persona, this briefing represents a huge turnaround for PB Schori. She sounds meek, tired, submissive, especially in the MP3 version available here from ENS; convinced, as perhaps PB Griswold may have been before her (though we're still not quite sure) that communion with Canterbury may indeed trump her gospel of radical inclusion. She's on the brink of becoming a Rowan Williams, at least temporarily, willing to hide her ideals for the sake of Anglican unity. Here are the most significant statements:

She told the gathering that the Episcopal Church is called to ensure that the conversation about the inclusion of gays and lesbians in the church continues in the Communion.
“It is part of our mission as a church,” she said. “This conversation that has been going on for at least 40 years is not going away. God keeps bringing it back to us.”
Jefferts Schori said that she understands that some people feel that the primates’ recommendations are a “hard and bitter pill for many of us to talk about swallowing.” But, she said, worldwide attitudes about the inclusion of gay and lesbian people are changing and “I don’t expect that to end.”
“We’re being asked to pause in the journey. We are not being asked to go back,” she said. “Time and history are with this Church.”

She wants us to stay at the table?! Knuckle under to the primates for now, and hope that the Lambeth 1.10 listening process will eventually enable TEC to convert the entire Communion to our way of thinking? The progressives won't be happy with this. Prophetic victory was in their grasp, and has their champion given up?

Jefferts Schori said “I ache for the pain that this communiqué is causing to people in our own church who see issues of justice as absolutely central, because I share that view. I also hunger for a vision of the world where people with vastly different opinions can sit at the same table and worship at the same table because I think that eventually that is how all of us are converted.”
She said that her understanding of the Body of Christ is that “none of us can say that we have no need of you.” She acknowledged that “we don’t always like the people God gives us.”

It sounds like conversion is more important to her than the prophetic stand of "those who see issues of justice as absolutely central." Even the rhetoric of placement of these two clauses belies her: traditionally the 'clincher' comes last -- that the 'issues of justice' would come before the sitting at the table with those we don't like shows that she holds the latter more closely. What happened in Tanzania to cause this about-face? Was she surprised at the vigor of opposition to TEC's innovations? Or did someone get to her with gentleness and personal acceptance? Has she herself been 'converted'?

“We have a very, very long way to go in raising awareness so that reason can become an equal partner in the discussion with scripture and tradition,” she said. “I think that that is one of the gifts that this church has to give to the world.”

Heh heh. Is THAT what Hooker meant when he wrote, “What Scripture doth plainly deliver, to that first place both of credit and obedience is due; the next whereunto is whatsoever any man can necessarily conclude by force of reason; after these the voice of the Church succeedeth. That which the Church by her ecclesiastical authority shall probably think and define to be true or good, must in congruity of reason over-rule all other inferior judgments whatsoever” ( Laws, Book V, 8:2; Folger Edition 2:39,8-14)." (More here).

“The reality, I believe, is that the Archbishop of Canterbury will respect whatever the primates decide, whether or not that accurately reflects the polity of the Anglican Communion,” Jefferts Schori said.

I ask again, who's pulling the strings in the Communion these days? I'm beginning to think there was a major revolution in Tanzania. 'Course, it was a long time in coming.

“I don’t know if our church is ready to say to the rest of the Communion what’s been asked of us. I don’t know that,” she said. “I do know that if we’re removed from a place where we can speak to the rest of the Communion, we’re going to lose that advantage of being there at the table to challenge views like that.”

...

During a question-and-answer session following her statement, Jefferts Schori said that the primates’ plan for a primatial vicar is similar to one she and other bishops proposed last November—with the addition of an accompanying supervisory pastoral council. “What is different is a structure of accountability,” she said, but she called that structure “manageable,” noting that she would appoint some of the council’s members and must consent to the choice of the vicar. She said that a “saving grace” of the primatial vicar proposal is that it would eventually end the incursion of other primates into the Episcopal Church.

She rolled over much faster on this one than Griswold would have. It sounds like she's swallowed the Primates' plan whole hog, while her own will be forgotten. This is a new administration, folks.

She said that the House of Bishops can answer the requests made by the primates. . . . While the bishops can indeed agree to do those things, Jefferts Schori said, “whether they have the will to do that, I don’t know.” Very few of the bishops are interested in acting “unilaterally,” she added.

So let us hear no blogger vainly babble that the Primates have asked the HoB to do something it doesn't have the ability to do. Even our own PB has admitted it.

“I know where my heart lies and it’s in a divided place,” she said, explaining that she hungers to affirm the place of gays and lesbians in the church and she hungers to “see this body reconciled.”
“In my better moments, I firmly hope and pray that these things are not diametrically opposed.”

The PB we elected in June of 06 was not so conflicted. Something has happened. Something has changed in her heart and mind. She's now more tightly bound to the Anglican Communion than she seemed before, and less to the agenda of radical inclusion. Which will win out in the end? God only knows. But regardless, a wonder has been worked in Tanzania, a mountain moved.

religion: the hourly regimen of prayers that monks have followed for centuries is spreading beyond monasteries

From St. Benedict's Parish website.

By John Rivera
Baltimore Sun Staff

*O Lord, open my lips

And my mouth shall declare your praise. *

For centuries, monks have mouthed these words as they begin their daily
regimen of prayer in the pre-dawn hours. The Liturgy of the Hours --
Psalms and prayers recited at set hours -- fixed the rhythm of their
day, from rising to rest.

Also called the Divine Office, the prayers have for the most part been
the preserve of Roman Catholic priests, deacons, nuns and brothers.

But the Office is being discovered by Catholic lay people, such as those
who gather every day for Morning Prayer at St. Clement Mary Hofbauer
parish in Rosedale, or for Evening Prayer at * St. Benedict parish* in
Southwest Baltimore.

Protestants say they, too, are finding spiritual inspiration in coming
together -- or in seeking solitude -- to recite the prayers known by
Latin titles such as Lauds, Vespers or Compline.

For the average person, picking up a breviary, the prayerbook used in
the Office, is a daunting experience. A half dozen colored ribbons mark
the sections one must flip between during the prayer's various parts.

In response to the increasing popularity of the Divine Office, about a
half dozen books have recently been published or are soon to hit print.
The cyber world is weighing in, too, with such Internet sites as
http://www.liturgyhours.org and http://www.universalis.com springing up.

"I think there is a clear need, there's a hunger for Christian
spirituality, Christian spiritual discipline," said Phyllis Tickle, the
Publisher's Weekly religion editor who is compiling her own breviary,
"The Divine Hours." Her first volume, "Prayers for Summertime," was
released last month.

"We've gone from the ooey gooey to the importing to Christianity of
disciplines from other faiths," said Tickle, whose watch alarm reminds
her three times a day to pick up her prayer book. "Now, we have stumbled
on the fact that some Christians would like to know what their spiritual
traditions are."

Bonnie Shannonhouse has been traveling the world for six years to teach
the Liturgy of the Hours to Protestant women -- Anglicans like herself,
but also mainline Protestants, evangelicals, Pentecostals and
charismatics.

"When I discovered [the Hours], it pained me that the Protestants threw
the baby out with the bath water at the Reformation," said Shannonhouse
of North Baltimore.

She has written two versions of the Hours for lay people, which she
calls "The Lost Coin" series, after Jesus' parable in the Gospels about
the person who rejoices on a precious find. The Hours offer a bridge
between what she calls the liturgical churches, such as Catholics and
Anglicans, and the non-liturgical, evangelical Christians.

"We've lost a spiritual coin in our Christian hearts, and we rejoice
because it is now found," she said. "It's breaking down barriers and
prejudices and hatreds that have existed for the last 500 years."

Robert Benson, who was raised in the Nazarene Church, later became a
Methodist and now worships as an Episcopalian, has prayed the Hours
since he was introduced to them a decade ago.

"Because of my evangelical background, all I knew about prayer was the
kind of extemporaneous, conversational prayer that's most common, almost
exclusively used in evangelical settings," said Benson, who has written
his own simplified Office, "Venite, a Book of Daily Prayer."

"I didn't know anything about corporate prayer, daily prayer, monastic
prayer," he said. "This was prayer that was not dependent on my
eloquence or my spiritual depth at a given point in time. It required
simply faithfulness, not always an easy thing to do."

The benefit to praying at fixed hours is that "it keeps our focus on God
during the day," said Etta Patton, who says morning prayer at St.
Clement Mary Hofbauer and evening prayer by herself. "You take that time
to stop the busyness of the day, all the distractions."

The practice of the Office is rooted in the Jewish tradition of fixed
hours of prayer and receives its Christian inspiration from St. Paul's
admonition to "pray without ceasing."

By the fourth century, monastic communities had set apart specific parts
of the day for prayer, and between the fifth and the ninth centuries,
the Office developed its form of eight hours: Matins and Lauds in the
early morning; the Little Hours during the day of Prime (the first hour,
before dawn); Terce (the third hour, 9 a.m.), Sext (the sixth hour,
noon) and None (the ninth hour, 3 p.m.); and the evening and night
prayers of Vespers and Compline.

Though monks can devote their entire day to prayer, the Christian in the
world usually chooses a portion of the Office: just morning prayer or
Vespers, or maybe just the Little Hours of Terce, Sext and None (Prime
has been dropped).

Although the Office can include prayers, hymns and religious readings,
the recitation of the Psalms is at its heart. They are recited or sung
and are done in an antiphonal style, with one side of the congregation
taking one strophe or stanza while the other listens, and then reversing
roles.

Dale Dombrosky discovered the Office when she stopped at * St. Benedict's*
in 1990. "I was going through a particularly hard time in my life, and
the Psalms really spoke to me. Sometimes, they express praise, sometimes
petition, sometimes anger. It's like a real conversation with God," she
said.

"To me, this was a healing for me, to be able to speak to the Lord like
that," she said. "That's how I came back to the church. Really, the
Liturgy of the Hours has been a saving prayer for me."

Many who recite the Office have a sense of participating in a cosmic
wave of prayer. "It's not just us here. People around the world are
saying these same prayers," said Nancy Cappellini, who often drives from
her Owings Mills home to morning prayer at St. Clement Mary Hofbauer in
Rosedale.

"You feel like you're in union with the whole church."

Originally published on Apr 12 2000

on the primates' key recommendations

For the full Communique and Recommendations, read here.

First, note that their proposal is for "an an interim response . . . in the period until the Covenant is secured." (paragraph 30) It is the Covenant that they hope will ultimately solve this problem and give the Communion a way to handle such problems again if they ever arise. It remains to be seen whether the Covenant design process can come up with a document that reliably is able to do that.

"The Primates will establish a Pastoral Council to act on behalf of the Primates in consultation with The Episcopal Church. This Council shall consist of up to five members: two nominated by the Primates, two by the Presiding Bishop, and a Primate of a Province of the Anglican Communion nominated by the Archbishop of Canterbury to chair the Council. "

This Pastoral Council acts on behalf of the primates, not on behalf of the ABC. Who's calling the shots in the Communion these days? Clearly, the primates are. I think ABC Williams abdicated the traditional role of ABC (WWLD - What would Laud do?) when he waffled on Gene Robinson. Williams has not exercised the authority he could have, so the Primates have filled the gap. Or restored the breach. In this climate of rapid change in the ecclesiastical structures of the Communion, I lament (as Whitehall has heard me do before) that so little appeal has been made to the Fathers. We began morphing with the Virginia report, but GC03 and the Windsor Report have accelerated and even directed the metamorphoses. Whatever happens, the Anglican Communion in 2010 will not look, structurally, anything like it did at the turn of the 19th century. These are historic years.

The Primates recommend "the Pastoral Council and the Presiding Bishop invite the bishops expressing a commitment to “the Camp Allen principles”, or as otherwise determined by the Pastoral Council, to participate in the pastoral scheme; in consultation with the Council and with the consent of the Presiding Bishop, those bishops who are part of the scheme will nominate a Primatial Vicar, who shall be responsible to the Council; the Presiding Bishop in consultation with the Pastoral Council will delegate specific powers and duties to the Primatial Vicar.

So this Pastoral Scheme would apply only to the Camp Allen bishops, and only at a diocesan level (so far). Provision could be made for AMiA and other groups who wish to be included. Note who nominates the PV - NOT the PB, nor the ABC, but the Camp Allen Bishops themselves. This is clearly NOT what PB Schori had in mind when she first suggested it. She and the other TEC bishops who worked on the proposal wanted the appointment to be made by the PB in consultation with the ABC, and the Primatial Vicar to be responsible to the PB only. No primates involved. Again I ask, who's pulling the strings in the Communion these days?

"Once this scheme of pastoral care is recognised to be fully operational, the Primates undertake to end all interventions. Congregations or parishes in current arrangements will negotiate their place within the structures of pastoral oversight set out above."

So would TEC be better off with many small interventions or one big one? The interven-ers are only interested in what works - one scheme is as good as another, if the people are getting legitimate pastoral care. As far as the primates are concerned, if TEC doesn't like a million small interventions, they can choose one big one; but intevention there will be, because faithful people are crying out for deliverance. You could say it's a matter of social justice.

"In particular, the Primates request, through the Presiding Bishop, that the House of Bishops of The Episcopal Church 1. make an unequivocal common covenant that the bishops will not authorise any Rite of Blessing for same-sex unions in their dioceses or through General Convention (cf TWR, §143, 144); and2. confirm that the passing of Resolution B033 of the 75th General Convention means that a candidate for episcopal orders living in a same-sex union shall not receive the necessary consent (cf TWR, §134);unless some new consensus on these matters emerges across the Communion (cf TWR, §134).

What's most important about these two requests is, I think, that the HoB is not being asked to do anything it can't do. The primates are not misunderstanding American polity. Instead, they're doing a remarkable job of translating American polity into answers that other provinces with other polities can accept. What they're asking is for the HoB to 1. bind their own conduct by resolution of their own house; and 2. give their considered interpretation, as a house, of Resolution B033. If the former happens, will bishops who break their word be liable for presentment? They should be, but I doubt our PB will prosecute. As regards the latter, the primates want to know what TEC's intention is, and they're asking the HoB to interpret an ambiguous resolution. Do the American bishops believe that B033 is Windsor Compliant? They're not asking the bishops to control the consent votes of their own standing committees or undermine the prerogatives of the HoDep. They're asking for an interpretaton, hoping for a show of good-faith. The reason the primates asked the HoB for this is that that's the traditional catholic synod that all the other Anglican polities recognize. A synod is supposed to be made up of bishops, not of lay or clergy. The fact that TEC allows lay and clergy to participate is cute, but we've got to translate their words into a traditional, catholic ecclesiological language that can be understood everywhere.

"The Primates request that the answer of the House of Bishops is conveyed to the Primates by the Presiding Bishop by 30th September 2007.If the reassurances requested of the House of Bishops cannot in good conscience be given, the relationship between The Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion as a whole remains damaged at best, and this has consequences for the full participation of the Church in the life of the Communion."

This is the threat clause. The details will be spelled out in the Covenant design process. As for timing, it seems like the Primates want all the ducks in a row in time for Lambeth. They seem to be willing to relenquish the power they've taken up for Lambeth, but not for the ABC. My, how things have changed. I think the Primates as a rule hold a much more catholic ecclesiology than we in TEC do, or many at Lambeth Palace do, I think -- namely, that local synods report to ecumenical councils -- the Anglican version of which is provincial synods reporting to Lambeth. The problem is that Lambeth has always been clear that it exercises only advisory authority and does NOT constitute a church council, nor can it decree with authority in matters of doctrine. That's why even Lambeth 1.10 is only a statement of the mind of the Communion, not a binding doctrinal law. To my mind, all these are weaknesses that make us less catholic as a communion than we ought to be. But they are traditional. Sigh.

"The Primates urge the representatives of The Episcopal Church and of those congregations in property disputes with it to suspend all actions in law arising in this situation. We also urge both parties to give assurances that no steps will be taken to alienate property from The Episcopal Church without its consent or to deny the use of that property to those congregations."

Easy for them to say. What would this look like on the ground in, say, Connecticut? They've asked a lot of the bishops themselves, because someone like Bp. Smith of CT would have to be content to not visit the grounds of his dissenting parishes, not enforce licenses to minister, not enforce his own inhibitions, not to confirm or ordain; in short, let those impertinent 6 parishes go on thumbing their noses at him in the buildings he thinks he owns until the Covenant gets OK'd sometime after Lambeth 08 + an additional round of consultation + the ACC's 14th meeting. You'd have parishes temporarily without Episcopal oversight, waiting until the Primatial Vicar can send someone to see them and confirm their litte ones. From which parishes do you ask assessment? Which parishes have the right to join in diocesan convention? Are those parishes in or out of communion with their local diocesan? Who has responsibility to fill vacancies if a dissenting rector dies or retires? In short, this is a request to temporarily send our tightly-enforced local diocesan structure into a spiral of chaos until the Covenant is finished and ratified. Is it worth it for Christian charity?

Or maybe it's the dissenting parishes that need to knuckle under and submit, temporarily, to their bishops. But would those bishops respect the identity of their formerly-dissenting parishes? They might not attack property, but is parish income 'property'? Doesn't the myth of the Dennis Canon give all parish property to the diocese? Are the primates making a ruling on the Dennis Canon? The primates are asking us to think of parishes as the owners of their property, and the parish/property unit to be transferrable -- but that's not the way our canons describe things. This is where I would like to see a perfect world's 815 do some spade-work on fitting the Primates' recommendations into our canons. I suppose the Pastoral Council is supposed to do that.

All you legal-beagle Whitehallies, what's the process in the American legal system to simply drop a case like this? If a dissenting parish and an attacking bishop were to take this call seriously, who should drop their charges first?

And here's another interesting thought. The two parishes seceding from the diocese of Pittsburgh would, apparently, come under the jurisdiction of the Primatial Vicar - who is very likely to be Bishop Duncan, currently of Pittsburgh! Even if it's not him, would they be willing to accept the same Primatial Vicar as, say, the Virginia cluster?

And here's something even more interesting: During this controversy, it has been noted that the Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church was not, originally, supposed to be a primate. That function was abrogated only recently, and only because TEC needed someone to represent us among the other primates, and the PB was the natural choice. If we carry this reasoning out, then a Primatial Vicar would actually be the only acting Primate for American Anglicans and therefore our sole primatial representative in the Communion.

All told, I think this document presents more of a challenge to TEC than to the intervening foreign archbishops. And that's as it should be.

an interesting / good analysis of dar es salaam

Above all, it was Williams’ goal to maintain the catholic substance of Anglicanism while avoiding schism. On the one hand, Williams had to convince Anglican evangelicals to remain in a church that lacks the confessional clarity and simplicity of mainstream evangelicalism—even though evangelicals tend to discount the value of church unity if it appears to cut against scriptural truth. On the other hand, Williams had to convince Anglican liberals to discipline an American church with which they had much in common—even though liberals tend to discount both scriptural truth and church unity if it seems to cut against progressive goals....

....

It has been a long road, and much uncertainty lies ahead. But what uncertainty remains is principally related to the decisions now facing the Episcopal Church. As for the Anglican Communion, its choice has been made. Years from now, it may well be that we will look upon this week as a crucial turning-point in Anglican history, crucial as anything since the English Reformation. For the Anglican Communion has finally decided to live up to its name: a global communion of churches, diverse yet united by a common faith and mutual hope, seeking together the mind of Christ, living humbly and prayerfully under the authority of Scripture. So may it remain.


From First Things via Stand Firm via Texanglican. I encourage you to read the whole thing. (Go to First Things for the purpose.)