My axe to grind with the Church Society

[gtsecc]

The Public Worship Regulation Act

See: Public Worship Regulation Act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_Worship_Regulation_Act)
In 1867 a government commission was established to "inquire into the rubrics, orders and directions for regulating the course and conduct of public worship" which was presented to Parliament (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliament_of_the_United_Kingdom). The recommendations of this commission eventually led to the passing of the Public Worship Regulation Act by the Disraeli (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Disraeli) government in 1874 with the stated aim of "putting down the Ritualists". The Act was framed by a number of Low Church (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low_Church) clergymen and politicians, most notably Archibald Tait (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archibald_Tait) Archbishop of Canterbury (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archbishop_of_Canterbury) who had previously served as the Bishop of London (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bishop_of_London) and had refused visitation to the parishes served by priests of the SSC. Tait introduced the bill to the House of Lords (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Lords) himself as a Private Member's Bill (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_Member%27s_Bill). After the Act came into force on July 1st, 1875 the period of the most severe legal persecution against priests of the SSC began as prosecutions were carried out against them under the auspices of the Act. A Low Church organisation, the Church Association (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_Association), which had been responsible for some the initial lawsuits brought against SSC priests before the Act was passed, now vigorously prosecuted priests who persisted in Anglo-Catholic practices.

A total of seventeen priests were prosectued by the Church Association under the provisions of the Act for "offences" including: The 'Eastward Position (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eastward_Position&action=edit)', use of eucharistic vestments, use of wafer bread, commixture, altar lights/candles, the singing of the Agnus Dei (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnus_Dei), processions, the installation and devotion of Stations of the Cross (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stations_of_the_Cross) and the erection of a crucifix (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crucifix) on the rood screen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rood_screen).


The prosecutions brought against these priests had mixed results. In many cases, prosecuted priests negotiated with their bishop and compromised and abandoned some practices, while others served time in prison for either not acknowledging the right of the courts to judge them on matters of worship or were convicted for violations of the Act. Occasionally bishops (including Archbishop Tait) would intervene to stop prosecutions in order to avoid continuing embarrassment resulting from the proceedings, particularly as outrage grew at the blatant interference in spiritual matters by secular courts.
[edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Society_of_the_Holy_Cross&action=edit&section=3)]

Persecution and Imprisonment

There were two most famous case of prosecution of SSC priests under the Public Worship Regulation Act, where the priests in question were jailed or otherwise persecuted. These are the cases of Father Arthur Tooth (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Arthur_Tooth&action=edit) and Father Alexander Mackonochie (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alexander_Mackonochie&action=edit) and are undoubtedly the most famous episodes in the history of the SSC.

[AngCath]

I am pretty ignorant on this matter and am interested in the response to this.

[ContraMundum]

That's one of the problems with having an Established Church.

This kind of thing has been happening in churches throughout history. Rome did this kind of thing, and worse, for centuries.

When churches use the state to "quench dissdents" they're really overstepping Christian boundaries.

[karen freeinchristman]

I agree that what was done in the 19th century as quoted above sounds positively wrong. But mistakes have been made by Christian societies throughout history and I think it would be wrong to judge the contemporary Church Society by what it did over 100 years ago. But I am not really aware of what the Church Society stands for today, other than the fact that it is evangelical, so I can't really say that it is a society worth joining. Personally, I don't see the need for it.

[Bonifatius]

I agree that what was done in the 19th century as quoted above sounds positively wrong. But mistakes have been made by Christian societies throughout history and I think it would be wrong to judge the contemporary Church Society by what it did over 100 years ago.


Hi Karen,

my impression is that it stands pretty much for the same thing still, though of course not in terms of liturgy. They do not persecute liturgical practice, but now they seem to have found new targets as women priests, gay priests, ECUSA ...

[Bonifatius]

That's one of the problems with having an Established Church.

This kind of thing has been happening in churches throughout history. Rome did this kind of thing, and worse, for centuries.

When churches use the state to "quench dissdents" they're really overstepping Christian boundaries.

Hi ContraMundum,

as I have tried to point out in the other thread, the legas system and the fact that the C of E was an established church did not let much choice to the opponents of Anglo-Catholicism. To bring these things before Parliament was in fact the only option they had. As I have mentioned: Had the church had the power to deal with these issues herself, the early Anglo-Catholics would certainly have ended up losing their benefices altoghether.

Best
Boni

[Naomi4Christ]

That's one of the problems with having an Established Church.

This kind of thing has been happening in churches throughout history. Rome did this kind of thing, and worse, for centuries.

When churches use the state to "quench dissdents" they're really overstepping Christian boundaries.

There are (many levels of) Ecclesiastic courts dealing with matters of Canon Law, doctrine and ritual. I don't think they are directly under the control of 'the state' (parliament and the civil service), although appeals ultimately work their way up to the Supreme Head of the Church of England, manifested in the Privy Council.

I don't think we send wayward vicars to the dock of the Old Bailey...

[ContraMundum]

I just keep thinking-

1Co 6:1 Do any of you dare, when you have a matter against another, to go to law before the unjust, and not before the saints?
1Co 6:2 Do you not know that the saints shall judge the world? And if the world shall be judged by you, are you unworthy to judge the smallest matters?
1Co 6:3 Do you not know that we shall judge angels, not to mention the things of this life?
1Co 6:4 If, then, you truly have judgments of the things of this life, set those who are least esteemed in the church to judge.
1Co 6:5 For I speak to your shame. Is it so that there is not a wise one among you, not even one in your midst who shall be able to judge between his brother?
1Co 6:6 But brother goes to law with brother, and that before the unbelievers.
1Co 6:7 Indeed then there is already on the whole a failure among you, that you have lawsuits with yourselves. Why not instead be wronged? Why not instead be defrauded?

[Naomi4Christ]

I just keep thinking-

1Co 6:1 Do any of you dare, when you have a matter against another, to go to law before the unjust, and not before the saints?
1Co 6:2 Do you not know that the saints shall judge the world? And if the world shall be judged by you, are you unworthy to judge the smallest matters?
1Co 6:3 Do you not know that we shall judge angels, not to mention the things of this life?
1Co 6:4 If, then, you truly have judgments of the things of this life, set those who are least esteemed in the church to judge.
1Co 6:5 For I speak to your shame. Is it so that there is not a wise one among you, not even one in your midst who shall be able to judge between his brother?
1Co 6:6 But brother goes to law with brother, and that before the unbelievers.
1Co 6:7 Indeed then there is already on the whole a failure among you, that you have lawsuits with yourselves. Why not instead be wronged? Why not instead be defrauded?


Ecclesiastical courts are presided over by saints.

[gtsecc]

What kind of saints would send Father Alexander Mackonochie to jail for elevating the sacraments? Was that a mistake?

[Yahweh Nissi]

The actions brought up by the OP were undoubtably wrong and un-christian. Having a problem with the Church Society well over one hundred years later, given that they are not (to the best of my knowledge) in any-way advocating use of the secular courts to force certain worship styles (or anything, for that matter) on churches, does not seem sensible. It would be like having a problem with the current US Democrat Party for opposing Lincoln's stance in the US Civil War.

This may be an interesting and noteworthy piece of history, but I do not see what relevance it has to the Church Society nowadays (which one may well have other problems with).

Love YN.

[EvAnglican]

What kind of saints would send Father Alexander Mackonochie to jail for elevating the sacraments? Was that a mistake?

IIRC, this particular case was adjudicated by the Privy Council because Macknochie did not abide by the decision of the ecclesiastial court.

Elevating the sacraments is contrary to the 39 articles and therefore canon law. We might let clergy get away with it these days, but there was not so much liberalism in Victorian times. Idolatory is a serious issue.

If you feel strongly about elevating the sacraments, then you are probably in the wrong church. Rome would surely welcome you.

[gtsecc]

I am not so sure the Church Society is that differnt today. If the Democats today still advocated slavery it would be a better analogy.

[AngCath]

gtsecc do you have evidence?

[EvAnglican]

The actions brought up by the OP were undoubtably wrong and un-christian. Having a problem with the Church Society well over one hundred years later, given that they are not (to the best of my knowledge) in any-way advocating use of the secular courts to force certain worship styles (or anything, for that matter) on churches, does not seem sensible. It would be like having a problem with the current US Democrat Party for opposing Lincoln's stance in the US Civil War.

This may be an interesting and noteworthy piece of history, but I do not see what relevance it has to the Church Society nowadays (which one may well have other problems with).

Love YN.

The courts involved were not secular courts, but ecclesiastical courts.

The Church Society was not around in those days, and is a product of the union of several protestant Anglican organisations.

I think there is a lesson for us nowadays in how to deal with disobedience of clergy, including bishops. Perhaps we should be taking more cases to ecclesiastical court, then perhaps the Anglican Communion wouldn't be in the situation it is in today.

[AngCath]

just asking because a lot has been brought up to defend the Church Society.

[EvAnglican]

I am not so sure the Church Society is that differnt today. If the Democats today still advocated slavery it would be a better analogy.

Do you have any direct experience of the Church Society? As an American, how does it affect you?

[gtsecc]

It isn't secret - you can read their web site.
They don't deny any of this.
I don't support them.
I don't think they are typical of mainstream Anglicanism.

[gtsecc]

As Christian - anythign part of the Body does affects all of us.

Whether we are Baptist or ROCCOR, we are all somehow conencted and affect each other.

[EvAnglican]

It isn't secret - you can read their web site.
They don't deny any of this.
I don't support them.
I don't think they are typical of mainstream Anglicanism.

If I read their website, I find it all quite impressive.

I think they are fairly typical of the evangelical wing of Anglican church, especially on the web, and I believe the hold patronage to many evangelical churches. They have the same strong values of Anglican reformers, and therefore of the original undivided church. What's to dislike there?

I think many people, including me, appreciate their clarity.

[CSMR]

particularly as outrage grew at the blatant interference in spiritual matters by secular courts.
Do you have any historical evidence to back up the existence of this "outrage"?

[gtsecc]

Do you have any historical evidence to back up the existence of this "outrage"?
No, but I don't have any reason to doubt it.

[john23237]

If you feel strongly about elevating the sacraments, then you are probably in the wrong church. Rome would surely welcome you.

Well, if YOU feel so strongly about elevating the sacraments, perhaps you are also in the wrong church. The Baptist would surely welcome you.:doh:


Do you see how that sounds? Words can become weapons. We all need to learn to be more careful how we use them.

[higgs2]

If I read their website, I find it all quite impressive.

I think they are fairly typical of the evangelical wing of Anglican church, especially on the web, and I believe the hold patronage to many evangelical churches. They have the same strong values of Anglican reformers, and therefore of the original undivided church. What's to dislike there?

I think many people, including me, appreciate their clarity.
Never heard of 'em til you first posted the link. I dislike their dislike of female ordination. Other than that, I couldn't care less, they don't affect me at all :)

[Naomi4Christ]

Never heard of 'em til you first posted the link. I dislike their dislike of female ordination. Other than that, I couldn't care less, they don't affect me at all :)

They only really have an impact on evangelical Anglicans in England. I don't really see how they can bother anyone outside the UK, especially those who generally ignore church doctrine.

The only involvement I have had with them was because my church is under their patronage. However, that does not affect our actions and views at all. In fact, we are in the process of sending a woman parishioner for ordination, having given her our parish endorsement.

[PaladinValer]

Worshiping Christ is idolatry?

Perhaps you should convert to Judaism...

[Naomi4Christ]

Worshiping Christ is idolatry?

Perhaps you should convert to Judaism...

:scratch: :scratch: :scratch: :sleep:

[karen freeinchristman]

:scratch: :scratch: :scratch: :sleep:

I am assuming he means that when they lift high the wafer, they are worshipping Christ. By worshipping the wafer, which is his body (and his blood?), they are worshipping Christ. Is my assumption correct, PaladinValer (or any of the others who do this)?

[karen freeinchristman]

I am assuming he means that when they lift high the wafer, they are worshipping Christ. By worshipping the wafer, which is his body (and his blood?), they are worshipping Christ. Is my assumption correct, PaladinValer (or any of the others who do this)?

By the way, although I personally do not feel comfortable with this stuff, I do not wish to condemn others for doing it...

[Naomi4Christ]

I am assuming he means that when they lift high the wafer, they are worshipping Christ. By worshipping the wafer, which is his body (and his blood?), they are worshipping Christ. Is my assumption correct, PaladinValer (or any of the others who do this)?

Hmmmm...and it explicitly says in Anglican doctrine that he sacraments are 'not to be gazed on'.

[Yahweh Nissi]

The courts involved were not secular courts, but ecclesiastical courts.

The Church Society was not around in those days, and is a product of the union of several protestant Anglican organisations.

I was just going by the OP - but even if they were ecclesiastical courts, they should not have been sending people to gaol.

I think there is a lesson for us nowadays in how to deal with disobedience of clergy, including bishops. Perhaps we should be taking more cases to ecclesiastical court, then perhaps the Anglican Communion wouldn't be in the situation it is in today.

Agreed to a point, but only for extreme cases like blantantly going against the three creeds, which pretty much all Chrisendom has held to, and only with removal from their duties as a maximum sanction - certainly not prision. If you were to enforce strict adherence to the 39 Articles, you would lose most of the church - including a lot of conservative evangelical who hold to a strict memorialist position regarding communion and baptism, whereas the articles take the line of a spiritual real presence on the former, and something more then just a memorial on the latter.

Love YN.

[john23237]

Hmmmm...and it explicitly says in Anglican doctrine that he sacraments are 'not to be gazed on'.

Well, O.K., if you say so, but I am going to look pretty silly stumbling up to the altar rail wearing a blind fold. ^_^

[CSMR]

No, but I don't have any reason to doubt it.
Well I don't think you should make statements about history just because you don't have any reason to doubt them.

[Mysterium_Fidei]

IIRC, this particular case was adjudicated by the Privy Council because Macknochie did not abide by the decision of the ecclesiastial court.

Elevating the sacraments is contrary to the 39 articles and therefore canon law. We might let clergy get away with it these days, but there was not so much liberalism in Victorian times. Idolatory is a serious issue.

If you feel strongly about elevating the sacraments, then you are probably in the wrong church. Rome would surely welcome you.

God save us. Things like this make me want to run home. :crossrc:

[karen freeinchristman]

God save us. Things like this make me want to run home. :crossrc:

Things like this really make me wonder. I would never, ever refer to the Roman Catholic Church as "home".

I just don't get it.

[Mysterium_Fidei]

Things like this really make me wonder. I would never, ever refer to the Roman Catholic Church as "home".

I just don't get it.

He just accused those who believe as I do in regards the Eucharist as idol worshippers. I refer to Rome as "home" simply to get my point across, that because of my beliefs there are times I do not feel welcome in Anglicanism.

[Naomi4Christ]

He just accused those who believe as I do in regards the Eucharist as idol worshippers. I refer to Rome as "home" simply to get my point across, that because of my beliefs there are times I do not feel welcome in Anglicanism.

Do you think you should feel welcome in Anglicanism if you do not wish to conform to Anglican doctrine?

[Bonifatius]

There is so much disagreement about what "Anglican Doctrine" actually is (of which we in this forum have daily proof) that it seems rather odd to be suspicious of someone's belief on the Holy Eucharist as being not consonant with Anglican doctrine...

I am certainly a Catholic myself but feel much more at home in Canterbury than in Rome and I do not wish to be sent to Rome by fellow Anglicans in the way some postings in this thread suggest. I also do not intend to send my fellow Evangelical Anglicans to Geneva.

[karen freeinchristman]

there are times I do not feel welcome in Anglicanism.

I do not wish to contribute to making you not feel welcome in Anglicanism, and as I believe in a spiritual presence in the Eucharist, I would not condemn anyone in their reverence for the host.

[john23237]

Do you think you should feel welcome in Anglicanism if you do not wish to conform to Anglican doctrine?

The 39 Articles are NOT part of Anglican doctrine in the ECUSA. They are in the "history" section. There are no rubrics whatsoever in the ECUSA which preclude the elevation or, for that matter, the adoration of the Blessed Sacrament. As MF is an American judging by his icon and I assume a member of the ECUSA, he opinions in NO WAY fail to conform with the Anglican doctrine of THIS nation. The real question, I fear, is not whether MF is welcome in the ECUSA, for his views on this matter most certainly are, but whether the ECUSA is any longer welcome in the Anglican communion. If we are repeatly told that we must conform to the thinking of the Cof E "or else", the matter will be settled. We had one American Revolution to end British rule in this land and we still remember how it is done.

[SirTimothy]

Can I remind you of my favourite statement? I say this on a routine basis...

THE ONLY THING THAT IS HISTORICALLY ANGLICAN IS DIVERSITY.


Come and tell me something is or isn't 'historically anglican' or 'truly anglican' and I can find at least as many people supporting it as are violently against it.

Inclusivity, not exclusivity is a hallmark of this church, and I pray it will remain that way. Let's look at how we can include people of ALL differing walks with Christ to worship together, rather than saying that 'my way or the highway'. That's not an Anglican sentiment. An anglican statement is: 'how can we incorporate your way of worshiping Christ, WHILE STILL incorporating everyone else in this church's?'

Timothy

[Bonifatius]

The 39 Articles are NOT part of Anglican doctrine in the ECUSA. They are in the "history" section. There are no rubrics whatsoever in the ECUSA which preclude the elevation or, for that matter, the adoration of the Blessed Sacrament.

Hi John,

even the 39 Articles are not very clear. They have been interpreted in all possible ways since they came into existence from left wing Protestant to High Church Catholic. But since we had a lot of court cases dealing with the question what extent of Ritualism is consonant with the faith and practice in the C of E in the 19th century we now can be definitely sure that the elevation as well as reservation and adoration of the Blessed Sacrament is consonant with Anglican doctrine. :P

It happens in many churches here every Sunday!

[karen freeinchristman]

If we are repeatly told that we must conform to the thinking of the Cof E "or else", the matter will be settled. We had one American Revolution to end British rule in this land and we still remember how it is done.

Gosh!

Honestly, I have never heard of the C of E saying that ECUSA must conform to them 'or else'!

:help:


:sigh:

[Bonifatius]

Gosh!

Honestly, I have never heard of the C of E saying that ECUSA must conform to them 'or else'!

How else do you read the Windsor Report??? :confused:

[karen freeinchristman]

How else do you read the Windsor Report??? :confused:

I must admit I have never read it through! I'm going away now to do so!

[Bonifatius]

I must admit I have never read it through! I'm going away now to do so!

Karen, don't! Stay here and read this summary which gives you all the basic information: http://www.wibsite.com/features/windsorreport/

[karen freeinchristman]

Karen, don't! Stay here and read this summary which gives you all the basic information: http://www.wibsite.com/features/windsorreport/
:D





Too late, I've started reading it.

So far, It seems that the Windsor report is saying that previously, serious decisions have been made using the "Instruments of Unity", i.e. the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Lambeth Conference, the Anglican consultative Council, and the Primates Meeting, and that this is why they feel the decision regarding Bishop Robinson should not have been made without this practice.

Personally, I don't see (yet) any notion of "you do as we say, or else". But I haven't finished it yet.

[karen freeinchristman]

Another thing I have to say is that it is a very interesting document. It seems to describe a lot of the aspects of Anglicanism that we are always discussing here in STR.

[john23237]

:D





Too late, I've started reading it.

So far, It seems that the Windsor report is saying that previously, serious decisions have been made using the "Instruments of Unity", i.e. the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Lambeth Conference, the Anglican consultative Council, and the Primates Meeting, and that this is why they feel the decision regarding Bishop Robinson should not have been made without this practice.

Personally, I don't see (yet) any notion of "you do as we say, or else". But I haven't finished it yet.

As we and the Anglican Church of Canada were asked by the Primates to remove ourselves from the Anglican Consultative Council because of our respective actions, one might just get the feeling we were not welcome. Foolish North Americans, I am sure we must have mis understood.:doh:

[karen freeinchristman]

As we and the Anglican Church of Canada were asked by the Primates to remove ourselves from the Anglican Consultative Council because of our respective actions, one might just get the feeling we were not welcome. Foolish North Americans, I am sure we must have mis understood.:doh:

See, I'm not aware of any of these politics, concerning myself so much with local mission etc... but trying now to make myself aware of all of this.

I might just say, though, that maybe if the 'action' had been brought before the ACC (before it had been set in motion), things may have worked out better? Pretty hard to know, though.

[gtsecc]

Well I don't think you should make statements about history just because you don't have any reason to doubt them.
I did not personally witness these events.
However, no one in England or America or France, weather Buddist, Cathilic, Hindu or agnostic, denies these accounts.

[gtsecc]

As I stated earlier, anything one Body claiming to be Christian does affects the other bodies.We are all connected in some way or another. Christ asked us to act as one body.

[CSMR]

I did not personally witness these events.
However, no one in England or America or France, weather Buddist, Cathilic, Hindu or agnostic, denies these accounts.
Why should I believe you on this too? I'll wager that this "growing outrage at the blatant interference in spiritual matters by secular courts" is something you made up out of thin air without consulting any historical sources, as well as your assertion that no-one denies it.

[erin74]

As we and the Anglican Church of Canada were asked by the Primates to remove ourselves from the Anglican Consultative Council because of our respective actions, one might just get the feeling we were not welcome. Foolish North Americans, I am sure we must have mis understood.:doh:
As I read through this discussion it occurs to me that there are two issues at hand in this discussion. Keep in mind I am not up on the issues at hand, but have just recognised that there are two.

That bodies have had action taken on them because of a particular action they took.

That these bodies are North American.

I don't think this is a case of England taking action on North America because they are North America, but the Church of England taking action on a body within the Anglican Communion because they were seen to be out of line.

That they were North American was not the issue, from what I can see. It just happens that in this case they were.

I imagine that there are other bodies that have had action taken on them that aren't North American in Anglican history (speculative), or that if they were from another nation the action would not have been any different (again speculative).

[karen freeinchristman]

As I read through this discussion it occurs to me that there are two issues at hand in this discussion. Keep in mind I am not up on the issues at hand, but have just recognised that there are two.

That bodies have had action taken on them because of a particular action they took.

That these bodies are North American.

I don't think this is a case of England taking action on North America because they are North America, but the Church of England taking action on a body within the Anglican Communion because they were seen to be out of line.

That they were North American was not the issue, from what I can see. It just happens that in this case they were.

I imagine that there are other bodies that have had action taken on them that aren't North American in Anglican history (speculative), or that if they were from another nation the action would not have been any different (again speculative).

I'm glad you made these points, Erin.

In the case of the Windsor report issue, though, it was not only the C of E that took action. In looking at the list of people involved in drawing up the report, they come from all over the AC.

In the first instance, the one about the people being prosecuted for raising the host, it was the C of E, but I would guess things were a bit different back then when England controlled most of the provinces (not all, of course) to a slightly greater degree than now.

[gtsecc]

Why should I believe you on this too? I'll wager that this "growing outrage at the blatant interference in spiritual matters by secular courts" is something you made up out of thin air without consulting any historical sources, as well as your assertion that no-one denies it.
It is possible some one spoofed numerious books and encyclopedias. Do you really think the info on Wiki is faked? Google all this stuff if you doubt it.

[higgs2]

See, I'm not aware of any of these politics, concerning myself so much with local mission etc... but trying now to make myself aware of all of this.

I might just say, though, that maybe if the 'action' had been brought before the ACC (before it had been set in motion), things may have worked out better? Pretty hard to know, though.
We don't submit any other business at general convention for the ACC's approval. It was a vote to approve what a diocese had already done. It's not proper for other provinces to interfere with ECUSA business, especially by using the threat of "kicking them out" of the communion. God help us all.

[EvAnglican]

It is possible some one spoofed numerious books and encyclopedias. Do you really think the info on Wiki is faked? Google all this stuff if you doubt it.

I'm not getting much out of Google. Can you help?

[EvAnglican]

We don't submit any other business at general convention for the ACC's approval. It was a vote to approve what a diocese had already done. It's not proper for other provinces to interfere with ECUSA business, especially by using the threat of "kicking them out" of the communion. God help us all.

There must be a lot of lobbying going on though.

[karen freeinchristman]

We don't submit any other business at general convention for the ACC's approval. It was a vote to approve what a diocese had already done. It's not proper for other provinces to interfere with ECUSA business, especially by using the threat of "kicking them out" of the communion. God help us all.

In the specific instance, I agree. But shouldn't there be some defined limit to that?

[higgs2]

There must be a lot of lobbying going on though.

Not sure what you mean -- by whom, to whom?

[EvAnglican]

Not sure what you mean -- by whom, to whom?

By any interested parties to voting members.

[gtsecc]

wrong thread

[higgs2]

By any interested parties to voting members.
Oh I'm sure. I don't see what that has to do with going before the ACC before voting?

[higgs2]

In the specific instance, I agree. But shouldn't there be some defined limit to that?

Well, how about if we let the Nicene Creed be the defined limit? THat would work for me.

[Naomi4Christ]

Well, how about if we let the Nicene Creed be the defined limit? THat would work for me.

:amen: ...and they all lived happily ever after