Now for the good news!

[norbie]

"The Appellate Tribunal has cleared the way for the consecration of women as diocesan bishops across Australia"
It's a way forwarts for my country - there are many highly studied Ladies in the Anglican Church of Australia who will have a great input in re-evangelising our country.Other good news is that in my Newcastle Diocese very soon AngliCare and Samaritian will merge to form a strong corporation to reach out and speak up for social justes.
Praise the Lord!:thumbsup:

[karen freeinchristman]

"The Appellate Tribunal has cleared the way for the consecration of women as diocesan bishops across Australia"
It's a way forwarts for my country - there are many highly studied Ladies in the Anglican Church of Australia who will have a great input in re-evangelising our country.Other good news is that in my Newcastle Diocese very soon AngliCare and Samaritian will merge to form a strong corporation to reach out and speak up for social justes.
Praise the Lord!:thumbsup:
That is great news! The Spirit moves!

[PaladinValer]

Wonderful news!

That makes the number of provinces that allow women to be bishops at 15 out of 38, or 39.5% of all provinces.

[Finella]

Awesome news, Norbie!

I'm not familiar with AngliCare -- are they only in Australia, or do they exist in other countries? It sounds like it could be a powerful partnership with Samaritan....

[Aymn27]

"The Appellate Tribunal has cleared the way for the consecration of women as diocesan bishops across Australia"
It's a way forwarts for my country - there are many highly studied Ladies in the Anglican Church of Australia who will have a great input in re-evangelising our country.Other good news is that in my Newcastle Diocese very soon AngliCare and Samaritian will merge to form a strong corporation to reach out and speak up for social justes.
Praise the Lord!:thumbsup:

This certainly has not happened in the US and England has it? As a matter of fact - hasn't the opposite occured?

[ChaliceThunder]

This certainly has not happened in the US and England has it? As a matter of fact - hasn't the opposite occured?
Do you know any of the women bishops of TEC?

They are amazing witnesses to God's power. I know all of them, and each one has added greatly to evangelising in this country and around the world.

[TomUK]

If this is the direction that the Australian feels moved towards then that's all well and good, but I just hope that you don't follow the model which has been adopted by some many parts of the communion and completely abandon conservative members. Alternative oversight needs to be provided for them.

[PaladinValer]

Not all conservatives are anti-women clergy however.

[TomUK]

i'd wager the vast majority.

[PaladinValer]

The majority of provinces, including many in the Global South, have women clergy.

I must disagree with you based on the data.

[TomUK]

I'd disagree, but it's not really relevant. The point is that the Australian Church must not ignore those who do accept the ordination of women (especially as Bishops) and it is there duty to provide oversight for those parishes. The intervention of Akinola for example in the USA was a terrible situation, but it was the only possible solution to the situation. Australia urgently needs to put in measures to ensure that doesn't happen there too.

[PaladinValer]

++Akinola's intervention wasn't over women clergy, so it isn't a true parallel.

Furthermore, it was absolutely not the only possible solution. You're a smart guy, Tom; I'm absolutely convinced that you could come up with at least two or three canonical alternatives.

As for the data, the only provinces that do not allow women clergy are: Central Africa, Melanesia, Nigeria, Papua New Guinea, South East Asia, and Tanzania. That is only 15.8% of the provinces.

[ebia]

Awesome news, Norbie!

I'm not familiar with AngliCare -- are they only in Australia, or do they exist in other countries? It sounds like it could be a powerful partnership with Samaritan....
As far as I know Anglicare (or St Luke's, as they are in our diocese) are Australian. It's the Anglican Church of Austalia's welfare arm (operating with a significant proportion of government funding).

[ebia]

I'd disagree, but it's not really relevant. The point is that the Australian Church must not ignore those who do accept the ordination of women (especially as Bishops) and it is there duty to provide oversight for those parishes. The intervention of Akinola for example in the USA was a terrible situation, but it was the only possible solution to the situation. Australia urgently needs to put in measures to ensure that doesn't happen there too.
Given that, at least for the forseeable future, there are going to be some dioceses that don't accept women's ordination, let alone bishops (Sydney, Murray, Ballarat, Armidale?) at both ends of the conservative specturm, it shouldn't be too hard if the will is there.

I do hope that those diocese that have such parishes do make arrangements for alternative oversight before electing a woman as bishop/archbishop.

However, I fear that the politics and distrust that exists between some dioceses in Australia may get in the way, particularly for 'Sydney type' parishes in liberal dioceses unless a national "flying bishop(s)" are appointed.

[higgs2]

I don't believe it was solution at all, not to mention the "only possible" solution. For one thing, it was not about women's ordination in the first place.I'd disagree, but it's not really relevant. The point is that the Australian Church must not ignore those who do accept the ordination of women (especially as Bishops) and it is there duty to provide oversight for those parishes. The intervention of Akinola for example in the USA was a terrible situation, but it was the only possible solution to the situation. Australia urgently needs to put in measures to ensure that doesn't happen there too.

[ContraMundum]

I think it's a great decision too- for the TAC! Already the phones are ringing. :)

Praise God for that.

[ChaliceThunder]

I'd disagree, but it's not really relevant. The point is that the Australian Church must not ignore those who do accept the ordination of women (especially as Bishops) and it is there duty to provide oversight for those parishes. The intervention of Akinola for example in the USA was a terrible situation, but it was the only possible solution to the situation. Australia urgently needs to put in measures to ensure that doesn't happen there too.

Actually, I will disagree here, Tom.

First off, we have a program of Delegated Pastoral Oversight in place, in order to avoid just such incursions as Akinola has made.

Also, before DEPO was officially in place, many Bishops Diocesan made provision for visiting bishops, or "flying bishops." In my own diocese, our bishop made provision for a visiting bishop as soon as he heard that there were some people who had problems with his own liberal bent.

I hardly think Akinola's divisive actions constitute "the only possible solution."

[Albion]

Actually, I will disagree here, Tom.

First off, we have a program of Delegated Pastoral Oversight in place, in order to avoid just such incursions as Akinola has made.

Also, before DEPO was officially in place, many Bishops Diocesan made provision for visiting bishops, or "flying bishops." In my own diocese, our bishop made provision for a visiting bishop as soon as he heard that there were some people who had problems with his own liberal bent.

I hardly think Akinola's divisive actions constitute "the only possible solution."

We must approach this matter with honesty, if we are to understand it at all. Whatever it is called, the traditionalists in TEC have not been offered alternative Episcopal oversight--as the idea was originally requested.

The last offer of TEC's bishops was for the possibility of a visiting bishop, but at the option of the bishop ordinary (i.e. resident bishop) and with no promises as to when and under what circumstances this would be allowed.

If anyone were to say they agreed in principle to any concept but would not apply it, would any of us say that it's been agreed to? Of course not.

[norbie]

I don't believe it was solution at all, not to mention the "only possible" solution. For one thing, it was not about women's ordination in the first place.
I agree, for some unfortunatly reason our STR brought women ordination and same sex issues together. It was not very wise - this are complete different issues.
Also it is wert here to notice that Sydney was the first diocese to ordinate permanent Women Deacons. Maybe a way out not to lose face for them being behind 100 years? As you know I am very conservative, but I believe the women issue has nothing to do with being liberal or conservative.

[Polycarp1]

We must approach this matter with honesty, if we are to understand it at all. Whatever it is called, the traditionalists in TEC have not been offered alternative Episcopal oversight--as the idea was originally requested.

The last offer of TEC's bishops was for the possibility of a visiting bishop, but at the option of the bishop ordinary (i.e. resident bishop) and with no promises as to when and under what circumstances this would be allowed.

If anyone were to say they agreed in principle to any concept but would not apply it, would any of us say that it's been agreed to? Of course not.
Well, sir, I would very much like to know precisely why you say this. And I'm not out to polemicize. I do know, from personal contact at the time, that the Rt. Rev. V. Gene Robinson rejected the claim of a few conservative parishes within his diocese to be able to choose what bishop they would accept to visit them in his stead, but that he arranged with the Rt. Rev. Daniel Herzog, quite conservative and at that time Bishop of Albany and very active in the AAC, to provide them with episcopal ministry. Dan's stance on the issues in question was very close to the ones that the dissenting parishes stated as objections to Bp. Robinson.

If it's your contention that any group of Anglicans, anywhere, is privileged to decide what bishop or bishops they will give credence to and which they will reject as unsuitable and unclean, then I'd say that that has very little to do with the historical episcopacy that they claim they wish to maintain.

[ChaliceThunder]

We must approach this matter with honesty, if we are to understand it at all. Whatever it is called, the traditionalists in TEC have not been offered alternative Episcopal oversight--as the idea was originally requested.

The last offer of TEC's bishops was for the possibility of a visiting bishop, but at the option of the bishop ordinary (i.e. resident bishop) and with no promises as to when and under what circumstances this would be allowed.

If anyone were to say they agreed in principle to any concept but would not apply it, would any of us say that it's been agreed to? Of course not.
That is not true, Albion. The last offer is DEPO - and there are at least 12 bishops who are ready and willing to serve in the capacity of "Episcopal Visitor."

Has DEPO been requested in any of the dioceses where illegal incursions took place? If so, was DEPO denied in those dioceses? If it happened, I did not read about it.

[PaladinValer]

In addition, as Chalice said earlier, there already existed the policy for pastoral oversight in many of the "liberal" dioceses.

When I was still in the Diocese of Rochester, All Saint's in Irondequoit decided to leave because they "had no choice." In reality, +McKelvey offered them the option of pastoral oversight if they wanted it in a jesture of kindness and good will. What he got back was a refusal to hand over diocese property.

[norbie]

I think we went through this so many times, so no single bishop anymore?
Re-think please, the Bible has to be read with the 4 Gospels first. Because this teaching of Jesus is timeless - it was valid 2000 years ago and will be valid AND MODERN in an other 2000 years. :preach:
Pauls writing, and all Apostels writings for this matter, is inspired by the Holy Spirit in canonical matters(is this the right word?) but not in human matters acording for his time. So when he said that woman must cover their hair for example - this was time related and not valid for us. Here also comes in that because of this, so many people turn the Bible their way whenever they need. And THIS is mocking Jesus.

[karen freeinchristman]

A reminder to those in this thread who do NOT self-identify as Anglicans or Old Catholics: Please do not post in debate or even post your point of view on this issue, which is highly contentious. ONLY FELLOWSHIP POSTS OR QUESTIONS ARE ACCEPTABLE FROM NON-MEMBERS in threads that are of a contentious nature! Thank you!

[Albion]

That is not true, Albion. The last offer is DEPO - and there are at least 12 bishops who are ready and willing to serve in the capacity of "Episcopal Visitor."

Has DEPO been requested in any of the dioceses where illegal incursions took place? If so, was DEPO denied in those dioceses? If it happened, I did not read about it.

You missed the point. If a policy is announced, but it is not guaranteed, it doesn't really exist except on paper. The ploy in this case was immediately seen though. Sure, Episcopal Visitors are agreed to by TEC in principle, BUT the offer was not to have them operate normally. The bishop ordinary would by the TEC offer permit an Episcopal Visitor whenever or whenever he chose. He could, as has happened, change his mind at will, without much notice, permit only rarely, permit for some parishes and not others, etc.

On the other hand, TEC had no obligation to agree to Episcopal Visitors for the few conservative dioceses wanting to remain in the church, but if she does not intend to agree, it would be better not to make a half-way offer so that she could claim to have complied with what had been requested of her.

I personally would have had much more regard for the TEC House of Bishops if they had "just said No," rather than positioning herself for some public relations battle with this tokenism. That, however, is irrelevant here; I'm merely posting in order that the complete picture be known, and for whoever here cares.

Or...as you said, maybe you just didn't read about it.

[Polycarp1]

Tell me what rights you think a bishop ordinary should have and what he should be barred from doing, as regards the care, nurture, teaching, and guidance of the parishes within his diocese. I have a hunch our issue may be as much with divergent expectations on the episcopacy as it is over the issues of moral theology that appear to be at controversy.

[Albion]

Tell me what rights you think a bishop ordinary should have and what he should be barred from doing, as regards the care, nurture, teaching, and guidance of the parishes within his diocese.

So you agree that TEC would not have agreed to the proposal so long as it meant not retaining the option to suspend it or use it selectively. I agree, there's nothing surprising in that.

But if so, let no one be misled into thinking that she did the opposite and agreed to allow Episcopal Visitors as had been requested of her.

[Polycarp1]

So you agree that TEC would not have agreed to the proposal so long as it meant not retaining the option to suspend it or use it selectively. I agree, there's nothing surprising in that.

But if so, let no one be misled into thinking that she did the opposite and agreed to allow Episcopal Visitors as had been requested of her.
Wasn't it you who was complaining that I'd supposedly "twisted your words"? I don't know what makes you think I agreed with anything you've said, to claim that in this post, but I asked you a question.

Typical of the "moral uprightness" of the schismatics -- claim the high ground but act in a quite different fashion.

[ChaliceThunder]

Albion, you are, IMO, making serious allegations that are false.

DEPO is in effect. The dozen visitors are ready and willing. And it was all announced in public.

I think you are emblematic of a serious problem within the extreme conservative realm: POWER

[Albion]

Wasn't it you who was complaining that I'd supposedly "twisted your words"? I don't know what makes you think I agreed with anything you've said, to claim that in this post, but I asked you a question.

And I commented on the thinking behind your question. There's no reason for you to be looking for a fight in every post. You made the point about the role of a bishop ordinary. Yes, it would be virtually unprecedented if TEC's HOB agreed to limit the role of its bishops by agreeing to the proposal put to them.

But it doesn't matter what I think about whether they should have agreed or not. You, by your observations put in the form of a rhetorical question, reflected what I assume the HOB thought. You voiced, I am confident, what the bishops also thought about the reasonableness of the request put to them.

But again, if the bishops could not in good conscience agree to Episcopal Visitors, I am not surprised. If the HOB could not agree, they--like you--have a good reason for that.

The point merely was to keep the record straight. The TEC DID NOT, in fact, agree, even though it was erroneously said here by several posters that the HOB or TEC itself had done so.

[Albion]

Albion, you are, IMO, making serious allegations that are false.

Understand what you are talking about before starting in with language like that.

DEPO is in effect. The dozen visitors are ready and willing. And it was all announced in public.

But the TEC response was rejected by all those bishops, domestic and foreign, who had asked for Episcopal Visitors. Do you think that I was announcing my own opinion, and that no one else noticed that TEC returned a compromise proposal, not agreement to what was asked of her? Get real.

Again, and read carefully, there is a kind of system in effect. That is what you are talking about. It is not what was requested. What was requested was one in which the bishops ordinary would allow Visiting Bishops to function without the interferences, limitations, suspensions, surprise changes of mind, etc. that the response allowed.

Do you understand?

[ChaliceThunder]

The point merely was to keep the record straight. The TEC DID NOT, in fact, agree, even though it was erroneously said here by several posters that the HOB or TEC itself had done so.

I'm sorry, could you please clarify? Are you claiming that there is no DEPO available to any diocese the moment they want it?

If you are - you are dead wrong, sir.

[Albion]

I'm sorry, could you please clarify? Are you claiming that there is no DEPO available to any diocese the moment they want it?

If you are - you are dead wrong, sir.

Do you know
1) what was requested of TEC by the African bishops and ACN?

2) what her reply/counter offer amounted to?

[ChaliceThunder]

Understand what you are talking about before starting in with language like that.



But the TEC response was rejected by all those bishops, domestic and foreign, who had asked for Episcopal Visitors. Do you think that I was announcing my own opinion, and that no one else noticed that TEC returned a compromise proposal, not agreement to what was asked of her? Get real.

Again, and read carefully, there is a kind of system in effect. That is what you are talking about. It is not what was requested. What was requested was one in which the bishops ordinary would allow Visiting Bishops to function without the interferences, limitations, suspensions, surprise changes of mind, etc. that the response allowed.

Do you understand?
You fail to recognize that reasonable provision has been made for Episcopal Visitors. (I don't get your comment about "domestic and foreign")

It seems that the only thing that would satisfy you is to allow for willfully schismatic bishops to do alternate pastoral oversight.

The bishops who have offered themselves as visitors are all on the conservative side and "windsor compliant."

Nothing seems to satisfy your group - and that points to the truth that is growing clearer and clearer. The issue ain't the issue. The real problem is a small body of conservatives who appear to be hellbent on fracturing the Church if things don't go 100% their way.

[Albion]

You fail to recognize that reasonable provision has been made for Episcopal Visitors. (I don't get your comment about "domestic and foreign")

Good gracious! Have you been following this at all?

It seems that the only thing that would satisfy you is to allow for willfully schismatic bishops to do alternate pastoral oversight.

Hey. I don't care one way or the other. I am in this only to keep the record straight on what happened. Even Polycarp noted the bishops' problem--that it would, in effect, make bishops with jurisdiction not bishops with jurisdiction.. If that is their view, so be it. It makes sense. HOWEVER, LET'S BE FRANK AND SAY IT. TEC REJECTED THE PROPOSAL. TEC DID NOT AGREE TO WHAT WAS ASKED OF HER.

LET US NOT PRETEND THAT SHE AGREED TO IT.

DEPO was inaugurated in 2004. What TEC was confronting in 2007 was, obviously, a request to improve upon or amend it. DEPO was not seen as sufficient. So why on Earth, except for lack of information, would you be saying that the existence of DEPO means that TEC agreed to what was asked of her this year?! Her counter-offer was a rejection of what was asked, that's all.

[Finella]

Aiyee...

Um... guys... I thought this was a thread about Australia's decision to allow for the consecration of women bishops...

[Albion]

Aiyee...

Um... guys... I thought this was a thread about Australia's decision to allow for the consecration of women bishops...

Good point...

But you know, what the Australian church does invites someone to comment on the parallel situation in the US or the UK.

Then when the word "Akinola" gets mentioned...

Katie, bar the door. It doesn't even matter that Bp. Akinola, who doesn't oppose women clergy, had nothing to do with this particular topic.

[Colabomb]

I support the ordination of women as many of you know. However I must object to the mention of "Social Justice" in the OP. The ordination of Any person of any status must be based on the qualifications laid down in Scripture, not on Human standards of Justice. If I read in Scripture that people with Less than Ten Toes should not be ordained, I would follow it, and ask others to do so, no matter how unfair it seemed to me.

[ebia]

Good gracious! Have you been following this at all?



Hey. I don't care one way or the other. I am in this only to keep the record straight on what happened. Even Polycarp noted the bishops' problem--that it would, in effect, make bishops with jurisdiction not bishops with jurisdiction.. If that is their view, so be it. It makes sense. HOWEVER, LET'S BE FRANK AND SAY IT. TEC REJECTED THE PROPOSAL. TEC DID NOT AGREE TO WHAT WAS ASKED OF HER.

LET US NOT PRETEND THAT SHE AGREED TO IT.

DEPO was inaugurated in 2004. What TEC was confronting in 2007 was, obviously, a request to improve upon or amend it. DEPO was not seen as sufficient. So why on Earth, except for lack of information, would you be saying that the existence of DEPO means that TEC agreed to what was asked of her this year?! Her counter-offer was a rejection of what was asked, that's all.
For those of us without an in-depth knowledge of the situation, perhaps you could outline what was asked for, and then where exactly you feel what was offered falls short of that and why?

[ebia]

Aiyee...

Um... guys... I thought this was a thread about Australia's decision to allow for the consecration of women bishops...
That's true, but the issue of alternative oversight is going to come up here. I have a passing understanding of the 'flying bishop' system in England (having been active in a parish under Ebbsfleet's oversight), and would like to have a better understanding of what's going on in the US and how that compares - both in terms of what the 'conservatives' asked for, and what the heirachy has offered.

[norbie]

Just for the record, Northern Australia has for a long time now a 'flying Bishop' supported by BCA.

[PaladinValer]

I support the ordination of women as many of you know. However I must object to the mention of "Social Justice" in the OP. The ordination of Any person of any status must be based on the qualifications laid down in Scripture, not on Human standards of Justice. If I read in Scripture that people with Less than Ten Toes should not be ordained, I would follow it, and ask others to do so, no matter how unfair it seemed to me.

Unless of course the Anglican Church of Australia is somewhat like the Church of England, where the lines of church and state are not the same as they are here in the US.

[PaladinValer]

Albion, do some research into what I shared as proof the pre-existing bishop-sanctioned policy of pastoral oversight.

Chalice is correct: you are quite wrong.

[Albion]

That's true, but the issue of alternative oversight is going to come up here. I have a passing understanding of the 'flying bishop' system in England (having been active in a parish under Ebbsfleet's oversight), and would like to have a better understanding of what's going on in the US and how that compares - both in terms of what the 'conservatives' asked for, and what the heirachy has offered.

Hi. Well, I am almost out of ways to explain it, having explained in Posts 18, 26, 28, 31, 32, and 36 what the situation is. But let me know if there is some part of that which you would like restated or clarified.

In short, TEC offered Episcopal Visitors several years back, but with a number of limitations. As you know, when it can be taken back for any reason and at a moment's notice--as has happened--that isn't going to work very well. So TEC was asked, among other things, to allow real "flying bishops" (to use the familiar term). But last month when everyone was waiting for her answer, she merely reiterated the policy that had not worked, i.e. yes, we'll permit some of them BUT not for them to operate normally and in an ongoing fashion, which is the only way that a parish needing such oversight could possibly feel that they were gaining anything.

TEC and its supporters then began a campaign to say that she had indeed done all that was asked of them, so any unhappiness is the fault of those who asked for something and when they got it, still were not satisfied. The only problem with that is that she did not come across. These bishops were to still be allowed to serve only at the pleasure of the Bishop Ordinary.

This which I am going to say now is only a personal observation, but it reminds me of the promises made a few years ago that the Book of Common Prayer (1928) would be allowed for use, even after the new one was adopted. The promise was made as a general one, just like the matter with these bishops, but then almost no bishops allowed it except very occasionally and under circumstances that no parish could count on. So we might describe both of these cases as being permission by the national church for something to happen, but leaving it up to bishops to implement it, knowing that they, being opponents of the idea, don't have any intention of doing more than tokenism with it.

[ChaliceThunder]

Hi. Well, I am almost out of ways to explain it, having explained in Posts 18, 26, 28, 31, 32, and 36 what the situation is. But let me know if there is some part of that which you would like restated or clarified.

In short, TEC offered Episcopal Visitors several years back, but with a number of limitations. As you know, when it can be taken back for any reason and at a moment's notice--as has happened--that isn't going to work very well. So TEC was asked, among other things, to allow real "flying bishops" (to use the familiar term). But last month when everyone was waiting for her answer, she merely reiterated the policy that had not worked, i.e. yes, we'll permit some of them BUT not for them to operate normally and in an ongoing fashion, which is the only way that a parish needing such oversight could possibly feel that they were gaining anything.

TEC and its supporters then began a campaign to say that she had indeed done all that was asked of them, so any unhappiness is the fault of those who asked for something and when they got it, still were not satisfied. The only problem with that is that she did not come across. These bishops were to still be allowed to serve only at the pleasure of the Bishop Ordinary.

This which I am going to say now is only a personal observation, but it reminds me of the promises made a few years ago that the Book of Common Prayer (1928) would be allowed for use, even after the new one was adopted. The promise was made as a general one, just like the matter with these bishops, but then almost no bishops allowed it except very occasionally and under circumstances that no parish could count on. So we might describe both of these cases as being permission by the national church for something to happen, but leaving it up to bishops to implement it, knowing that they, being opponents of the idea, don't have any intention of doing more than tokenism with it.
Well this all just sounds like more "My way or the highway" talk.

[ContraMundum]

We've seen this all before. The promise of Episcopal oversight for continuing (aka traditional but remaining, not the Continuing bodies) Anglicans has never been carried through for any significant length of time or with any commitment to the continuity of the practice. The organisations that promise such support never truly deliver on it, and in the end, people leave in droves for other forms of Christianity.

I've seen it all before back in the late 80's early 90's in Australia- there's a lot of political movement behind the scenes in these things, and I've always seen it as the last hurrah/gasp of the ultra-liberals as their movements peters out. It's the parting shot, and as more moderate and conservative young people fill the seminaries the trend could reverse, but I think the damage is done.

Anyway, I'm not accusing people of being insincere in their intentions when they make such promises- but good intentions are not enough.

When will we work out that God's annointing on the ministries of the Church are clearly only in step with His word as understood by ancient ecumenical consensus?

[Finella]

It seems reasonable to me to discuss the whole alternative-episcopal-oversight thing here, but it seemed the thread was degenerating into nothing but TEC's issues and not relating to Australia -- so carry on...

[norbie]

It's maybe good to notice here that we in Australia also got our 'little problems', like women clergy in some diocese and some against it. But as fare as I can see and read in papers, it's still a very piecefull working together. I think our bigest problem would be to 'geting to liberal' to fill the church.
But what I am happy about is, even if we are called the Anglican Church of Australia, we are still very connected with the CofE and our Newcastle Bishop Roger was a chaplan for the Lambert Conference. So we are still part of England and this is good.

[ContraMundum]

It's maybe good to notice here that we in Australia also got our 'little problems', like women clergy in some diocese and some against it. But as fare as I can see and read in papers, it's still a very piecefull working together. I think our bigest problem would be to 'geting to liberal' to fill the church.
But what I am happy about is, even if we are called the Anglican Church of Australia, we are still very connected with the CofE and our Newcastle Bishop Roger was a chaplan for the Lambert Conference. So we are still part of England and this is good.

The connection with England is merely sentimental, not material. It might make you feel good, but that's the only real effect it has.

[karen freeinchristman]

The connection with England is merely sentimental, not material. It might make you feel good, but that's the only real effect it has.
If there is a connection of fellowship, it is more than sentimental. There may be connections you aren't aware of, too, Contra. You don't attend Norbie's church and your church isn't part of the AC. I do know from my family connection to the TEC that in their church, they do have a connection that is more than sentimental.

[ContraMundum]

If there is a connection of fellowship, it is more than sentimental. There may be connections you aren't aware of, too, Contra. You don't attend Norbie's church and your church isn't part of the AC. I do know from my family connection to the TEC that in their church, they do have a connection that is more than sentimental.


Oh, that's right- I forgot, England is the centre of the universe. How clumsy of me.

BTW- Continuers also have connections/fellowship with the ABC and other English Anglicans too- but there's varying degrees of what form that takes.

Anyway- up to you to make an issue of it. I really don't mind either way. I'll be doing things the way I always have this weekend, despite what others want to change for me.

[karen freeinchristman]

Oh, that's right- I forgot, England is the centre of the universe. How clumsy of me.Oh yeah, that's exactly what I meant. :doh:

BTW- Continuers also have connections/fellowship with the ABC and other English Anglicans too- but there's varying degrees of what form that takes.That's great. But I would never dream of calling those connections purely sentimental. The point of my post was that I found your post very patronising to Norbie. I would not presume to qualify the connection that Continuers may have with the ABC or other English Anglicans.

Anyway- up to you to make an issue of it. I really don't mind either way. I'll be doing things the way I always have this weekend, despite what others want to change for me.
:scratch:

[ContraMundum]

That's great. But I would never dream of calling those connections purely sentimental. The point of my post was that I found your post very patronising to Norbie. I would not presume to qualify the connection that Continuers may have with the ABC or other English Anglicans.


:scratch:

Karen,

I really couldn't care less how you found my post, ok? It wasn't intended to be patronizing, just making a clarification. I respect norbie a lot more than you might think. I think you read what you wanted into it, but then again, does it matter?

[higgs2]

Karen,

I really couldn't care less how you found my post, ok?

Um.

[ContraMundum]

Funny how Karen can make a false insinuation about me, but when I reply in kind I get silly comments from some people and reported by the usual serial pontificator.

You people are so infuriating sometimes.

[higgs2]

You may or may not find me to be a hypocrite, but please would you edit your comment.

[haulpak]

We've seen this all before. The promise of Episcopal oversight for continuing (aka traditional but remaining, not the Continuing bodies) Anglicans has never been carried through for any significant length of time or with any commitment to the continuity of the practice. The organisations that promise such support never truly deliver on it, and in the end, people leave in droves for other forms of Christianity.

So your saying there was a 'promise' of Episcopal oversight.... did it vaporise????

Was the alleged 'promise' in writing? Was there a documented understanding or agreement? If so, where is it????

Maybe your confusing a 'promise' with an undertaking. Or perhaps even grasping at straws and drawing that conclusion as if it justifies the departure!!

[*Edit*] It is my belief that the resulting action came at the cost of Unity. I find it difficult to understand the lack of impatience which preceeded it and the inability to work through a solution that would have prevented a split.

There was an adequate framework already in place and the election of Parishes to be 'Forward in Faith' Parishes was sufficient to enable people of that faith persuasion to retain their 'Anglican' identity.

The TAC have NO right to "Rent" Anglicanism or to proclaim that they are 'continuers'. Why not be honest and just call them 'Separatists'.

That they chose to separate from the Anglican Communion is more a reflection on themselves rather than a detraction from mission and faithfulness of the Anglican Church in Australia, its Ministers and parishioners.

Your right about the 'damage', Separatists tend to do that and disregard the consequences of their actions. Call it 'collateral damage'.

[haulpak]

Contra you say that England isnt the centre of the universe.

Wouldn't you agree that unity is better than division?

[haulpak]

Just because the way is now open for Women Bishops to be elected does not mean that it will be so.

There is still the matter of nominations and the actual 'election'.

[norbie]

I like to inform you, that we have some very highly educated and young woman canon in the Newcastle Diocese, example Cessnock, Archdeacon of the Upper Hunter and so on.
There will always be someone against it, but I started this thread for the great joy that our church has found a way forwarts in this century.

[ebia]

Hi. Well, I am almost out of ways to explain it, having explained in Posts 18, 26, 28, 31, 32, and 36 what the situation is. But let me know if there is some part of that which you would like restated or clarified.

In short, TEC offered Episcopal Visitors several years back, but with a number of limitations. As you know, when it can be taken back for any reason and at a moment's notice--as has happened--that isn't going to work very well. So TEC was asked, among other things, to allow real "flying bishops" (to use the familiar term). But last month when everyone was waiting for her answer, she merely reiterated the policy that had not worked, i.e. yes, we'll permit some of them BUT not for them to operate normally and in an ongoing fashion, which is the only way that a parish needing such oversight could possibly feel that they were gaining anything.

TEC and its supporters then began a campaign to say that she had indeed done all that was asked of them, so any unhappiness is the fault of those who asked for something and when they got it, still were not satisfied. The only problem with that is that she did not come across. These bishops were to still be allowed to serve only at the pleasure of the Bishop Ordinary.

This which I am going to say now is only a personal observation, but it reminds me of the promises made a few years ago that the Book of Common Prayer (1928) would be allowed for use, even after the new one was adopted. The promise was made as a general one, just like the matter with these bishops, but then almost no bishops allowed it except very occasionally and under circumstances that no parish could count on. So we might describe both of these cases as being permission by the national church for something to happen, but leaving it up to bishops to implement it, knowing that they, being opponents of the idea, don't have any intention of doing more than tokenism with it.
Thanks.

Of course there are restrictions on the operation of PEVs, aka 'flying bishops', in England, but the system does seem to work as well as one could expect. It does rely on a degree of cooperation between the Ordinary, the PEV, and the Parish though - I imagine that if you had an Ordinary determined not to work with the system it wouldn't work at all.

[ContraMundum]

Contra you say that England isnt the centre of the universe.

Wouldn't you agree that unity is better than division?

No, of course not. Unity is vital to the Church, but its basis is purely and strictly on contending for the "faith once delivered" (Jude 3).

When people change the faith, even with good intentions, the Blessed Apostle St Paul, under inspiration from a God that cannot lie, commands us to seperate from them. (Titus 3:10, Rom 16:17).

So, according to the sacred scriptures, if one chooses another path (which is the definition of heresy), we are commanded to admonish them more than once (which traditional Anglicans, the Church of Rome, the Eastern Orthodox, the various conservative Protestant bodies all have done) and if they do not repent we are mark them and avoid them and seperate from them.

In other words, the right thing to do according to God is to seperate rather than sell out on God's revealed truth for the sake of a false unity.

Remember: unless two are agreed they cannot walk together (Amos 3:3). The unity the new religionists seek is merely a pretend unity. Better to be honest before God and faithful to His word than try to act like there is unity.

[ContraMundum]

I like to inform you, that we have some very highly educated and young woman canon in the Newcastle Diocese, example Cessnock, Archdeacon of the Upper Hunter and so on.
There will always be someone against it, but I started this thread for the great joy that our church has found a way forwarts in this century.


Women can and should have vital, effective and powerful ministries that harness their God-given talents and spiritual gifts. This is why continuing churches are reviving the lay order of deaconess, sadly done away with in times past. These grace-filled women can have far more powerful and wide-reaching minstries than mere parish presbyters and diocesan bishops.

And additionally, for women with the gift of celibacy, continuers are making available the ministry of monastic life for them- and again, this can be more effective by far than mere ordained clerics. (Consider Mother Theresa in our time.)

[Finella]

Contra, I'm sure you're aware that monastic life is available for women members of TEC as well. Some may also be ordained, but they need not be to enter into that calling. Just adding this as your post seemed to imply that this option is only available to "continuers".

[Albion]

Contra, I'm sure you're aware that monastic life is available for women members of TEC as well. Some may also be ordained, but they need not be to enter into that calling. Just adding this as your post seemed to imply that this option is only available to "continuers".

I've got to say that I didn't find any implication like that in his post, just a response to the erroneous idea that Continuing Anglicans might be disinterested in women in the life of the Church merely because they do not ordain them to the ranks of deacons, priests, or bishops.

I'd guess that we all know that there are nuns and sisters in ECUSA, but BTW also, I think if we compare, we find that the Continuing Churches have been more active in promoting such vocations for women.

[ContraMundum]

Contra, I'm sure you're aware that monastic life is available for women members of TEC as well. Some may also be ordained, but they need not be to enter into that calling. Just adding this as your post seemed to imply that this option is only available to "continuers".

I've got to say that I didn't find any implication like that in his post, just a response to the erroneous idea that Continuing Anglicans might be disinterested in women in the life of the Church merely because they do not ordain them to the ranks of deacons, priests, or bishops.

I'd guess that we all know that there are nuns and sisters in ECUSA, but BTW also, I think if we compare, we find that the Continuing Churches have been more active in promoting such vocations for women.

You're both right.