Anglican Communion Primates Release Statement on Meeting

  • Thread starter Thread starter Aslan10
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Some further thoughts on the ACNA’s status.

The topic was not addressed formally in the meetings. Did it need to be? Archbishop Beach’s full participation status and full voting rights at this gathering may effectively close the topic. I don’t know how you walk that back. What else is really needed for full recognition? It’s already recognized by the vast majority of provinces.

From a Facebook comment that I will leave anonymous:
The ABC has recognized ACNA in the participation of our AB. You cannot get any more recognition than that from the ABC. The ACC will have to do the recognition process if ACNA so applies. Same with the CoE. The ABC does not act outside his sphere. The colonies have all opined on that…
Click to expand...
 
“The ACC will have to do the recognition process if ACNA so applies. Same with the CoE. The ABC does not act outside his sphere. The colonies have all opined on that.”

Interesting. I’d like to know what the above quote actually means. Also, where does the “only one rep from each province” rule come into play?
 
theropod said:
Some further thoughts on the ACNA’s status.

The topic was not addressed formally in the meetings. Did it need to be? Archbishop Beach’s full participation status and full voting rights at this gathering may effectively close the topic. I don’t know how you walk that back. What else is really needed for full recognition? It’s already recognized by the vast majority of provinces.

From a Facebook comment that I will leave anonymous:
Click to expand...
It will require a formal majority vote of the Communion Primates, to accept the ACNA and reject TEC, as the Communion member for the area (the US, basically).
 
GKC said:
It will require a formal majority vote of the Communion Primates, to accept the ACNA and reject TEC, as the Communion member for the area (the US, basically).
Click to expand...
So that can only be done with another primates meeting? Boy, that would cause a stir…
 
I don’t know if the rest of those on hear who claim “anglican” know who Giles Fraser is, but he is quite unhappy at the Primates on twitter. The polarization within the communion on SSM is incredible. It’s mad how two sides can see things so differently and yet claim Christ…

I know I’m beating a dead horse, but it’s interesting, I guess.
 
Aslan10 said:
I don’t know if the rest of those on hear who claim “anglican” know who Giles Fraser is, but he is quite unhappy at the Primates on twitter. The polarization within the communion on SSM is incredible. It’s mad how two sides can see things so differently and yet claim Christ…

I know I’m beating a dead horse, but it’s interesting, I guess.
Click to expand...
One might use that word, yes.
 
Aslan10 said:
I don’t know if the rest of those on hear who claim “anglican” know who Giles Fraser is, but he is quite unhappy at the Primates on twitter. The polarization within the communion on SSM is incredible.** It’s mad how two sides can see things so differently and yet claim Christ…**

I know I’m beating a dead horse, but it’s interesting, I guess.
Click to expand...
Not sure why having a difference of opinion is all that surprising. Christians have been having differences of opinion on all sorts of matters from some of the very earliest Councils and have continued to have disagreements over one matter or another for almost 2000 years. Everyone still claims Christ.
 
theropod said:
I think TEC’s unrepentance is a given. I think in 3 years, TEC is excommunicated, but I think they will leave before that happens. Either way, ACNA is the new representative to the Communion from the US. Being given a full voice and full voting privileges for the entire gathering can only send one signal.
Click to expand...
Maybe, maybe not. A lot can change in 3 years. ACinC and the COE may have opened their rules up as much as the TEC has done by that time. In which case the African provinces may have broken away themselves by then. The possibilities really do abound.
 
GKC said:
It will require a formal majority vote of the Communion Primates, to accept the ACNA and reject TEC, as the Communion member for the area (the US, basically).
Click to expand...
Not sure about that: I don’t think the Primates Meeting has any constitutional powers. I think the decision on membership rests on the ACC. Although even that is unsure, since the Archbishop of Canterbury still, I think, determines who is invited to Lambeth.
 
Picky_Picky said:
Not sure about that: I don’t think the Primates Meeting has any constitutional powers. I think the decision on membership rests on the ACC. Although even that is unsure, since the Archbishop of Canterbury still, I think, determines who is invited to Lambeth.
Click to expand...
Yes, as to the latter.

But the membership of the Communion is based on the vote of the Communion, by Province.

I don’t know of anything the ACC does that is not, in essence, advisory.

But we are stretching my knowledge.
 
GKC said:
Yes, as to the latter.

But the membership of the Communion is based on the vote of the Communion, by Province.

I don’t know of anything the ACC does that is not, in essence, advisory.

But we are stretching my knowledge.
Click to expand...
Apologies, and I withdraw my comment. Can it be that the motley arrangements of Anglicandom have confused me? Oh yes it can.

I thought the Primates’ statement about membership confirmed what I remember the archbishops of England advising General Synod in 2011, and that that advice put the power in the hands of the ACC. And I opened my mouth without checking.

The Primates said an application for membership was the business of ACC. The archbishops said membership (of the ACC) required a decision of the ACC standing committee, with the agreement of two thirds of the Primates (while attendance at the Lambeth Conference remained a matter for Cantuar).

So it looks to me as though (and I wish I had checked before rabbiting on as if I knew what I was talking about) an application for membership of the ACC must originate with the ACC but requires, as you say, the OK of two thirds of the Primates. Lambeth is a different matter.
 
Picky_Picky said:
Apologies, and I withdraw my comment. Can it be that the motley arrangements of Anglicandom have confused me? Oh yes it can.

I thought the Primates’ statement about membership confirmed what I remember the archbishops of England advising General Synod in 2011, and that that advice put the power in the hands of the ACC. And I opened my mouth without checking.

The Primates said an application for membership was the business of ACC. The archbishops said membership (of the ACC) required a decision of the ACC standing committee, with the agreement of two thirds of the Primates (while attendance at the Lambeth Conference remained a matter for Cantuar).

So it looks to me as though (and I wish I had checked before rabbiting on as if I knew what I was talking about) an application for membership of the ACC must originate with the ACC but requires, as you say, the OK of two thirds of the Primates. Lambeth is a different matter.
Click to expand...
The last para is basically what I had thought.

But I was skating on thin ice and vague memory for part of it. The vote, and the invites originating with Cantuar were the only firm points I had.

I often sound more sure of stuff than I should, myself. In spite of all the books. And folks add to my knowledge, regularly, as much as does the turning of the pages. For which I thank them, and you.
 
Aslan10 said:
I’m not sure. Again, we’ll have to see. But what makes you say Anglicanism has “2 theologies” and what are those 2?
Click to expand...
Sorry about the late response. One Biblical and one non-Biblical.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top