Comments: Bishop Katharine in Cuba

I am shocked to hear that the eucharist will not be celebrated by the primates en group. This shows how far this childishness has gone among them. I'm sure many will say 'their' own daily mass, but that's hardly the same.
I think we must reckon Donald Coggan's innovation to have been more trouble than it 's worth. Let them stop meeting forthwith.

INSTEAD, Let's have meetings of represetative (yet ordinary ?) people including members similar to the ACC. The ACC seems to have been pretty democratic, creative and not at all bad !

They should each be give a card at Dar saying,

'YOU are NOT cardinals
this is NOT a Curia.
You are NOT infallible.
STOP behaving like drama queens (if poss)'

SO now-- over to the Anglican Consultative Council to sort this mess out .

Perhaps the ACC's first item could be :-

1. Job description & accountability of primates and bishops...

Posted by seeker at Sunday, 11 February 2007 at 1:14am GMT

If there is to be no eucharist at which all are welcome there is no communion. Period. End of discussion. No Lambeth Conference, at least not one at which all Anglican bishops will be welcomed by the Archbishop of Canterbury. If everyone invited is not willing to stand at the table with all the others, then what's the point? From this death new life can come. Let's look forward to that, and say good-bye to the dead hand of traditional religiosity.

Posted by Rodney at Sunday, 11 February 2007 at 12:13pm GMT

Well, I've been saying for a long time now that the 18 absentees from the Dromantine Eucharist are likely to indicate the basic fault line of the schism -- the World Wide Anglican Communion essentially ended at Dromantine when certain "Global South" bishops refused to participate in the celebration presided over by the ABC himself.

Someone asked me to come up with one good thing that has resulted from the Primates' Meetings since ++Donald thought it up -- in all honesty, I couldn't think of a single thing.

I am so impressed by our PB -- it is great blessing that we have her (I may have already said that here, but I think it worth repeating. Of course we have had gay clergy for ages -- we just insisted that they stay (more or less) in the closet. Lord Carey & his successor have both admitted to ordaining gays to the priesthood (& I have been told by someone at the ACO that they have ordained them to the episcopate as well, even if they have not admitted it).

Posted by Prior Aelred at Sunday, 11 February 2007 at 3:25pm GMT

With regard to Prior Aelred's observation, there was one well-known (and much-loved) bishop who separated from his partner when he was called to the purple.

Whether that was requested of him as a precondition of his consecration, who can say - but those who knew him in his former existence have no doubts about his orientation. His identity is known to those who know, and those who do not know do not need to know, but he certainly passed the 'by their fruits...' test with flying colours.

Posted by mynsterpreost (=David Rowett) at Sunday, 11 February 2007 at 5:59pm GMT

David - doesn't it speak volumes, though, about anyone, that they are prepared to leave their partner for a job??

No wonder the church is seen as so weird. That's just not a priority centred in any sort of humanity. The only people who would do such a thing are just not , in my view, emotionally well balanced.

Posted by Merseymike at Monday, 12 February 2007 at 9:31am GMT

Well, MM, it's not a deal I'd have considered, and a lot of folk were deeply pained by it and the message it gave. The oddest thing is that the positions he occupied before he was elevated were in many ways MORE elevated than the place he went after consecration!

Posted by mynsterpreost (=David Rowett) at Monday, 12 February 2007 at 2:53pm GMT

"David - doesn't it speak volumes, though, about anyone, that they are prepared to leave their partner for a job??"

The fact that you consider the Episcopate as nothing more than a "job" says an awful lot about you, Mike. You seem to have a very different vocabulary. What IS the Church, as you define it?

Posted by Ford Elms at Wednesday, 14 February 2007 at 11:28am GMT
Post a comment

Remember personal info?

Please note that comments are limited to 400 words. Comments that are longer than 400 words will not be approved.

Cookies are used to remember your personal information between visits to the site. This information is stored on your computer and used to refill the text boxes on your next visit. Any cookie is deleted if you select 'No'. By ticking 'Yes' you agree to this use of a cookie by this site. No third-party cookies are used, and cookies are not used for analytical, advertising, or other purposes.