Comments on: The Diocese of Athabasca Synod declares itself in Communion with ANiC and the Southern Cone

By: Gerry O'Brien

Gerry O'Brien — Tue, 06 May 2008 15:59:35 +0000

#38 John B. Cameron

Well said John, if they can’t understand your words, time to go back to grade four.

By: John B. Cameron

John B. Cameron — Sun, 04 May 2008 21:59:29 +0000

I am very pleased to see the Diocese of Athabasca declare itself in communion with the Anglican Network in Canada and that of the Southern Cone. I would like to see the the Diocese of Niagara and its bishop do the same and for the same reasons rather than resort to Civil Court. I have no trouble with court if that is the way Niagara and its bishop wish to go, so be it. This statement goes for the other diocese and bishops who are in conflict with their parishes and lay people. Lay people who pay the freight must stand up to the bishops, who do not stand up for the truth as expressed in the Solemn Declaration and make them accountable for what they say and do. This is of utmost importance in this time of realingement and or split. It is not unity at any cost; it would be compromise.

I would like to see another motion passed by the Diocese of Athabasca declaring itself a Network Diocese and that it is not in communion with the Anglican Church of Canada other through the association of the Southern Cone and its Primate.
In this cisis, one must be concise. Either you are in or you are out.
This would make it easier for all concerned.

By: Warren

Warren — Fri, 02 May 2008 23:05:04 +0000

I messed that up well. Back to basics:

http://www.paulgraham.com/disagree.html

By: Warren

Warren — Fri, 02 May 2008 23:03:49 +0000

I guess I need to brush up on my html tags. Click on “This is a hyperlink” in #35.

By: Warren

Warren — Fri, 02 May 2008 23:02:30 +0000

And you’ve joined the group at the This is a hyperlink“>very lowest level. Perhaps you’ll work your way up with time and maturity.

By: Asher

Asher — Fri, 02 May 2008 22:40:11 +0000

This blog is simply an exercise in group (deleted for obscenity – ed)

By: Rev

Rev — Thu, 01 May 2008 21:58:01 +0000

Kate, obviously, in the particular, one would be in contact with the local bishop beforehand. I was actually thinking on a more general scale about how one, or one’s congregation, would ‘register’ with the wider church. So my earlier question still stands.

By: Kate

Kate — Thu, 01 May 2008 18:14:39 +0000

Rev, I don’t have an answer to your question. I would suggest getting in touch with +Don or +Malcolm, or better yet, the bishop of the place you will be visiting, and ask.

By: Peter

Peter — Thu, 01 May 2008 17:01:00 +0000

It would be better if it wasn’t so, eh ‘Rev’ ? However it’s hard to avoid particularly now when ANiC has formally seperated from ACoC. I think that it’ll all come out in the wash eventually though. Either Fed will see the writing on the wall, or ANiC will no longer be necessary. In the meantime, we can certainly maintain fellowship amongst ourselves.

By: Rev

Rev — Thu, 01 May 2008 14:25:29 +0000

Thank you Kate, I am already an Essentials member, although I’ve never really been able to cope with the split into the two camps.
My question is; whether or not simple membership in Essentials is recognized by those with whom we wish to remain in communion elsewhere in the world as a sufficient way of distancing oneself from the ‘revisionist’ direction of the ACoC?
Example: Assuming the AcoC continues on its present course and ends up ‘out of communion’ with an area such as the West Indies under ++Gomez. If I went to visit friends in the W.I., and offered to help them in their multi point parish, would being a member of Essentials be sufficient credentials?
If that is the case then maybe the profile of Essentials might be raised to advertise that fact, or other suggestions made.