Breaking II: More on ACI/Communion partners scheme

Updated at 10:10AM: Simon Sarmiento has a second post showing how those behind the scheme see it relation to Bishop Duncan’s legal wrangle in Pittsburgh. After quoting from the email exchanges amongst the parties Sarmiento concludes: “So it is not entirely clear to me how far the CP members are distancing themselves from those who have left TEC for ACNA.”


This March 12th statement from the Anglican Communion Institute, signed by The Rt. Reverend D. Bruce MacPherson (Communion Partner Bishops) and by members of ACI, concerns how ACI’s view of Episcopal Church polity applies to the case in Pittsburgh.

—–Original post below——

Just under two hours ago The Lead posted news broken by Mark Harris on the preparation of a document by the Anglican Communion Institute that will argue dioceses of the Episcopal Church are free to secede.

Simon Sarmiento at Thinking Anglicans now has more: Communion Partners forge ahead. In his post, Sarmiento gives links to the Communion Partners, recent ACI statements, and links on the recent ACI/CP conference in Houston.

Like Harris, he provides email quotations amongst the players. Sarmiento focuses on a discussion. In his words

The CP bishops and ACI also plan to press ahead with a plan for a priest in Colorado, named as The Revd. Theron Walker, Rector of St Philip In the Field, Sedalia, to request a visitation from the Bishop of South Carolina, as a CP Bishop.

In February Walker wrote The Property Rights and Responsibilities of an Episcopal Parish; see also this and this.

Stay tuned.

Posted by
Category : The Lead

Comment Policy
Our comment policy requires that you use your real first and last names and provide an email address (your email will not be published). Comments that use non-PG rated language, include personal attacks, that are not provable as fact or that we deem in any way to to be counter to our mission of fostering respectful dialogue will not be posted. We also ask that you limit your comments to no more than four comments per story per day.

One Comment
  1. Michael Russell

    Is anyone surprised? This backdoor was widely discussed here and elsewhere when the Ridley draft was released. Are we surprised that Dr. Radner, having written in a back door should also now how a plan with his ACI/CP colleagues to sew further havoc in TEC?

    TEC should resume its seat on the ACC if it already hasn’t in order to be sure that this backdoor is removed and that the final statement is about discussion and revision of the Ridley draft not adoption and implementation.

    Remember that Dr. Radner thinks it is implemented when two churches sign on. His position highlights the silliness these folks have devolved into as they abandon all notions of a process that leads to Province by Province acceptance.

Comments are closed.