One issue I don't think has really gotten enough conversation has been just whom the Primatial Vicar would be vicar for - for whose presence and authority is the Primatial Vicar "vicarious." The previous and present Presiding Bishops presented a model in which it was clear the person would be Vicar of the Presiding Bishop and Primate. Most understand that the Tanzania Communique presented a position that would be Vicar to the Pastoral Council (at best) or to the Primates' Meeting (at worst; although I think the language of the Communique is actually somewhat ambiguous). One suggestion, that of a Commissary, would create a position that was Vicar to Canterbury.

I think the differences make a difference, regarding what plan might be acceptable to whom. I think this is a place where the "APO group" among the Network dioceses differ from the majority of the "Windsor bishops."

The recent renewal of interest in the 2003 "Chapman Memo" (http://www.thinkinganglicans.org.uk/ss/archives/000405.html) has led to a growing realization that this current controversy is the direct result of a campaign by a few on the far right to create 'a “replacement” jurisdiction with confessional standards.'

The "Pastoral Council" scheme would do just that -- create a parallel jurisdiction answerable to the AC primates, with only the weakest of links to TEC. It is not surprising that the group addressed by the Chapman Memo should now be doing everything in their power to effect implementation of the Pastoral Council. It is exactly what they were always after. +KJS'original proposal, in contrast, would have created a Primatial Vicar directly responsible to the PB (and thus clearly within the jurisdiction of TEC), which is why it was never acceptable to the far right.

To attempt to impose the Pastoral Council scheme without the acquiesence of General Convention would be the most egregious example yet of the very kind of boundary violations that the ABC claims to want to prevent.

The only possible power that the primates could exercise would be to restrict or perhaps terminate the membership of TEC in the Anglican Communion. They have absolutely no legal standing to force TEC to do anything in terms of its own structure and policies.

Richard, I hear what you are saying. My point is that even if one wants to claim that the Primates have the authority to try to impose some sort of solution on behalf of the Communion, one cannot argue that they have yet decided to do so.

That's true and politically it's an important point. I'm inclined to doubt that there would be any kind of consensus in the primates group as to the desirability of taking action against TEC in terms of its membership in the AC, which is something that they might have the power to do.

However, that is all they could possibly do. Deciding or not deciding to do something that you can't do is pretty meaningless.

Jim -

I saw nothing in your article which indicated which commentators were wishing for such an imposition and where such wishes could be found in written form. Can you help?

RR

RR- You may find some of what you are looking for at Stand Firm. The comments under "No Time For Surrender"

C.B.

I just and read the comments at Stand Firm. What it sounds to me as though they are talking about is the primates setting up a structure for the conservative dissidents that is outside TEC. That is something they could do. However, to me that would not be the same thing as imposing the structure on TEC. Thi idea sounds like an all new and improved CANA.

Radner has a new missive up on T19. In it he argues, at length as usual, that the Primates' envisioned this possibility. He calls on 'Communion"-minded bishops to nominate their folks for PV and then the scheme should simply be imposed.

So, sadly, there are those out there who do believe and call for just such an imposition.

Radner, et al., continue to believe that the centralized polity they wished governed the Anglican Communion were already in place. Perhaps one day it will be. Then, I predict, the "No," from both houses of General Convention will even be louder than the one we heard from Camp Allen. Why this need for control?
As Chrysostom once observed, "The desire to rule is the mother of all heresies."

RR- Stand firm has a new comment thread dealing with the Radner missive. There it is clear that many are looking for the ABC/Primates to go forward with imposing an extra Primatial structure.