ACC Standing Committee further discusses breach of moratoria
In the fourth and final day of its meeting the Standing Committee of the Anglican Consultative Council revisited the subject of breach of moratoria, among other subjects.
From the ACNS report for Day 4:
Further discussion on moratoria breachAs agreed, the Committee revisited Saturday's discussion. Dato' Stanley Isaacs delivered a frank and passionate presentation about the distress felt by some parts of the Communion about The Episcopal Church's decision to breach one of the moratoria. He concluded by proposing that rights to participate in discussions of matters of faith and order at the Standing Committee and the ACC be withdrawn from The Episcopal Church.
In the subsequent discussion Archbishop Philip Aspinall reiterated that the Standing Committee did not have the power to undertake such an action. He reminded the Committee that the Covenant had been drawn up to address just these kinds of points of disagreement. It was also stated that the Standing Committee did not have all the powers of the ACC, especially when it came to the Membership Schedule.
Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori questioned why the proposal was singling out The Episcopal Church. Bishop Ian Douglas stressed he was present in his role as an elected representative of the ACC, not a member of The Episcopal Church and he desired to always be responsible to the Council. He thanked Dato' Stanley Isaacs for attending the Standing Committee meeting despite his [Isaacs'] feelings about recent events in the Communion. He said that having other elected representatives present who represented a genuine segment of the ACC helped him [Bp Douglas] to be a better member. He added that he missed having Bp Azad's voice at the meeting.
Dr Tony Fitchett agreed that the Committee needed as full a range of views as possible. "I'm conscious I'm not here representing my province," he said. "I'm here because I was appointed by the ACC. My accountability is not to my Province. I expect to continue to serve on the [Standing Committee] even if my Province were ever to be unacceptable to other churches because of its actions."
After what Canon Elizabeth Paver described as "the time, prayer and space necessary for everyone to be heard on this matter" the Standing Committee agreed a resolution that it: "regrets ongoing breaches of the three moratoria that continue to strain the life of the Anglican Communion; regrets the consequential resignations of members of the Standing Committee which diminish our common life and work on behalf of the ACC and the Primates' Meeting; recognises that the ACC and the Primates' Meeting are the appropriate bodies to consider these matters further."It's all here in the ACNS Day 4 Bulletin. Other topics of interest included ecumenical dialog, and SC communications. The ACNS Day 3 bulletin was also issued; topics covered include the Covenant, and related matters.
I think that +Ian makes a valid point. When the ACC is in session, he represents his province, TEC, in the work of the ACC, however he was further elected by the ACC to sit on the Standing Committee and at that point, when he is in session with the Standing Committee, he represents the whole ACC to the Standing Committee.
But, I further think that Dr Fitchett is in error. As I read the new Constitution of the ACC, he is eligible for the ACC to elect him to represent the ACC on the Standing Committee by the fact that his province, the Anglican Church in Aotearoa, New Zealand and Polynesia, is a scheduled member of the ACC and has sent him as one of its representatives to the ACC. Should his province cease to be a member of the ACC, he would no longer be a representative of his province to the ACC and no longer eligible to be elected by the ACC to represent the ACC on the Standing Committee.
I am happy to see that Orthodites are still Orthodites and member to Standing Committee Dato' Stanley Isaacs is constantly on the prowl to punish and terminate discussion. So much for Orthodite fondness for the Windsor Report.
Posted by Däˈvēd Äyān | David Allen![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.episcopalcafe.com/lead/nav-commenters.gif)
|
July 28, 2010 6:40 PM
Dato' Stanley Isaacs delivered a frank and passionate presentation about the distress felt by some parts of the Communion about The Episcopal Church's decision to breach one of the moratoria. He concluded by proposing that rights to participate in discussions of matters of faith and order at the Standing Committee and the ACC be withdrawn from The Episcopal Church.
When one reads language like this, it's almost possible to forget the source of this "distress": the joy-filled ordination of Mary Glasspool, by and for the Episcopalians of Los Angeles.
I just have to ask re Dato' Stanley Isaacs (et al): what is WRONG w/ these people???
JC Fisher
Posted by tgflux![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.episcopalcafe.com/lead/nav-commenters.gif)
|
July 28, 2010 8:08 PM