tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-525452176832188713.post7750539798752398766..comments2023-09-19T11:04:46.082-04:00Comments on Anglican Musings: A question for the GAFCon primates and the CCPA Musing Anglicanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17716925974068272479noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-525452176832188713.post-81383416968768791222008-07-25T14:54:00.000-04:002008-07-25T14:54:00.000-04:00One thing's for sure. If Duncan is head of a new ...One thing's for sure. If Duncan is head of a new province and his diocese has not left by that time, it would be disasterously confused. If that was your initial point, I am in full agreement.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-525452176832188713.post-63186842042104780892008-07-25T13:53:00.000-04:002008-07-25T13:53:00.000-04:00"That Duncan is still in TEC is a matter of timing..."That Duncan is still in TEC is a matter of timing, not theology"<BR/><BR/>That's certainly understandable. And while GAFCon is issuing its documents and making its plans, it's no surprise that there are some ambiguities during a period of transition.<BR/><BR/>However it seems to me that if they want people to take their statements of principles seriously (indeed, if they're going to take them seriously itself), then when they <I>start taking jurisdictionl action</I> they need to abide by their own rules.<BR/><BR/>Sure, lots of PEcUSA members were at GAFCon. No biggie. But it seems to me that any one who wants to <I>officially join</I> the new GAFCon alliance (be it by individual, diocese or province) ought to be <I>required</I> to break off communion with the apostates, as the Declaration of Jerusalem envisions.<BR/><BR/>And this goes doubly so for its leadership.<BR/><BR/><BR/>If a new provincial structure is formed (whether or not it is recognized by Canterbury) with +Duncan as its primate <I>before</I> he has officially left PEcUSA and its HoB, then I think the whole movement will lose a lot of theological and ecclesiastical credibility.A Musing Anglicanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17716925974068272479noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-525452176832188713.post-876544530444520672008-07-25T13:46:00.000-04:002008-07-25T13:46:00.000-04:00Congrats on your new blog.This post makes very log...Congrats on your new blog.<BR/><BR/>This post makes very logical sense. But, to give GAFCON the benefit of the doubt, it seems you are using a juridical argument for what is essentially a movement within Anglicanism, a movement which has no juridical force as of yet. <BR/><BR/>From the GAFCON POV, I would think Duncan is taking a specific seat in a movement which is becoming a juridical reality. Many in this movement, even the majority of the CCP are still in TEC. That Duncan is still in TEC is a matter of timing, not theology.<BR/><BR/>From the AC POV, I would think, GAFCON is a movement absolutely without juridical standing, so Duncan's participation in this non-recognized entity is officially inconsequential.<BR/><BR/>If GAFCON really wants to become a juridical reality in its own right and not just a movement, it ought to at least come up with a name for itself and a head.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-525452176832188713.post-67784131015923472982008-07-25T12:57:00.000-04:002008-07-25T12:57:00.000-04:00Welcome to the blogosphere! I wish you success in ...Welcome to the blogosphere! I wish you success in this newly launched blog.Alice C. Linsleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13069827354696169270noreply@blogger.com