Several Questions were put down for answers at Question Time last Friday relating to the Anglican Church in North America. Only one of them was reached during the session, but the written answers prepared for the others were issued afterwards (and are reproduced below the fold).
Question 40.
Ms Susan Cooper (London) to ask the Chairman of the Faith and Order Commission:
Q. Father Thomas Seville CR, ‘of the Faith and Order Commission of the Church of England’ was welcomed as a ‘participant and observer’ at the Provincial Council 2011 of the Anglican Church of North America in Long Beach, California. What was the status of his attendance from the point of view of the Faith and Order Commission?
The Bishop of Chichester to reply as Chairman of the Faith and Order Commission:
A. Fr Seville attended the ACNA Provincial Council as an observer at my request following a resolution of the General Synod in February 2010.
The Archbishop of Canterbury had subsequently highlighted certain questions on which he and the Archbishop of York would value the thinking of the Faith and Order Commission in preparing the requested report.
As Fr Seville is one of the two members of the Faith and Order Commission most closely associated with its work on “continuing churches” in the light of a resolution of the 1998 Lambeth Conference, he attended as an observer on behalf of and reporting to the Commission in order to assist our work in advising the Archbishops.
Supplementary Question by Ms Cooper:
Would the bishop clarify how the visit… was funded?
A. It was entirely funded by the Anglican Church in North America.
Question 75.
The Revd Stephen Pratt (Lichfield) to ask the Chairman of the House of Bishopss:
Q. What steps are being taken by the House to enable the Archbishops to respond to the resolution passed by the Synod in February 2010 on a motion moved by Mrs Lorna Ashworth in relation to the Anglican Church in North America, given that the Archbishops’ report requested in that resolution is due this year and there may not be a Group of Sessions in November.
Questions 76.
Mr Clive Scowen (London) to ask the Chairman of the House of Bishops:
Q. What steps has the House taken or will it now take to enable and encourage the Archbishops to respond to the Synod’s invitation, in a resolution passed on Wednesday 10 February 2010, “to report further to the Synod in 2011” in relation to the desire and aspiration of those who have formed the Anglican Church in North America to remain within the Anglican family and to the necessary further exploration by the relevant authorities of the issues raised by that aspiration, in respect both of relations with the Church of England and membership of the Anglican Communion.
The Bishop of Chichester to reply:
A. With the permission of the Chair I should like to answer this question and a similar one from Mr Clive Scowen together.
As indicated in my earlier reply to a question from Ms Susan Cooper, the Faith and Order Commission is undertaking work on behalf of the Archbishop of Canterbury on the Faith and Order aspects of any development of relations between the Church of England and ACNA. This work will help to resource a report from the Archbishops to members of Synod that will be sent out before the end of the year.
So, while Fr. Seville went as an observer for the Faith and Order Commission, sent by the Chair of the Faith and Order Commission – but his expenses were paid by ACNA. That may mean much or little, but it means something – all behavior has meaning (even if not all meanings are cosmic).
“Supplementary Question by Ms Cooper:
Would the bishop clarify how the visit… was funded?
A. It was entirely funded by the Anglican Church in North America.”
Holy cra…ss!
Got that, CofEers? “Bloody American” schismatics are trying to BUY their way into the Anglican Communion…even as they are in cahoots w/ the very same people (their AMIEs, nez pas?) who are trying to dismember YOUR church!
“If you’re not outraged, you’re not paying attention”
There actually isn’t any legal entity known as North America.
There’s Canada, and the United States, and Mexico; all three are separate countries. France also continues to hold territory in North America, the islands of St Pierre and Miquelon.
I can understand having an observer at the ACNA meetings. To have accepted ACNA money to cover the observers expenses is utterly corrupt and morally bankrupt.
I am not entirely sure about Randal’s point, but if he is saying that the lack of a legal definition of North America has a bearing on whether ACNA could ever become an Anglican province he is ignoring the possibly strange boundaries of existing provinces in the Anglican Communion.
Fiji is part of the Aoteroa/NZ province, North and South India bisect a nation, and TEC includes churches in some 16 countries.
It may or may not be North America -but whatever it is, they are not the Anglican Church of it ! It is not an anglican entity. They are without standing.
Apart from grand standing of course.
The demise of institutional Christianity they only hasten.
If there’s no legal entity known as North America, we can say there’s no legal entity known as the Southern Cone or no legal entity known as Jerusalem and the Middle East. Does that invalidate these Anglican Provinces?
To Laurence Roberts,
The demise of (parts of) institutional Christianity began in the early 16th century!!