Presiding Bishop Jefferts Schori elected to Anglican Communion Primates Standing CommitteeFrom the Anglican Communion News Service February 16, 2011
Episcopal Church Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori was elected for a three year term to the Anglican Communion Primates' Standing Committee representing Central, North and South Americas and the Caribbean.
The election was held among the Primates of the Anglican Communion during the group’s recent meeting in Dublin, Ireland.
“I am grateful to my colleagues in the Americas for their confidence, and look forward to working with partners around the Communion as we seek to heal a broken and hurting world,” Presiding Bishop Jefferts Schori said. “I have every hope that the primates can be models and leaders of that work, as variously-gifted members of the Body of Christ.”
Elected to the Primates' Standing Committee were:
Africa: Archbishop Daniel Deng Bul Yak (Sudan) - alternate Archbishop Bernard Ntahoturi (Burundi)
Central, North, South Americas and the Caribbean: Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori (The Episcopal Church) - alternate Archbishop John Holder (West Indies)
Europe: Archbishop David Chillingworth (Scotland) - alternate Archbishop Alan Harper (Ireland)
Middle East and West Asia: Bishop Samuel Azariah (Pakistan) - alternate Bishop Paul Sarker (Bangladesh)
South East Asia and Oceania: Archbishop Paul Kwong (Hong Kong) - alternate Archbishop Winston Halapua (Aotearoa, New Zealand & Polynesia)
6 comments:
Wow. I guess the only things left is to pray for an orthodox ABC and welcome ACNA into the communion. If only they didn't exclude orthodox women from ordination to bishop I sure many more would have already left for them. I'm at at lost, this is really a slap in the face to the rest of the communion, just like 2003 and 2009.
Only because they did the idiotic thing and decided to boycott. I never said that wasn't stupid on their part. I expect by 2012 that ACNA will be welcomed into the communion and after that, let the chips fall as they may. This I'm sure will be billed under "The cost of discipleship".
Wouldn't you be happier as a Roman Catholic, Martin T (maybe Anglican Use)? Or perhaps a Southern Baptist?
This isn't about you leaving TEC, or the Anglican Communion.
I'm just thinking where you would really be AT HOME, w/ your belief system.
And again I answer you as I did above JCF, my "belief system" is out of step with the RCC since I believe that women should be ordained (just not non-celibate homosexuals) and that birth control is a matter between a husband and a wife alone, not celibate men who have no idea what family life is like. I'd sooner deal with a homosexual PB and still have my right to believe non-celibate homosexuals as sinners and just refuse sacraments from them than to deal with the RCC's ilk.
Martin T., you’ve made your position very clear. Many times, in many threads, including multiple times within the same thread, including this one.
You are opposed to non-celibate LGBT priests because they are defined as sinful by the Bible. You would not accept the Eucharist from a LGBT priest. We get it.
The Bible considered epileptics to be devil-possessed sinners, but we know better now, thousands of years later, thanks to medical science. Would you accept the Eucharist from an epileptic priest? If so, aren’t you being anti-biblical? And again, if so, why would you accept the science that informs modern thinking about epilepsy, but reject the science of DNA, genetics, epigenetic change, and in utero hormone levels that determine a person’s place on the spectrum of human sexuality?
Ok uffda, lets say it was agreed upon by every person on the planet that homosexuality is genetically predisposed. What then does that have to do with how you ACT upon it? Scripture isn't condemning homosexuals themselves, just sexual acts with someone of the same gender, just like it condemns fornication and promiscuity. I'm sorry, but how is anyone supposed to take seriously someone at the altar presiding over the Eucharist and other sacraments when their own lives are publicly questionable? Where is the authority that was passed down to those ordained who is living in such a manner? Do you see my point now uffda, in other words, how am I supposed to take anything they say or do seriously?
Post a Comment