Friday, August 8, 2008

ABC responds to publication of letters

ABC press release on his "letters:"
Friday 08 August 2008
In response to the recent coverage of the correspondence dated back to 2000, The Archbishop Canterbury has made the following statement:
In the light of recent reports based on private correspondence from eight years ago, I wish to make it plain that, as I have consistently said, I accept Resolution I.10 of the 1998 Lambeth Conference as stating the position of the worldwide Anglican Communion on issues of sexual ethics and thus as providing the authoritative basis on which I as Archbishop speak on such questions.

That Resolution also recognises the need for continuing study and discussion on the matter. In the past, as a professional theologian, I have made some contributions to such study. But obviously, no individual's speculations about this have any authority of themselves. Our Anglican Church has never exercised close control over what individual theologians may say. However, like any church, it has the right to declare what may be said in its name as official doctrine and to define the limits of legitimate practice. As Archbishop I understand my responsibility to be to the declared teaching of the church I serve, and thus to discourage any developments that might imply that the position and convictions of the worldwide Communion have changed.


dr.primrose said...

These comments are disturbing for the reasons we have discussed before:

There is no such thing as "The Anglican Church."

The Lambeth Conference has no power to declare "official doctrine" of the non-existent Antlican Church.

Resolution 1.10 is not "offical doctrine" of the non-existent "Anglican Church." It is merely a snap-shot at one moment of time of what a meeting of Anglican bishops thought on this subject.

Williams increasingly seems to think of himself as an Anglican Pope being advised by an Anglican College of Cardinals. Sorry, but this is part of what the Reformation was about. "The Bishop of Canterbury hath no jurisdiction in this Realm of the United States."

Leonardo Ricardo said...

My gosh, Archbishop Rowan has grasped for straws, again...anything, to avoid being a simple leader who protects the flock...he actually instigates trouble with his muddled leadership...just what is it he wants? Surely he doesn't think we're going back to Rome? Just another game of "kick the can"...and the can is sounding very tinny/crushed and clunky...I like the rumor regarding the Bishop of Liverpool, Bishop James Jones, sitting on the really big throne...enough with ++Rowan's foggy doubletrack speeching!

Fred Schwartz said...

"Who can endure a doctrine which would allow only dentists to say whether our teeth were aching, only cobblers to say whether our shoes hurt us, and only governments to tell us whether we were being well governed?"

C. S. Lewis The Great Divorce

Need we say more?

JCF said...


Prayer for reconciliation, restoration and healing, for the Edwards family (John, Elizabeth, and their children). Prayers also for Ms. Hunter ("the other woman", and mother of some father's baby!), and members of the larger Edwards campaign, who are feeling confused and hurt, by today's revelation.

Lord, pour out your healing grace!

James David Walley said...

Brave Sir Rowan ran away,
Bravely ran away, away...

Jim said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Jim said...

know the current prime minister is a Scot Presbyterian and is very uncomfortable meddling in the CoE, but can't the bishops get someone to recommend an immediate dubbing as earl of something with a pension for this guy?

If I believe his statement, and I do, he has absolutely no idea what leaders do.


IT said...

Oh well played, James David W. I'm still chuckling. Oh brave Sir Rowan....