tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-674064810664714323.post2298258538691000093..comments2023-09-19T14:24:55.151+01:00Comments on Comprehensive Unity: The No Anglican Covenant Blog: Does the Anglican Covenant really mean what it says?No Anglican Covenant Coalitionhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08621151497981444214noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-674064810664714323.post-33994438845241378712010-11-19T21:22:59.037+00:002010-11-19T21:22:59.037+00:00You know, Lionel, your raise a question that is in...You know, Lionel, your raise a question that is interesting for me as a Deputy to General Convention. If we were to adopt the Covenant in General Convention, we would commit ourselves to a specific (if not necessarily clear) procedure in responding when we discern in another "Covenenting Church" an action that we think threatens communion, or (as seems more likely) a "Covenanting Church" see the same from us. This would seem to me parallel to the procedures in Canons Title IV (the "disciplinary canons"), as a set of procedures for resolving certain issues. So, would the Covenant be "canonical," even if not literally added to Canon? Would that effect then <i>force</i> resolutions that would either change Constitution or Canons, or so interpret existing Constitution or Canons in a new way? It seems a valid question at what point a "canonical effect" is <i>effecting</i> a change in Canons.Marshall Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02807749717320495495noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-674064810664714323.post-37882188179646220392010-11-17T23:31:19.313+00:002010-11-17T23:31:19.313+00:00Nothing in this Covenant of itself shall be deemed...<i>Nothing in this Covenant of itself shall be deemed to alter....</i><br /><br />Just because they say it, doesn't make it true. You can say over and over that up is down and black is white, but that doesn't make the statements true.June Butlerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01723016934182800437noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-674064810664714323.post-69007463268413442822010-11-17T21:59:13.674+00:002010-11-17T21:59:13.674+00:00As you suggest, implications of the Covenant may v...As you suggest, implications of the Covenant may vary by church.<br /><br />Article VI of the U.S. Constitution says: “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.” To my knowledge, The Episcopal Church constitution does not have an analogous provision, so it is not clear to me that the Covenant would have supreme standing in the church, absent specific canonical provisions.<br /><br />In any case, I do believe that Paragraph 4.1.3 is, at best, disingenuous. I have just written on this topic myself, and you can read my take <a href="http://blog.deimel.org/2010/11/if-it-looks-like-duck.html" rel="nofollow">here</a>.Lionel Deimelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08363018512775944659noreply@blogger.com