Canadian church leaders have appealed to the Archbishop of Canterbury to address moves by dissidents to join a South American church and minister illegitimately in Canada.
In a pastoral statement dated Nov. 29, a week after the Anglican Network met, Archbishop Fred Hiltz, primate (national bishop) of the Anglican Church of Canada, said he deplored “recent actions on the part of the primate and General Synod of the Province of the Southern Cone to extend its jurisdiction in Canada.” The statement was also signed by the church’s four metropolitans, or regional archbishops.
Referring to Bishop Don Harvey and Bishop Malcolm Harding’s intent to minister to disaffected churches in Canada, Archbishop Hiltz said such ministry is “inappropriate, unwelcome and invalid.”
The ABC should tell them to take it up with the Panel of Reference.
“invalid”? ++Fred needs to think about what he’s saying there. +Harvey and +Harding’s ministrations could only be invalid if they were not really bishops.
And yes, as Tar Heel says, they should take it up with the Panel of Reference.
Could it be that the Canadian archbishop, considering the history of the Panel of Reference, has less confidence in it than in Archbishop Williams? Perhaps he might want to reflect on the Archbishop’s leadership in these matters. One way to look at the current situation is as a conflict of conscience and moral theology with traditional discipline. In the past the Anglican response to those who conscientiously dissent from actions of the established church is to tolerate their dissent and force them out to form separate churches. In the present ecumenical age dissenters are no longer willing to leave the communion, and Anglican provinces are willing to offer them a way to remain in the communion.
[blockquote]Bishop Victoria Matthews… said Bishops Harvey and Harding’s relinquishment of ministry in Canada also means they have relinquished ministry “in the entire Anglican Communion.â€[/blockquote]
Say what? These people are just making up random statements. [blockquote]…contravene ancient canons (laws) of the church going as far back as the fourth century.†They also violate a Canadian canon that states no clergy member may exercise ministry in a diocese without the diocesan bishop’s permission, the statement said.[/blockquote]
It reminds me of what Aslan said of the white witch, “They only know the new magic, but there is an older magic from before Narnia was formed.”
[blockquote]It also said Bishop Harvey’s action aggravates the “current tensions in the Anglican Communion.â€[/blockquote]
Absolutely. And absolutely necessary. Only crisis mode can move the inertia laden Anglican communion from hurtling off the cliff.
Hilz and his ilk pass a the “doesn’t violate core doctrine (in the sense of credal)” sham resolution. Of course, homosexuality is not mentioned in any of the creeds. Neither is adultery, murder, etc. Then they quickly drop the parenthetical and proceed post haste with their destructive innovations while the Anglican Church circles the drain. They would rather keep out of the public eye and destroy the church unimpeded and unexamined. They have not even published attendance data since 2001 because they don’t want people to know (See note [url=http://new.kendallharmon.net/wp-content/uploads/index.php/t19/article/8109/#153080 ]here[/url] with its links.)
[blockquote]This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil.[/blockquote]
Harsh words? I would say not harsh enough if one simply looks at the statistics of what they have wrought on the ACoC. Simply put, it is great evil. Some malfeasance, some misfeasance, but evil none the less.
#3 I’d represent prior history as having the rest of the Communion being unwilling to receive the dissidents, for a variety of reasons (theology primarily, but distance and resources played in that as well). Now the likes of ++Venables is doing just the opposite.
This recent development reflects both modern communications and travel abilities, but also the fact that in North America and Europe, when you lose parish families, the old diocese cannot depend on those families just going down the street to a remaining diocesan parish. The likelihood now is that family will follow the dissident leadership or leave the Communion entirely. So ++Venables is correct in trying to keep (‘holding’ is the term he uses) these parishes and their communicants in the Communion somehow.
As usual, the archbishop turns to canons and tradition only when he thinks they can hold him on his slippery slope. Too sad that he is so childish as to say “these things (people) are MINE. I don’t want them but won’t let you have them either.”
Sorry, I was being sarcastic with the Panel of Reference comment. Continuing the sarcasm, mebbe the ABD should suggest the services of a “professional facilitator” for further discussion of the matter.
I hardly know what to say when I see revisionists making arguments for me that there was absolutely no justification for separating from Rome. I hope they have enclosed this with their letter to the Apostolic Nuncio requesting re-admission.
#7 and #8 you made me laugh, very good posts. The Canadians Bishops and Rowan(also all revisionist bishops) and specially the Evangelical Centre(liberal evangelicals like the Fulcrum and those who think that they can reform TEC from inside) that the ANGLICAN COMMUNION that they knew is THING OF THE PAST. Akinola, Venables and the other Global South Primates aren’t given atention to what Rowan and his friends think. The time to conversation and listen has ended. Now is time to action.
The ABofC will reply just as soon as he gets back from his next vacation…..am sure he will call a meeting of the primates in that is what he did after TEC bishops stood at convention in 03 and made a direct appeal to him. Oh, that’s right, he anticipated this request by Canada and so he calle a little party called Lambeth….the invitations have already gone out….
“…contravene ancient canons (laws) of the church going as far back as the fourth century.â€
Will someone out there please send me a web-link to the fourth century canon that allows gay marriage?
Let us indeed hope that the ABoC sends this case to the Panel of Reference. We have observed how effective that was in the cases of the parishes in Florida. The difference is that I am sure ++Gregory’s response to the Panel would be much more polite than they are used to receiving from TEC bishops. But in any case, we will have to wait for the Panel’s report to come out in 2015.
To be serious for a moment, I do hope that all in the parishes in Canada, and bishops Harvey and Harding and ++Venables know that our prayers are with them.
I am intrigued why a letter of this sort would be made public. It is almost as if the Canadian Anglicans do not expect the ABC to act decisively and wish to get talking points out there to rally the troops. It seems as if all the Anglican constituencies are doing their own thing in the midst of a leadership vacuum. That has led me to ponder if things would be different if Cantuar resigned and another took his place. And also to ponder how long ABC’s are expected to stay in office. A historical chart wasn’t much help but most of them seemed to last around 11 years in modern times.
You made the bed, now sleep in it.
This is rich. These bishops haven’t raised a finger to discipline Ingham and his enormities. But they whine to the ABC when parishes seek and receive refuge from such.
What Tar Heel said.
The cannons of the council of NICEA(what this Liberal Protestant pastors who like to dress up like Catholic priests and prelates call ancient tradition) is very clear that when a Bishop embrace an HERESY, he(or she in post modern times) isn’t more a bishop of the Church of Christ, so any orthodox bishop can invade his diocese. And they(the cannons) also say that the faithful shouldn’t follow the heretic bishop(or priest).
Please can anyone (Redner, King or any other good Anglican Theologian) tell me what can Rowan do about this?
#16,
Rowan had several opportunities for bold moves that would have nipped the nonsense in the bud. Those opportunities have been squandered and the Anglican Communion, such as it was, is no more IMHO. To his credit, I doubt Rowan could have stood the pressure from within his own COE or, for that matter, from his government. All the anglophone Provinces are poised to follow the US church over the cliff. :^(
The Canadian Establishment is pushing same sex blessings, the ordination of non-celibate unmarried ministers, denying the divinity of Christ, the efficacy of the resurrection and cracking down on persons with orthodox Christian beliefs and they say what the faithful want to do is to “minister illegitimately”?
There is nothing wrong with leaving a church. A vast percentage of Christians pop in and out of denominations and communties throughout their lifetime. It is another thing to leave a church and take the building, keys, bank accounts, and legacies with you. I can no more take my church and affiliate the entire enterprise lock, stock, and barrel, with another denomination than I can take my family of origin and adopt another, changing heritage and tradition. It is insulting to the former and compromising to the latter.
Fr. Shawn,
To put the shoe on the other foot, it is quite heartrending to see a bishop whose views are antithetical to the legators swoop in and claim that which he or she has not had a single hand in building. It also shows the bishops true colors: they are more interested in property to support six figure salaries and pensions and diocesan staff than people.
Really, the reappraiser bishops undercut their own status when they claim the parishes can all be different and just listen to each other (even as they rebuff orthodox candidates and push their Democratic Party agenda down everybody’s throats). My question to them is, then what do we need [i]you[/i] for?
Fr. Shawn,
I will grant that I am not familiar with the canons of the Canadian Church, but assuming that the bishops and clergy take a vow to “defend the faith as it was delivered to us” or something similar, it is difficult to see how we can interpret things the way you do. From my own vantage point (born and baptized an Episcopalian) it sure looks like someone has come along and stolen several thousand church buildings by taking over national church structures through violation of canons and ordination vows. The church buildings belong to Christ, and not to some corporate structure.
Fr. Shawn,
In the beginning it was not so. But having changed that, and beyond the shadow of a doubt having taken the buildings, keys, bank accounts, monasteries, monks, former Chancellors of England, etc. with you, I think you have undercut your ability to make the remainder of your argument.
Round and match to Ed the Roman. I expect Fr. Shawn to return everything to Benedict XVI forthwith.
What a very weak ecclesiology you have, Fr Shawn. Popping in and out of churches is not only bad form, but biblically unsound. Think of Hebrews 10.25 about sticking together to stir one another up and not neglecting to meet together “as is the habit of some.” Catholicism, of which Anglicanism claims to be a constituent, does not allow such thinking. The schismatics are, as #21 (tjmcmahon) said, the ones who have departed from the true faith and corrupted the temples of the living God with their syncretism and me-generation desires of the flesh. My ordination vows, according to the Canadian Prayer Book, were to remain faithful to the doctrine of Christ “as this Church hath received it”, and not unconditional obedience to the bishop or the national institution, as the Book of Alternative Services and the American 1979 BCP would have it.
This appeal points to the very weakness in Rowan Williams’ handling of the Anglican crisis to date. By adopting a “whatever” approach in action, if not in words, Rowan Williams has severely undercut any credibility he would have in denouncing the Southern Cone’s actions.
Rowan Williams’ actions (or more properly the lack thereof) has established the Anglican Communion’s discipline as being no discipline at all.
This is why I am at the same time very attracted to the ACI vision of a unified Communion discipline (in spite of Rowan Williams) yet also of the firm belief that the Communion can’t afford to wait for Rowan Williams to act on his own. Anglicanism badly needs advocates for restoring a Communion wide discipline. It also badly needs a “work around” for a very ineffective primus inter pares, or some other red hot poker that will spur him into action.
Had Williams exercised proper discipline against New Westminster and the various bishops in TEC that violated the mind of the Communion, he would have credibility in spades to denounce Venables’ actions. But he didn’t, and he hasn’t any credibility as a result.
Had Michael Nazir-Ali been translated to Canterbury instead of Rowan, I wonder how differently things would be now.
File 13: The Archbishop of Canterbury.