The Canadian Anglican church appears to be inching closer to a general approval of blessing committed same-sex unions.
As a result, two retired Canadian bishops – Don Harvey of Eastern Newfoundland and Labrador and Malcolm Harding of Brandon, Man., have quit the Canadian church to become bishops in the tiny South American Anglican church. A small number of priests have indicated they will follow.
Yesterday, Bishop Harvey’s successor, Right Reverend Cyrus Pitman, exacted a loyalty pledge of sorts from his diocesan priests gathered in St. John’s Anglican Cathedral. Bishop Pitman had them repeat their priestly vows and issued them with new licences signed by himself rather than Bishop Harvey.
There was nothing unusual about the renewal of priestly vows – most Anglican dioceses do them annually – but they’re usually done just before Easter.
A senior Anglican cleric, speaking on background, explained that Bishop Harvey likely had “some following” among priests in the diocese.
But the diocese’s executive archdeacon, Geoff Peddle, told CBC that “not a single priest has left our church.”
Bishop Harvey characterized the tone of his successor’s action as “devastating.”
I’m not quite sure I understand the Williams reference here – don’t see him mentioned in the body of this article – maybe Kendall forgot a link?
Interesting article. How about we let priests exact an oath from our Bishop that they will, in fact, actually guard the unity and faith of the church? Let’s have a renewal of those vows as well!
How can you poach a priest, if they’ll desiring to leave a bad situation and one offers a home, how is that poaching?
It’s a joke!
You can tell by the first 4 words of the headline — “Archbishop Williams speaks out”.
3- simmer him in water for 15 minutes, covered tightly. ;->
While he didn’t use the exact words in the service, Bp Pittman actually did promise to uphold the vows of his ordination, including the defense of the faith.
He read a section from a letter from the ABC, but many in the congregation (myself included) wondered what the rest of the letter said. I’m not sure that his interpretation of the quote is exactly what the unnervingly well-parsed archbishop would actually say. The strange thing about all of this is that to me, the majority of clergy in this diocese are some permutation of conservative (at least by my count as they walked in).
According to the ACC website, the full text of Archbishop William’s letter is as follows:
[blockquote]”Thank you very much for your letter about the situation in the Canadian Church; I thought it very helpful, clear and eirenic, and I hope it will be well received.
“I noted also the reference to the appeal of the Canadian Church to myself about interventions and irregular ordinations: as you will understand, I have no canonical authority to prevent these things, but I would simply repeat what was said in my Advent Letter, to the effect that I cannot support or sanction such actions, in line with what successive Lambeth Resolutions and Primates’ Communiques have declared, as well as the statements of my predecessor about irregular ordinations and the clear directions of the Windsor Report.
“I apologise for not responding sooner to this, but had had to focus in December on the preparation of the Advent Letter, which was intended to set out a perspective within which all such irregularities should be viewed.”[/blockquote]
By the way, I wonder which of his predecessor’s statments he is referring to, the original decision not to invite them to Lambeth, or the later statement that he possibly regretted that.
#5 LOL, Thanks.
And, friars should be lightly browned on both sides.
Poached or lightly browned. Either is better than half-baked.
Speaking of loyalty oaths, I wonder how many of these priests could, in full honesty & without reservation, state the Nicene Creed?
Faithful priests should be [i] scrambling [/i] to get out from under this [i] cracked, hard-boiled [/i] bishop.
Hmmmmm Why am I reminded of the old public service add with a guy showing a hot frying pan saying: “This is your brain… [then cracking an egg] This is your brain on drugs. Any questions?” ? Maybe the church needs a public service announcement! Could go like this: “This is your church. [then crack an egg] This your church on drugs. Any questions?”
Just a thought. Might help clear up any confusion.
#11, judging by the text of the actual declaration that Priests in Eastern Newfoundland and Labrador were asked to sign at this meeting, all should be able to state without reservation the Nicene Creed, as it is the first line of the declaration.
Declaration text (with an editorial note, I assume from the Bishop):
[blockquote]Please note that in order to be in strict compliance with the Canons of the Provincial Synod the Declaration has been revised as follows:
[i]I profess the faith set forth in the Scriptures and in the Catholic Creeds and affirm my allegiance to the doctrine of the Anglican Church of Canada as set forth by the Book of Common Prayer and in the Ordinal;
in public prayer and administration of the Sacraments I will use the form of the Book of Common Prayer and none other except so far as shall be ordered by lawful authority;
I will pay true and canonical obedience to the Bishop of Eastern Newfoundland and Labrador and to his successors in all legal and honest demands;
I will pay true and canonical obedience to the Canons which have been or are from time to time passed by the General Synod, the Provincial Synod of Canada, and the Synod of the Diocese of Eastern Newfoundland and Labrador. [/i][/blockquote]
[i]”in all legal and honest demands”[/i]
Court of law legal? Canonically legal? Morally honest? Scripturally honest?
Vrrroooom, that was a Mack truck driving through the gaps in this pledge. 🙂
Peace,
#14, while I admit that there may be loopholes in the pledge (I’m not a lawyer, and have not reviewed relevant case law), I don’t think that’s one of them. On the legal point for example, both options are held up as the pledge (signed in good faith, after having been read, with due time for reflection, as well as with consideration offered and accepted) is contractual, so any demand that is not in keeping with scripture and and the Catholic Creeds seems an illegal demand both canonically and in a court of law.
An unscriptural, or anti-creedal demand would be a demand that the person breach their pledge and this self-same contract, thus the unscriptural anti-creedal demand cannot be followed.
Besides, when we’re talking about our fears of a progressive purge of conservatives, aren’t loopholes a good thing?
Loopholes only work for liberals, otherwise canonical fundamentalism of the most definitive type sets in and interpretation becomes absolute according to the liberal cause du jour.