I normally stay away from commenting on the convulsions of the Anglican Communion ”“ whether here in the Diocese of New Westminster, whose bishop is a heretic and schismatic (by the standard definitions of those terms); or in the Anglican Church of Canada, which tolerates such behaviour; or in the Anglican Communion worldwide, which is wracked by controversy over the legitimacy of homosexuality (ostensibly) and a lot of other things, such as heresy, schism, power politics, racism and more (fundamentally).
This was an interesting article. He points out that there is a “extra-territorial” bishop to indigenous people of Canada who has oversight of aborigines in all the different different dioceses. Oh, we can’t violate ancient traditions! This must clearly stop. The bishop is the center of ecclesiastical authority as clearly laid out in Nicea.
Elves, the next article by Peter Elliott, Dean of Christ Church Cathedral, writing for the Diocese of New Westminster in Bishop Michael Ingham’s absence, is very interesting. Of particular interest are the couple of paragraphs, quoted below, discussing borders crossings, Shared Episcopla Ministry in ACoC, and the position of the Archbishop of Canterbury
The Anglican Church of Canada is in communion with the Archbishop of Canterbury, who has recently said that he can neither support nor sanction the intervention of a primate from another jurisdiction into the life of a Province of the Anglican Communion.
Unnecessary
The Anglican Church of Canada and its House of Bishops have established a model of Shared Episcopal Ministry, which has been commended by the Archbishop of Canterbury’s Panel of Reference. Therefore it is unnecessary for a parish to seek episcopal ministry beyond Canada.
Peter Elliot is one of the many openly homosexual clergy that Ingham has foisted on the diocese. So am I surprised that he would parrot his master? He states it was unnecessary to secede. Well, that certainly settles it, doesn’t it?
The archbishop of Canterbury recently said that he can neither support nor sanction the intervention of a primate from another jurisdiction into the life of a Province of the Anglican Communion. Hmmm, he doesn’t condemn it either.
There is no ancient traditions regarding provincial integrity. The ACoC, itself, violates diocesan integrity (see #1). ‘Nuff said.
About the only consistency of revisionists is inconsistency.
I am pretty sure the Stackhouse piece is from earlier in 2007, evidenced by his reference to our previous primate in Canada, ++ Andrew. This fact does not lesson the impact. Stackhouse hits the ball out of the park with this one, especially as he refuses to mince words about the Bishop of New Westminster. We should be in tears over the fact that Ingham presides as bishop in a city (Vancouver, B.C.) with the least Christians in it in Canada, which is also a culture making city, and truly multicultural and pluralistic, and all the while in both word and deed Ingham is allowed to completely deconstruct the doctrine and discipline of our church, no of THE CHURCH universal, and then point the finger at godly servants of Christ like J. I. Packer and cry “Schism.” The shame is less Ingham’s than it is the Anglican Church of Canada’s and the world’s for tolerating such a false apostle.