Thinking Anglicans

Responses to ACNA documents

The American Anglican Council has published this press release: Rebutting Simon Sarmiento and TEC’s Factual Inaccuracies.

The article lists only five points.

Anglican Essentials Canada has published this article: ACoC priest, Alan Perry, questions the ACNA briefing paper.

The article lists only one point.

11
Leave a Reply

avatar
3000
11 Comment threads
0 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
8 Comment authors
MarkBrunsonDavidRev L RobertsMalcolm+Robert Recent comment authors
  Subscribe  
newest oldest
Notify of
EmilyH
Guest
EmilyH

On the issue of suits engaging vestry members. I would like some clarification. If me memory serves in at least several of the cases, vestry members were originally named and subsequently removed as respondents/defendents. So, in that case both the AAC and Simon are right, and wrong. In the US, it is common practice to name everybody who could possibly be involved at the outset in a complaint and sort who or what entities should really be involved in the lawsuit later. Also, in the US, most organizations indemnify their board members to protect them in case they are so… Read more »

Cynthia Gilliatt
Guest
Cynthia Gilliatt

Heavens!

Simon who is not a lawyer and not an American and not a member of TEC asks for help from someone who is a lawyer in the US for TEC!

How very sinister – asking someone who knows more than one does for advice. Give me a break.

Thank you again, Simon, for a well done paper.

Malcolm+
Guest

I posted the following reply to the Anglican Network item. We’ll see how long it stays. Your note is a trifle, shall we call it disingenuous? Canon Perry was responding to a libelous document being circulated to members of the General Synod of the Church of England which falsely claimed that clergy had been deposed in the Anglican Church of Canada. Their canonical status should they join some new denomination (as is the case with Bishops Harvey, Harding and Ferris) is not relevant to the issue. Your new protestant denomination is welcome to recognize them as Bishops, as Pooh-Bahs as… Read more »

Father Ron Smith
Guest
Father Ron Smith

“3. Neither Bishop Jack Iker nor any of the other bishops removed by TEC under the Renunciation of Ministry canons ever voluntarily resigned their Holy Orders or ministry as a bishop.” – A.A.C. – They may not have officially resigned from TEC. However, by their schismatic action they have rendered themselves unemployable by TEC, whose specific canons, by their erratic behaviour, they have breeched. This is what may be called an *involuntary* resignation of their of their licences to act as priests or bishops in TEC. Whatever jurisdiction they have been given (or have arrogated to themsevles) in the ministry… Read more »

David
Guest

Malcolm,

“We’ll see how long it stays.”

Now, now, we don’t censor comments.

Speaking of which, I posted a comment on your blog and it hasn’t appeared yet!

MarkBrunson
Guest

Keep repeating the lies and people might think they’re true, American “anglican” Council!

Next paper from AAC:

“Our Lies, Our Heritage.”

Robert
Guest
Robert

In legal actions where dissidents have tried to take parish property with them as they exit The Episcopal Church, former vestry members are typically named as defendants since they are the persons who possess or are unlawfully using Episcopal parish property for worship of another denomination. Canon law provides that the parish itself can not leave The Episcopal Church. It is the former vestry, therefore, who must be named as defendants in order for the court to have jurisdiction to resolve the controversy and award possession in favor of those who seek it and against those who hold it. While… Read more »

Malcolm+
Guest

David, I notice that my comment over there has sparked a discussion. Good on you for not following the practice of some other conservative blogs. There’s one that will even delete innocuous comments if posted by perceived enemies.

Simple Massing Priest uses an approval process because I was getting comments that might best be described as sexually explicit invective. Those I delete. Simply disagreeing with me – even passionately – will still got you posted. I expect to be approving the comments shortly.

Rev L Roberts
Guest
Rev L Roberts

‘over there’

Sorry but over where ?

David
Guest

Malcolm,

“Good on you for not following the practice of some other conservative blogs.”

Thanks; we are tolerant and inclusive 🙂

MarkBrunson
Guest

“Thanks; we are tolerant and inclusive :-)”

They even include *me* – and I claim to be neither tolerant nor inclusive, just progressive and right-minded! 😀