Thursday, 4 February 2010

ACNA and Canada

Readers may recall this General Synod motion, which is being debated next Wednesday. And there is this amendment.

A paper rebutting the claims made about the Anglican Church of Canada, written by Alan Perry has been issued to General Synod members.

That paper can now be read in full here.

Posted by Simon Sarmiento on Thursday, 4 February 2010 at 4:55pm GMT | TrackBack
You can make a Permalink to this if you like
Categorised as: Canada | General Synod
Comments

Canon Perry, I note, has a law degree and is, I presume, admitted to the bar. Thus he is in an excellent position to refute the lies and half-truths of those who would have the Church of England endorse theft and fraud.

Posted by: Malcolm+ on Thursday, 4 February 2010 at 6:20pm GMT

Or is this Master of Laws one of those Welsh (Cardiff Law School) Canon Law degrees Norman Doe is papering the Anglican world with!?

Posted by: Martin Reynolds on Thursday, 4 February 2010 at 7:25pm GMT

Malcolm,
Canon Perry's law degree is in canon law (from Cardiff), and he's one of the Canadian church's experts on the subject. He is also former prolocutor of the Provincial Synod of the Province of Canada.

Posted by: Jim Pratt on Thursday, 4 February 2010 at 7:40pm GMT

Not admitted to the bar, I'm afraid, nor admissible. My law degree is in Canon Law.

Posted by: Alan T Perry on Thursday, 4 February 2010 at 8:56pm GMT

An eminent and very thoughtful canon lawyer.

Posted by: Copyhold on Friday, 5 February 2010 at 4:56am GMT

The paper written by The Rev. Canon A. Perry LL M is an excellent rebuttal of the deluge of misinformation that ACNA has circulated with regard to the Anglican Church of Canada. However, I want to comment on one of Canon Perry’s observations when he writes, “It is true that Cyrus Pitman, the current bishop of Eastern Newfoundland and Labrador called his clergy to receive new licenses and take their oaths anew. This unusual action was entirely within his powers as a bishop.” I do not wish to contest the canonical correctness of either Canon Perry’s observation or Bishop Pittman’s action. The action bishop Pittman took in that instance may have been “within his powers as bishop”, but it was overdone nonetheless. The oath is to the bishop and the bishop’s successors. The solution put in place by bishop Pittman (perhaps on advice?) is perhaps best evaluated against the unwillingness or impotence, or both, on the part of the Canadian church with regard to the matter of retired Bishop engaging in interventions in a province in which he no longer resides canonically. Why not deal with Bishop Harvey’s actions directly. Why put in the political crossfire parish clergy who simply want to get on with doing their work under the oversight of the new bishop of Newfoundland and Labrador? –Rod Gillis

Posted by: Rod Gillis on Friday, 5 February 2010 at 5:18pm GMT
Post a comment









Remember personal info?

Please note that comments are limited to 400 words. Comments that are longer than 400 words will not be approved.

Cookies are used to remember your personal information between visits to the site. This information is stored on your computer and used to refill the text boxes on your next visit. Any cookie is deleted if you select 'No'. By ticking 'Yes' you agree to this use of a cookie by this site. No third-party cookies are used, and cookies are not used for analytical, advertising, or other purposes.