Comments: New Westminster court case opens

And if the churches were in the C-of-E and wanted to leave their Diocese (maybe even Rochester?) taking the goods with them? How would these gentlemen react then?

Posted by Sara MacVane at Tuesday, 26 May 2009 at 10:19am BST

After a comment I have just made on this thread, when posted it just disappeared. Could there be some sort of interference on the site, Simon?

In case this comment also disappears, I will make it shorter.

Archbishop Orombi has just addressed a coference of the ACNA sodality in the U.S. The video by 'Anglican TV' can be found on the Anglican Mainstream web-site, via the last link above the line on this thread.

In his speech, Orombi declares that the Anglican Communion is no longer working, and that the only Instrument of Unity that can be relied on is the Primates' Conference, and its outcome from the Dar-es-Salaam Communique, affirming the Moratoria.
(What he thinks about the border-crossing one, he doesn't say).

He declares the other Instruments to be no longer effective - ACC, Lambeth and the Archbishop of Canterbury, upon whom he lays the blame for the schism he here declares to be de facto. Orombi also advises ACNA to go ahead and declare their independence as a Province of the Anglican Church
- aware, I suspect, that it may never be recognised by the Communion as a Province.

By invoking numbers, Orombi suggests that the balance of true Anglicanism resides in Africa, and that the Primates of Uganda, Nigeria, Rwanda and Kenya will support the new ACNA/FOCA province in a bid to proclaim a new 'orthodox Anglicanism' separate from Canterbury and the rest of the Communion. This is very bold stuff to see and listen to. I wonder if the other Primates are aware of Orombi's message?

Posted by Father Ron Smith at Tuesday, 26 May 2009 at 12:14pm BST

Does anyone else find it unusual for a CofE bishop to support a parish in a court case against a Canadian bishop?

David

Posted by David Bewley at Tuesday, 26 May 2009 at 3:49pm BST

"unusual for a CofE bishop to support a parish in a court case against a Canadian bishop"... Especially a bishop who has announced his resignation before retirement age to devote his energies to assisting in mission endeavors. With the Orombi pronouncement and FOCA's objectives, the C of E is now eligible for border crossings and creation of parallel competitors. I trust that ++Rowan is prepared for what he has enabled.

Posted by Robert McCloskey at Tuesday, 26 May 2009 at 7:20pm BST

Sigh. Yet another case of "catholic and reformed" Anglicans turning into dyed-in-the-wool Congregationalists when it suits them.

Even more disgusting that the likes of +Nazir-Ali, who really ought to know better, are egging them on.

@Fr. Ron Smith:

++Orombi is one of the fire-eaters like ++Akinola -- meanwhile I doubt that the rest of the African churches are as on board with any such schism as he thinks they are...

Posted by Walsingham at Tuesday, 26 May 2009 at 7:37pm BST

DAvid Bewley wrote, "Does anyone else find it unusual for a CofE bishop to support a parish in a court case against a Canadian bishop? "

Well, no more surprising that the support of bishops, including some in C of E, for folks leaving congregations of the Episcopal Church to be able to walk away with the property.

Posted by Marshall Scott at Tuesday, 26 May 2009 at 8:10pm BST

"We wish to express our shock and sadness that such an action be taken against you all at St John’s church, and to assure you of our love, support and prayer."

So says the letter of support with Bishop Nazir Ali's name on it. Only one problem: no action has been taken against St John's. They are among the plaintiffs, not the defendants. I wonder if that does anything to change the amount of shock the letter-writers feel?

Posted by Nom de Plume at Tuesday, 26 May 2009 at 10:21pm BST

Does anyone else find it amusing that, if the ACC had in fact accepted the Fourth Moratorium, the first ones to have been hit by it would presumably have been these breakaway groups?

Of course, in the real world, I presume that the fourth moratorium would have been invoked like the first three -- against ECUSA and the ACC, never against anyone else.

Posted by John Holding at Tuesday, 26 May 2009 at 10:46pm BST

"Does anyone else find it unusual for a CofE bishop to support a parish in a court case against a Canadian bishop?" - David Bewley -

Of course I do, David. Put together the antics of Bp. Nazir-Ali and Archbishop Orombi, in their support of the re-Asserters, and you have the inner workings of the breakaway ambitions of the FOCA/ACNA/Global South Fraternity. Is there, I wonder, a phantom Primacy in the offing for N.A.?

Further on Orombi's speech to ACNA; when asked if he would send 400 missionaries to support ACNA, he was careful to say that ACNA must send their own people to Africa in order to learn Ugandan techniques of evangelism and then return to their own country to progress the evangelical mission.
So it would seem that Uganda. at least, will not get its hands dirty, but will assist the process of schismatic activity. Apparently, the North and West are now only good enough for resourcing the true evangel, which now exists only in places like Uganda, Rwanda, Kenya and Nigeria.

Orombi also states that the 'nurturing' process of cross-border intervention is now over, and ACNA must provide its own leadership!!! Having set the fire burning, he is now ready to retire from the fray - but, of course, maintaining a joint strategy of mission with ACNA and FOCA.

Posted by Father Ron Smith at Tuesday, 26 May 2009 at 11:21pm BST

In court Bishop Harvey said that over time he had changed his mind on some issues, like the remarriage of divorced Anglicans, and the ordination of female priests. However he has not changed his mind regarding the blessing of gay and lesbian couples.

So its subjectivism not Biblical truth!

Posted by Robert Ian Williams at Wednesday, 27 May 2009 at 6:21am BST

The campaign to authorize realignment folks in taking property and resources (formerly held in common trust, together with now disavowed Anglican big tent believers?) betrays the fundamental theology and ethics effectively involved in that campaign.

If realignment folks raid the neighbor's home, it is a holy war - realignment takes all, just short of exterminating all the target folks, just as Yahweh commands in OT. If any big tent believers protest, they are being ungodly and may be struck down by either direct lightning bolts or court rulings, whichever strikes first.

Rowan has ennabled all this, thanks to his characteristic muddle of this and that and the other thing and oh yes, that other thing, too. I am passing amazed at his remarkable abilities to grab hold of everything in sight that could possibly be germane, except of course calling a thief a thief when his provincial neighbors are suffering the Home Invasions tactics that are realignment's central manifestations in USA and Canada. Then his wiry, brilliant mind seems to simply go blank, with the lights out.

Other figures will have to defend CoE if/when the thieveries come home to roost. Some actions appear to have been pushing CoE boundaries, testing the waters as it were.

Posted by drdanfee at Wednesday, 27 May 2009 at 8:41am BST

I think Rowan Cantuar perfectly understands his position in all this. It is that of Archchancellor Ridcully at Terry Pratchett's Unseen University, who says in Lords and Ladies: "I'm head wizard now. I've only got to give an order and a thousand wizards will ... uh, disobey, come to think of it, or say "What?", or start to argue. But they have to take notice."

Posted by Susan in Georgia at Wednesday, 27 May 2009 at 1:10pm BST

"I think Rowan Cantuar perfectly understands his position in all this. It is that of Archchancellor Ridcully at Terry Pratchett's Unseen University"

Yes yes yes!

And I gather from this - "We wish to express our shock and sadness that such an action be taken against you all at St John’s church, and to assure you of our love, support and prayer."

So says the letter of support with Bishop Nazir Ali's name on it. Only one problem: no action has been taken against St John's. They are among the plaintiffs, not the defendants." - that The canadian church is being slammed by the same lies as TEC. That is, the wouldbe thieves claiming to be the innocent victims. Shame!


Posted by Cynthia Gilliatt at Wednesday, 27 May 2009 at 3:12pm BST

"In court Bishop Harvey said that over time he had changed his mind on some issues, like the remarriage of divorced Anglicans, and the ordination of female priests."

I am a parishioner in +Harvey's old parish. I was in church the morning he announced his change of heart on OOW. It was a testament to the esteem in which he was held that no-one walked out that morning. The parish in those days was solidly opposed to OOW. He would not receive the same treatment now. We are less anti-OOW, and declining attendance caused by massive outmigration and the general decline of influence of the Church in society has led people away from the silly notion that we get to pick and choose who among those God deems acceptable. OOW is still an issue, we'll need a few more years/decades for that. In fact, given that +Harvey became a bishop not long after his change of heart, it is widely assumed that he realized that dropping his opposition to OOW was the price of a mitre. Despite the fact that I firmly believe this, I have not returned to opposition of OOW, though it was my discussions with him on this issue that changed my mind. That behaviour, accompanied by his claims of "persecution", his portrayal of himself as a martyr, about which he is not slow to remind people, and his schismatic activities, has destroyed any respect he once had at our place. I don't think you'd find many to disagree with your position that his beliefs are based on subjectivism. Some are a bit more frank about his motives.

Posted by Ford Elms at Wednesday, 27 May 2009 at 4:29pm BST

"So its subjectivism not Biblical truth!" - Posted by Robert Ian Williams


"Biblical truth" IS just another form of subjectivism, RIW.

God will always be bigger than all of 'em (said JCF, subjectively ;-/)

Posted by JCF at Thursday, 28 May 2009 at 1:25am BST

"Only one problem: no action has been taken against St John's."

Oh, my yes there HAS been action against them. See, it goes like this. Taking one's fellow Christians to court is unBiblical. However, the actions of the Canadian Church have given them no choice. They are forced by the apostacy of the ACC to carry out an unBiblical act in defence of the Gospel. Many of them probably think that the ACC isn't Christian anyway, and there's no specific Biblical prohibition against suing the heathen, but best to keep the charade that they think their opponents are Christian. That way they get to see themselves as being forced to sin in defence of the Gospel. They are thus being forced to jeopardize their immortal souls in defence of God's truth. They are thus martyrs, and holy, and standing for God Himself against the onslaughts of the World. See how easy it is? You too can play Who Wants to be a Martyr! And you get to make up the rules as you go, so you really can't lose! How could anyone pass up the opportunity to absolve themselves of hypocrisy by accusing others of forcing you to it, and then use the same idea to paint yourself out as uberholy and a martyr to boot. That's three bits of self justification for the price of one!

Posted by Ford Elms at Thursday, 28 May 2009 at 2:20pm BST

Did anyone notice in one of the Trial summaries that a couple hundred people left St. John's Shaughnessy for other less "conservative."

Posted by barley at Wednesday, 3 June 2009 at 10:59pm BST

"Did anyone notice in one of the Trial summaries that a couple hundred people left St. John's Shaughnessy for other less "conservative.""

According to our conservative brethren, that can't be true. Aren't we always reminded of how the conservative message is filling churches to overflowing while the liberal message is driving people away? I'm sure they wouldn't misrepresent that, and they certainly wouldn't have convinced themselves of that with no real evidence. So, it simply can't be true:-)

Posted by Ford Elms at Thursday, 4 June 2009 at 5:12pm BST
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.