Tuesday, July 17, 2007

Letter from New APCK Archbishop

The following pastoral letter from the new archbishop of the Anglican Province of Christ the King, the Most Revd James E. Provence, was published on the APCK website. Notice the absence of any mention of seeking unity with the Anglican Church in America.

The Clergy and People of the Province

Dearly Beloved Brethren,

The Feast of St. Peter this year was one of historical significance for the Anglican Province of Christ the King. On that day, in the cathedral church dedicated to Peter, the fisherman who became a fisher of men, Robert Sherwood Morse handed over apostolic responsibility for the clergy and people of the APCK to his successor, James Eugene Provence. To underscore the sacramental character of the office of archbishop, the election took place at the offertory of the Mass. Following the announcement of the new archbishop, the Mass continued, reminding us that without Christ, our work is in vain.

After the Liturgy, many clergy and laity approached Archbishop Morse to offer their thanks for his nearly thirty years of leadership and for giving us an orderly succession.

The election of the Second Archbishop is also a fitting tribute to the courage of Bishop Albert Chambers who entrusted us with the Apostolic Ministry. Acknowledging that trust, your bishops are committed to increased efforts toward unity with the other two branches that spring directly from the root of the Chambers Succession: the Anglican Catholic Church and the United Episcopal Church, North America. We believe that any progress toward unity must begin at that source.

While unity is an important goal, the primary responsibility of bishops is to feed the flock of Christ with the Word of God and the sacraments of the Church. This is the commission given to Peter, to the rest of the Apostles and to the bishops in their direct succession. Aware of this solemn responsibility, it is our commitment to continue leading this branch of Christ's Church in this most holy mission.

Yours in Christ Jesus,

The Most Rev. James E. Provence

40 comments:

Fr. Robert Hart said...

At no time has the APCK had any interest in the UEC. The facts is, it was the ACA that they treated as a potential ecumenical partner along with the ACC, not the UEC. Just look at who was invited to Fond du Lac in the past, and who was not.

Also, considering that the bishop of the Diocese of the Eastern States was not allowed to participate in the election, I question how "orderly" it really was.

This new alignment, this new concept of the "circle of three" as something the APCK accepts, is all due to behind the scenes efforts to isolate Bp. Florenza. It runs no deeper.

Albion Land said...

RESPONSE FROM THE ANGLICAN PROVINCE OF CHRIST THE KING TO THE ACC STATEMENT ON CHURCH UNITY

As one of the original jurisdictions stemming from the Chambers Consecrations and the Affirmation of St. Louis, the Anglican Province of Christ the King fully agrees with and supports the statement regarding unity issued by The Most Rev. Mark Haverland of the Anglican Catholic Church. The APCK, the ACC and the UECNA represent the three main branches coming from the root of the Chambers Succession. We share a responsibility to the trust that Bishop Chambers placed in us to be a beacon for unity among traditional Anglicans in the United States. The Anglican Province of Christ the King will do all that we can to foster that unity.

The Most Rev. James E. Provence
Archbishop
Anglican Province of Christ the King
July 10, 2007
San Francisco, California

Sandra McColl said...

iI've been on the periphery of the Continuum in Australia for 20 years. Well, I'm less on the periphery now (if you accept the TAC as the Continuum). Forgive my ignorance and my wilful blindness in failing to Google or Wikipedia for the answer, but otherwise please believe that this question is asked by one who, while she might be able to hazard a rough guess, nevertheless sincerely does not know the answer:

Who's Chambers?

poetreader said...

Short and simple:
+Chambers, chief consecrator of the four original Continuing bishops at Denver in 1978.

ed

Fr. Robert Hart said...

Perhaps the new archbishop of the APCK wants to start a brand new thing for that jurisdiction; up until now they would never have said anything about the UEC.

The choice to ignore the largest jurisdiction of all, the TAC-ACA, is very wrong, quite purposely timed, and the real reason for these statements.

Sandra McColl said...

Thanks, Ed.

Anglican Deacon said...

Fr. Hart is quite correct about the Donatist efforts, by the APCK's new Archbishop, to put a revisional "spin" on activities directed at their fictional interest in Continuing Church reconciliation.

For a clearer report on earlier efforts, the following link is provided for your review:

http://www.challengeonline.org/modules/news/article.php?storyid=47

Intriguingly, the ACA is shown to be an invited, erstwhile participant in the effort; with the ACC posturing for effect and the UEC noticibly absent.

D Bunker said...

One might consider any potential movement in this direction extremely rapid progress compared to the last, say, thirty years....

Fr. Robert Hart said...

I thank Anglican Deacon for the link. I remember reading that at the time, or rather, David Virtue's report of it. Sadly, according to the APCK people (as I know from my time on the inside), all that happened was that the ACC provided a happy excuse for never trying anything to promote unity ever again. How strange, then, that Bp. Florenza's principled stand provides a perceived threat to one party, and an excuse for punishing the hated ACA to another party. This time the issue is not really unity, but cutting off the TAC-ACA as irrelevant. (But, in 2004, it was the UEC that was irrelevant.)

I really want to be proved wrong. I got to know some of these people. I really like ++Morse and ++Provence; we had only good times in our few opportunities to talk and sit down together. I have no grudge at all (even against the, as yet, unrepentant +Morrison). But, as long as good and faithful priests are thrown away like old shoes simply because the business of the Church is making money too much of a priority (if not a god), all the good of the APCK will continue to sink to the bottom where it remains hidden. What a fine jurisdiction, what an excellent seminary, what well educated and fine priests.

What a waste. They are their own worst enemy, except for the devil himself.

Death Bredon said...

Folks,

The UEC has just signed a concordat with the ACC. That changes everything. Hence, Archbishop Provence's receptiveness is shows no inconsistency by the PCK. Anyhow, as dbunker notes, it should be welcomed, not criticized.

Death Bredon said...

BTW, what is the source on the non-invitation of Bishop Florenza? Perhaps he decline to attend or voted by proxy??

John said...

More bizarre than the reversal on the UECNA is how will the purest ACC deal with the fact that ++Province (it seems weird to have the same name as your organization) has been divorced, a fact that caused a loss in churches when he was consecrated a bishop. Regardless of Bishop Florenza, this choice will likely cause some churches to leave. Timothy and Titus are pretty clear on this stuff.

I can not see how the consecration is canonical without the full house of bishops, at the least a pall is cast over the proceeding, as it seems so much the lone decision of ++Morse to hand pick his successor and keep him close at hand while keeping the only man with the talent and common sense to take the APCK to the next level at arms length.

SInce the motivation is obvious for the new 'unity' with UECNA and the ACC I do not think it will solve the big problem which is that Bishop Florenza has the only healthy diocese in the APCK. There are less than a dozen churches in Bishop Wyguls and Bishop Morrison's dioceses combined and +Province's has about 20 but many have less than a few members. The bottom is falling out because of a lack of vision and catholic commitment. I understand that ++Morse has made it known he would like to see a new Anglicanism based on his personal churchmanship, if true the APCK is just another personality cult. How sad.

John

Fr. Robert Hart said...

Death Bredon
Thank you for reading and commenting.

1) Archbishop Morse made it clear to Bp. Florenza that he was not to come. This was after Bp. Florenza learned of the meeting of the APCK bishops only by a report on the internet. On this you can consider me to be a source.

2) The concordat is old news. I am not criticizing that at all, in case this is the perception. But, I do criticize the treatment suddenly given to the ACA, formerly treated as a partner in at least one effort at unity by the APCK.

Fr. Robert Hart said...

Someone has accused me of dragging through the mud the name of one Bishop Morris. I do not know of any bishop named Morris. However, I have made a detailed and accurate report of the treatment I received from a bishop name Morrison (in "The Problem of the Episcoplaian's Orders" on this blog). I waited three months to make this report; and finally realized that innocent men need to be warned not to trust the Bishop Ordinary of the Diocese of the Southwestern States, APCK, inasmuch as only a miracle preserved my family from economic ruin, simply because I trusted an untrustworthy man. My family is doing very well, living in a Rectory where I am serving in my ministry as a priest, none of which could have been foreseen by the same Bp. Morrsion. He believed we were going to be stranded in the desert.

The time comes for denouncing sin, and warning people that danger exists. Danger exists for sinners who do not repent; and danger exists when innocent families can be harmed simply because the head of the house is a priest who is willing to move across country and take a position based upon the promises given by a man who wears a mitre. Such a man drags his own name through the proverbial mud.

It is the priests and their dependents who could fall victim in such a case, and they deserve a very publicly posted warning.

I really want to get back now to posting theological and edifying articles and sermons. But, it seems the Lord is having me do this prophet bit for a little longer.

Someone else has alluded to a former probationary APCK priest, apparently as an attempt to dismiss my reports. According to the Canons, I am still in good standing as a priest for that jurisdiction, and had gotten past the probationary status during the last Fond du Lac pilgrimage. What has motivated my telling of the truth is a frank need to give the warning I have mentioned.

Fr. Robert Hart said...

Something was keeping me from sleeping tonight, and I realized it was this bit of John's comment:
More bizarre than the reversal on the UECNA is how will the purest ACC deal with the fact that ++Provence has been divorced, a fact that caused a loss in churches when he was consecrated a bishop.

Because of the big protest made by Bp. Robert Waggener at the time, this news was trumpeted all over. But, as I understand it, ++Provence (everyone pronounces it, "Provinz") had an annulment long ago, before his ordination I think. The one time I had to help a APCK bishop investigate a case of nullity, I saw that the process was difficult, and that it was done with integrity. In fact, I was not able to perform the wedding or bless the union until a decision could be made to grant nullity, and it was not rushed to accommodate the couple's desired wedding date.

Perhaps that ought not to be good enough for whatever standards the ACC has. I am not sure how they look at such things. But, as far as I am concerned, we can say that ++Provence has been married only once in the sight of God.

Fr. Robert Hart said...

Now that my conscience is clear, I can sleep.

Tony Ridsdale said...

If divorced Bishop's are problem to reunion it is just as well the TAC/ACA is not mentioned as their Primate ++Hepworth and one of his deputies +Chislett are both divorced.

Tony

Fr_Rob said...

The ACC also has divorced bishops.

apckmusician said...

Dear John,

His last name is not "Province", it is "Provence".

Bev T

Anonymous said...

I don't mean to get a firestorm unleashed on me. However, I think you are all misssing the point of the APCK, UEC, and ACC being cautious of the ACA. It has more to do with FACA and their confederation with what is seen as groups as being overly protestant and less than orthodox, like AMiA.

It really isn't what FACA says as much as what it implies. Some of the language is scary to those who are concerned about groups that are less than orthodox. Let's face it...many churches have sprung-up post V. Gene Robinson which are really nothing more than TEc minus homosexuals.

D. Straw
dsstraw@yahoo.com

Fr Samuel Edwards said...

Before this "divorced bishop" issue gets out of hand, something needs to be said for the sake of theological clarity and, one hopes, charity.

The real issue is not divorce as such, for one party may not have wanted the divorce and was simply the victim of a legal system in which the wishes of the autonomous individual are paramount. (I know this to have been the situation in at least one of the cases mentioned in the responses.) The real theological/ scriptural issue is remarriage after divorce. While the Church of England never had a very effective system for dealing with this (contenting itself for the most part with forbidding the remarriage in the church of anyone who had undergone a civil divorce and with ignoring the whole matter of adjudicating sacramental nullity), once upon a time (pre-1970s) the Episcopal Church did and all the major Continuum jurisdictions have preserved it.

Fr Hart is right about Abp Provence, and about the others in the same situation: Having had his previous union adjudicated on the evidence as sacramentally null, he was free to marry, so this situation ought not to be used as a basis of critique. If it is, then the critiquer in effect has conceded to the state the authority to define what sacramentally valid marriage is. Worse than that, he at least implicitly will have said that marriage is a union that is not sacramental but magical in character: If two people say the right words, they are married without regard to their intent or capacity to make the commitment. This is not catholic sacramental theology.

There is plenty in to criticize in the actions of the PCK/ACC/UEC leadership, but this is not really one of them.

Fr Samuel Edwards

poetreader said...

Actually, Mr. Straw, that's not entirely accurate.

There are reasonable people such as yourself who are troubled by this FACA phenomenon (as a loyal ACA member, I am less than 100% comfortable for much the reasons you state - the reality is OK, but the appearance is very far from comforting).

However, in the case of the relationship with ACC, this becomes more of a pretext than a cause. ACC's reasons for continuing the separation, which appear reasonable to them and inadequate to us, predate the FACA thing, and have not changed one whit. It appears that the outcome has been decided, and that pretexts will continue to be sought to justify the cries of 'unclean, unclean'.

To my mind there is simply not justification in the charges given (nor in the charges I could, but will not, lay against ACC) for separation, though they certainly do merit spirited discussion.

ed

Ninja Michael said...

I am also very confused by the discussions about remarriage. If by annulment, we only mean that someone has been given permission to remarry after divorce, then why the double standard for clergy vs. laity, or bishops vs. priests even!

But if by annulment we mean that, for the purposes of the church and her sacraments, the marriage is not valid or binding (which is what the word in fact means), then it should not be a basis for any decision about ordination.

Perhaps someone's divorce could be taken into consideration before ordination or consecration, if the circumstances of the divorce pointed to some grave fault in the person (mental instability, anger, immaturity), but being married after an annulment (if there are reasonable grounds for a declaration of nullity) should not in itself be an impediment.

Fr. Edwards pointed out that the Church should not give the state the power to decide what is a valid Christian marriage. I would suggest that, in these days of no fault divorce and (in some places) same sex marriage, that a civil marriage, not blessed by the church, should be presumed null unless there are good reasons to the contrary. (This is generally the practice in Orthodox churches, who will usually offer a church wedding to someone who went through a civil marriage and divorce, without raising any questions of conscience. It's understood that the first "marriage" simply was not what the Church understands marriage to be.)

Laurence K. Wells said...

Here we have a bunch of people who loudly claim to support "unity" all hot and bothered because the ACC, UEC, and APCK show signs of getting together. Few of any of the participants currently belong to any of these three groups, so we have to conclude that personal resentments are driving the discussion.

Mr Straw happens to be quite right. While ACA's involvement with Neo-Anglican groups which harbor priestesses and practice non-traditional worship is fairly recent, this is symptomatic of a theological mushiness which has riddled that body from its inception.

Those outside the "circle of three"
have no need to form or express opinions of developments within the circle.

palaeologos said...

I suspect that Archbishop Provence's marital status was only a pretext for Bishop Waggener to leave the APCK. If +Waggener's stance was so principled, why did he later leave Anglicanism altogether to join the Orthodox jurisdiction which is well-known for being the least strict in interpreting the strictures on divorce? I can only see +Waggener's behavior as a power play.

And John : ++Provence was not "consecrated" on 6/29/07. He was elected; since he was already a bishop, he does not need to be consecrated again--unless perhaps you are referring to his consecration as bishop, which is not clear from the context of your remark.

Anonymous said...

ahhh yes..we've come full circle...right back to the "One True Church".

This is all so sad and disheartening.

Clifford
a miserable sinner

Ken said...

Ed,

1) It appears from ++Charles statement that the ACA/TAC affiliation with "Lambeth communion" groups is a hinderance for the ACC. Even if it is just a pretext, certainly a response from the ACA clearly identifying the underlying principles and expected extent of such affiliations would be valuable. As it is, it appears one year TAC is flirting with the RCC and another with "women ordaining, 1979 BCP using" African Anglican jurisdictions.

2)I don't know how much of the current leadership in the ACA/TAC was involved in the Deerfield Beach episode. However, at the least, some in the ACA had show by their very actions that unity with the ACC could be thrown to the wayside. Frankly, I don't know any of the "behind the curtain" stuff that happened then, but I bet there needs to be some repenting on both sides.

Pretty much everyone here is saying the ACC needs to repent of it "legalism" and "one true churchism", so what does the ACA need to repent of?

Fr. Robert Hart said...

I must refute every position put forth in Lawrence Wells' comment.

1) ...so we have to conclude that personal resentments are driving the discussion.

Hogwash sir. You can no more look into another man's heart than you can see through walls. If you assume this, then you assume the powers of a prophet. It is a common tactic of debate these days to diagnose someone's mind, armed only with an amatuer's presumption, instead of looking at the facts that have been presented, and trying to refute them. Along these lines, I suggest the essay Bulverism by C.S. Lewis, in God in the Dock.

2)While ACA's involvement with Neo-Anglican groups which harbor priestesses and practice non-traditional worship is fairly recent, this is symptomatic of a theological mushiness which has riddled that body from its inception.

"Involvement" is a rather ambiguous word. Since the involvement does not extend to sacramental communion with heretics, but to discussions based on common Christian faith and charity that includes people who are yet confused and ignorant, the involvement is nothing less than the compassion of Christ. He does not break a bruised reed nor quench a smoking coal. As for "theological mushiness" it was an ACA priest who wrote the book on Continuing Anglicanism, the best Anglican theologian in the whole camp- Lou Tarsitano+ of blessed memory.

3. Those outside the "circle of three" have no need to form or express opinions of developments within the circle.

Except that the claim of the "circle of three" is bogus. It is a pretence of unity for the purpose of furthering division, and cutting off the largest of all the Continuing jurisdictions. I have stated my reasons for this view, and have not seen much of a thought out and reasonsed answer.

Anglican Deacon said...

To Lawrence Wells:

Sir,

To posture that those, whose affiliation is outside of the "trio" to which your refer, should not express measured opinions about matters centered deeply in the concerns of all Anglicans, is an absurdity.

Should the eletorate not share opinions about the various political parties and their actions in our country? Should we not comment on other faiths? Should we not question others, whose expertise is outside of our own, but whose actions affect us?

If your position be just (and it is not,) then consider this writer an "insider" who should be allowed to comment freely, as he has had an exlusive "membership" in one of these groups, which has spanned better than five years.

Deacon Jon Filkins

Laurence K. Wells said...

Fr Hart writes:
"it was an ACA priest who wrote the book on Continuing Anglicanism, the best Anglican theologian in the whole camp- Lou Tarsitano+ of blessed memory."

Fr Tarsitano was a close friend of mine; we were colleagues on the same Board of Examining Chaplains. He and I became disgusted with the ACA at the same time and through the same political shenanigans. He died thoroughly disenchanted with that body, and carefully arranged that his funeral service not become a photo-op for ACA panjandrums. I agree with your assessment of Lou's theological prowess, but to invoke his name in defense of ACA shows either total ignorance of that body or intellectual dishonesty on your part, or perhaps both. I only wish Lou were here to rebuke you with his formidable eloquence and erudition.

btw, If you have such great admiration for ACA, why don't you join it?

frbader said...

In response to palaeologos (whose name should stop him from criticising Bishop Waggener's conversion to Eastern Orthodoxy):
15 parishes left the APCK over the consecrations of Bishops Provence and Florenza. This was partially on the grounds that both were men who had been remarried with episcopal permission or annulment. The other ground was the contention that these two bishops were elected illegally according to APCK Canons, in that the necessary episcopal consents were not received.
None of these original parishes has followed Bishop Waggener to Eastern Orthodoxy.
It is also the case that most of these parishes were already unhappy in APCK for a number of reasons.
I would also add, like Fr Hart, that I have always found Bishops Morse, Provence, and Florenza to be fine men in my personal dealings with them.
Fr Robert Bader

Albion Land said...

I have just rejected a comment, invoking what I have just adopted as "Galatians Five Rule." I will do it again if necessary.

I encourage you all to read Verses 16-26 and to reflect on them.

John said...

Well I stand corrected on a couple of things but I must say I think the divorce issue is not as easy to dismiss as some of you wish. Many have argued the divorce culture was the first tipping of the culture cart leading up to the sexual revolution and the decay of morals in the ECUSA (Fr. Sam I seem to remember an article you wrote to this effect) and it's leadership as well as those in the pews. While I might accidently mispell a name, I think spelling aside, this is a big concern to a lot of people. It defies the plain read of Scripture.
Maybe Bishop Waggener needed an excuse but if you talk to some of the lay people the divorce issue is still a big deal. I think it is a big deal. Nullity can be a real thing or it can be a convenience. When we make excuses we set ourselves up to comparisons and the accusation of double standard over against they likes of Vicki Gene Robinson. Are children involved? I do not know the details but I am sure some of you do.
As to the sacramental question I do understand that someone can not be ordained twice or baptized twice, etc. I was refering to the 'ritual' if you will rather loosely.
As to +Waggener's 'journey' it seems a bit wacky- maybe that is all there is to it.
As to resentments I have no resentment against anybody if the comment is aimed at my questioning. I think with all the maneuvering and the innuendo and politics as a pew potato I want to know everything so I can make a reasonable decision as to where I need to be if in fact that is the CC. I had enough Kool Aid in ECUSA years ago and I'm not having anymore. As it is , blatant heresy aside, what is different?

Lets get one thing straight the UEC has 300-600 people- that does not mean they are not worthy in God's eyes or to signing some concordat with but the impact of that doc/deal is not newsworthy and makes little difference as to CC unity. 300 people- that is a small baptist church! Can we have some perspective here? Why is it necessary for them to even have their own bishops? Why would they be getting a billing all of a sudden unless ++ Provence hopes no one realizes that they are as small as they are?? Why does the APCK need 4 Bishops and an Archbishop when it has only about 2500-3000 people, which is an average Baptist or RC church in the 'burbs! Why are there multiple jurisdictions? It's no wonder people go to Rome in spite of the home brewed dogma.

John

poetreader said...

Fr. Bader,

I will not stand in judgment over those 15 parishes. It is not my responsibility to do so, and, moreover I do not know all the circumstances. I do believe, however, that the very fact that they seemed to have the option to do as they did illustrates something that may merit a judgment of the entire Continuum.

One simply does not (if one is truly Catholic in ecclesiology) start a new jursidiction on the grounds of mismanagement or sin on the part of the bishops. It remains universal truth that one's bishop is a sinner, and that sin always results in some degree of mismanagement. The Church is one. One's bishop is one's bishop and there is no picking and choosing to be done. The one and only reason for setting up a rival jurisdiction is the bishop's firm and recognized commitment to heresy.

If one is abused, then, one either accepts it quietly, finds a way to practice [b]both[/b] obedience [b]and[/b] an attempt to bring reform, or removes himself from the place where that bishop rules (as, incidentally, Fr, Hart has done). These are the options for a traditional Catholic.

The Continuing Church too freely presents the option of taking off to start again on one's own. That choice now exists, but it is not a Catholic principle at all, but a solidly Protestant one, as is the other option, also extant, of casting out whole groups of brethren simply because of a disagreement that falls short of a firm, open, and acknowledged commitment to heresy.

There is no jurisdiction of the Continuum that has not grasped on to these two principles at one time or another, in one form or another. We all stand under judgment on this account. God help us!

The time for finger pointing is long past. It is time for Anglicans to begin acting like the Catholics that we declare ourselves to be, and to cease acting like a bunch of Protestants in fancy clothes.

ed

John said...

"Perhaps someone's divorce could be taken into consideration before ordination or consecration, if the circumstances of the divorce pointed to some grave fault in the person (mental instability, anger, immaturity), but being married after an annulment (if there are reasonable grounds for a declaration of nullity) should not in itself be an impediment."


I would like to point out the seeming inconsistancy of most of you on the divorce issue because of the oft cited St. Vincent's rule as being a foundational principle in the Affirmation of St. Louis, of which many of you quote elsewhere.

If you can demonstrate that annullment has been enough to quiet the issue for other bishops in all time and places and people I would be glad to forget it.

In other words, is divorce in the back ground of candidates for the episcopacy a recent practice confined to Episcopalians and Continuing Bishops or is this a universal practice?

How about homosexual Bishops whether practicing or not I understand one of the big three has a bishop that is gay but 'celebate'.

I ask these questions not to inflict pain on anyone but after reading the Donatistic stuff in other posts here I see the 'holier than thou' reasoning put forth as rather ridiculous and scandalous.



John

Fr. Robert Hart said...

He and I became disgusted with the ACA at the same time and through the same political shenanigans. He died thoroughly disenchanted with that body...

I was aware at the time that Lou had some disagreements with a certain direction toward Rome, and other things he would not talk about very much. But, from what I recall, this line from Lawrence Wells is quite overstated.

btw, If you have such great admiration for ACA, why don't you join it?

I see no reason to accept the harsh condemnation of the ACC towards a jurisdiction that is stable, sane, and growing. The reasons given, especially by John Hollister+, only make me more inclined to think that the ACA has been maligned wrongly. But, if I were to look for a jurisdiction in the CC, limited to what exists now, they would seem the best (as Lou certainly did say, and contitued to say, right up to his death. He never said otherwise to me).

Fr. Robert Hart said...

Since I have just seen that the reader who has been commenting as "Anglican Deacon" is my friend Jon Filkins, I hope he will not mind if I take the opportunity to point out that he, too, was a victim of Bp. Morrison's tyrannical and spiteful behavior.

The need exists for quite a few bishops to learn what it means to be a pastor and father in God. I am among a number of priests (I hope not too small a number) who have a true bishop, a true father in God and pastor, who was quick to welcome me home. When this prodigal father came home, the fatted calf was slain and rejoicing broke out.

Two years ago, when I went out on my journey, I was not ready for the shock of meeting the all-business, banker model of bishop. I spent most of the time in two states at the same time: Arizona and denial.

frbader said...

It is the fact that most of us didn't leave until after the second 2003 election (that of Bishop Florenza).
I beg to differ with Fr Hart regarding APCK Canons, having served as Vice-Chancellor for Canon Law of the Diocese of the Eastern States for many years and been a member of the Committee which produced the major revision of Provincial Canons in 1992.
In Bishop Provence's election, the nominations came from the Executive Council (at that time Morse, Morrison, Waggener). All voted in favour. The election then took place and consents needed to come in. A totally different vote, this time requiring two-thirds majority of the whole Council of Bishops, not just the Executive Committee.
Morse, Morrison, Clark voted yes.
Waggener and LaCour voted no. Murphy left in protest and didn't even vote. That is not 2/3.
With regard to Bishop Florenza's election, Waggener (who had not yet left) voted no for both nomination and consent. And LaCour voted no for consent.
Fr Robert Bader
(APCK priest from 1987-2003)

Ken said...

I left a comment but it never showed up, perhaps that is for the better.

Anyway, whether you believe all this unity talk between the ACC, APCK and UECNA is just to put a stick in the eye of the ACA or not, let's hope that some good may come of it.

Everyone should read Albion's post from a few months back:

http://anglicancontinuum.blogspot.com/2007/02/acc-apck-unity.html

Fr. Robert Hart said...

I would also add, like Fr Hart, that I have always found Bishops Morse, Provence, and Florenza to be fine men in my personal dealings with them.

So have I. Unfortunately, I cannot unknow what I know about the mistreatment dished out to good men like Fr. Novak, Fr. Edwards, and others. It was +Provence who actually did the legwork to foreclose on Fr.Novak's church.

If we get on to the subject of the Provincial Development Fund it will mean headaches all around. The sight of the bishops acting as a mortgage company certainly depressed the congregation I was pastoring, especially the constant knowledge that they will, inevitably, foreclose on the Church of the Atonement. Not a very pastoral sort of picture.