tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post2752651427434908247..comments2024-03-24T15:19:06.377-04:00Comments on The Continuum: Church Congregation Locked OutFr. Robert Harthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05892141425033196616noreply@blogger.comBlogger60125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-23903571080247997032008-05-19T17:15:00.000-04:002008-05-19T17:15:00.000-04:00In all this, there is one great unresolved questio...<I>In all this, there is one great unresolved question: when Bp. Michael was installed (or perhaps will be installed in the newly-distrained St. James Church), was he handed (or will he be handed) that vital symbol of the office he is assuming, Bp. McNeley's .357 Magnum? <BR/></I><BR/><BR/>Perhaps it could be integrated into their logo?Kenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05218434053331256206noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-21338143391989210762008-05-19T08:40:00.000-04:002008-05-19T08:40:00.000-04:00Fr. Hart wrote, "I know that Leo Michael announced...Fr. Hart wrote, "I know that Leo Michael announced to his congregation in the summer of 2007 that the archbishop was in bad health, and that he, Leo Michael, was going to be the new archbishop."<BR/><BR/>Abp. Reber will reach the age of 75 in 2011 and, from what I have been told of the UECNA's Constitutional and Canonical structure (for I have never had the documents to read), the Presiding Bishop retires at that age. This is unlike the situation in some other groups where a bishop upon reaching that age starts submitting his resignation annually but, if his health and faculties hold out and he and his people are all in agreement, that resignation may be rejected annually as well.<BR/><BR/>Somewhat like the case of Fr. Hart's witness at the meeting of St. Gabriels' which Fr. Hart cited, I have been told by someone who was told by Abp. Reber that, earlier this year, Bp. Michael -- whose status was only that of a Suffragan without right of succession -- asked Abp. Reber to appoint Michael as Abp. Reber's successor.<BR/><BR/>Abp. Reber replied that it was not in his power to do this because at the point of Abp. Reber's retirement, it would be the right of the people of the UECNA to determine their own future.<BR/><BR/>(It doesn't take a crystal ball to figure out that they would have had three options: elect Bp. Michael as Abp. Reber's successor, elect someone else as Abp. Reber's successor, or elect to join some other group.)<BR/><BR/>Obviously, Leo Michael was not satisfied that with this scenario. Apparently he was not confident of his ability over the next three years to recommend himself to the majority of the UECNA as their overall leader; either that, or a three-year wait was simply not fast enough to gratify his ambitions.<BR/><BR/>So, very shortly after his conversation with Abp. Reber, he betook himself to the HCC(AR). The bishops there, unlike Abp. Reber, were prepared to set aside the canonical rights of the people affected and, instead of calling for a diocesan electoral synod to choose Bp. McNeley's successor, they simply appointed Michael as the successor. As their authority for disregarding their church's and the diocesan canons, they referred to some vague "apostolic canon", the text of which was never revealed and which was never identified by title, date, or the authority which issued it.<BR/><BR/>In all this, there is one great unresolved question: when Bp. Michael was installed (or perhaps will be installed in the newly-distrained St. James Church), was he handed (or will he be handed) that vital symbol of the office he is assuming, Bp. McNeley's .357 Magnum? <BR/><BR/>John A. Hollister+John A. Hollisterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01325615323834517909noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-75643351419930166282008-05-19T00:01:00.000-04:002008-05-19T00:01:00.000-04:00The UECNA had only two active bishops? In that cas...The UECNA had only two active bishops? In that case, I know that Leo Michael announced to his congregation in the summer of 2007 that the archbishop was in bad health, and that he, Leo Michael, was going to be the new archbishop. This I know from an eye witness who, seeing this display of insanity, ran like hell and never went back. <BR/><BR/>His proud, carnal ambitions were obviously frustrated. The UECNA is well rid of this menace.Fr. Robert Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05892141425033196616noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-17010918396651387072008-05-18T23:49:00.000-04:002008-05-18T23:49:00.000-04:00Caedmon:None of the four of us who post on the Con...Caedmon:<BR/><BR/>None of the four of us who post on the Continuum are in any position to answer your questions in any official way. I do not represent the UECNA, and am only just meeting them, so to speak. But, there is a big difference between allowing conversations to take place between a bishop (Leo Michael) of the UEC and people from the HCC-AR. Since we see that there was no genuine intention on Leo Michael's part to actually represent the UEC to the HCC-AR, we may conclude that he deceived Archbishop Reber and the UEC the whole time. <BR/><BR/>Meanwhile, the UEC was in <I>real</I> communion with the ACC (and the quickly shrunken APCK latched hold of them for dear life). There is a difference.Fr. Robert Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05892141425033196616noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-2422813305183214012008-05-18T22:20:00.000-04:002008-05-18T22:20:00.000-04:00Caedmon asked,1. "[H]ow is it that the UECNA news...Caedmon asked,<BR/><BR/>1. "[H]ow is it that the UECNA newsletter with Bp. Leo's interpolation about the HCC stayed out there, online on the UECNA web site for everyone to see, as well as, presumably, many hard copies in the hands of its bishops, priests, deacons and laity without anyone noticing the interpolation until I pointed it out a few days ago? Why didn't anyone raise a fuss about the interpolation before?"<BR/><BR/>Not being a member of the UECNA, I can only speculate here. I do know that the "bishops" of the UECNA consisted of precisely two in regular active service (it has a couple more with whom it maintains relationships of intercommunion but only two of its own, if I'm correctly understanding the lines of communication and authority).<BR/><BR/>Those two bishops were Abp. Reber and Bp. Michael. Abp. Reber does not do email (from which I would deduce that he may well not do any techie stuff, as email is most people's entry portal into the world of the Web). There have been comments published by Bp. Michael which suggest Michael was serving as Abp. Reber's "e-postmaster", which would have permitted him to censor anything that arrived electronically before it was passed on in hard copy.<BR/><BR/>As to why no one raised a public stink about the interpolation of the HCC(AR) into the list of St. Louis churches, I do not know, but would not be in the least surprised if by that time Leo Michael had not already been causing some problems within the UEC. Sometimes there's only enough water and hose to fight one fire at a time.<BR/><BR/>2. "What letter of Abp. Reber to the HCC(AR)?"<BR/><BR/>In early to mid 2007, Bp. Michael went to Kansas City, ostensibly to discuss with the HCC(AR) bishops the terms on which the UECNA would be willing to assume oversight of the HCC(AR)'s parishes as its bishops, one by one, recede to that great cathedra in the sky.<BR/><BR/>From subsequent events I now suspect, although I cannot prove, that Michael had given the HCC(AR) bishops advance notice of the terms he was carrying with him and which had been approved by Abp. Reber. This would explain why the HCC(AR) side was ready at that meeting with a new proposal that varied substantially -- in fact contradicted -- the HCC(AR)'s original request to the UECNA.<BR/><BR/>There was a third-party impartial witness present at the meeting, so Bp. Michael proceeded as expected to read out the terms he had been authorized and instructed to convey. Instead of discussing those, however, the HCC(AR) side immediately responded, "Oh, we don't really need to discuss that, because after all, we've always been in communion with the UECNA anyway. So instead of any other agreement, we can just sign a formal acknowledgement of that."<BR/><BR/>The HCC(AR)ers then produced a written, unilateral declaration of intercommunion with the UECNA, which all the HCC(AR) bishops signed. This was given to Bp. Michael, the meeting was over, and apparently Michael transmitted the new HCC(AR) overture to Abp. Reber.<BR/><BR/>Abp. Reber's response was to write a letter to the HCC(AR) bishops, setting them straight. He told them that while those among them who were former ACC had been, while in the ACC, in communion with the UECNA, when they, as individuals, left the ACC, they likewise abandoned the relationship of intercommunion that existed between the two churches.<BR/><BR/>Therefore, he expressly told them, the UECNA is not in communion with the HCC(AR).<BR/><BR/>Leo Michael's "editing" of Abp. Reber's statement (a statement that was actually about the ACC and the APCK) occurred, as I recall, after this. Michael has recently pointed to the altered statement as "evidence" that the UECNA and the HCC(AR) are in a state of communion, and has called Abp Reber a liar, because that is what he would like people to believe. If believed, it would place him and his own actions in a much better light than presently shines on them.<BR/><BR/>The reason I believe Abp. Reber when he says he has never acknowledged any state of communion between his church and the HCC(AR) is that even BEFORE Bp. Michael went to Kansas City to talk with the HCC(AR) bishops, Abp. Reber had transmitted his proposed terms to the ACC's bishops. He asked the ACC for assurances that the limited discussions he envisioned would not imperil the UECNA's newly-reaffirmed relationship with the ACC.<BR/><BR/>He said that if it came to a choice between keeping its relationship with the ACC and refusing to talk to the HCC(AR), the UECNA was keeping its relationship with the ACC. He was told that while the ACC very much appreciated the integrity with which he was observing the obligations of intercommunion, and while from the ACC's point of view all of the HCC(AR)'s original bishops were simply ACC clergymen under sentence of deposition (and, in McNeley's case, of excommunication as well), the ACC would not stand in the way of the UECNA's providing a church home for these bishops' adherents. It would not even stand in the way of those bishops under sanctions being afforded the status of retired bishops within the UECNA, if that was the best way to handle them.<BR/><BR/>So Abp. Reber knew that any declaration of UECNA/HCC(AR) intercommunion would sever the UECNA's relationship with the ACC. Further, he expressly stated he was not going to risk that relationship. Thus I for one believe him and believe the letter of clarification he wrote the HCC(AR) bishops.<BR/><BR/>Contrariwise, Bp. Michael has recently proven conclusively that he sits very lightly to the truth.<BR/><BR/>And, frankly, given the bizarre trail of events that has unfolded over the past few weeks, I think Abp. Reber was extraordinarily wise immediately to squash the move by the HCC(AR) bishops -- and, it now seems, his own suffragan Leo Michael -- to "set him up" on this issue.<BR/><BR/>Further evidence that Michael was attempting to create a "fait accompli" is found in the "Koinonia" newsletter that Michaels issued simultaneously with his transfer to the HCC(AR). (In fact, copies of his new magazine hit many peoples' mailboxes before news of his change of faith did.)<BR/><BR/>That issue was little more than a paen to the virtues of the HCC(AR) as a legitimate descendent of the St. Louis succession and as a real player in the "Continuing Church" movement. As Michael had thrown his lot irrevocably with the HCC, it was certainly in his interest to support its claims to be a real church with some real legitimacy behind it. Since then, his actions, as distinct from his words, have cast considerable doubt on that proposition.<BR/><BR/>John A. Hollister+John A. Hollisterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01325615323834517909noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-54016940136234434472008-05-18T20:14:00.000-04:002008-05-18T20:14:00.000-04:00"I cannot approve a comment in which you argue wit..."I cannot approve a comment in which you argue with Fr. Sparks unless he comments here. That conversation was taking place on VOL."<BR/><BR/>Fair enough, Fr. But please note, as I stated in my response to you, that pressing y'all on this question does not necessarily equate to support for the HCC-AR, something I've both said and implied repeatedly.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-47282390838502309442008-05-18T20:12:00.000-04:002008-05-18T20:12:00.000-04:00"I was informed about that (Abp. Reber's authoriza..."I was informed about that (Abp. Reber's authorization of Leo Michael's dealing with the HCC-AR) too. I am told that what was authorized was ecumenical dialogue, and nothing more."<BR/><BR/>Right. That's what I've been saying all along. So, if that's the case, that would explain why there was a reference to the HCC-AR in that 2007 <I>Glad Tidings</I> newsletter. And it would also explain why the UECNA never yanked the online version from its website until now, and why there was no official correction to the reference to the HCC-AR in that newsletter until now. <BR/><BR/>Is everyone with me here? Canon Hollister said in a post above that "to his knowledge" there were no such ecumenical overtures toward the HCC-AR back in 2007. A number of people associated with this blog have said, in essence, that the HCC-AR has been beneath their notice. And you stated over at VO that the HCC "is not one of the major jurisdictions of the Continuing Church movement." <BR/><BR/>But the 2007 newsletter provides such evidence of such ecumenical activity with the HCC-AR (mentioning in that text context the ACC, APCK and the UECNA), and you yourself acknowledge that Reber appears to have authorized it. Moreover, that newsletter in fact would appear to indicate that the HCC-AR was considered at the time to be something of a "player" in the Continuing Anglican movement.<BR/><BR/>My question then, is this: why did the UECNA yank the online version of that newsletter a day or two after I mentioned it here and on VO publicly? And then why did it, as of last night or so, publish what is purportedly the "original text" of Reber's statement, which doesn't contain any reference to the HCC-AR? Don't you see how all this makes it appear that UECNA, and possibly the ACC too, is trying to hide something? Don't you see how posting an "original text" of Reber's statement, in light of all the foregoing, naturally raises suspicion that the UECNA merely omitted the references to the HCC-AR from the article? <BR/><BR/>So, will one of you please address these questions? If so, please be direct, specific, and fully responsive. Thanks again.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-16956183058322180942008-05-18T18:44:00.000-04:002008-05-18T18:44:00.000-04:00Caedmon:I cannot approve a comment in which you ar...Caedmon:<BR/><BR/>I cannot approve a comment in which you argue with Fr. Sparks unless he comments here. That conversation was taking place on VOL.Fr. Robert Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05892141425033196616noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-42796524231608430252008-05-18T18:41:00.000-04:002008-05-18T18:41:00.000-04:00Finally, I have some information in my possession ...<I>Finally, I have some information in my possession that Bp. Leo's activities in the HCC - AR in the months preceding his departure from UECNA were actually AUTHORIZED by Abp. Reber, and this may very well explain why Bp. Michael referred to them in the newsletter...</I><BR/><BR/>I was informed about that too. I am told that what was authorized was ecumenical dialogue, and nothing more.Fr. Robert Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05892141425033196616noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-114355965943906322008-05-18T16:11:00.000-04:002008-05-18T16:11:00.000-04:00Thanks, Canon Hollister, for this explanation. Af...Thanks, Canon Hollister, for this explanation. After asking hither and about 10 times for an explanation, this is this the first plausible one I've received. It's been like pulling teeth.<BR/><BR/>However, there are still a couple of niggling questions, both about fact and logic. Please indulge me as I ask these here:<BR/><BR/>You write, "Therefore, I suspect one will find that the statement quoted by Caedmon was drafted not by Abp. Reber, at least in its references to the HCC, but by Bp. Michael, who, it now appears, was even at that date planning his transfer there."<BR/><BR/>Then how is it that the UECNA newsletter with Bp. Leo's interpolation about the HCC stayed out there, online on the UECNA web site for everyone to see, as well as, presumably, many hard copies in the hands of its bishops, priests, deacons and laity without no one noticing the interpolation until I pointed it out a few days ago? Why didn't anyone raise a fuss about the interpolation before? Nobody has touched this question yet, though I have asked it several times. <BR/><BR/>Next: "Thus given the conflict between a statement published in Bp. Michael's journal and Abp. Reber's letter to the HCC(AR) bishops, I for one believe Abp. Reber's personal letter."<BR/><BR/>Sorry, I've lost you: what letter of Abp. Reber to the HCC(AR)?<BR/><BR/>Finally, I have some information in my possession that Bp. Leo's activities in the HCC - AR in the months preceding his departure from UECNA were actually AUTHORIZED by Abp. Reber, and this may very well explain why Bp. Michael referred to them in the newsletter, and also why the UECNA didn't seek to issue any official correction about the content of the newsletter.<BR/><BR/>Until now, anyway.<BR/><BR/>Comments regarding this?<BR/><BR/>CaedmonAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-75810390973624204072008-05-17T15:51:00.000-04:002008-05-17T15:51:00.000-04:00Caedmon wrote, "At any rate, here's the text of Ab...Caedmon wrote, "At any rate, here's the text of Abp. Reber's statement in full. And I am asking how, in light of your comment at VO that the HCC 'is not one of the major jurisdictions of the Continuing Church movement. . . .', Reber's comment here can be explained".<BR/><BR/>For some time prior to Bp. Leo Michael's departure from the UECNA, he had been editing and producing that group's internal newspaper or provincial bulletin.<BR/><BR/>Therefore, I suspect one will find that the statement quoted by Caedmon was drafted not by Abp. Reber, at least in its references to the HCC, but by Bp. Michael, who, it now appears, was even at that date planning his transfer there.<BR/><BR/>Thus given the conflict between a statement published in Bp. Michael's journal and Abp. Reber's letter to the HCC(AR) bishops, I for one believe Abp. Reber's personal letter.<BR/><BR/>Bp. Michael's simultaneous activities with two separate church jurisdictions remind me of a conversation I had in the 1970s. A friend told me a couple planning to be married, being very "modern", intended to have an "open marriage". That is, each partner would be free to have relationships with outsiders.<BR/><BR/>I responded that there was nothing "modern" about "open marriage" because it's been with us for a long time; it's just that usually only one partner knows that the marriage is "open".<BR/><BR/>In that spirit, for a period of time it appears that Bp. Michael was exercising an "open" episcopate.<BR/><BR/>John A. Hollister+<BR/>:John A. Hollisterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01325615323834517909noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-34601563098181088422008-05-17T01:10:00.000-04:002008-05-17T01:10:00.000-04:00Of course, I was here in Maryland on Tuesday morni...Of course, I was here in Maryland on Tuesday morning. But, it seemed, from the account I was given, that the judge was leaning on the side of the "renegades." What can be done for the clergy and their families?<BR/><BR/>Nonetheless, your problem has exposed two <I>renegade</I> bishops to be "false apostles, deceitful workers, etc." And, they are the ones who initiated court action, not you. <BR/><BR/>Nonetheless, Bishop McNeley was excommunicated from the ACC for striking a bishop and threatening other bishops, and he has never sought restoration from them. His entire ministry is false until he goes, mitre in hand, to be forgiven.Fr. Robert Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05892141425033196616noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-87314819802654305072008-05-17T00:52:00.000-04:002008-05-17T00:52:00.000-04:00I would like to comment on what a pleasant place t...I would like to comment on what a pleasant place this is, the posts that I am reading are respectful even when not in agreement, and it is a relief to see that most of you really do "get it" regarding St. James. <BR/><BR/>I can clear up one or two things. The "long term members" vs. unknown guests issue is actually wrong on both accounts. There were certainly members who didn't know them, but some of us did. There was only one that had been a member until she moved to another state quite a few years ago. She has visited once in a great while since then, only when Bishop McNeley was in attendance. Her children were never members, they were too young. I believe her daughter to have been about 14 and her son about 10 when they last attended services. Our members must be at least 18. Her daughter attended college nearby in Lawrence, presumably for four years. We did not see her once in that time, although we have a couple who drive that distance every Sunday. I'm sure they would have given her a ride if she had been inclined. The son-in-law had never previously stepped foot in our church, though we did have their wedding picture up on our bulletin board. Since you have to be Christian, confirmed in the apostolic succession, attending the church and over 18 to be a member, I think anyone can figure that out. <BR/><BR/>I would also like to clarify the legal issue. We were dragged into the courts against explicit Biblical instruction. Paul himself told us that it is better to be defrauded. The judge was prepared to turn the keys over to us, we could have had our vote and dragged the whole sordid mess out even longer. Instead we agreed to be defrauded and not fight. There really never was much fight in us, only a desire to distance ourselves from the anything goes because I said so episcopal bishoping. It is even more painful when it is someone you have loved dearly and respected greatly. <BR/><BR/>Yes, they should have let us have the vote. Everyone advised the Bishops to let us have the vote, even those who would have voted to remain in the diocese. It would seem ridiculous to have it now and return for more abuse. Actually, almost everyone has actually felt better since being booted out. Better to be an exile than to be attacked and constantly hear our priests being scapegoated and blamed for every problem the Bishops brought on themselves.<BR/><BR/>It is very comforting to see that people actually care about us "few renegades" and where we end up. We have been offered temporary sanctuary and have been treated with great Christian kindness at Trinity Anglican. It is a beautiful thing. If you would like, I would be happy to keep you informed when our hopes for the future become real plans.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-25275968749114423392008-05-15T17:15:00.000-04:002008-05-15T17:15:00.000-04:00Well, pension systems are old school depression er...Well, pension systems are old school depression era stuff. The current practice is the 401(k). Its portable (like some bishops) and generally puts the financial decisions in the hands of the one needs the benefits.<BR/><BR/>Frankly rather than having the jurisdiction administer the 401(k) I think it ought to be in the hands of priestly fraternaties with some connection to allow jurisdictions to contribute matching funds.Kenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05218434053331256206noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-12005164101774890422008-05-15T14:24:00.000-04:002008-05-15T14:24:00.000-04:00Brother Caedmon,I doubt any of us is offended by y...Brother Caedmon,<BR/><BR/>I doubt any of us is offended by your "pesky questions." I certainly am not.<BR/><BR/>I may be wrong, but I believe I have read that there is a great dearth of pension arrangments among the continuing churches.Albion Landhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14423168351697120421noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-60011288338773081812008-05-15T14:12:00.000-04:002008-05-15T14:12:00.000-04:00Fr. D, you raise a question that I think is on all...Fr. D, you raise a question that I think is on all our minds about what may underlie all this. But if it's the case that a bishop's loss of a parish might mean his loss of retirement money, what about the other side of the equation? Is not that loss some other bishop's potential gain, and might that not affect his objectivity when it comes to how he views this matter concerning the lawsuit to keep the parish?<BR/><BR/>It's this type of thing, as I do my "due diligience" on a future church home, that leads me to trust no one implicitly, so I apologize to all the laity, clergy and bishops of the three Continuing Anglican jurisdictions who have been offended by my pesky questions and insinuations. I meant no offense, but simply get to the bottom of things, though I admit my frustration has shown more than I wanted it to publicly.<BR/><BR/>If it is truly the case that this is all about a bishop's retirement stipend, well, as one who worries about the adequacy of his own retirement funds, who am I to cast the first stone at a bishop who is seeking to care for himself financially, especially when, as I suspect, he won't be retiring as well as I will? And how can small bodies such as those of the Continuum adequately address this issue, so that we don't have to witness this kind of thing?<BR/><BR/>Pax<BR/><BR/>CaedmonAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-50465241980221332532008-05-15T06:37:00.000-04:002008-05-15T06:37:00.000-04:00Dear All,I am sure Albion would prefer to see this...Dear All,<BR/>I am sure Albion would prefer to see this thread close up and I am as sure that most of us would too.<BR/>I hope all will forgive me if I look at this case from a different perspective. This perspective originates from my experiences during my former life. No accusations meant or intended, just points to ponder in order to perhaps better understand this irrational behavior.<BR/><BR/>Questions:<BR/>what is the ammount of the total assets of the Kansas city parish in question and how are they held?<BR/><BR/>How much money from these assets is designated for the retiring bishop's stipend (if any)and how much does the new bishop stand to gain from these assets in order to augment his stipend?<BR/><BR/>Many years ago I gleaned this remark from a sign posted in front of tire store located in New Hampshire: "When someone states it is not the money, but the principle of the thing that matters, be assured, it's the money."<BR/><BR/>My experience instructs me that if an event makes no sense on it's face, follow the money.<BR/>A very cynicle, <BR/>Fr. D.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-49916706570538083232008-05-15T00:18:00.000-04:002008-05-15T00:18:00.000-04:00"I can't get in with that link. I assume he says n..."I can't get in with that link. I assume he says nothing to contradict the statement that I posted above. If it is along the same lines, it seems that he addressing the St.James situation, and drawing our attention to the one thing that matters most."<BR/><BR/>No offense, Father, but how can you make that assumption when you don't even know what it says? As to the problem with the link here, well, I posted it TWICE at VO, where it does work, and asked TWICE for your comment there. <BR/><BR/>At any rate, here's the text of Abp. Reber's statement in full. And I am asking how, in light of your comment at VO that the HCC "is not one of the major jurisdictions of the Continuing Church movement. . . .", Reber's comment here can be explained:<BR/><BR/>Behold, how good an joyful a thing it is for brethren to dwell together in unity. ps 133 v.1<BR/><BR/>The verse from this short but powerful psalm really expresses the feeling of excitement I have as those of us from the “Chamber’s Connection” begin to come into and work toward full communion with one another. It’s a most joyful thing to contemplate and I truly believe that the Holy Spirit will bless us (the ACC, APCK, HCC & UECNA) in ways we can hardly believe now possible, as we work, pray and worship together. We must only keep in mind that the “Brethren” means those who share all the tenants of the Catholic Faith and that as Brethren we also will have some differences in practice in non-essentials but can and will, as brothers, share our togetherness all the while valuing our individually. I am truly excited about the unity being built and am inviting all who read this message to pray earnestly every day for the Bishops, clergy and people of our church families. <BR/><BR/>Almighty and Everliving God, who dost govern all things in heaven and earth; Mercifully hear our prayers, and grant to the United Episcopal Church, the Anglican Province of Christ the King and the Anglican Catholic Church, original province and the Holy Catholic Church-Anglican Rite all things needful for our spiritual welfare [ministers to labour in our portions of your vineyards, churches complete in the beauty of holiness].Strengthen and confirm the faithful; protect and guide the children; visit and relieve the sick; turn and soften the wicked; arouse the careless; recover the fallen; restore the penitent. Remove all the hindrances to the advancement of thy truth; and bring all to be of one heart and mind within the fold of Thy Holy Church; to the honour and glory of they blessed Name; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.<BR/><BR/>-- CaedmonAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-87410768744590710872008-05-14T22:50:00.000-04:002008-05-14T22:50:00.000-04:00What's your interpretation of Abp. Reber's stateme...<I>What's your interpretation of Abp. Reber's statement in the opening paragraph of this UECNA newsletter?</I><BR/><BR/>I can't get in with that link. I assume he says nothing to contradict the statement that I posted above. If it is along the same lines, it seems that he addressing the St.James situation, and drawing our attention to the one thing that matters most.<BR/><BR/>That one thing that matters most is that Bishops McNeley and Michael have sued a congregation. Whether their cause is right or wrong, the suit is a sin. <BR/><BR/>It violates scripture, it violates their own canon law, it renounces the Affirmation of St. Louis. <BR/><BR/>Allowed to stand, it constitutes a genuine threat, since others may be tempted to imitate. Bad precedents must be squashed.Fr. Robert Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05892141425033196616noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-58845123853412051362008-05-14T18:25:00.000-04:002008-05-14T18:25:00.000-04:00"The Anonymous Anonymous asked. . . ."If you'll ex..."The Anonymous Anonymous asked. . . ."<BR/><BR/>If you'll excuse the quibble, I'm clearly identified as "Caedmon" in that post.<BR/><BR/>The first issue (HCC-AR's apostolic descent from Albert Chambers) being out of the way, I have I a follow up question to my query about HCC-AR's ecumenical involvement with the other three jurisdictions. What's your interpretation of Abp. Reber's statement in the opening paragraph of this UECNA newsletter?:<BR/><BR/>http://united-episcopal.org/Files/newsletter/GTTrinty2%202007.pdf<BR/><BR/>Thanks.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-43739255006432113632008-05-14T18:17:00.000-04:002008-05-14T18:17:00.000-04:00I found this very strong statement from Archbishop...I found this very strong statement from Archbishop Reber on the UECNA website. Maybe he posted it because of the Kansas City case.<BR/>http://united-episcopal.org/Files/Bishop/<BR/>ParishOwnership.html<BR/><BR/>"PARISH OWNERSHIP - A MUST<BR/><BR/>I have received a number of questions recently about the UECNA's policies and what provisions of the Articles of St. Louis we find the most important. The following is just a brief summary of the UECNA's position. As a Church of the Continuum there are three major points that are essential, indeed sacred and special.<BR/><BR/>I. The use of the 1928 Book of Common Prayer.<BR/><BR/>II. An all-Male Clergy<BR/><BR/>III. Ownership-control of the local parish buildings and property by the local Vestry.<BR/><BR/>To break any of these essential points is to break them all. To pick or choose or disregard any of these points for any reason is to forever separate oneself from both actual or spiritual association of the Article of St. Louis and all that they stand for. There is no reason or justification ever to pick and choose, or to compromise on these points.<BR/><BR/>Those persons or organizations deliberately dishonoring these points give evidence to their outright dishonesty, self-aggrandizement and/or outright fraud.<BR/><BR/>The United Episcopal Church of North America remains firmly committed to these three pertinent provisions of the Articles of St. Louis. None of our parishes need ever fear an attempt to impose central control or authority because to do would be to act in bad faith in light of the entire purpose of separating ourselves from the old church.<BR/><BR/>Deo vindice (God will vindicate)<BR/><BR/>Stephen C. Reber, Sr.<BR/>Archbishop<BR/>May 7th, 2008 A.D.<BR/>Statesville, NC"Fr. Robert Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05892141425033196616noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-60288358778565079592008-05-14T18:02:00.000-04:002008-05-14T18:02:00.000-04:00Ken wrote:Nor do I understand the how parishes con...Ken wrote:<BR/><I>Nor do I understand the how parishes controlling their own "temporalities" differs from congregationalism.</I><BR/><BR/>The clergy are responsible for the spiritual condition of the parish, and the laity for the temporalities. That is not new at all. But, what you mean is that parishes have control of their property. This too is not congregationalism. People coming out of the Episcopal Church saw the damage done by letting the Diocese own the property (The Denis Canon making it worse). A certain amount of democracy is not congregationalism, but a balance against episcopal tyranny such as TEC has used and is using to force their heresies down people's throats. The writers of the Affirmation saw that even bishops must have a certain amount of checks and balances applied to financial matters. This is consistent with ancient canons of the Church. <BR/><BR/>The only justification that the two bishops in this story could give for even trying to prevent this one parish from breaking away, would be that the people want them to. But, the hearing in court yesterday morning seems to show that the people are mostly behind their Rector, Fr. Cochran. It seems quite obvious that he has the support of most of the congregation (of course, someone might post a comment claiming to speak for the majority. But, it will not appear credible against what we know).<BR/><BR/>What I would urge of the two bishops is that they drop the matter, since they cannot force people to accept them once trust has been lost. If they were to win in court, they would establish a precedent that would do more damage than any possible good they might claim to be after. And, they would have a mostly empty church building, good for nothing but a real estate sale. Let the parishes continue to exercise their control over church property as the Affirmation of St. Louis provided for, as well as the actual HCC/AR Constitution.Fr. Robert Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05892141425033196616noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-77351854553342906252008-05-14T17:35:00.000-04:002008-05-14T17:35:00.000-04:00Maybe it's just me but I still haven't figured out...Maybe it's just me but I still haven't figured out the justification for these multiple jurisdictions. Even the apostle Paul didn't want to intrude upon another man's work.<BR/><BR/>Nor do I understand the how parishes controlling their own "temporalities" differs from congregationalism.Kenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05218434053331256206noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-25598554289834050122008-05-14T16:33:00.000-04:002008-05-14T16:33:00.000-04:00The Anonymous Anonymous asked, "The HCC-AR, along ...The Anonymous Anonymous asked, "The HCC-AR, along with the ACC, UECNA, APCK, is part of the Chambers succession, is it not? And was it not lately involved ecumencially with these three branches?"<BR/><BR/>1. "The HCC-AR, along with the ACC, UECNA, APCK, is part of the Chambers succession, is it not?"<BR/><BR/>The five original bishops of the HCC(AR), which is the punctuation of its official name, were Kleppinger, McNeley, Seeland, Hamlett, and Price. Each of them was consecrated a bishop while a member of The Anglican Catholic Church, so I'm sure the HCC(AR) would say that it descends from the joint Chambers (PECUSA)/Pagtakhan (PICC) Succession of January, 1978.<BR/><BR/>2. "And was it [the HCC-AR] not lately involved ecumencially with these three branches?"<BR/> <BR/>Not to my knowledge it wasn't. I'm certain it has had no "ecumenical" involvement with the ACC beyond a vague request a year or two ago, "Can't we come back?" which was unaccompanied by any sign of contrition and so went nowhere.<BR/><BR/>I am equally sure that little or nothing would have occurred between the HCC(AR) and the APCK, beyond perhaps some HCC(AR) personnel showing up at an APCK function or two but perhaps someone from that jurisdiction should really be the one to comment on that.<BR/><BR/>As to the UECNA, Bp. McNeley appeared, along with members of several other church groups, for the UECNA's consecration of Bp. Michael. Having thusly broken the ice, then over the past year or so since, Bp. McNeley approached the UECNA through Bp. Michael to ask if the UECNA would take oversight of his parishes when he retired as a diocesan bishop -- the event which occurred in February of this year.<BR/><BR/>In the midst of those discussions, suprise, surprise, the HCC(AR) bishops withdrew that request and, hey, presto, chango, Bp. Michael, who was supposed to have been negotiating with the HCC(AR) on behalf of the UECNA, morphed into McNeley's replacement within the HCC(AR). Perhaps it really wasn't double-dealing on his part. Perhaps, as the British were said to have gotten their Empire, he just acquired his new diocese in a fit of absentmindedness.<BR/><BR/>John A. Hollister+John A. Hollisterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01325615323834517909noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-59260665964531231962008-05-14T15:32:00.000-04:002008-05-14T15:32:00.000-04:00The HCC-WR seems to have a congregation in El Paso...The HCC-WR seems to have a congregation in El Paso, TX, and another in New Mexico. See here:<BR/><BR/>http://www.holycatholicchurch-wr.org/<BR/><BR/>and here:<BR/><BR/>http://www.holy-catholic-church-wr.org/<BR/><BR/>William TigheAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com