Head of the Canadian Church urges parishes to remain within the Anglican Church in Canada
Feb 13th, 2008 by Peter
Archbishop Fred Hiltz says there are ways to deal with differences (yes, we’ve seen how that works - ed)
The Primate (Chief Bishop) of the Anglican Church of Canada is urging all parishes to try to work out their differences with their diocesan bishops while staying within the Church.
Archbishop Fred Hiltz said he very much aware of the possibility that at Annual Meetings some congregations might vote to leave and join the Anglican Church in another country.
“I am very concerned that there are a few parishes that may be considering a motion to withdraw from the fellowship of the Anglican Church of Canada, and to place themselves under the jurisdiction of another Province of the Anglican Communion,” he wrote, urging reconsideration.
“It is not necessary for any parish to consider such action. The House of Bishops has designed a model for Shared Episcopal Ministry. This model enables a diocesan Bishop to share his or her Episcopal oversight with another Bishop for parishes finding themselves in conscientious disagreement with the Bishop and Synod over the matter of the blessing of same sex unions.
“With this provision in place there is no need for pastoral interventions by bishops from jurisdictions outside of the Anglican Church of Canada. Such interventions in fact are inappropriate. Indeed the Archbishop of Canterbury in a recent letter to me said he cannot “support or sanction” such actions.
The archbishop indicated that groups will not be allowed to take church property with them if they do vote to leave. (isn’t that what it is all about, eh? All your church are belong to us.)
“Land and buildings are held in a variety of ways from diocese to diocese, such titles are generally speaking held in trust for the Anglican Church of Canada and its continuing mission and ministry. Church leaders have the responsibility of upholding this trust.
“My hope is that no parish will take action that would compel parish or diocesan leaders to resolve property disputes in the civil courts. Such actions would not only be costly in terms of financial resources but also destructive of the witness of the Church in the world.” (then don’t resort to the civil courts - all this talk of ‘fiduciary responsibility’ seems to me like straining gnats and swallowing camels)
Dean Peter Elliott of Christ Church Cathedral, who is Commissary (Acting Bishop) while Bishop Michael Ingham is absent from the diocese, welcomed Hiltz’s “clear statement.” He commended it to all clergy. Deeply surprising.
Same old song. Seems to me the Primate is simply trying to lay the groundwork for the inevitable legal cases. He hopes that by repeating the refrain enough times it will be accepted as fact: “Church properties belong to the ACoC - not the parish.” Of course, if he is able to intimidate the weak-kneed as well, that’s just a bonus.
This is a real question, not a rhetorical one. How has (or does) shared episcopal ministry work for New Westminster. Is there, or has there been, alternative bishopric oversight for the dissenting parishes? I don’t know much about these things.
My understanding, and I’m certainly not the expert on this, was that it never worked in New West - there was simply no SEM agreement that was workable, especially in the climate where the bishop seemed more keen on persecuting the parishes that he could (closing them etc).
Peter, as much as your commentary is amusing (and as much as I may agree with you), please at least be respectful of what he’s saying. Snideness does not help matters here.
Respect must be earned. Hiltz has done absolutely nothing to earn the respect of orthodox Anglicans.
It is not necessary for any parish to consider such action. The House of Bishops has designed a model for Shared Episcopal Ministry. This model enables a diocesan Bishop
It might enable, but it doesn’t compel, and the bishop we disagree with gets to decide who the alternate bishop is. This is not acceptable.
Kate: perhaps not. Yet, when one is engaged in a debate, one must present the opponent’s arguments charitably. Comments made here like “Deeply surprising.” are simply sarcasm, and don’t add to the discussion; they only serve to foster animosity.
I was aiming for ‘ironic’ really, perhaps ’sardonic’ ;-). Actually, the target of my attempt at wit was Dean Peter Elliott, not Archbishop Hiltz.
As far as respect goes, it’s sometimes an uphill struggle to show respect to those whose actions are destroying the church. However, I’ll grant you the point; as much as I try to stay charitable, sometimes that negativity creeps in. Mea culpa.
Where did Jesus ever say “respect must be earned”?
Where did Jesus ever show respect (or charity) to the scribes and pharisees? I think the time for an irenic approach to the fundamental, underlying theological issues passed decades ago. The current debate really concerns the details of how the “divorce” will be executed.
Took the words right out of my mouth, Warren. (Except maybe for “irenic”; I had to go look that one up)
I don’t find Peter’s editorializing snide at all. This is the blogosphere, after all.
“simply sarcasm, and don’t add to the discussion; they only serve to foster animosity.”
Spot on, old boy.
There is no place in the online world for sarcasm, nor indeed in the Church. Down with Peter and all the rest! Bad eggs, the lot of them!
(for the slow learners in the group, that was sarcasm, a device which the blog contributors don’t use - at least not that I’ve seen)
Cheers,
Mike (heaping those coals of love, online, since 1998)
The shared episcopal oversight offered from the Bishop (and refused by ANiC) did not include jurisdictional authority. Therefore, as soon as one of the remaining orthodox clergy leaves their parish for any reason, the Liberal bishop would still wield the power to decide who would be the next clergy assigned. And the Bp in New Westminster has already stated that no Essentials Canada sympathetic clergy would be licenced in this diocese going forward.
My blog-o-circles have indicated that there is a parish in New West that has been waiting for a Confirmation Service for, umm, 5 years now. That would be five years, and counting!
Thanks for the clarity, though, Primate Hiltz.