Updated again Saturday
The trial before BC Supreme Court Justice Stephen Kelleher over the lawsuit brought by members of four dissident congregations against the Diocese of New Westminster began today (May 25) in Vancouver.
Those bringing the suit, 22 leaders in the four congregations, including three former diocesan priests, have left the Anglican Church of Canada, but want to keep their parish buildings, which the Diocese of New Westminster says it owns.
Read more about this from the diocese:
Cases outlined before BC Supreme Court Justice
Trial involving suit brought against Diocese of New Westminster begins
Some prominent members of the Church of England are supporting the group bringing the lawsuit, see Bishop Michael Nazir Ali adds support to St John’s Shaughnessy at Anglican Mainstream. Also, Letter of support for St John’s Shaughnessy Vancouver from Anglican Mainstream.
Wednesday updates
Court learns former bishop was asked to help in diocese
From the Anglican Network of Canada:
Mediation unsuccessful; Parishes and Diocese of New Westminster head for trial on May 25 over church property
Day 1 – Trial of ANiC Parishes v Diocese of New Westminster
Day 2 – Trial of ANiC Parishes v Diocese of New Westminster – May 26, 2009
And now also from Anglican Journal
B.C. Supreme Court begins to hear case over New Westminster diocese properties
And again from the diocese:
Dissident Anglicans say they were upset by more than same sex blessings
And support from Church of England Evangelical Council recorded here.
Saturday updates
Leader of St. John’s Shaughnessy says he wanted to remain in Canadian Church
and
Day 3 – Trial of ANiC Parishes v Diocese of New Westminster
Day 4 – Trial of ANiC Parishes v Diocese of New Westminster
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?
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… Read more »
Does anyone else find it unusual for a CofE bishop to support a parish in a court case against a Canadian bishop?
David
“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.
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…
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.
“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?
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.
“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… Read more »
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!
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… Read more »
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.”
“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… Read more »
“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… Read more »
“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 ;-/)
“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… Read more »
Did anyone notice in one of the Trial summaries that a couple hundred people left St. John’s Shaughnessy for other less “conservative.”
“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:-)