Just For Grins,

I looked up the "Bishop Seeland" mentioned as inhibiting Fr Wilcox and then filing suit against St Mary of the Angels in the prior post. It turns out that this is the late Arthur David Seeland, who was consecrated a bishop in the pre-1991 ACC but was among those who refused to go with Louis Falk's reconstituted ACA in 1991 and remained with the ACC. At the time of the ACC's lawsuit against St Mary's, Seeland was ACC Bishop of the Pacific and Southwest. However, Seeland and many of those same bishops who stayed with the ACC then left the ACC to form the Holy Catholic Church (Anglican Rite), "concerned about what they considered to be the ACC's doctrinal comprehensiveness and moral relativism." (My head hurts.)

Seeland appears as a party in additional litigation a few years after the 1994 ACC lawsuit against St Mary's, another typical "continuing Anglican" case: somebody claims to be a bishop, someone else inhibits said bishop, everybody files suit. Nothing new, huh? This to me is just one more example of the extremely poor stewardship represented by the "continuing Anglican" movement: too many bishops with little to do other than foster schism and sue each other. Catholics, I notice, do express concern that their pledges not go to support litigation. So far, we don't hear the same from "continuing Anglicans".