Joint "Continuing" Synod October 2017

I found this on the ACA Home page:

The leaders of four Continuing Anglican Churches have announced plans for Joint Synods to meet in Atlanta, Georgia, the week of October 2nd to 6th. At the conclusion of the week it is the intention of the Churches to sign an agreement establishing full communion (communio in sacris) among the four bodies as well as a pledge to pursue in a determined and deliberate fashion increasingly full unity. The Churches also will discuss common plans for mission and evangelism. Each Church will hold its own mandatory business meetings and Synods, but the four will join together throughout for common worship and social occasions.

The four Churches and their episcopal leaders are the Anglican Church in America (Brian Marsh), the Anglican Catholic Church (Mark Haverland), the Anglican Province of America (Walter Grundorf), and the Diocese of the Holy Cross (Paul Hewett). The Joint Synods will meet at the Crowne Plaza Atlanta Perimeter at Ravinia in north Atlanta.

The four Churches have grown increasingly close in recent years, and look to the Congress of Saint Louis (1977) and The Affirmation of St. Louis as common historical and theological touchstones. The Churches are united by commitments to credal orthodoxy; to traditional Anglican worship, rooted in the historic Books of Common Prayer; to the three-fold Apostolic ministry of male bishops, priests, and deacons; and to traditional morality in issues affecting the sanctity of life and human sexuality.

While all four Churches seek closer relations with other ecclesial bodies with Anglican backgrounds, they differ from most of them in a firm belief that innovations since the mid-1970s such as modernist liturgies and the purported ordination of women to Holy Orders constitute unacceptable developments that remove Anglicans from the central tradition of the Undivided Church of the first millennium.

The four Churches have about 300 congregations in the United States as well as larger memberships in Africa, South America, Oceania, Asia, and England. [These latter are laughable hype.]

The number cited of 300 "congregations", while subject to the usual exaggeration, does lend itself to comparison with the Anglican ordinariates. If we assume that the OCSP has about 40 groups and parishes, we can discount this number by recognizing that some of these are tiny, moribund, or completely inactive. Some number of the 300 "continuing" "congregations" must certainly be the same. The bottom line, though, is that the larger "continuing" denominations worldwide together represent some multiple -- let's say five times -- the total of equivalent ordinariate groups on three continents.

Another point that sticks out is the ages of the primates. Brian Marsh is about 67. Mark Haverland, the youngest, is about 61. Walter H Grundorf shows as 74 in web searches. Paul Hewett appears to be about 68. If the groups move toward unity, it's likely that the winner who becomes archbishop will be the one who simply outlives the others, but I strongly suspect there is little depth in the hierarchies. This is probably reflected in the ages of the laity as well.

The move toward unity among "continuing" groups is a reflection that the movement overall is shrinking and subject to the laws of actuarial science. This is also true of the ordinariates -- it appears that some number of OCSP parishes and groups will become inactive in coming months as their pastors retire and no replacements can be found. The number of OCSP seminarians, currently three as I understand it, will be sufficient only to replace retirements in the top tier of OCSP parishes.

This goes to my fairly recent conclusion that Anglicanorum coetibus, with its predecessor, the Pastoral Provision, is simply a part of the "continuing" movement as defined in the press release above. It suffers from exactly the same problems, especially aging clergy and an inability to attract replacements.

What Happened In 2012? -- II

This post will cover versions of personal conversations with Fr Phillips regarding the reasons for OLA's sudden reversal over joining the OCSP in May 2012. I believe that, in opposition to inevitably politic public statements, the reasons he gave in private reflect an exclusive preoccupation with his career and personal circumstances. I repeat what I said yesterday, I've come to recognize that both the Pastoral Provision and Anglicanorum coetibus are simply the syncretistic wing of the unproductive and moribund "continuing Anglican" movement.

A visitor reports,

I need to begin this by saying the Fr. Philips NEVER had a kind thing to say about Archbishop Flores, Archbishop Gomez OR Archbishop Garcia-Siller. Even though he feigns attention on wealthy Hispanic benefactors, in private he speaks very disrespectfully of "Meskins" as he calls them. He also looks down on any other parish in the city. He never attended, (nor did Orr), any Archdiocesan mandated retreats, conferences, or activities. They would laugh when parishioners bragged about going to mass at another parish earlier in the day but then coming to the Atonement for a "real mass", later in the same day. [Er, if mass is so important, why waste the time going to the "fake" one when you could go to two masses at OLA?]

It's important to remember that once Anglicanorium coetibus was published there was immediate anticipation and speculation about who the Ordinary would be. Because of its size and stature, much of this speculation centered around the Atonement. There was a conference held at the parish to answer questions about the impending ordinariate. This conference was attended by people from all over the country. The "Buzz" on the street was that Fr. Phillips was the odds on favorite to be the Ordinary. He did everything he could to present himself as the leading contender. He relayed stories to me about how people told him "they don't care what Rome says he (Fr. Phillips) was OUR Ordinary..." Deacon Orr spoke openly about his own impending role as the "Archdeacon" of the Ordinariate. He would travel the country showing the other parishes how the mass was to be said, in the light of Fr. Phillips's creation. [I've heard in e-mails that Fr Phillips has apparently told people that he wrote the BDW mass.]

Fr Phillips attended a meeting on Anglicanorum coetibus at St Mary of the Angels in December 2010, just before my time there, and pretty clearly represented himself as a major figure in the movement, if not ordinary-in-waiting. I mentioned a blog post from him made from this meeting in a previous post here, where a question arose about his report that he had just celebrated mass there. (Huh? said mass for a bunch of Anglicans?) According to Fr Kelley, whom I asked about it when the issue came up, this didn't happen. I was also somewhat irked that in the post, Fr Phillips pumped his protégé Andrew Bartus but never mentioned his host, Fr Kelley. I've always thought of Fr Phillips as something of a blowhard and grandstander.

The visitor continues,

After some time the Ordinariate was announced with Msgr Steenson as the Ordinary. I remember asking Fr. Phillips about him. Fr. Phillips told me he considered Steenson to be a nice enough fellow but rather "limp-wristed". I don't think he meant to imply that Steenson was gay, just weak and ill equipped for the position. I got the feeling Fr. Phillips figured he could manipulate the weak-minded Ordinary so the parish moved in that direction.

At this point, after a few days, Fr. Phillips made it known that the Parish was going to move to the Ordinariate. Soon, the Archdiocese got involved, inquiries were made and the parish was polled for demographic data. I remember Fr. Phillips meeting with the Archbishop and it was obvious the situation was being pondered by the Chancery. During this time the Atonement bulletin, written and published by Jim Orr himself began scurrilous attacks on the Archbishop, still relatively new to the Chair. This went on for several Sundays. I always wished I had hung on to one of those bulletins but sadly, I did not. It was the same clap-trap; "The Archdiocese is only interested in the money and property of the parish and will 'steal' the property from the parish, if given the opportunity" - It was all portrayed as a "land-grab". Orr even had printed and distributed new missalettes stating that the parish was part of the Ordinariate.

Then, out of the blue, Msgr. Steenson meets with Fr. Phillips and the very next day EVERYTHING changed. It was such an abrupt change of direction and focus, I asked Fr. Phillips what was going on. He was shaken. He said Steenson had made it clear that it was arrogant for Fr. Phillips to have purchased a home next door to the parish because he could be transferred to anther parish within the Ordinariate at any time. Joanne had previously made it clear she was NOT moving so Fr. Phillips was completely vulnerable to Msgr. Steenson. He told me, "for the good of the parish" he decided it would be best to remain within the Archdiocese. There was no other reason, the good of the parish was not involved, other than Fr. Phillips view that the parish could not exist without him. There was really no other reason - Fr. Phillips told me these things himself. All other explanations, intimations and justifications were concocted after the fact, "spin" to pacify the minions, who had been publicly fed with the hatred of the Archbishop (their now Father-In-God).

I say this because almost immediately Fr. Phillips published a blog post, explaining, in loving, glowing sentimentality how much we loved being a part of the Archdiocese as a Pastoral Provision parish and so on. He referred to Archbishop Gustavo as our "Father-In-God". It was enough to make your stomach turn, if you knew the whole story.

Some time ago I posted about another version of the dealings between Fr Phillips and Msgr Steenson:

A reliable source has provided an account of what appears to have been the real story on Our Lady of the Atonement. As it happens, during the first part of 2012 as Steenson was traveling to receive a parish into the Ordinariate, a group from that parish had picked him up at the airport and was driving him to town. Several people were in the car. Remarkably, Steenson got involved in a cell phone conversation while in the car with several witnesses in earshot and began explaining to whomever was on the other end that he intended to force the retirement of Fr. Phillips after a year and replace him with one of his younger priests, presumably a member of the Nashotah House clique with whom he surrounded himself. One of those in the car conveyed this information to Fr Phillips.

My source continues:

This came shortly after OLA's parish council had voted to enter the Ordinariate even at the price of relinquishing the title to their church and school property to the Archdiocese of San Antonio (with the Ordinariate congregation to have the indefinite use of the property), and just after they learned that this "compromise," which they thought had been a "hard bargain" originating with the San Antonio archdiocesan authorities, had actually been suggested to the archdiocese by Steenson himself. The parish council reversed itself immediately, and decided to remain within the SA archdiocese[.]

From this account, it appears that the parish did accept the conditions that Fr Phillips found objectionable in the e-mail I quoted yesterday -- but I can't rule out that any account from Fr Phillips may be embroidered to suit his own purposes.

I do find both versions of Msgr Steenson's role credible. I don't, based on this, think Steenson had any reservations about how Phillips ran the parish, Dcn Orr, or anything else that might have been a justifiable concern -- this was simply Steenson, an insecure careerist, meeting Phillips, an ego-driven opportunist. The OCSP wasn't going to be big enough for the two of them. Given the character of "continuing" Anglicanism as a pretty homogeneous movement, this isn't much different from the conflicts and intrigues surrounding the likes of Falk, Grundorf, Seeland, Hepworth, Gill, Marsh, and the rest.

But the problem of Fr Phillips's residence represents something I believe nobody thought through in drafting the Pastoral Provision or Anglicanorum coetibus. Celibate Catholic priests normally live in rectories, owned by the diocese. They may or may not own homes elsewhere, but typically not near the parish property, and often for vacation or retirement. In earlier years, celibate Catholic priests might expect stability in assignments, at least after age 50 or so, but the shortage of priests in recent decades has limited this, and the USCCB recognizes rotation of priests on 6- or 12-year cycles as a normal practice.

In this as apparently many other areas (like attending otherwise mandated meetings and retreats), Fr Phillips feels he's a special case. He owns a house right next to the property, gol dang it, and he's entitled to conduct himself as a proper Episcopal priest and stay as long as he likes. Msgr Steenson may have had his own motives for questioning Fr Phillips here, but he had a real point.

What else is the movement bringing into the Church besides alternate lifestyles for clergy? I'll have more to say on this.

A Question That Won't Go Away

I was thinking about recent news analysis concerning a major non-profit foundation, and one issue struck me that might be applicable to the St Mary's situation. As best anyone can determine, the Bush group drained all the bank accounts belonging to St Mary of the Angels (including the funds derived from the apparently fraudulent 2014 mortgage) before being evicted from the property. We don't know what happened to those funds -- the best we can surmise is that members of the group were advised to make checks for future donations payable to something called the Perseverance Mission.

There are numerous implications of what may have happened here, but the one that sticks is that the Bush group appears to have taken funds from a tax-deductible entity -- the bank accounts belonging to the St Mary of the Angels parish -- and put them into some sort of entity that, as far as I can see, is not tax deductible. I'm not sure what the effect would be of reporting this to the IRS -- it could result in problems for the continuing corporation and its vestry, after all. However, there are certainly issues with what happened to funds amounting close to $1 million which have disappeared with no accounting.

I do see in the December 2016 Northeast Anglican of the ACA Diocese of the Northeast, in its report of the diocesan synod,

Chancellor Jones reported that he submitted his recommendations to the Diocese of the West for changes in their diocesan canons.

So clearly the DONE, and presumably by extension Bp Marsh, continue to concern themselves with legal issues in the Diocese of the West. (Interestingly, the moribund DOW has its own Chancellor, but he seems to be subordinate to Mr Jones. For that matter, it's been pointed out to me that Owen Williams, canonically just the episcopal visitor, is subject to removal by Marsh. Doesn't seem like Marsh trusts anyone in the DOW.) I would guess that the unspecified changes in the diocesan canons of the DOW relate in some way to closing the St Mary of the Angels barn door after the horse has left.

But if Belchertown is concerning itself with DOW legalities, wouldn't it be a better idea to work out a strategy for disengaging from the legal liabilities inherent in the St Mary of the Angels case? Just for starters, what about payments made to Owen Williams by the Bush group, which could at minimum include living and automobile expenses for what amounts to a non-deductible purpose? Shouldn't the ACA and the DONE be looking to protect itself from contingencies here? Doesn't sound to me like any glib assurances from Mr Lancaster should suffice, either.

Court Hearing December 12, 2016

There will be a court hearing on December 12, 2016 at 8:30 am in Dept. 32 at the Stanley Mosk courthouse in downtown Los Angeles. It will be on the combined issues of the motion for summary judgment against the Bush group for lack of standing, as they are not the parish vestry, never have been, and have no standing to bring suit. There will also be a motion to dismiss the "related cases" against Fr Kelley. Mr Lancaster's position has been that the court should wait for the appeals court to rule on the Bush group's appeal of Judge Strobel's 2015 finding, but it appears that this will take a great deal longer than Mr Lancaster's original prediction.

This is an area where I continue to be skeptical of Bp Lopes's intent regarding the Ordinariate -- as I've said before, where there's a will, there's a way. Frankly, I think if he were to raise the issue with Bp Marsh of withdrawing the ACA's participation in the legal action, it would move the matter forward. The ACA's participation has certainly damaged its credibility -- it must certainly be a factor in making the ACA's projected merger with the APA "elusive", in Bp Marsh's own words. In the interests of its survival, the ACA needs to move on and focus on the future.

The St Mary of the Angels issue has also been a major problem for the OCSP's public image -- this blog is read by influential parties. Bp Lopes, as I've said before, you want me on your side.

Not-News Update!

A few weeks ago, I noted that there had been an announcement in the ACA's Northeast Anglican (but apparently nowhere else) of an upcoming meeting of the TAC's College of Bishops to elect a new primate. I could find no announcement of who'd been elected, nor even if the meeting had occurred.

Finally, poking around on the ACA Diocese of the West site, I found a cryptic mention on the Information page of The Most Reverend Shane Janzen, D.D., no title listed, under Traditional Anglican Communion. This took me to Google, where I found this announcement at Abp Janzen's home parish web site:

The Most Reverend Shane Janzen was elected Primate of the world-wide Traditional Anglican Communion (TAC) by its governing College of Bishops in Lincoln, England on Friday, October 14, and formally Installed as Primate at the Eucharist held Sunday morning at St. Katherine’s Cathedral Church in Lincoln.

The 57-year old Saanich, British Columbia resident is also Rector of the Cathedral Church of Saint John the Evangelist (990 Falmouth Rd in Saanich) and Metropolitan of the Traditional Anglican Communion in Canada (The Anglican Catholic Church of Canada).

Good we could get that cleared up! So far, I have located no equivalent announcement on the ACA web site, nor even on the TAC web site, which still lists Prakash as acting primate. Somehow I don't get a sense of joy at new beginnings here, and I even wonder if the ACA is trying to minimize its involvement with the TAC. "Father" Smuts hasn't updated his blog in over a year, which is probably a symptom of what's become of the Anglo-Catholic project overall.

Abp Janzen is Primate over 10 parishes and missions in the rump ACCC. In addition, the Rt Rev Owen Rhys Williams is now listed as priest in charge at All Saints Fountain Valley, so it looks like he moved down the road after he disappeared from Hollywood. He is also now listed as Ordinary, rather than Episcopal Visitor, of the ACA DOW. On the other hand, Bp Marsh is listed as visiting the St. Augustine of Canterbury mission in Hamilton, Montana this very day -- but isn't this in Bp Williams's territory?

I suspect Bp Marsh trusts neither Williams nor Janzen. They're both terrified of Marsh, I betcha.

UPDATE: My regular correspondent adds:

Well, well, well. This is the clergyman who almost led his parish into the Ordinariate, until he was told that, despite Hepworth's assurances, the fact that he had converted to the Catholic church as an adult (from some kind of evangelical background) before becoming an Anglican and then a "continuing" Anglican disqualified him for ordination on the basis of delict of schism. This led to an abrupt volte-face. His treatment up to that point of those who were hesitating about joining the Ordinariate lacked judgement and charity, in my estimation.

Now he and the bishop on the other Canadian coast have been sharing episcopal oversight of their remaining flock of perhaps 250. The OCSP has many problems but of course even if, say, The Sodality of St Swithun ceases to function its members are now members of the Church and can find their way to a new parish and perhaps even a broader vision of worship and mission. Those who stayed with the "Continuum" are in dire straits.

More Thoughts On The Interests Of The Parties

I'm a little puzzled that the ACA continues to be a party to the legal actions regarding the St Mary's parish. In November 2012, looking at what the ACA may have wanted in this whole matter, I counted 68 parishes and missions in the four US dioceses. As of this morning, I went back and counted 26 in the DONE, 8 in DEUS, 8 in DOW, and 12 in DMV for a total of 54.

In both 2012 and today, I gave the ACA the benefit of the doubt and counted everything each diocese listed on its website. This means that some number of the 68 in 2012 were inactive or paper parishes; it looks like there are similar questions about the current 54. For instance, although the Diocese of the West currently lists eight, three of these (the one in Montana and one each in Arizona and California) are probably inactive. In fact, two of the other California parishes are moribund without rectors.

My speculation in the November 2012 post was that in undertaking the May 2012 cruise to the Greek islands with Bp Grundorf to negotiate merger with the APA, Brian Marsh anticipated a multimillion-dollar infusion to the ACA from the recently seized St Mary's property. Since then, the ACA's prospects in this attempt have receded at best to stalemate. Prospects for merger with the APA have faded apace, and I don't believe this is a coincidence.

One thing that's stuck with me was Mr Lancaster's cringe in the courtroom Friday when Judge Murphy mentioned the word "receiver". The implications of the St Mary's vestry declaring bankruptcy are complex -- or indeed, a mortgage holder forcing appointment of a receiver -- and I'm nowhere near understanding them at this point. However, I think the bottom line for Mrs Bush and the ACA would be even more loss of control and less ability to delay proceedings.

A bankruptcy trustee would presumably have greater power to pursue the assets Mrs Bush removed from the parish bank accounts early this year. This would be a big problem for her. A good question would also be whether the money went from the non-profit parish accounts to accounts belonging to an organization that may not have formally been a non-profit. This could interest the IRS, and any irregularities could potentially threaten the ACA's tax exempt status.

Another issue could involve a receiver appointed to deal with any foreclosure action connected with the apparently fraudulent mortgage Mrs Bush took out on the property in 2014. A close look at this matter from an independent third party could cause other problems for Mrs Bush and the ACA.

In either case, this would probably allow a trustee or receiver to rent the commercial property. It would probably allow the Kelleys to continue to live on the property, and it would probably allow the vestry to continue to hold services. The rental income would be collected for the benefit of the creditors, and this would probably result in loss of effective ability by Bush and the ACA to delay proceedings via litigation.

it appears to me that Mrs Bush and the ACA would have more to lose than the vestry in any move like this. In addition, a lingering question has always been whether Mrs Bush's interests and those of the ACA are the same, especially in light of any potential irregularities over Mrs Bush's draining the bank accounts or obtaining the 2014 mortgage.

I've got to assume the attorneys for both sides are well aware of the issues involved.

Letter to Owen Williams

A copy of a letter from Fr Kelley to Owen Williams, formerly pastor and bishop-in-residence at St Mary of the Angels during some of the time the ACA-Bush group held the premises, has been made available to me. This was mailed on March 17, 2016, and according to the Postal Service, delivered on March 18, although the return receipt has not come back. To date, there has been no reply.

Dear Owen,

As you were never named in any litigation here, I address you directly in matters of concern. This is “pastor to pastor.”

As you know, the California Court of Appeal ruled that our duly-elected Vestry is the lawful body. The Superior Court also found in our favor, as you know; and the Court ordered the Sheriff to restore us to the property. Much mischief has been done by your partisans, by misrepresentations of me according to their fantasies, by slander and worse. 'Bearing false witness' is a crime before God. The fact is, this Parish left the DoW in November, 2010, and entered the Patrimony of the Primate, which continues to this day, uninterrupted. On Saturday, February 5, 2011, we were “disowned” by the ACA, when its Chancellors unanimously ruled that the PoP (being a foreign entity) was “outside the ACA Constitution.” That ruling is legally correct. The Court of Appeal made a similar ruling. This means that all efforts of Strawn and Marsh to contradict their own Chancellors are null and void. The fact is, the method they used to re-insert themselves, by means of a long-contrived fraud using the IRS, was an interstate criminal conspiracy. You deserve to be told the Truth, as I do now to you. You are warned.

The upshot of this is that the missing Parish Register is not yours. It must be returned at once.

Likewise, the Relic of the True Cross, observed & accounted in the Sacristy as recently as the Summer of 2013, is also to be returned forthwith. [If this was gone before your arrival, do so inform me.]

I am not accusing you personally of these acts in violation of God's Commandments, but in case you know of the Perpetrators, you may need to remind them, sternly, that 'Stealing' is forbidden by God.

Among my treasured volumes is Sir Henry Spelman's 1637 text, The History & Fate of Sacrilege. It was 'too hot' to publish in his lifetime. It first saw print in 1691 – yet the Printer kept his anonymity even then! It detailed the horrendous curses visited upon leading English families that had received monastic lands. It was republished by “two priests of the Church of England” in 1841, to mark the return to the Church of the grounds of St Austin's Abbey in Canterbury. {One of them is now known to be John Mason Neale, of blessed memory.} It first saw print with the name of the publisher & final editor in the 1890s! It catalogues the historic consequences of stealing from the Church. Sacrilege is not an offense unpunished by Almighty God. Even the pagans knew this, as Sir Henry demonstrated. How much the more should Christians be attentive & scrupulous in such a grave & sacred matter.

I would remind you, again, of the stolen copy of my 17th C. printing of the complete Ecclesiastical Polity of Richard Hooker – which might be among the books taken from the rear Library. Stolen goods. And, in case you had not otherwise been informed, the yellow wagon that was atop the kitchen stairs is the personal property of John & Jackie Yeager. One of your charges apparently made off with it, & should return it to them.

With good wishes & prayers for your Gospel ministry among a notoriously hard-hearted & errant flock,

/s/[+ Christopher P Kelley]

My own view is that poor Williams is now 60 years old, apparently unwanted at his last parish back in Rochester, NH, and ejected by the sheriff from St Mary of the Angels. A typical "continuing" bishop, he is without formal ecclesiastical education, and his prior work experience ranges from creative writing teacher to lumberyard manager to ski instructor. It would appear that the "continuing Anglican" racket has run its course for him as well, but he has no choice but to avoid giving offense to Mrs Bush or Presiding Bishop Marsh. As a result, he will do nothing, as any move to restore stolen property, or urge anyone else to do so, would provoke them unnecessarily.

I'm wondering if the Armchair Detective over at the Freedom for St Mary of the Angels site might get in touch with his law enforcement contacts once again. The ACA, as I've said before, redefines passive-aggressive. On the other hand, while the powers that be at the ACA All Saints Fountain Valley parish ignored my warnings that their interim, Robert W Bowman, had a child pornography arrest, Bowman miraculously moved on soon after I brought the arrest to the attention of the Fountain Valley police.

Law enforcement may have some good advice to offer in this situation.

Continuers Moving Toward "Full Communion"

Several visitors have pointed me to recent announcements on various blogs covering a joint letter from four "continuing" primates announcing their intent to be in "full communion" by 2017. As far as I can see, this announcement is meaningless -- indeed even more meaningless than the 2001 announcement by the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America and The Episcopal Church that they had achieved "full communion". Just for starters, though, the definition of "full communion" is dodgy. The ELCA says,

Full communion is when two denominations develop a relationship based on a common confessing of the Christian faith and a mutual recognition of Baptism and sharing of the Lord’s Supper.

All Christian denominations, by definition, share the Creeds. However, specific interpretations of how both baptism and the eucharist are recognized do differ fairly widely among Christian denominations. It's worth noting that Lutherans are Lutherans, while Episcopalians are Anglican, which means Calvinist. Lutherans have two sacraments, Anglicans seven. Anglicans differ among themselves on the meaning of the eucharist, for that matter. But in general, while all Christian denominations recognize baptism by water in the name of the Trinity, Protestant denominations since the 1960s have also admitted all baptized Christians to communion, so by this definition, all main line Protestants are already "in communion".

A more precise definition of "in communion" I've seen is that each denomination recognizes the episcopal actions of the other. Those would be, at least from Anglican and Catholic perspectives, ordination and confirmation. TEC, for instance, did not recognize my Presbyterian confirmation. Rome did not recognize my TEC confirmation. I'm assuming that after 2001, TEC would recognize ELCA confirmations, if I have this right. TEC would presumably also recognize ELCA ordinations.

The best reaction I saw to the 2001 move was a Wall Street Journal op-ed that said in practice, this would allow the two declining denominations to merge marginal parishes -- Bethany Lutheran East Podunk could merge with St Athanasius Episcopal East Podunk and go off into the sunset together. As far as I can tell, this doesn't happen very often, and in fact, an Episcopal priest who sounded off on this in an adult forum I attended about 2005 said the whole thing is pretty much a dead letter.

He went on, though, to say a great many issues had never been resolved or clarified. Let's say the two parishes above do merge. Which diocese are they in, in which denomination? If the rector is TEC but the diocese is Lutheran, does he get letters dimissory? What does he teach in confirmation class, two sacraments or seven? The TEC priest who discussed this basically said nobody had asked these or other questions, and the whole thing was basically a PR gesture.

Moving to the continuers expressing their own direction to move into "full communion", it seems to me the same issues apply. By and large, the continuing groups already recognize confirmations and ordinations from themselves and pretty much any other Anglican denomination -- about the only exception might be women from TEC or the ACNA. Take my word for it, there are gay continuing priests and bishops. For that matter, qualifications for ordination among the continuers are typically minimal no matter what. The same would apply to confirmation and catechesis -- look at "Bishop" Owen Williams, who has basic problems with things like the church calendar and should never have been either confirmed or ordained.

The ACA recognized Anthony Morello's ordination in the Philippine Independent Church, simply because the PIC is in communion with TEC, and TEC recognized it. I assume it didn't even ask his TEC Bishop Schofield for letters dimissory (I would have enjoyed seeing Schofield's reply). The ACA recognized Robert W Bowman's REC ordination, though it didn't bother to do a simple web search to discover his child pornography arrest.

But the ACA and the APA are already in full communion. I e-mailed APA Presiding Bishop Grundorf and asked whether, if the ACA recognized Bowman's orders, did the APA? Grundorf dodged this and said the APA did its own background checks. Considering the general level of competence among all these little splinter groups, they can say they're in full communion, but it will have as much effect as me claiming to be Holy Roman Emperor.

But I strongly suspect that none of the others wants to let Marsh or Strawn get in any position where they could threaten their own parishes.

Radio Silence From The ACA

So far, there is no Easter Message from either the Presiding Bishop or the Episcopal Visitor to the Diocese of the West. As far as I can tell, there have been no public pronouncements since the ACA-sponsored squatters were evicted from St Mary of the Angels on February 16. I do note that the ACA Executive Council and House of Bishops will meet in Timonium, Maryland on April 13 and 14. I assume there will be some discussion of the St Mary of the Angels situation at that time. If I were them, I'd be planning for the Presiding Bishop's succession, but I'm not them.

Missing Items

As the vestry slowly takes inventory of the property, two items appear to be missing. First the reliquary that held the Relic of the True Cross has been located, but the Relic itself is missing. Evidence says it was still there in the summer of 2013. That eliminates a few suspects and narrows the search. My source says, "But IMAGINE! Stealing such a Relic! -- Is there a Guilty Conscience out there in ACA-land???"

The parish register is also missing, which means the parish can't answer requests for information about baptisms, confirmations, marriages, memberships, and so forth, just as such requests are being renewed. It seems to me that Marsh is abandoning any pretense of Christian ministry -- although, as the evidence mounts that the ACA-inspired pirates intended simply to sell the property, this really shouldn't be a surprise.

So, Can Samuel Prakash Actually Dissolve The Patrimony Of The Primate?

Over the past week, I've mused on whether anyone in the TAC ever actually dissolved the Patrimony, although this reminds me of the exchange in Henry IV, Part I:

GLENDOWER
I can call spirits from the vasty deep.

HOTSPUR
Why, so can I, or so can any man,
But will they come when you do call for them?

A visitor points out that as far as he knows, Abp Falk's source for much of his deposition was David Virtue, who tended to "filter" things a bit. "What Prakash actually said was 'I will not have the Patrimony in my Administration.'"

My visitor says,

In the end, Prakash was NOT elected Primate. So he cannot HAVE a "Patrimony of the Primate." He was only made "acting" Primate. This was to allow Marsh & Gill to keep a tight rein on him. I think the TAC website still lists him as "acting" -- last I looked.

. . . . Hepworth did nothing to let go of his "personal property" (as the TAC College of Bishops had already recognized it to be).

The accounts I've seen of Prakash's succession say that he was made "acting" Primate solely because he was the most senior bishop. I sort of think that if he could dissolve a Patrimony, he could also create one, which would not be what Marsh and Gill had in mind at all. I suspect the policy of the TAC College of Bishops has been to say nothing, which in effect allows Hepworth's Patrimony to continue. But even if it were otherwise, as I've said before, the TAC's only recourse would be to expel him again (and maybe denounce him to David Virtue as well).

But let's keep this in perspective. Within the TAC, perhaps two dozen people take any of this seriously -- but none is sending Marsh or Gill any money. Outside the TAC, this is mainly mild amusement. Nobody's sending Marsh or Gill money from anywhere else, either.

Mr Smuts is so far silent.

The Patrimony That Won't Die!

As I noted earlier this week, three bishops in the Patrimony of the Primate, including the Primate Emeritus himself, have made a declaration to the court that the ACA bishops who allegedly dissolved the Patrimony in January 2012 never had the authority to do so. In a 2012 declaration, however, retired TAC Arshbishop Louis Falk said,

I was aware that Archbishop Hepworth was retiring as of April 15, 2012, and that his named Successor, Archbishop Samuel Prakash of India, stated his intention to dissolve the Patrimony in his administration and upon his assumption of duties on April 16, 2012, which Archbishop Prakash in fact did. A unilateral abolition of the Patrimony, however, without consulting the United States Bishops, such as myself, who had voluntarily set aside our voting rights in matters that did not pertain to us, is an act that I see to be Ultra Vires (beyond their competence). In any event, if the Patrimony automatically dissolved on January 1, 2012 upon the erection of the Personal Ordinariate of the Chair of St. Peter in the United States, as I understand to be Bishop Strawn’s position in this matter, then Archbishop Prakash would not have been required to take the action he did on April 16, 2012, because there would be no Patrimony or Primate in existence to dissolve.

Abp Falk says Prakash did in fact dissolve the Patrimony, but I can't find any reference to this on the TAC website. The closest thing I find to it is the October 2012 Statement by a TAC Tribunal expelling Abp Hepworth from the TAC College of Bishops, a gesture perhaps more comic-opera than Orwellian, though there are certainly elements of both. The Tribunal imposed a sanction

THAT all licences for any EPISCOPAL or PRIESTLY function within any affiliated church of the TRADITIONAL ANGLICAN COMMUNION, be with immediate effect withdrawn.

However, I doubt that the Patrimony of the Primate was ever an "affiliated church", being in effect Hepworth's personal creation. But let's assume that treating the Patrimony as still in existence is something utterly outside Hepworth's ecclesiastical competence, and this is anathema. What's the TAC to do? Expel him again?

And of course, the TAC itself is the outcome of the highly controversial 1991 Deerfield Beach Consecrations, felt by other "continuing Anglican" denominations to be uncanonical themselves.

Speaking as a Catholic observer who was formerly Episcopalian, I've got to say that the "continuing Anglican" movement comes off as pretty much of a canonical wild west in any case. I can't imagine Strawn or Marsh seriously complaining that Abp Hepworth has done something uncanonical!

Stephen Strawn And Letters Dimissory

Accoding to Merriam-Webster. a letter dimissory is "a letter given by a bishop dismissing a clergyman to another diocese and recommending him for reception there". It is pronounced DI-mis-so-ry (or possibly in the UK and Australia, DIM-sreh). The question of Fr Kelley's letter dimissory is related to, but separate from, the question of the St Mary of the Angels parish affiliation.

Fr Kelley's Letter Dimissory as an Anglican priest originated in Canterbury, England, in 1974, at the time of his ordination under the hands of Archbishop A. Michael Ramsey. It was well before the Anglican Church in America (ACA) had even come into existence. Thereafter, his Letter was transferred to appropriate bishops in the US, when Fr Kelley returned to this country to serve in successive Episcopal Church jurisdictions. It was transferred to the ACA's Diocese of the West (DoW), in Spring 2007 when Fr Kelley became rector of St Mary of the Angels.

It was duly transferred in 2010 by Daren K. Williams, then Bishop of the DoW, to the Patrimony of the Primate (PoP, based in Australia), when St Mary's began the process of leaving the DoW. By early 2011, Fr Kelley's Letter was held by Bishop David Moyer. bishop of the Patrimony. In late 2011, Williams abdicated. It is currently held by Abp Hepworth as the Patrimony of the Primate's bishop.

Stephen Strawn, the most junior ACA bishop in 2012, never possessed this required Letter, and thus never had jurisdiction or authority over Fr Kelley, who was under another bishop. However, on April 2, 2012, Strawn issued a "notice of inhibition" to Fr Kelley. It's worth pointing out that, during an attempt by Anthony Morello and others to seize the parish property on Strawn's behalf that day, Abp Falk explained to the Los Angeles police that Strawn had no authority to issue this letter.

The question of whether, or precisely when, the parish left the ACA for the Patrimony of the Primate is a legal issue that has been before the courts since 2012. The trial court found in October 2015 that the parish did in fact leave the ACA in August 2012. However, whether Bp Strawn had authority to inhibit or depose Fr Kelley is a separate canonical question, and this authority he clearly never had.

Thus Strawn's letter of inhibition was never valid, and beyond that, the ecclesiastical court that was held to depose Fr Kelley on October 11, 2012, never had authority to do this. As a result, the content of Strawn's allegations is not privileged, and is thus potentially libelous and defamatory.

Those who participated in this process, in the spirit of this Ash Wednesday, would seem to have something to repent. In particular, Fr Walter Crites of the APA, who participated in the proceeding to give it a veneer of objectivity, seems to have been derelict in not reviewing whether the "court" actually had jurisdiction over Fr Kelley.

On the other hand, Brian Marsh has said more recently that merger with the APA is "elusive". I suspect this sort of chicanery has been factored into the APA's review of the potential for merger.

A Couple Of Observations

My prediction over the past couple of months, that the Bush group would only be able to delay the inevitable for short periods, looks like it's turning out to have been correct. This leads to a couple of other questions. One is that we still don't have a clear picture of how the group financed what was, by Mrs Bush's own estimate, about $2 million in legal fees.

However, with the loss of the tenant in the commercial space and now the certain loss of the property, it's hard to imagine how they can continue the appeal of Judge Strobel's decision, which will involve hundreds of thousands more. My wife and I suspect they have been looting the parish of assets to meet expenses, but even this option will now be foreclosed.

The absence of Lancaster & Anastasia LLP from Mr Cothran's claim of possession may be significant -- it was a clear loser, but the Bush group's whole case has been a loser, and this hadn't deterred their intrepid legal team to date. Stay tuned.

The next question goes to the parish's affiliation. I have assumed up to now, and posted now and then to that effect, that the parish is unaffiliated. I now learn that the parish apparently intends to continue to identify itself as part of the Patrimony of the Primate. This was established by John Hepworth and Louis Falk in late 2010 to protect ACA parishes who intended to join the US-Canadian Ordinariate from adverse action by ACA bishops.

Although the ACA bishops unanimously requested that the Holy See erect the Ordinariates at the earliest possible time in March 2010, and in April 2011 pledged not to interfere with Patrimony parishes, they never acted in good faith over either move.

It seems more and more plain that their sole object was to seize St Mary of the Angels, a property worth somewhere in eight figures -- the only other ACA parish planning to leave with equivalent assets was Incarnation Orlando, which had put itself under a separate jurisdiction. Thus the ACA House of Bishops voted to dissolve the Patrimony in January 2012, when it became plain that David Moyer intended to continue to protect St Mary's from interference by Stephen Strawn.

However, court documents show that in John Hepworth's view, the ACA House of Bishops never had the authority to dissolve the Patrimony, since it was created by Hepworth himself as Primate of the TAC. As Hepworth put it in his deposition, the Patrimony still exists, St Mary of the Angels is still a parish in it, and Fr Kelley is still a priest in good standing in the Patrimony.

Samuel Prakash became the "acting primate" of the TAC following the retirement of John Hepworth (or his explusion by the TAC College of Bishops, depending on who you're talking to). He appears to be nothing but a figurehead, and the real power in the TAC, inasmuch as it exists, is with Brian Marsh and his ally Michael Gill. So far, none has made a move to dissolve the Patrimony on behalf of the Primate or the TAC.

They probably feel they don't need to. Remaining ACA clergy have either been cowed by Marsh and Strawn, or they stay out of their way and avoid direct confrontation. I would expect, though, that if the ACA's legal position continues to deteriorate in the St Mary of the Angels cases, we'll see an announcement of Marsh's "retirement". I wouldn't rule that out -- stay tuned.

Reactions To TEC Suspension At Canterbury

This development is only very tangentially related to the purpose of this blog, except that this post, on a blog speaking for a very tiny "continuing" splinter group, makes the point,

That the Global South primates have won a kind of victory is a step in the right direction, but only a step in a long journey. Many of us in Continuing churches know that this is approximately forty years later than it should have been. We know also that the Archbishop of Canterbury, then Donald Coggan, would have made all things better by recognizing the Denver Consecrations in 1978. The presence of ACNA Archbishop Foley Beach at the primates meeting this past week is good in one sense, but it also drives home the propaganda that we need to resist; namely that only now has a genuine Anglican alternative to TEC arisen. That notion has been presented only in an implied sense, but it is strongly implied at our expense, though it has never been true at all.

So OK, the main guy consecrated in Denver was James Mote. He in turn consecrated Louis Falk and then fairly quickly withdrew from active involvement in the "continuing" movement, leaving things as they developed to Falk and Falk's adversaries. Falk in turn consecrated -- well, let's look at just some on the list, Robin Connors, Stephen Strawn, Brian Marsh -- a disreputable bunch indeed. I recently heard from a conservative-leaning former TEC priest who basically said there were grounds for complaint against the US-Canadian Ordinariate and for that matter, the ACA -- and in comparison, the very liberal TEC Bishop of Los Angeles J Jon Bruno actually comes off well.

But then, I've heard from former members of the St Mary of the Angels parish who, while they have good wishes for it, chose to remain Episcopalian. Frankly, there are only two real options for Episcopalians. Either become Catholic, but considering the overall disappointment in the Ordinariates, probably not via Anglicanorum coetibus, or remain Episcopalian. A distant option might be, if an Episcopal parish is not convenient but an ACNA parish is, the ACNA.

Those who go with any "continuing" denomination are submitting themselves to charlatans and thieves.

The Tedious RouteTo Justice

The hearing on the disposition of the "related" Rector Wardens, and Vestry cases is scheduled for Friday, January 8. I plan to attend. As a lay observer, it seems to me that this hearing will at least move the process toward dismissing the "initial action", the case brought by Morello, Strawn, and the dissident central committee against Fr Kelley and the vestry in May 2012. Every judge who's looked at the specific allegations in this action has found them without merit, including Judge Jones, who acknowledged that in granting the temporary restraining order to the ACA, she had acted in error.

I'm hoping that this hearing will continue the process of chipping away the ACA's and the squatters' case. It's worth noting that late last year, "Bishop" Marsh took official notice of this blog, and it appears that there was a renewed effort to stop this blog through Catholic channels. (I'm especially grateful for this effort, since it got me off the dime of simply tolerating the liturgical and musical abuse at the Our Mother of Good Counsel parish and sent me to find a better mass and a different confessor.)

However, both these developments are a sign that the ACA and the squatters are getting nervous. Not that they'd actually try to settle the case on terms that might still carry some advantage for their position -- something's very odd there. At this point, with regular rental income either stopped or suspended, all they can rely on is the offertory from the dozen or so tightwads who attend services there, little more than spare change.

As I've calculated here, the money they have to be spending just to pay utilities and "Bishop" Owen Williams's housing allowance alone must exceed this by orders of magnitude, although we must also assume Lancaster & Anastasia LLP are not yet donating their services.

Where is this money coming from? My wife thinks there can be only two explanations for the squatter's continued holdout: either they have some agenda item they haven't yet accomplished, or they need to cover something up. Both of us think they can only delay the inevitable.

The "Angelican" C Team is On The Case!

As I've observed for several days, Christmas has still been rescheduled to August 16. Do your shopping early.

I'm told that there is now a note on the bank building saying it is "temporally [sic] closed" for remodeling. I'm working to get further specifics on how this "remodeling" took place, and on what timeline.

As best I can determine from public records, the ages of the three individuals most closely associated with the squatter group are Mrs Bush, age 85 or 86; Patrick Meyers AKA Patrick Omeirs, age 75; and John Cothran, age 68. It's difficult to imagine that these people could participate in or condone behavior more appropriate to juvenile delinquents, but the circumstances as far as they are known lead to few other conclusions.

"Bishop in Residence" Owen Williams, "Rector" Frederick Rivers, and "Presiding Bishop" Marsh appear to have at least tacitly approved what's occurred, quite possibly instigated it, and at minimum neither insisted that it stop or, if they were unaware that it had taken place, demanded that the participants make amends once they heard of it.

UPDATE: A knowledgeable party reports that on entry to the building on November 17, there was a flood in the ladies' restroom and the space was dirty, but there was no apparent vandalism. However, this party did notify Mrs Bush that by changing the locks, she was denying a city agency access to its property. Mrs Bush's response has not been reported, but given the sign on the building, it is currently closed to all comers.

Why is Brian Marsh Suddenly Answering Questions?

After what he acknowledges is months of silence, "Bishop" Marsh of the ACA is suddenly answering questions. On one hand, as I've said before, the ACA doesn't have many options whether he answers questions or flips them the bird -- he has no credible successor. But he seems to be getting nervous nonetheless.

He first notes that he welcomes the chance to answer when "someone will ask me about something they have read on a blog" (clearly the blog he refers to is this one). But in September's Northeast Anglican, he also notes

"Often, your bishop is asked about the possibility of merger with other orthodox Anglican jurisdictions. We currently hold friendly relations with several such jurisdictions and an intercommunion relationship with the Anglican Province of America. If merger appears elusive at this time, it is important to remind ourselves that such occurrences happen in God's good time."

What? Merger with the APA "appears elusive at this time"? Er, didn't "Bishops" Marsh and Langberg (he now conveniently retired even as a rector) take a Mediterranean cruise with APA Bishops Loiselle and Grundorf as far back as 2012 for, as Marsh put it, "discussing and getting to know each other in preparation for our anticipated unity"? More than three years later, why are things now stalled, which Marsh acknowledges here?

The elephant in the room, the source of both questions, is St Mary of the Angels. The St Mary's vestry has estimated multimillion-dollar damages resulting from the ACA's incitement and supervision of a squatter group occupying the property. But now other issues are coming to light -- the squatter group operating under the ACA's direct authority, supervised by Frederick Rivers and Owen Rhys Williams representing themselves as "rector" and "episcopal visitor", appears to have obtained half a million dollars in financing, offering as security a property they do not own or control.

Brian Marsh is one of the first people the lenders will presumably approach, assuming these circumstances are borne out in further investigation. The liability for the ACA is potentially cataclysmic. The damage to its reputation will probably be terminal

If you were Walter Grundorf, how eager would you be to have the APA assume a share in this liability?

The ACA Now Has An Official Position On This Blog!

If you wanted any better confirmation that this blog has an impact, you should check this out. Thanks to an Ordinariate source for the heads-up. "Bishop" Marsh concludes,

St. Mary of the Angels in Hollywood, California has been captive of the blogosphere for some time. In this particular case, the blogosphere has made the art of distortion into a masterpiece. You cannot believe everything you read and I do pray that the truth will out in the end.

I think I do a pretty good job here, too, and I appreciate the implicit praise! However, I would say that for "Bishop" Marsh to address the issue of St Mary's now at all is a reflection of his concern that developments are not going the ACA's way, and the place where people will get an accurate and up-to-date account of them is here. Knowing that this is already the case (my readership is up 40%-50% in recent months), he seems to feel the need to minimize it.

Good luck with that.

The ACA's Dilemma

The ACA has a potential problem I've foreseen since 2012 -- its actions in placing a group of squatters onto the parish property have been instigated and formally, repeatedly, and publicly endorsed by the House of Bishops. The same ACA chancellors who recognized that the Patrimony of the Primate was separate from the ACA in 2011 saw no conflict in Strawn and Marsh seizing a Patrimony parish in 2012. These people are incompetent and will bring considerable trouble on themselves and the ACA. I wouldn't hire any of them to get me off a traffic ticket.

There's an additional downside to the direction the court cases have taken: since 2013, Church Mutual Insurance has refused to cover Mrs Bush and her group of squatters on the basis that they were neither the policyholders nor the insured on St Mary's insurance policies. By extension, it seems reasonable to expect that officers' insurance for the ACA will not cover actions by Marsh, Strawn, Owen Williams, Anthony Morello, Frederick Rivers, the chancellors, or others on the basis that in placing a group of squatters on the St Mary's property, they acted outside the scope of their authority.

Public corporations must sooner or later hold dishonest or incompetent officers accountable. Given an equivalent legal turn of events, which was predictable once the appeals court sent the case back for retrial, a corporate CEO would have been negotiating his severance package, and in due course there would have been a quiet announcement that he was leaving to spend more time with his family.

My wife and I see no choice for the ACA but to separate itself from the legal interests of Marsh, Strawn, Owen Williams, and others. The problem is that in a public corporation, the body that would do this is the board of directors. The equivalents to corporate boards in the ACA are parish vestries, diocesan standing committees, and the ACA Executive Council. Every indication I have is that these are packed with stooges and riddled with vacancies.

A visitor pointed out to me, for instance, that the ACA Diocese of the West Standing Committee has only two clergy listed, apparently with no other clergy willing to fill vacancies. It appears that Fr William Bower has simply extracted himself. Canon Charles Slagle is on the DOW Standing Committee, though not listed at any parish in the few that are left. In fact, he is Canon Missioner of the Diocese of the Missouri Valley, which can only mean that he is there to protect Stephen Strawn's interests, not those of the DOW. Two other prominent members of the DOW Standing Committee are Mrs Bush and Mrs Creel, both presumably liable for damages in the St Mary's seizure and thus with clear conflicts of interest.

There don't appear to be enough adults on any such body who aren't thoroughly implicated in the St Mary's seizure to act effectively to protect the denomination's interests. At the time I was compiling a list of ACA parishes and missions, it was pointed out to me that few parishes actually have rectors -- many are missions or parishes with priests-in-charge, who are subject to removal at any time by the bishop. Many of the strongest parishes with effective clergy, of course, left the ACA for the Patrimony in 2011, and several have gone into the US-Canadian Ordinariate.

Beyond that, if Marsh, Strawn, and Owen Williams were to be forced out -- highly unlikely in any case -- there are no credible successors. John Vaughan appears to have some potential exposure to scandal, which could erupt if he were promoted. James Hiles is an octogenarian who doesn't seem very active currently. It doesn't seem likely that Louis Falk, also an octogenarian, would step in. The only credible possibility would be George Langberg, although even he may be tainted by the St Mary's seizure.

This is almost certainly the way Brian Marsh wants it.