Statement from the Acting Metropolitan of the Holy Catholic Church Anglican Rite
Dear Dr. Virtue,
We were saddened to note this posting on the status of St. James, which contains many misstatements of facts and regret to engage in such an endeavor. However in the interest of truth and justice, we would like to set the records straight. We wish you had called us before posting such an article. If you are going to keep the article online, please publish the following clarifications:
1) The property of St. James is owned by St. James, contrary to other claims. St. James’ Committee is comprised of long term and faithful members of St. James, who wanted to protect its property. The rector, who came from another jurisdiction, and a few renegade vestry members attempted to disenfranchise long time loyal members of the congregation by eliminating them from the parish roll in order to carry out their exit strategy—the vote to leave or stay in the diocese. Ironically, in the annual parish meeting of January 20th, 2008, the parish voted to stay in the Diocese. Even after such a decision, the rector and his few loyalists were soliciting other jurisdictions, while declaring the see 'vacant'. The congregation as referred to in your article is not the entire membership of St. James, but the few disgruntled ones under the direction of the inhibited rector, that have left St. James.
2) The disciplinary action was taken by the Diocese against three clergy: the rector and two priests who have been very disobedient to the Bishop Ordinary; these include dropping the affiliation HCC-AR from the parish’s name, changing the locks of the church and locking out his bishop ordinary, the clergy threatening to sue their bishop on charges of theft when with due permission of the senior warden (and assisted by rector) he took his personal vestments, for arbitrarily changing the bylaws of the church, for eliminating long term members from the parish roll (who are referred to as guests in your article) to vote to take the property out of the diocese, for suppressing all communications to the parish from the Bishop Ordinary, for soliciting to take St. James Anglican church to Rome and/or other jurisdictions, for asking for oversight from the ACC claiming they had no bishop, for illegally convening meetings against canons. Despite their disloyalty to the diocese they had been extended an olive branch (on the April 20th meeting) but rejected any reconciliation. When this was not heeded, according to the diocesan canons, the parish was reduced to a mission status, and the said Committee was appointed to be in charge of the administration of the property. The rector and the vestry were defiant to accept the writ from the diocese, and went ahead and held a vestry meeting. Since this was not heeded to, the same writ was filed and obtained as an injunction. This was done to in order that the majority of the parish maintain ownership of the property. The attorney is Mr. James Wirken for the Diocese of Holy Trinity and Great Plains and Mr. James Daniels is the diocesan chancellor.
3) Also the appointment of the new bishop for the diocese was in keeping with the apostolic and diocesan canons, which were endorsed by the clergy and laity of the entire diocese, except these few former members of St. James. Bishop Leo Michael left the UECNA on February 10th, 2008 as acknowledged by its leadership and was elected by the college of bishops on February 14th, 2008. The alleged statements of Bp. Michael in the said April 20th meeting as stated in your article, are totally false, and witnesses can attest the same.
The HCC-AR is part of the continuing church movement, governed by the college of bishops, the apostolic and diocesan canons, served by faithful clergy. In matters of protecting the faithful and congregation, we are accountable to the Lord and we will continue to serve in the biblical, sacramental and apostolic orthodoxy. Any other twist, is to add insult to the body of Christ.
In Fide,
X Thomas
Dear Dr. Virtue,
We were saddened to note this posting on the status of St. James, which contains many misstatements of facts and regret to engage in such an endeavor. However in the interest of truth and justice, we would like to set the records straight. We wish you had called us before posting such an article. If you are going to keep the article online, please publish the following clarifications:
1) The property of St. James is owned by St. James, contrary to other claims. St. James’ Committee is comprised of long term and faithful members of St. James, who wanted to protect its property. The rector, who came from another jurisdiction, and a few renegade vestry members attempted to disenfranchise long time loyal members of the congregation by eliminating them from the parish roll in order to carry out their exit strategy—the vote to leave or stay in the diocese. Ironically, in the annual parish meeting of January 20th, 2008, the parish voted to stay in the Diocese. Even after such a decision, the rector and his few loyalists were soliciting other jurisdictions, while declaring the see 'vacant'. The congregation as referred to in your article is not the entire membership of St. James, but the few disgruntled ones under the direction of the inhibited rector, that have left St. James.
2) The disciplinary action was taken by the Diocese against three clergy: the rector and two priests who have been very disobedient to the Bishop Ordinary; these include dropping the affiliation HCC-AR from the parish’s name, changing the locks of the church and locking out his bishop ordinary, the clergy threatening to sue their bishop on charges of theft when with due permission of the senior warden (and assisted by rector) he took his personal vestments, for arbitrarily changing the bylaws of the church, for eliminating long term members from the parish roll (who are referred to as guests in your article) to vote to take the property out of the diocese, for suppressing all communications to the parish from the Bishop Ordinary, for soliciting to take St. James Anglican church to Rome and/or other jurisdictions, for asking for oversight from the ACC claiming they had no bishop, for illegally convening meetings against canons. Despite their disloyalty to the diocese they had been extended an olive branch (on the April 20th meeting) but rejected any reconciliation. When this was not heeded, according to the diocesan canons, the parish was reduced to a mission status, and the said Committee was appointed to be in charge of the administration of the property. The rector and the vestry were defiant to accept the writ from the diocese, and went ahead and held a vestry meeting. Since this was not heeded to, the same writ was filed and obtained as an injunction. This was done to in order that the majority of the parish maintain ownership of the property. The attorney is Mr. James Wirken for the Diocese of Holy Trinity and Great Plains and Mr. James Daniels is the diocesan chancellor.
3) Also the appointment of the new bishop for the diocese was in keeping with the apostolic and diocesan canons, which were endorsed by the clergy and laity of the entire diocese, except these few former members of St. James. Bishop Leo Michael left the UECNA on February 10th, 2008 as acknowledged by its leadership and was elected by the college of bishops on February 14th, 2008. The alleged statements of Bp. Michael in the said April 20th meeting as stated in your article, are totally false, and witnesses can attest the same.
The HCC-AR is part of the continuing church movement, governed by the college of bishops, the apostolic and diocesan canons, served by faithful clergy. In matters of protecting the faithful and congregation, we are accountable to the Lord and we will continue to serve in the biblical, sacramental and apostolic orthodoxy. Any other twist, is to add insult to the body of Christ.
In Fide,
X Thomas
"Ad majorem Dei Gloriam ~ To the Greater Glory of God"
www.holycatholicanglican.org
www.holycatholicanglican.org