Fr. Kannapell told VirtueOnline that he got a call on Friday afternoon from the bishop and was told to meet him on Saturday in his office to discuss his situation.

"He said he would inhibit me if I didn't come." Kannapell prayed about it and then went down "not out of fear but a chance to talk." He took with him his wife, a lawyer and his senior warden.

"Bishop Gibbs gave me a chance to renounce my orders. I refused. I told him I was made a priest, and still a priest, but I can't be under your authority. He said if you don't renounce your orders I will inhibit you immediately. I refused. He then signed a letter of inhibition."

Kannapell said he that when his attorney asked the bishop by what canon the vestry being dismissed. "The bishop cited canon but the canon appeared not to have the consequence he imposed."

We asked if we could negotiate for the property, but the bishop said no, Kannapell told VirtueOnline.

"Basically I was inhibited for seeking adequate episcopal oversight. We had discussed Delegated Episcopal Pastoral Oversight (DEPO) and the bishop had offered it, but we deemed it inadequate because the bishop retained spiritual leadership and authority over the parish. It was not personal, he had everything to do with his leadership."

Asked if he expected to be thrown out of the property in less than 24 hours, Fr, Kannapell said yes, but he knew it was inevitable.

On Sunday morning the parishioners of St. Andrew's met at a local Holiday Inn. Some 190 of the church's 400 parishioners showed up. Average Sunday attendance is about 200, Fr. Kannapell told VirtueOnline.

Kannapell said that a handful had shown up at the two Sunday services at the old church where Fr. John Henry had been sent in by the bishop to serve and preach.

The priest said he and his vestry had not yet decided what ecclesiastical authority they would come under, and they were keeping their options open. "We remain Anglican and we will come under some specific authority, in time," he said.

Asked why he did not fight to keep the property, Fr. Kannapell said that under Michigan law, the Dennis Canon would have prevailed. He didn't see how he could win. "We walked away rather than fight," he said.

The priest told VirtueOnline that he felt blessed to give up something for the Lord.

Fr. Kannapell said the majority of the church and vestry was unanimous in leaving. The priest had been at the church over three years. Fr. Kannapell has a wife and three small children they are home-schooling.

Their new website can be found at: www.standrewsministry.org.

END

THE FOLLOWING LETTER WAS WRITTEN BY ARCHBISHOP GREGORY VENABLES TO FR. KANNAPELL in Sept. 2005

From: Iglesia Anglicana del Cono Sur de America
Obispo
Primado: Rvmo.
GREGORIO J. VENABLES

September 19, 2005

To The Revd C. Allen Kannapell,
Rector St. Andrew's Episcopal Church
16360 Hubbard Road Livonia, MI 48154
734-421-8451

Dear Allen,

Greetings to you in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ. Thank you for writing to ask what we Primates had in mind when we called for "adequate episcopal oversight."

It is a very common question which invariably comes from conservative clergy and parishes who are in conflict with revisionist bishops. We have yet to be asked such a question by any of the revisionist bishops themselves.

First of all, let me say that we consider it is a scandal that such measures are even necessary. The need results from the disrespectful practices instituted by the General Convention of ECUSA and a number of bishops of your province.

To proceed with their "same-sex agenda" while ignoring the pleas of all four of the Anglican Communion's instruments of unity has been unconscionable.

The problem has been exacerbated by offending bishops who are not willing to cooperate by providing any real alternative oversight.

Given the programs of "innovative spirituality" that represent such a dramatic departure from Christian teaching in many dioceses, it is not surprising that orthodox Christians should find themselves in great conflict.

The promotion and approval of the Robinson consecration is a further demonstration of the serious nature of the crisis.

In all our Primates meetings since 2001, we have expressed growing concern for the protection of those who cannot accept this agenda as a matter of conscience.

We called for the establishment of "adequate episcopal oversight" by which we meant the􀀁setting up a temporary structure to provide protection, leadership, sacramental participation and jurisdiction from a bishop other than the revisionist diocesan bishop with whom a priest or congregation is in conflict. This was clearly designed to be more than just handholding pastoral care.

It is the temporary ceding of oversight to a bishop who maintains the same faith as the parish and clergy. It is clear that the programme of "DEPO" offered by the ECUSA House of Bishops is utterly inadequate because it leaves all of the oversight and control in the hands of the bishop who is not maintaining "the faith once delivered to the saints."

Adequate oversight must by definition be acceptable to those receiving it and should be available until a fully orthodox province is restored in the US. We are seeing increasing incidents of canonical􀀁excesses and abuses where ECUSA bishops are pressuring, inhibiting, and even attempting to depose clergy who oppose the revisionist agenda.

The Panel of Reference that was set up by the Archbishop of Canterbury at the request (and might I add unanimous agreement of the Primates including ECUSA) was designed to insure that adequate measures for protection and oversight are put in place.

Sadly, in Rioja, where it is most needed, bishops are not willing to cooperate even though this measure was called for and set up by the worldwide leadership of the church... Primates who are committed to maintaining the faith are not going to stand idly by while parish after parish is consumed by revisionism with an insensitive and voracious appetite.

Sadly, it is no surprise that bishops who do not understand mutual interdependence and feel that they can do whatever they like, still claim the benefits of affiliation with the Communion.

The illogical reality is that they are doing this at the very time they have abandoned the responsibilities of our common life as Anglicans. Now, the tensions have reached such levels that the Secretary General of the Anglican Consultative Council has announced that the Archbishop of Canterbury has received notice that twenty-two of the thirty-eight provinces are in impaired or broken communion with ECUSA.

Both the Primates of the Communion and the Anglican Consultative Council have voted to insist that the Episcopal Church (ECUSA) and the Anglican Church of Canada withdraw from the councils of the church and reflect as to whether or not they will conform to Anglican (and Biblical) teaching, or choose to walk separately.

As Primates, however, we recognize that neither ECUSA or the Anglican Church of Canada is monolithic. We know that there are many faithful Anglicans in those provinces.

We read with open mouths and shame for our office the assertions of liberal bishops that they are the only link to be Anglican.

With disbelief we hear that many even deny that the actions of the General Convention have caused an increasingly grave separation. This is in blatant denial of what everyone in the leadership of the communion knows only too well. The real question is not whether you and your parish will have a way to stay Anglican.

In this crisis, even those clergy that ECUSA is inhibiting and deposing are still functioning as Anglicans in and through other provinces. The central question is not about faithful Anglicans but rather how long bishops who deny the teaching and discipline of the Communion will be able to go on calling themselves Anglican.

Please be assured of our prayers and good will as you and your parish seek to be faithful to the Scriptures, Anglican teaching, and the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Be fully sure that many Primates are committed to insuring that you have a way to do it. Please keep me informed personally of how things proceed in your situation.

Yours in Christ,

+Greg Venables

The Most Rev. Gregory J. Venables
Presiding Bishop of the Southern Cone of South America

LETTER FROM NASSAU ARCHBISHOP DREXEL GOMEZ

THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF THE WEST INDIES
PRIMATE AND METROPOLITAN
BISHOP OF NASSAU AND THE BAHAMAS INCLUDING TURKS AND CAICOS ISLANDS
The Most Revd Drexel Wellington Gomez, B.A., CMG

September 22, 2005

The Revd Allen Kannapell
St. Andrews Episciopal Church
16360 Hubbard Road
Livonia, MI 48151

Dear Father Kannapell,

Greetings to you in the name of the Lord from the sunny Bahamas. Thank you for writing and asking about the Windsor Report and alternative oversight. First of all let me say that agreement with the Windsor Report has developed to be the norm around the Communion, despite the unwillingness so far for either ECUSA or the Anglican Church of Canada to simply endorse the theological underpinnings of the report.

Clearly the overwhelming number of Anglicans around the world are fully in agreement with Lambeth resolution 1.10 and the theological perspective of the Windsor Report that the actions of ECUSA and the Anglican Church of Canada represent a departure from historic Christian teaching. The refusal of either the ECUSA or Canadian bishops to turn back from same-sex blessings and ordinations of those in active same-sex relations is puzzling and destructive. They say they regret the problems and the pain, but refuse to correct the offense. It is a hollow regret and falls far short of the expectations of the Primates.

As far as the DEPO provisions of the ECUSA House of Bishops go, it is entirely lacking because it leaves all the power in the hands of the innovating bishop. Following the production of the Windsor Report, we came to discover that the reports of DEPO's successful implementation were grossly overstated to the Commission. Throughout history, there has never been a question that bishops are responsible for caring for their people. Sadly, in this crisis, the overwhelming evidence is that revisionist bishops are unwilling to commend clergy and congregations to the orthodox alternative care and oversight that is their right to expect.

You can clearly see this in the Primates letter from October 2003 from our meeting at Lambeth Palace: To this extent, therefore, we must make clear that recent actions in New Westminster and in the Episcopal Church (USA) do not express the mind of our Communion as a whole, and these decisions jeopardise our sacramental fellowship with each other.

We have a particular concern for those who in all conscience feel bound to dissent from the teaching and practice of their province in such matters. Whilst we reaffirm the teaching of successive Lambeth Conferences that bishops must respect the autonomy and territorial integrity of dioceses and provinces other than their own, we call on the provinces concerned to make adequate provision for episcopal oversight of dissenting minorities within their own area of pastoral care in consultation with the Archbishop of Canterbury on behalf of the Primates. (Windsor Report, p. 81. Emphasis added)

It is also obvious in the clear language of the Primates Communique: In order to protect the integrity and legitimate needs of groups in serious theological dispute with their diocesan bishop, or dioceses in dispute with their Provinces, we recommend that the Archbishop of Canterbury appoint, as a matter of urgency, a panel of reference to supervise the adequacy of pastoral provisions made by any churches for such members in line with the recommendation in the Primates' Statement of October 2003. (Primates Communiqué-Dromantine Centre).

You have said that you reject the action of the General Convention and that of your bishop in approving and supporting the consecration of Gene Robinson. Certainly it is your right, I would say even your obligation to ardently oppose those actions. That objection is part and parcel of what we had in mind in describing "conflict" with your province or diocesan bishop.

You can also see that in what we wrote from Ireland: 15. In order to protect the integrity and legitimate needs of groups in serious theological dispute with their diocesan bishop, or dioceses in dispute with their Provinces, we recommend that the Archbishop of Canterbury appoint, as a matter of urgency, a panel of reference to supervise the adequacy of pastoral provisions made by any churches for such members in line with the recommendation in the Primates' Statement of October 2003 (xii). ).

I hope that your bishop will be willing to recognize the immense impact of his actions and cooperate fully to provide you and your congregation alternative oversight. Please know that there are many Primates who are very sympathetic with your situation. It is heartbreaking that you and your people would be under pressure from the structures of the church. You can be sure that we are eager for you to be in a fruitful place.

Yours sincerely,

The Most Rev'd. Drexel Wellington Gomez
ARCHBISHOP OF THE WEST INDIES