Anglican Diocese of Sydney affirms that it is in full communion with the ACNA

ACNA website via American Anglican Council:

October 30, 2009

The Anglican Church in North America (ACNA) welcomes the affirmation from the Anglican Diocese of Sydney(Australia) that it is in full communion with the ACNA.

On October 28, the Diocese of Sydney's Synod passed a resolution which stated: "Synod welcomes the creation of the Province of the Anglican Church in North America (ACNA) under the leadership of Archbishop Bob Duncan and notes the GAFCON Primates' Council recognition of the ACNA as genuinely Anglican and its recommendation that Anglican Provinces affirm full communion with the ACNA. Synod therefore expresses its desire to be in full communion with the ACNA." The resolution also directed the diocese's standing committee to ask its national body, the Anglican Church of Australia, to declare that it is in full communion with the ACNA as well.

ACNA Archbishop Robert Duncan said, "We welcome this recognition from the Diocese of Sydney and look forward to working with them and our other overseas Anglican partners in spreading the Gospel and building a Communion that is truly Christ-centered and missional."

Since December 2008, the leaders of a number of Anglican Communion provinces - representing the majority of active Anglicans globally - have recognized the ACNA as authentically Anglican and have recommended that other Anglican provinces officially affirm full communion with the ACNA. These leaders include the Archbishops of Nigeria, Uganda, Rwanda, Tanzania, West Africa, the Southern Cone of South America, and the recently retired Archbishop of Kenya. Along with this support, the ACNA welcomed many official delegations and greetings from other Anglican provinces at its inaugural meeting in June, 2009.

ACNA figures to grow by five more parishes next week!

by texanglican

There will be five new congregations welcomed into the diocese of Fort Worth next week. Assuming the diocese accedes formally to the Constitution and Canons of the ACNA at our convention next Saturday (as seems likely) this will mean five new parishes for the new province! Several of these parishes are former TEC churches, while one is a new church plant.

The Church of Christ the Redeemer will be recognized as a mission parish in Fort Worth, under its vicar, Fr. Christopher Culpepper. St. Francis Church in Dallas will be welcomed as a new parish of the diocese, while St Gabriel's Anglican Church in Bentonville, AR, will become a mission station of the diocese. And St. Matthias' Anglican Church in Dallas and the Church of the Holy Spirit in Tulsa, OK, will become parishes of the diocese under a new Parish Affiliation Agreement that has been put into place here.

Welcome to the dioFortWorth family, friends!

Episcopal Diocese of Quincy formally joins the Anglican Church of North America

from BabyBlueOnline by BabyBlue

via e-mail:

The Diocese of Quincy held its 132nd annual Synod October 16-17, and formally aligned itself as a constituent member of the newly formed Anglican Church in North America (ACNA), a group of more than 700 Anglican churches in the US and Canada that was founded in June. Since that time another 40 churches have joined the new body.

The Synod, hosted by the Church of the Transfiguration in Princeton, also reaffirmed its pastoral relationship with the Anglican Church of the Southern Cone which offered the diocese “safe harbor” a year ago when the diocese separated from the Episcopal Church.

“God has truly blessed us over the last 12 months,” said Fr. John Spencer, President of the Standing Committee which currently oversees the diocese. “Our churches remain strong, we are focused on the future, and we are blessed to now be part of an orthodox Anglican body here in the US.” The ACNA is led by Archbishop Robert Duncan, Bishop of Pittsburgh and a leader over the last several years of the movement to restore a traditional, biblically grounded Anglican presence in the US.

In addition to routine business, the annual Synod welcomed three new parishes into the diocese. “They applied to become part of Quincy,” Fr. Spencer said, “because they know our diocese had taken a firm stand for the historic faith and practice of the Church. They know we adhere to biblical teaching and biblical morality, and they found a home with us.” Several other parishes have approached the diocese about possibly becoming members.

“God isn’t hampered by the rebellion of some in the church. When some stray from the Gospel, God raises up faithful Christians who are willing to stand against the social and moral decay that can infect and destroy a culture.” That decay, Spencer said, has infected some US churches. “There is a cost when you stand against the flow of society. But Christian faith is not a popularity contest. Our first calling is to uphold the teaching of Christ. Cultures have always resisted the Gospel. That’s no reason to stop teaching it, or stop living it.”

Two of the largest Provinces of the world-wide Anglican Communion have already formally recognized the new ACNA. As the ACNA receives growing recognition around the Communion, Spencer said, the diocese will maintain is pastoral relationship with the Province of the Southern Cone as its “official” link to world-wide Anglicanism.

Christ Church Savannah To Appeal Property Ruling

from Stand Firm by Greg Griffith

Via email:

(Savannah, GA) Christ Church, the oldest church in Georgia, has appealed the ruling of Judge Michael Karpf, which granted control of the congregation’s property to the Episcopal Diocese of Georgia.

“This is another step in what we knew would be a long process,” stated the Rev. Marcus B. Robertson, Rector of Christ Church. In order to maintain its fidelity to the historic Christian faith, Christ Church withdrew from the Episcopal Church on September 30th, 2007. “This decision, though set in the context of a legal contest, remains consistent with the commitment we made before God and one another at that time,” Robertson added.

Neil Creasy, Chancellor of Christ Church, said, “The Supreme Court of South Carolina is the only state supreme court to have ruled in a case involving facts, law and issues similar to ours. It ruled in favor of the local congregation. We are confident of a similar result here.”

Numerous messages of support have been given to the parish. “We are grateful for the prayers and words of encouragement we have received from churches and individuals from around the world,” said Sr. Warden Carol Rogers Smith.

Christ Church is a member of the Anglican Church of North America (ACNA) and a congregation in the Gulf Atlantic Diocese, which came into being in August as a diocese of ACNA, covering north Florida and south Georgia.

The Diocese of Pittsburgh announces their intent to appeal lower court ruling

from BabyBlueOnline by BabyBlue

via e-mail:

ANGLICAN DIOCESE OF PITTSBURGH RESPONDS TO COURT RULING

Today, we are pleased to introduce ourselves as The Anglican Diocese of Pittsburgh. Previously known as The Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh, our diocese is comprised of fifty-five congregations; 51 local congregations with a very long record of service to Pittsburgh area communities (in eleven southwestern Pennsylvania counties), and 4 congregations beyond the immediate region. We were the majority (67%) on the vote to withdraw from the Episcopal Church and are the majority now: 55 Anglican Church congregations as compared to 27 Episcopal Church congregations.

Our purpose in asking you here today is to announce our intention to appeal the recent ruling of the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas. The court ruled that a minority of our former parishes, which now claim to be a diocese affiliated with the Episcopal Church, shall hold and administer all diocesan assets. The appeal will be filed once the court issues a final order directing the transfer of all diocesan property to this minority group.

Our decision to appeal is for the purpose of protecting the mission of our fifty-one local congregations. Left uncontested, the award of all diocesan assets to the minority party, a group that comprises only a third of the parishes that were a part of our diocese when we withdrew from the Episcopal Church, would establish a precedent that we believe the minority would use to take steps to seize all the assets of all our local parishes. Indeed, the minority's website proclaims as much. This litigious action, which is supported by the aggressive leadership of the Episcopal Church, is unfair, unreasonable, and unconscionable.

A further reason for the appeal is to address the question of the legal right of the Anglican Diocese of Pittsburgh to separate from its former denominational affiliation (The Episcopal Church of the United States). This essential question has never yet had its day in court throughout the legal action in which the Episcopal Church minority is the plaintiff and is suing for all the assets. Many of these assets were donated in good faith by generations of families in our fifty-one congregations. There must be an equitable agreement and distribution. There is a Christian way to resolve this dispute.

The Anglican Church in North America and the Anglican Diocese of Pittsburgh are actively engaged in effective, caring ministry and the planting of new congregations, both regionally and nationally. Our local congregations stretch from Slippery Rock to Somerset to Waynesburg. We are urban, suburban, town, valley and mountain congregations. Shepherd's Heart in Uptown, Seeds of Hope in Bloomfield, and Church of the Savior in Ambridge are among our most celebrated ministries to the urban poor and to urban youth. Half of all mission agencies in North America are headquartered among us and are led by our people. Unhesitatingly, the Anglican Diocese of Pittsburgh is committed to protecting and expanding the extraordinary ministries of these dynamic congregations and agencies.

The appeal announced today will be funded from several significant contributions, the first of which is in hand. An Anglican Diocese of Pittsburgh Defense Fund (The Staying Faithful Fund) has been established and is receiving donations. None of the ordinary gifts of our people or assessments of our congregations will be used to support the appeal.

We are building for the future, not dependent on the past or controlled by the culture. We proclaim the Christian Faith as once for all delivered to the saints. We rejoice in the generosity of our people and stand firmly on the solid Rock who is Our Lord Jesus. We share what we have, whether much or little. We are Anglican Christians transforming our world with Jesus Christ. We are the Anglican Diocese of Pittsburgh.

Dissident theologian criticizes pope's opening to Anglicans

Oct-28-2009

By Sarah Delaney
Catholic News Service

ROME (CNS) -- Dissident theologian Father Hans Kung criticized Pope Benedict XVI for his recent opening to discontented Anglicans, charging the pope was "fishing" for the most conservative Christians to the detriment of the larger church.

Father Kung said the invitation to traditionalist Anglicans to join the Roman Catholic Church went against years of ecumenical work on the part of both churches, calling it instead "a nonecumenical piracy of priests."

The pope's basic message is: "Traditionalists of all churches, unite under the dome of St. Peter's!" Father Kung wrote in an editorial Oct. 28 in the Rome daily La Repubblica.

"Look: The fisherman is fishing above all on the 'right' side of the lake. But the water is muddy," he said.

The Vatican announced Oct. 20 that the pope was establishing a new structure to welcome Anglicans who want to be in full communion with the Roman Catholic Church while maintaining some of their spiritual and liturgical traditions. Many of the Anglicans who have asked the Vatican for such a provision are dismayed by the ordination of women and by the blessing of homosexual unions and the ordination of openly gay bishops in some provinces of the Anglican Communion.

While emphasizing the importance of celibacy for priests, the Vatican said a dispensation would be made for former Anglican priests who are married to be ordained Catholic priests. However, they will not be able to become bishops.

Father Kung, a Swiss theologian who has taught in Germany for decades, warned that married newcomers will cause resentment on the part of celibate Catholic clergy.

In 1979 the Vatican withdrew permission for him to teach as a Catholic theologian, although it did not restrict his ministry as a Catholic priest.


In the editorial, Father Kung also lambasted Pope Benedict's recent efforts to bring back into the fold members of the Society of St. Pius X, a group of breakaway Catholics opposed to the changes in the church following the Second Vatican Council.

"After reintegrating the anti-reformist Society of St. Pius X, now Benedict XVI wants to flesh out the thinning ranks of Roman Catholics with like-minded Anglicans," Father Kung wrote in the editorial.

He also criticized Anglican Archbishop Rowan Williams of Canterbury, head of the Anglican Communion, who "in his desire to ingratiate himself with the Vatican apparently didn't understand the consequences of the papal fishing trip in Anglican waters."

END

Dallas: A Diocese to Watch

This is from Lionel Diemel's blog. Diemel is part of the fake diocese of Pittsburgh that is working to become part of the pecusa diocese of Northwest PA. This post comes to DCNY via The Lead. ed.

October 22, 2009

The 113th annual convention of the Episcopal Diocese of Dallas held this past weekend did not make much news. Episcopal News Service covered it in a single paragraph:
Dallas: “Great Fellowship” was the theme of the 113th annual diocesan convention, held at the South Fork Conference Center in Parker, Texas. Convention did not consider any resolutions; rather some 116 clergy and 194 lay delegates studied and discussed the Anglican covenant, according to Bishop Suffragan Paul Lambert of Dallas. Delegates approved a $3,169,600 budget, representing about a $29,000 increase from last year.
As ENS reported, no resolutions were considered at the convention, though, of course, the usual elections for Standing Committee and the like were held. To say that delegates “studied and discussed the Anglican covenant,” however, does not capture the essence of the event. It would be more correct to say that the delegates were propagandized or indoctrinated about the Anglican covenant.

The centerpiece of the convention was a trio of talks aimed at promoting adoption of the covenant and justifying the right of the diocese to approve it. These talks were given on Friday, October 16, 2009, by the Rt. Rev. James M. Stanton, Mr. Mark McCall, and the Rev. Dr. Philip Turner. The discussion was conducted in small groups at tables at which delegates from the same church were separated.

In case the names of the speakers do not immediately ring bells, I should point out that the speakers constitute an Anglican Communion Institute (ACI) tag team. Turner is vice president of the ACI. Stanton and McCall are members of the ACI Advisory Committee. (See the ACI “Contributing Theologians” page here.) It may be difficult to characterize precisely what the ACI stands for, but it would not be unfair to say that the ACI has virtually never had anything positive to say about The Episcopal Church or anything negative to say about its detractors. To its credit, however, it has not advocated breaking away from The Episcopal Church.

I will not attempt a full analysis of the message to which delegates to the Dallas convention were subjected. I will, however, offer links to the three talks and provide short summaries of them. I recommend reading the talks for yourself and drawing your own conclusions as to what Bishop Stanton is trying to accomplish. Apparently, he plans to call a special convention after a revised Section Four of the proposed Anglican covenant is available, at which time, he expects the Dallas convention to endorse—whatever that means—the covenant. I’m sure that this plan is not contingent on the details of the revised Section Four .

The first and longest talk was given by Bishop Stanton himself. It was titled “DIOCESE AND COVENANT: Reflection on Dallas, its History and Future.” (You can read Stanton’s talk here. The text is from a handout and contains all the typographical errors of the original.) Drawing on the history of his diocese, Stanton argued for the autonomy of dioceses, a novel notion promoted by attorney Mark McCall and the ACI. The talk mentioned the “unqualified accession” requirement imposed by the church on dioceses, though without suggesting that it has any real effect on church polity. After decoupling his diocese from The Episcopal Church, Stanton argued that the Christian message across dioceses must be coördinated, using a “conciliar”—another popular ACI buzzword—approach. This was his lead-in for advocacy of his diocese’s adopting the covenant. In one sentence, Stanton dismissed the constitution and canons of The Episcopal Church and embraced the convent: “A covenant is something higher and better than a code.” There is more than a little doubletalk here.

McCall was next to speak. His talk, “TEC Polity, The Civil Law and the Anglican Covenant,” is available here on the ACI Web site. McCall began with a discussion of the nature of The Episcopal Church, which, legally speaking, he says is a voluntary organization whose members are dioceses. Because the church’s constitution contains no “supremacy clause,” dioceses and the General Convention have “concurrent jurisdiction without supremacy,” which, given that diocesan conventions meet more often than the General Convention, effectively makes dioceses more powerful than the General Convention. (McCall’s legal discussion conveniently ignored the existence of the Domestic and Foreign Missionary Society of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America, of which all Episcopalians are members. He has a very limited idea of how a hierarchical organization must be ordered—he, too, basically ignores the accession requirement—and he does not deal with the constitutional implications of the Episcopal Church’s being a church.)

McCall then turned to the matter of adopting the Anglican covenant, at which point, his talk became seriously weird. Neither the covenant nor the Communion generally claims a right to alter a province’s polity. Provinces will accept or reject the covenant based on their own internal rules. In the case of our own church, since McCall claims that dioceses and the General Convention share jurisdiction, the General Convention and individual dioceses may act as they choose, and the Communion will have to sort out what that means.

I cannot resist an aside here. Whereas I have always thought McCall’s view of Episcopal Church polity to be seriously flawed, there are those who actually believe (or who want us to think they believe) this stuff. The General Convention should be very careful about how it accepts (God forbid!) or rejects the Anglican covenant. If it does so by canon—surely not the most obvious way of weighing in on the matter, particularly in the case of rejection—then, because of accession, dioceses could not second-guess the General Convention’s decision.

Turner was the final speaker; his talk was titled “Crossroads Are For Meeting (Again).” (This can be found on the ACI Web site here. Curiously, Turner’s footnotes are missing from the ACI posting and some of the formatting is dropped, so you may want to look at the PDF version of the Dallas handout here.) Turner offered a break from legal arguments. His basic message seemed to be “don’t be afraid of the covenant.” He began with some history, suggesting that the Anglican Communion has long sought a coherent self-identify that the covenant seeks to supply. His ultimate conclusion in the talk was that the covenant is the last best hope for keeping the Communion together. In discussing the covenant, excepting Section Four, Turner argued that the current draft is indeed “Anglican.” He acknowledged dissenting opinions and tried to counter them. In the last section of the talk, however, Turner argued that The Episcopal Church has acted in ways that make it impossible for the church to accept the covenant with integrity. (Implicitly, I suppose, this means that dioceses should act to accept it.) Acknowledging that the final form of Section Four is unknown, Turner suggested that previous versions have preserved autonomy and relied on “the process of ‘recognition’ rather than adjudication.” (This is an interesting point, thought perhaps a distinction without a difference.) According to Turner, “The simple fact is that without a strong Section Four that creates credible procedures rather than additional hierarchies, the Anglican Communion will perish as a communion of churches.”

One can see in the Dallas convention talks the strategizing of the militant traditionalists for their next battle. The General Convention actually asked dioceses to offer their opinions on the covenant, but that body intended for a serious, unbiased evaluation to take place in each diocese. The Bishop of Dallas, however, has decided instead to manipulate his own diocesan convention to assure that the diocese comes to the “right” conclusion. Moreover, expecting (or fearing) that the General Convention will reject the covenant, Stanton plans to act preëmptively, not merely offering moral support for the covenant, as the Archbishop of Canterbury has suggested, but claiming actual ratification by the autonomous Diocese of Dallas. This promises to sow chaos not only within The Episcopal Church, but also within the Anglican Communion itself. Of course, it may be necessary to destroy the Communion in order to save it.

Response to Bonnie Anderson

Via TitusOneNine:

Written by: The Anglican Communion Institute, Inc.
Monday, October 26th, 2009

The Diocese of South Carolina received a letter from Bonnie Anderson, the elected President of the House of Deputies. It was followed by a second statement saying that it was her practice to send such letters to each Diocese before their conventions.

In what follows we pay attention to sections of the first letter, where the President of the House of Deputies spoke at some length of her interpretation of the resolutions to be voted on at the South Carolina Diocesan Convention. These remarks seek to be substantive in character; presumably they represent her own considerations as well as those of the Executive Council of The Episcopal Church. For that reason they deserve comment and evaluation of their own.

At the outset, we note that it is the duty of the President of the House of Deputies to preside over that body. Neither she nor the Executive Council is the constitutionally-designated Ecclesiastical Authority in the Diocese of South Carolina. It is not her role to instruct or interfere with the lawful diocesan Authority.

It remains an open question what the legal effect of resolutions passed at General Convention genuinely is. We have, for example, heard it claimed that there is a distinction between “descriptive” and “prescriptive” resolutions and that controversial ones (D025 and C056) were “descriptive.” It is hard to know how a non-prescriptive resolution could not be described, as the South Carolina resolution intimates, as without effect in that Diocese. But we proceed on the logic of the letter, where something more seems to be at stake.

1. Anderson Text:

Without the omitted language, someone reading the Resolution could come away with the idea that no departures from the doctrine, discipline and worship of the Church of England are permitted at all when the expectation has always been that alterations would be made. The Preface, set forth in October 1789, acknowledges our debt to the Church of England for this Church’s “first foundation and a long continuance of nursing care and protection” and goes on to quote from the Preface of the Book of Common Prayer of the Church of England at that time that “the Forms of Divine Worship are alterable and changes should be made according to the various exigency of times and occasions.”

Ms Anderson apparently believes that departing from the teaching of the Communion, or from the language of the BCP in respect of blessing in Christian marriage (now to be extended, contra the BCP, to same sex couples, as permitted by General Convention 2009) constitutes an ‘expected alteration.’ A ‘various exigency of time and occasion’ is presumably General Convention 2009’s exigency of wanting to permit rites for same-sex blessings, without addressing the constitutional legality of doing so without changing the BCP in accordance with this desire.

2. As for the Oath as cited by Anderson:

I do believe the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments to be the Word of God, and to contain all things necessary to salvation; and I do solemnly engage to conform to the Doctrine, Discipline and Worship of the Episcopal Church.

Anderson apparently does not realize that issue is being taken with the constitutionality of what General Convention has done precisely because it is at odds with the Oath she herself sees as central. General Convention has not solemnly engaged to conform to the Doctrine, Discipline and Worship of the Episcopal Church because it has given permission to Bishops to bless same sex unions without bothering to change the marriage blessing rites the BCP regulates as in accordance with such Doctrine and Discipline.

3. Anderson text:

However, declaring actions of General Convention to be null and void and having no effect in a diocese is contrary to our polity and our Constitution and Canons.

What is being said is that the Constitution and Canons have been undercut or violated by the latitude General Convention has given in its resolutions D026, C056. Bishop Frey made this point quite clearly on the floor of General Convention. It would therefore be up to Ms Anderson to show that the Constitution and Canons were not violated by these resolutions. That is the point at issue. General Convention is not above the Constitution and Canons, nor is it identical with them. That would be to make nonsense of the very notion of Constitution and Canons. An assertion is not a legal fact. This is the matter the resolution is SC has concern about, precisely because it wishes to be in conformity with the Constitution and Canons of TEC on this issue.

4. Anderson text:

All dioceses must make an unqualified accession to the Constitution and Canons of The Episcopal Church.

Followed by:

The General Convention is the governing body of the Church and the authority of all other entities and offices comes from General Convention.

Here again, without any argument, the Constitution and Canons of the Episcopal Church are simply conflated with General Convention, as though they were one and the same. But this is belied by the Constitution’s insistence that General Convention, should it seek to undertake to alter the Constitution, must do so by specific procedures so stipulated by the Constitution itself, and this is the requirement if the Constitution is to be changed. The General Convention is under the authority of the Constitution. It is not identical with it. As we have repeatedly demonstrated with historical and legal arguments, dioceses are not made subordinate to General Convention by our Constitution. Conclusory assertions to the contrary from one who has no constitutional authority in the Diocese of South Carolina are not persuasive.

As for ‘unqualified accession.’ It has been pointed out at numerous times that accession, as a legal term, is in the gift of the one acceding, and to speak of ‘unqualified’ does not mean ‘irrevocable.’ To the contrary, in the legal context from which the term ‘accession’ is drawn, a qualified accession is well-known and understood as a partial acceptance subject to stated qualifications or reservations. Moreover, given the First Amendment implications of acceding to membership in religious associations, legal authorities suggest that any attempt to make such an accession to membership irrevocable would be unenforceable. To simply assert this, as does Ms Anderson, is to compound the error. Moreover, accession is to the Constitution and Canons, not to General Convention (or the Executive Council) and indeed this is what is being argued is under threat.

5. Anderson text:

So, adoption of a resolution declaring an action of General Convention null and void is itself, a nullity.

Not if the action is in violation of the Constitution. Moreover, the resolutions were described by proponents as ‘descriptive.’ This raises the question as to what legal character a resolution has at all. And we note that liberal bishops have repeatedly said that they are not bound by General Convention resolutions. One need only point to resolution B033 from 2006 as one instance among many.

Conclusion

What Anderson has achieved in this formal letter to South Carolina is a demonstration of what happens when General Convention undertakes to permit actions without bothering formally to amend the Constitution and Canons of The Episcopal Church. A similar demonstration is being made in the Presiding Bishop’s recourse to a Canon involving renunciation of orders so as to deal with a problem it was never designed to address. The consequence of such action is the creation of a view of Holy Orders and a ‘denominational regularization’ of them without any counterpart elsewhere in the Anglican Communion. The point is this. To use ‘abandonment of communion of this church’ to refer univocally to TEC makes TEC into its own, private communion. If this be the case, TEC is defining itself and its orders in a way different from that of the Anglican Communion as a whole. For Anglicans, communion is not defined within the circumference of a single province and orders are not conferred within a single province alone.

By arrogating to herself the role of commentary, evaluation, and exhortation, the President of the House of Deputies adopts an authority vis-à-vis the Diocese of SC nowhere granted to her by the Constitution and Canons she claims to be defending. Was the President of the House of Deputies elected with a clear remit to function in this way vis-à-vis the Dioceses of The Episcopal Church? Naturally, the President of the House of Deputies might wish to write a letter to the Diocese of South Carolina and encourage attendance at General Convention. But here the intention is to speak on behalf of the Constitution and Canons as well as on matters of doctrine, church history and theology. Where do the Constitution and Canons grant her authority to address the Dioceses in this way, and is election to this presidential office intended to grant her authority as here presumed?

The questions are serious ones because it appears that the elected leadership of The Episcopal Church is now seeking a clear authority and hierarchy above the Bishops of the Church and also above the Constitution and Canons, without at the same time following the legal procedures necessary for adopting and exercising such hierarchy, constitutionally. If there are those within TEC who desire constitutional reform of TEC polity along the lines of a corporate model or the hierarchical structures of churches such as the Church of England, the Roman Catholic Church or the Orthodox Churches, there are constitutional procedures to follow.

So to receive a notice from an elected official which purports to interpret doctrine, discipline and worship in this church, and to defend the Constitution and Canons, without an obvious warrant for doing so from the same Constitution risks exposing the very problem South Carolina and other dioceses have identified as needing address.

Diocese and Covenant: Reflections on Dallas, its History and Future

From the Anglican Communion Institute via TitusOneNine:

Written by: The Rt. Rev. James M. Stanton, Bishop of Dallas
Friday, October 23rd, 2009

“Every Diocese is an independent and sovereign state, held in the unity of the Catholic Church by its Episcopate, according to the rule of St. Cyprian.” With these words, Bishop Alexander Charles Garrett – our first Bishop and,be it noted, once the Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church – addressed the organizing Convention of the Diocese of Dallas in 1895. “The Diocese thus becomes the ecclesiastical unit, a full and perfect integer sufficient of itself for all purposes of growth and development.”

It was for the privilege of so organizing and of taking the key next step, that of a selection of Bishop, that the body was convened, he said.

Bishop Garrett looked back on the twenty-one years of the existence of the then Missionary District of North Texas, and the principles upon which he had led them. And then he turned to look at the state of the Church as it then existed so that the future could be embraced and the people of the new Diocese would understand what opportunities and challenges awaited them. Thus they stood at a crossroads.

The business of that organizing Convention, the Primary Convention as it is called in the Journal, lasted through two very long days and nights. The business was restricted. The Convention sat, almost through the whole of it, as a Committee of the Whole. And the business that was done centered on the writing of a Constitution. The members of Convention spoke to each other directly – lay and clergy alike. The work of various other committees was submitted to them and they debated and discussed the drafts of the Constitution. But this was no pro-forma exercise. There were 22 lay delegates and twenty clergy in attendance. This afforded each the opportunity to be heard and to have input into the final product of that Convention.

I wonder if that relatively small group could have anticipated that their labors would grow as they have. The Missionary District of Northern Texas, which was created by the General Convention in 1874, included all of the territory that now comprises three distinct dioceses: our own, the Diocese of Northwest Texas (organized in 1958), and the Diocese of Fort Worth (which was organized in 1982), and parts of a fourth, the Diocese of Oklahoma. Bishop Garrett reported to that Convention that there were 2123 communicants in 13 parishes and 28 organized missions, with 1297 Sunday school children and 180 teachers. The Endowment fund for the support of the Episcopate totaled $37,800. How things have changed.

I recall this first Convention to your attention for two reasons, both of them relevant to our meeting here.

I.

First, that first convention serves as a model for us. I have this year yearned for the opportunity for you as the leaders of your congregations and this Diocese as a whole to be able, like our forebears, to speak to one another. Three years ago, I travelled with some assistants, to every parish and mission and mission station to ask you some questions and to hear where you are. I came away with a renewed affection and respect for the work each of you is doing in your different contexts. How transforming it might be, I thought, if this could be done on a larger scale – if there were the time and space for permitting us to speak to one another about our challenges, our joys, our disappointments, our values. With the completion of the last General Convention, it seemed to me to be useful for this idea to be given concrete shape.

I have already been called upon to visit with a number of Vestries, and to hear from them their concerns over the actions of that Convention. Some of our parishes have lost members because of those actions. On the other hand, some of our congregations – some of you – will have rejoiced at the very actions that have offended or dismayed others. We are not a monochrome Diocese.

At the same time, we have been fairly clear over the last many years, indeed since before I came to be your Bishop some 17 years ago, that we take seriously our apostolic tradition and communion and that we value our place among Anglicans worldwide. We have affirmed, for example, various statements and resolutions emanating from the Irenaeus Fellowship of Bishops, the Lambeth Conferences, the Primates Meetings, the Windsor Report, and so forth. We have cherished our missionary engagement in various places around the world and have welcomed numerous bishops and archbishops from abroad who have come to share their work in our world. I believe many of us have been longing for and waiting patiently, I might add, for the development of the Anglican Covenant we have heard so much about.

So, it seemed to me, the time for suspending “business as usual” and spending some time in conversation about where we are and how we see our future would be especially helpful. It is to that work I call you at this Convention.

We have planned this Convention around a series of three talks concerned with the Anglican Covenant. I ask you to sit, not with the delegates of your parish, but at tables with those of other congregations. I ask you to listen to the talks, and then to speak to one another about what you have heard and what it means or might mean to you and the brothers and sisters in Christ whom you represent.

The point of these times together is not to decide anything. I have asked that we hold all resolutions of any substance to another time when we can engage in our customary format of debate. For this time we have together, we are to share with one another our thoughts, questions, feelings as appropriate, and concerns. We are not here to argue or to persuade. If anything, we are here to appreciate: literally, as the dictionary puts it, “to grasp the nature, worth, quality, or significance of something; to recognize with gratitude; to judge with heightened perception or understanding.” In our case, I would hope that we grasp the nature, worth and significance of who we are, who we are to one another and where we stand; that we recognize with gratitude the ministry we share together; and that we grow in the perception and understanding of the character of our Diocese and the proposed Anglican Covenant.

Again, we are not here to do something in particular, to take some proposed action. In this connection, during your conversations, I would hope that you stick with “I” statements: that you speak with one another about your own perceptions, feelings, and reflections on what we discuss. I ask you to listen respectfully to what others say, and respond both honestly and respectfully as well. As St. Paul exhorts us, “Speak the truth in love.” (Eph 4.15) Or again, “love one another with brotherly affection; outdo one another in showing honor.” (Rom 12.10)

There will be three talks. I will give you some light on how this Diocese came to be organized, and what at that time and since has been the classic understanding of the polity of the Episcopal Church and the place of the Diocese. Mr. Mark McCall will again address some of the specific issues of Episcopal Polity and how we might approach the Anglican Covenant if and when that is our desire. The Rev. Dr. Philip Turner will give you some understanding of the shaping of the proposed Anglican Covenant and its theological underpinnings, and its relation and possible effects in the Anglican Communion.

Admittedly, our Diocesan Convention is a good deal larger than that first organizing Convention. The size complicates our ability to converse with each other, offering us some difficulties they did not have to deal with. But I believe we can overcome those difficulties and make fruitful use of this time if we truly desire to do so and determine to offer ourselves fully to this process. It is my fervent prayer that we will go away from this time with new insights into one another, our diocese, and the possibilities of a meaningful Covenant that will renew and strengthen our life and that of the Anglican Communion as a whole.

II.

I mentioned two reasons for recalling Bishop Garrett’s words at the first Convention. Let me now turn to the second reason. That second reason has to do with the very nature and character of Dioceses in the Episcopal Church, and our Diocese in particular.

We have heard a great deal about our unique polity in the Episcopal Church over the last several years. Polity is just a fancy word for how we do things – what rules and principles govern our corporate actions, and what structures are involved in governing. Perhaps more pointedly, the Greek word from which we get our English term connotes the rights and obligations inherent in being part of a larger body. St. Paul uses this very term when he describes the Gentile Christians. Once, he said, we were excluded from citizenship (politeia) in Israel, excluded from the covenants of promise which God had made to them. But now, in Christ, we are made fellow citizens (sumpolitai), fellow members of God’s household.

So what characterizes this “unique polity”? Bishop Garrett understood this polity, this citizenship, in a particular way. “Every Diocese is an independent and sovereign state.”

It is evident that Bishop Garrett did not see this striking statement as something new. Indeed, he looked back to the founding of the Church by her Lord and its spread as the basis for the statement. “Responsibility,” he said, “involves power.” It would have been a vain thing if Jesus had commanded his Apostles to go into all the world and to proclaim the Gospel, if at the same time he did not commit to them the necessary authority to do so. He gave them the right and the power “to teach, ordain, confirm, place, support and [discipline]” within their places of responsibility. This was the mode of operations in the earliest Church – a community of men and women carrying out the work of their Lord in each location, but joined in their common sense of mission.

Sovereignty, the power or authority to work and order a common life in a territory, was based both upon the mission of the Church and in turn the practical necessities of the Church. The mission was to proclaim Christ and to make his saving work known. This precious, life-giving task required a common message, a common language, and an authoritative center. That center was found “in the Apostles, and after them the Bishops,” wrote Garrett. The practical necessity of growth in and toward the Lord was provided by the laity and clergy in union with their bishop. We catch this dual sense in our own day when, at the ordination of Bishops we declare that the Bishop is to be one with the Apostles in proclaiming the resurrection and interpreting the Gospel; and in our baptism when we promise to “continue in the Apostles’ teaching and fellowship”.

Sovereignty as Bishop Garrett uses it means being a “perfect integer” – the whole of the Church in a given place. His frequent references to the “primitive Church” reflects both the Catholic and the Anglican understanding that the diocese, not the parish, is the local Church, and that within its borders it is competent and equipped to do all that the risen Christ might ask of it. And, I think, this learned and eloquent shepherd had his perspective on the early Church right: when we look at, for example, the Acts of the Apostles, what we find are Christians carrying out their mission in each place with integrity and autonomy – in this sense sovereignty – but with a concern as well for the work of the whole. When the Gospel is first carried to Samaria, Jerusalem sends out no less that Peter and John to “inspect” the work begun there by Philip. But having done so, they leave that work to carry on. In Antioch, Christians first began to reach out to Gentiles in a systematic way. So great is the success of this witness, that Jerusalem again sends out an inspector, Barnabas. But he does not reign in these enthusiastic missionaries – rather, he supports them and calls upon Paul to assist him in that work. When controversies are introduced into the community, the community itself sends Paul and Barnabas to consult with Jerusalem. And the Church in Jerusalem confirms and upholds the work of mission among the Gentiles, addressing the Church there as “brothers.”

These instances demonstrate what sovereignty means. In the customary understanding of “hierarchy,” power flows from the top down. There is a supreme authority – be it a person or a curia or some combination of these – that exercises power over all subordinate units. In the New Testament, however, we do not see either James, the Lord’s Brother, or the assembly of apostles and presbyters in Jerusalem acting as a pope and curia. What we see are communities acting with independence in their own spheres or territories, but with mutual concern and counsel over matters of larger than local concern. This is what Bishop Garrett calls “the confirmatory action of conciliar ratification.”

And this, in turn, is how our first Bishop understood our polity in the Episcopal Church. The Diocese of Dallas was moving from being a creation the General Convention – a Missionary District – into a new status – a sovereign Diocese of the Episcopal Church. It was a move from childhood to maturity as the Bishop saw it.

But the Bishop was not alone in this understanding. Hudson Stuck, the first Dean of our Cathedral, preached the sermon at that Primary Convention Eucharist. Stuck was a remarkable man of learning and spirituality in his own right. He was a clarion voice in calling the Church to address the needs of the community around it. He would go on to become an estimable missionary of extraordinary commitment and competence in Alaska, and in fact would be the first man to put together a successful assault on Mount Denali as he called it, Mount McKinley, the highest peak on the North American Continent.

But his sermon at that convention reached remarkable heights of its own. With a clarity of vision and a comprehensive grasp of Church history, he put our Diocese and its new status on the same foundation that Bishop Garrett had. “For consider that every organized diocese is essentially an independent autonomous portion of the church, having all that is necessary for a church,” Stuck declaimed. “By itself it may subsist and grow and flourish, self-governed and self-contained. The diocese is the true unit—complete, valid, authentic.” It was then an act of self-creation – the dignity and nobility of which was not lost on those who sat down to make a constitution and elect a bishop of their own choosing.

Once again, Stuck, like Garrett made it clear that autonomy – sovereignty in the sense they were using it – did not mean go-it-alone. The Lambeth Conference of Bishops was still relatively a new thing when this Diocese created itself. But the lessons of Church history were clear: “The fullness of the apostolic power, to which I have referred again and again as the great deposit of authority, resides not in each individual bishop, but in the complete apostolic college. It resides in the whole body of bishops.” Bishops were the focus of unity not only within the Diocese, but among the dioceses as well. This was the conciliar approach that Garrett had emphasized.

We hear much today about the “autonomy” of the provinces, and therefore also the necessary and rightful autonomy of the Episcopal Church. But within our own province, we hear a different sort of thought: that the province is the supreme authority over every diocese because dioceses are created by the General Church. Our own history shows this not to be the case, however.

In 1874, about 100,000 square miles of north Texas (and including a little bit of the Oklahoma territory) was split off from the Diocese of Texas and made a Missionary District, as we have seen. In the Canons, this was called an “unorganized” territory. A Missionary Bishop was assigned to this “unorganized” territory. Under the Constitution of the Episcopal Church, the organization of a Diocese originates with a Convocation of Clergy and Laity called together by the designated bishop “for that purpose.” (Art V, Sec 1) The writing of a Constitution and Canons is the sign and instrument of organization. It is this event that creates the legal entity. The Constitution of the Episcopal Church requires that an “unqualified accession” be made by the new Diocese. When that is done, the General Convention gives its consent, a certified copy of the Diocesan Constitution and Canons is given to the Secretary of the General Convention, and the Executive Council gives its approval. Thereupon the Diocese is “admitted” to union with the General Convention. (See also Title I, Canon 10.4)

Precisely this process was followed when this Diocese organized itself. Nothing in the Constitution and Canons of the Episcopal Church speaks of General Convention creating or erecting dioceses. Furthermore, where they speak, they make clear that the organization and integrity of the Diocese is a purely local matter, aside, of course, from the act of admission. That is to say, the Diocese organizes itself and sets out for itself the procedures which will carry out its work – including, most notably, the process by which it elects its bishops. This approach was true for the organization of dioceses back in 1895 and continues, for the most part unchanged, up to this present day.

In fact, it was characteristic of the founding principles laid down for the Episcopal Church by the Rev. William White, who later became one of our first bishops. In a booklet issued in August of 1782, entitled The Case for the Episcopal Church in the United States Considered, he advocated for a course of action by the churches that traced their heritage to the Church of England just weeks after the war for Independence had been, to all intents and purposes, won. He believed that immediate and decisive action by these churches would be the only thing that would preserve them in the tradition of their worship and spiritual mission.

White sketched a framework in which the continuation of the life of the Church could be assured: that the churches organize themselves into a voluntary association, that the local churches would be equal, that they would be represented in small districts (he did not yet use the word diocese), which in turn would send representatives to larger bodies. The underlying principle of these larger bodies was that they would only decide on matters, for example Canons and Prayer Book, which served to make the communion one and which, significantly, could not be effected at the lowest possible level. As he put it: “One natural consequence of this distinction, will be to retain in each church every power that need not be delegated for the good of the whole.” With respect to what would come to be called the General Convention, he wrote: “The use of this and the preceding representative bodies is to make such regulations, and receive appeals in such matters only, as shall be judged necessary for their continuing one religious communion.”

In fact, the organization of “districts” or dioceses preceded the formation of the General Convention. From the 1760s, local gatherings of clergy and often laity, called either convocations or conventions, developed. One such convention in Maryland in 1780 provides us with the first clear instance of the use The Protestant Episcopal Church as the name that would be eventually adopted for our branch of the Church. White himself called for and presided over a meeting of state representatives in May 1784 to consider what his plan set forth. A Convention of as many states as possible was set for October. In the latter part of that same month, White presided over a Convention of the churches in Pennsylvania. That Convention adopted the following principles:

The Church is independent of all foreign or domestic civil authority.
The Church is competent to regulate its own affairs.
The Church’s liturgy should conform as close as possible to that of England.
Ministry should consist of three orders: Bishops, priests, deacons.
Canons should be made by both clergy and laity.
No powers should be delegated to a general ecclesiastical government except such as could not be conveniently exercised by State conventions.
The larger Convention planned in May did indeed take place in October. That Convention ratified the principles adopted by Pennsylvania as their own, and then planned the First General Convention for September 1785.

The formation of the Episcopal Church is striking. It appears that the only model for such a process as was in fact followed was that presented by the recent history of the colonies themselves. It was John Adams who, in the spring of 1776, had suggested that the “The Colonies should all assume the Powers of Government in all its branches first.” Then they should confederate with each other and “define the Powers of Congress next.” Only after all the pieces of government were in place, Adams argued, should Independence be declared. The assembly of the colonial representatives in fact adopted a resolution calling for the creation by each colony of its own constitution. This was the only part of Adams’ plan that was carried out before Independence was declared. But it worked.

White’s proposals seemed to follow that example. We often hear it said that the framers of our Church Constitution were the same people who in large part framed the Constitution of the United States. But that is simply not true. In fact, before the tumultuous events that led to the framing of a Constitutional government for the United States in 1787 and 1788, the Episcopal Church was already coming together. Its framework reflected rather the Confederation of the States than what would become the United States. And the notion of a centralized authority was clearly unwanted and unneeded in both confederations.

As White wrote in his Case, “On the subject of government, whether civil or ecclesiastical, there is great truth and beauty in the following observation of the present Bishop of St. Asaph, ‘The great art of governing consists in not governing too much.’”

That was then, as the saying goes, this is now. But it is important to understand that the principle that “No powers should be delegated to a general ecclesiastical government except such as could not be conveniently exercised by State [or diocesan] conventions” has been a part of our basic self-understanding from the very beginning.

In the 1950s a number of books called the Church’s Teaching Series were published by the Episcopal Church. Powell Mills Dawley, an eminent Church historian at the time wrote about The Episcopal Church and Its Work. Recalling the organization of the Episcopal Church, he wrote, “The first dioceses existed separately from each other before they agreed to the union in 1789 into a national church. That union, like the original federation of our states, was one in which each diocese retained a large amount of autonomy, and today the dioceses still possess an independence far greater than that characteristic in most other Churches with episcopal polity.” Dawley then goes on to say, “Diocesan participation in any national program or effort, for example, must be voluntarily given; it cannot be forced. Again, while the bishop’s exercise of independent power within the diocese is restricted by the share in church government possessed by the Diocesan Convention and the Standing Committee, his independence in respect to the rest of the Church is almost complete.”

The latest revision of the authoritative commentary on the Constitution and Canons of the Episcopal Church, by Whyte and Dykman, describes the earliest history of our Church in these words: “At the close of the American Revolution, the leaders of the former Church of England in the colonies . . . organized the separate and scattered Anglican parishes into independent Churches in each of the new states.” It repeats this understanding when describing the Churches as “completely independent.” It then describes the national structure they created in Convention as “a federation of equal and independent Churches in the several states.”

And to conclude this review, as late as 1987, in an official document filed with the Internal Revenue Service, the then Treasurer of the Episcopal Church wrote, “The Episcopal Church is comprised of 117 autonomous dioceses, 98 of which are domestic and 19 foreign.”

The words independent, sovereign and autonomous as applied to dioceses seems strange to our modern, corporate ears. And yet, these are the precise words used to describe our “unique polity” since the beginning. And the reason is easy to find. William White, again in his Case for the Episcopal Churches, drew attention to the differences between the organization of the Church of England and the situation in the States. In the mother country, dioceses were preeminent and formed congregations. Here the very opposite situation existed. The congregations who formed dioceses cherished their independence and demanded that their dioceses be largely self-governing. Arguing that the Episcopate would be both desirable and traditional among the former Anglicans, he nevertheless took pains to assure his readers that “this government will not be attended with the danger of tyranny, either temporal or spiritual.” Speaking again of tyranny, he opined that had the Church at Rome been ruled by a presbytery instead of a pope, given its riches and sense of “dominion,” this corporate body would have been as powerful as any single individual. What would White think today of his Episcopal Church, where the claim is made that the General Convention is the “supreme” authority in this Church?

What are we to make of this review?

There is a dignity to being a Diocese of this Church. The word “integer” used by both Bishop Garrett and Dean Stuck means “whole.” The Diocese is the whole Church gathered in a given location. This does not mean that it is ALL of the Church, for surely that is not true. But it is whole in that it possesses the fullest expression of the ministry possible – laity, bishops, priests and deacons gathered for the worship of God and the proclamation of the Gospel. We are not, as I have said in many places over the last few years, merely the local franchise of a great American Corporation. That was not how our forebears thought of themselves. It is not how we should think of ourselves here, today, either.

On its day of organization, Bishop Garrett brimmed with excitement and bright hope. He said that the people of this newly formed Diocese were the equals of any in the Church and across the nation. They had the vitality, the intelligence, the grit and the faithfulness to carry forward the mission of God. “For all these reasons, and many others which might be mentioned, I was anxious that you should have full right” of a Diocese, he proclaimed.

Dean Stuck virtually sang in the poetry of his sermon: “no wonder that we who are assembled here to-day, with joy and gladness and thankful hearts, to put once for all our ecclesiastical government in the old mold in the ancient diocesan form . . . Now shall we take rank with Antioch and Jerusalem and Rome and Canterbury, as autonomous, as complete, as self-governing; in the ancient mold and form of the original spiritual principalities of the church.”

These are not the voices of either subservience or party spirit. They see the link that united them with their spiritual forebears, just as we should. And they were ready to undertake all that it meant to be the Church in their situation, just as we should.

This leads me to my next point. The emphasis on both the dignity and autonomy of the Diocese was firmly rooted in a sense of mission. From the outset, William White understood as urgent the need to get on with the mission of the Church – in his terms, “that the worship of God and the instruction and reformation of the people are the principal objects of ecclesiastical discipline.” This sense of mission underlay his proposal for the structure of the Episcopal Church as a whole. It also underlay the creation of this Diocese.

All mission is ultimately local. This is so even when we reach out from where we live to places in the farthest parts of the world. The Church’s mission can be put in no better terms, I think, than that of Archbishop William Temple: “Evangelism is the presentation of Jesus Christ in the power of the Holy Spirit in such ways that persons may be led to believe in him as Savior and follow him as Lord within the fellowship of his Church.” It is always persons engaging persons, disciples making disciples – or at least opening the way to discipleship. And the larger dimension of this mission embraces not just individuals, but communities, societies and the world as a whole. Christians have always seen that, as William Reed Huntington put it, “this single Gospel has a two-fold outlook”, namely the transformation of individuals and society as a whole. But the first impulse is not out there, but right here, in the place where God has put us.

From the time of the apostles, communities were formed to work together in reaching out to their neighbors. I think this basic mode of operation can be traced back to the rudimentary form of organziation which Jesus himself instituted among his followers. At any rate, it came to form the basic structure of the Church that has persisted throughout the centuries. The frontline of the work of the Church is the Diocese and always has been – a community fully equipped to support and extend its work of proclaiming the Gospel in the particularities of the culture in which it lives.

The danger, of course, is that the diocese, like the parishes that make it up, can forget that while it is autonomous and fully able to to carry the whole of the Gospel into action in its context, it may also lose touch with the fullness of the message and the largeness of the purpose for which it was sent. Dioceses must, as we have already seen, act in conciliar ways. The Diocese reminds all its parts- clergy and congregations – that they do not exist for themselves. So the dioceses together serve the same function for each diocese. We cannot go-it-alone. The mission of the Church is too compelling, too urgent for a go-it-alone mentality. This conciliar mode is the genius, I think, of the Anglican Way.

And that brings me to the third thing I think we can learn from our past.

The very nature of the Church is covenantal. We should know this without having to make it explicit. Everytime we celebrate the Eucharist, we hear the words of our Lord, “take, drink, this is my blood of the new covenant.” Indeed, the calling of the People of Israel and the calling of the Body of Christ represent God’s gracious gift of a covenantal relationship that supports and steers and saves us.

A covenant is something higher and better than a code. It was a significant accomplishment for the founders of the Episcopal Church in these States to forge a Constitution and Prayer Book and preserve their heritage by these means for future generations – including us. But it was even more significant that they were able to establish trust and commitment and carry out this work on the basis of a covenant that respected the differences, the dignities and the missional imperatives of one another.

A covenant is nothing other than the expression of the expectations as well as the obligations that people have of each other. How odd to hear some people protest that we do not need a covenant now – that indeed, a covenant is unAnglican. For over a generation, several Archbishops of Canterbury have asked Anglicans what it means to be a communion, and have done more than ask – have urged Anglican leaders to give serious consideration and careful reflection to how we live with each other. Serious efforts have been made in the series of Lambeth Conferences and meetings of the Anglican Consultative Council to do this. Fundamental to these efforts is the recognition that we do indeed have a covenantal relationship. The question is not whether we need a covenant, but what the nature of the covenant is that we already have – that already in some sense underlies being an Anglican.

And this question has become more urgent precisely because the bonds of communion have been stretched to the breaking point. It might be all well and good to live in a covenant that never needs to be made clear. But in times of crisis, where trust is strained, where expectations and obligations go unmet, where in fact actions are taken that adversely affect one’s brothers and sisters in covenant, then it is time to look carefully to the ties that bind us and ask what they are and what they require of us.

This is why we are dealing with the proposed Anglican Covenant here. The proposed covenant is not something external to us – something being imposed upon us – something foreign to being an Anglican, or an Episcopalian within the the Anglican Communion. Far from it. It is simply the attempt in this time of crisis to spell out in frank terms what the ground of our communion, our fellowship, our being related to one another is. The question before this body is really pretty simple: is what you read in the covenant an expression of the faith and commitment you hold?

Another odd thing I hear has to do with autonomy. There are voices who firecely champion the autonomy of the Episcopal Church with respect to the rest of the Communion. By “autonomy” they mean, it appears, “no one can tell us what to do.” At the same time, however, these same voices will tell us that only the Provinces can adopt or ratify the covenant, and that dioceses cannot. But in our peculiar polity, as we have seen, dioceses have the same if not even a greater claim to autonomy than our particular province. In fact, I have seen time and time again bishops and dioceses rise up to declare that they will not be bound by resolutions of the General Convention that did not go their way. (Just think back to the so-called “moratoria” voted on in the Convention of 2006!)

If the resolutions of General Convention cannot bind the dioceses to certain terms of communion life, they certainly cannot deter dioceses from committing to them.

But all of this begins to look like the squabbles children have with each other from time to time. Autonomy means simply “you’re not the boss of me!” But there is a grown-up world out there that demands a deeper and more thoughtful kind of engagement. What does it mean to be the Church of Christ? What is entailed in being an Anglican Christian?

We in the Diocese of Dallas are the Church. We have a goodly heritage that is at one and the same time Anglican, Episcopalian, and Texan. We have an urgent mission to fulfill. And we are doing this while responding to and working with other Christians in our communities, in our nation, in our denomination and in our world. We do not seek to divide or separate, but we seek greater unity and clarity and commitment in the cause of Christ.

We possess, furthermore, not only the authority to consider and respond to the proposed Anglican Covenant, but the moral and spiritual imperative to do so. For this covenant concerns us, individually and corporately, and it concerns our future.

A Healer's Journey

Fr. Nigel Mumford is currently in the ICU of Saratoga Hospital. I am told that 1,000 of us are praying for him regularly. Please join us in praying for Fr. Mumford's full recovery. ed.

From Guideposts.com:

How one man came to touch many

When he was a drill instructor in Her Majesty's Royal Marines, Nigel Mumford had no inkling he'd one day be involved in any kind of healing ministry. He retired from the service and moved to the United States in 1980, opening a picture-framing shop in western Connecticut. When his sister, Julie, a ballerina, was paralyzed with a neurological disease for which doctors could find no cure, Nigel was shattered.

Then one day a clergyman from Australia traveling with a healing ministry stood beside Julie's hospital bed and prayed for her recovery. Before leaving her room, he wrote a large sign and posted it where Julie could see: "Even when we are too weak to have any faith left, God remains faithful to us and will help us. Thank you, God, you are healing me now." That evening Julie sat up for the first time in months. She continued to recover and after three months was able to resume her life. "I was as flabbergasted as anyone that this happened," Nigel remembers. "For the first time, it occurred to me that the love of God wasn't some pie-in-the-sky concept but a power literally present for use in our lives."

Months later in his frame shop, when a customer complained of a crushing headache, Nigel impulsively laid his hands on her head and prayed. In astonishment she announced the pain had disappeared. More and more hurting people asked him to pray with them. Nigel's father, an Anglican priest in England, was now involved with a healing ministry of his own. "I can't explain how and why God's power may be working through you," he told his son. "Don't try to figure it out. Just be available to it."
Nigel gave up his business and comfortable home and began what he calls "a semi-monastic life" at a vacant church retreat house that has now become the Oratory of the Little Way. Some words he'd read in the bible now held great meaning for him: "The prayer of faith will save the sick..."

Nigel Mumford—like many others involved in healing ministries—avoids using the term faith healer. "I don't heal," he says. "God does. That may not involve physical healing as much as emotional, psychological or spiritual healing. Of course, someone who's sick should always have good medical care. But one's anger or grief about his or her situation needs to be healed, too." Today, as an increasing body of medical research shows that prayer and faith can have a profound and positive effect on blood pressure, the immune system, and a patient's recovery from physical and mental illness, it seems wise for everyone to "be available" for healing.
Read one about one woman's experience with Nigel in Being Healed.

To contact the Oratory of the Little Way, call 860-354-8294 or go to www.cysol.com/oratory.

Same-Sex Marriage: Not in the Best Interest of Children

From the Ruth Institute blog via Stand Firm:

October 15th, 2009

By Trayce Hansen, Ph.D.

As mental health professionals, it’s our ethical and moral obligation to support policies that are in the best interest of those we serve, particularly those who are most vulnerable—namely, children. Same-sex marriage may be in the best interest of adult homosexuals who yearn for social and legal recognition of their unions, but it’s not in the best interest of children.

Proponents of same-sex marriage believe love is all children really need. Based on that supposition, they conclude it’s just as good for children to be raised by loving parents of the same sex, as by loving parents of the opposite sex. But that basic assumption—and all that flows from it—is naively simplistic and denies the complex nature and core needs of human beings.

According to decades of research, the ideal family structure for children is a two-parent, mother-father family.(1,2,3) That research consistently shows that children raised in such families are more likely to thrive—psychologically, mentally, and physically—than children reared in any other kind of family configuration.

Extensive research also reveals that not only mothers, but also fathers, are critical to the healthy development of children. Swedish researchers reviewed the best longitudinal studies from around the world that assessed the effects of fathers on children’s development. Their review spanned 20 years of studies and included over 22,000 children, and found that fathers reduce behavioral problems in boys and psychological problems in girls, enhance cognitive development, and decrease delinquency.(4)

It’s clear that children benefit from having both a male and female parent. Recent medical research confirms genetically determined differences between men and women and those fundamental differences help explain why mothers and fathers bring unique characteristics to parenting that can’t be replicated by the other sex. Mothers and fathers simply aren’t interchangeable. Two women can both be good mothers, but neither can be a good father. One-sex parenting, whether by a single parent or a homosexual couple, deprives children of the full range of parenting offered by dual-sex couples.

Only mother-father families afford children the opportunity to develop relationships with a parent of the same, as well as the opposite sex. Relationships with both sexes early in life make it easier and more comfortable for a child to relate to both sexes later in life. Overall, having a relationship with both a male and female parent increases the likelihood that a child will have successful social and romantic relationships during his or her life.(5)

Moreover, existing research on children reared by homosexuals is not only scientifically flawed and extremely limited (6,7,8) but some of it actually indicates that those children are at increased risk for a variety of negative outcomes.(6) Other studies find that homosexually parented children are more likely to experiment sexually, experience sexual confusion, and engage in homosexual and bisexual behavior themselves.(5,6,9) And for those children who later engage in non-heterosexual behavior, extensive research reveals they are more likely to suffer from psychiatric disorders, abuse alcohol and drugs, (10) attempt suicide, (11) experience domestic violence and sexual assault, (12) and are at increased risk for chronic diseases, AIDS, and shortened life spans.(13,14,15)

It shouldn’t be surprising that studies find children reared by homosexuals are more likely to engage in homosexual behavior themselves (16,9,17) since extensive worldwide research reveals homosexuality is primarily environmentally induced. Specifically, social and/or family factors, as well as permissive environments which affirm homosexuality, play major environmental roles in the development of homosexual behavior.(18,19,20,21) There’s no question that human sexuality is fluid and pliant.(22) Consider ancient Greece and Rome—among many early civilizations—where male homosexuality and bisexuality were nearly ubiquitous. That was not so because most of those men were born with a “gay gene,” rather because sexuality is malleable and socially influenced.

Same-sex marriage no doubt will increase sexual confusion and sexual experimentation by young people. The implicit and explicit message of same-sex marriage is that all choices are equally acceptable and desirable. So even children from traditional homes—influenced by the all-sexual-options-are-equal message—will grow up thinking it doesn’t matter whom one relates to sexually or marries. Holding such a belief will lead some—if not many—young people to consider sexual and marital arrangements they never would have contemplated previously.

It also must be expected that if society permits same-sex marriage, it also will have to allow other types of non-traditional marriage. The legal logic is simple: If prohibiting same-sex marriage is discriminatory, then disallowing polygamous marriage, polyamorous marriage, or any other marital grouping also will be deemed discriminatory. In fact, such legal maneuverings have already begun. The emotional and psychological ramifications of these assorted arrangements on the developing psyches and sexuality of children would be disastrous.

To date, very little research exists that assesses long-term outcomes for homosexually parented children. According to Charlotte Patterson, a self-proclaimed, pro-same-sex-marriage researcher, there are only two longitudinal studies of children raised by lesbians.(23) And no long-term studies of children raised by homosexual men. A professional organization dedicated to the welfare of its patients cannot and should not support drastic change in social policy based on just two, small and non-representative longitudinal studies.

Certainly homosexual couples can be just as loving toward children as heterosexual couples, but children need more than love. They require the distinctive qualities and complementary natures of a male and female parent. The accumulated wisdom of over 5,000 years concludes that the ideal marital and parental configuration is composed of one man and one woman. This time-tested wisdom is now supported by the most advanced, scientifically sound research available.

Importantly, and to their credit, many self-proclaimed pro-same-sex-marriage researchers acknowledge that there is as of yet no definitive evidence as to the impact of homosexual parenting on children. Regardless, some of those advocates support same-sex marriage because they believe it offers a natural laboratory in which to assess the long-term impact on children.(24) That position is unconscionable and indefensible.

Same-sex marriage isn’t in the best interest of children. While we may empathize with those homosexuals who long to be married and parent children, we mustn’t allow our compassion for them to trump our compassion for children. In a contest between the desires of some homosexuals and the needs of all children, we cannot allow the children to lose.

CAMFT, like all mental health organizations, must base policy decisions on scientific evidence and research findings, not personal belief and political opinion. Most importantly, they must never allow children to be used as guinea pigs in unwise and potentially harmful social experiments.

The California Association of Marriage and Family Therapists (CAMFT) published a special issue of their bi-monthly journal “The Therapist” dedicated to the subject of same-sex marriage. Guest authors were asked to contribute articles, half of the writers in support and half opposed to same-sex marriage. A stated goal of the issue was to determine whether the organization should adopt a formal position on the matter.

Subsequent to publication of the May/June 2009 special issue (Volume 21, Issue 3), homosexual activists within and without the organization pressured CAMFT to not only apologize, but also expunge from their organizational archives those articles that voiced opposition to same-sex marriage. CAMFT capitulated to those demands. The Director of CAMFT apologized for publishing articles critical of same-sex marriage and all the “offending” articles were censored from the CAMFT website archives. So much for intellectual debate and freedom of opinion.

References: http://www.drtraycehansen.com/Pages/writings_notinthebest.html

Diocese of South Carolina Calls Time Out from the Episcopal Church

News Analysis

By David W. Virtue
www.virtueonline.org
10/25/2009

It came as no surprise that a special convention of the diocese of South Carolina voted overwhelmingly in four resolutions to distance itself from certain bodies of The Episcopal Church.

Some 300 Episcopalians gathered at Christ Church in Mt. Pleasant, a suburb of Charleston, and approved four of five resolutions, one of which declared General Convention Resolutions D025 and C056 "as null and void." This special convention was restricted to congregational delegations. Visitors and the news media were barred from attending.

The voting margins were expectedly large supporting the diocesan bishop, the Rt. Rev. Mark Lawrence by 85+ percent in all four resolutions that include:

• upholding the substance of the “doctrine, discipline and worship” of the Episcopal Church to mean that which is expressed in the Thirty-Nine Articles, the Creeds, the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral and the theology of the historic prayer books;”

• “That this diocese authorize the bishop and standing committee to begin withdrawing from all bodies of the Episcopal Church that have assented to actions contrary to Holy Scripture, the doctrine, discipline and worship of Christ as this church has received them, the resolutions of the Lambeth Conference which have expressed the mind of the Communion, The Book of Common Prayer and our Constitution and Canons, until such bodies show a willingness to repent of such actions … and that the Diocese of South Carolina declares that the most recent example of this behavior, in the passage of Resolutions DO25 and CO56, to be null and void, having no effect in this Diocese, and in violation of our diocesan canon (XXXVI sec.1).”

• “That this diocese … will work in partnership with such Dioceses as are willing to form missional relationships providing gatherings for bishops, clergy and laity for the express purpose of evangelism, encouragement, education and mission … and that the parishes of this diocese are encouraged to enter into their own missional relationships with orthodox congregations isolated across North America and to pursue effective initiatives which are lay-led and supported.”

• “That the Diocese of South Carolina endorses the [Ridley Cambridge Draft] of the proposed Anglican Covenant, as it presently stands, in all four sections, as an expression of our full commitment to mutual submission and accountability in communion, grounded in a common faith.”

Bishop Lawrence acknowledged that the resolutions while seeming tepid to some, to others the feel of haste, even imprudence.

In his address to the delegates (see below) some might say that what took place renders him disloyal to The Episcopal Church. He, in turn, attacked what he called the Episcopal Church’s “indiscriminate inclusivity.”

“The landscape around us in the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion is changing almost daily,” he said. “This week alone has brought remarkable and gracious news from the Vatican, but it will give us little relief but that of hope that one day all who hold the faith of the apostles shall be one. Meanwhile these four principles need to guide us; otherwise we will be tossed about by every windy gust of news or tidal wave crashing on the shore.”

“This false teaching that I have called the gospel of indiscriminate inclusivity has challenged the doctrine of the Trinity, the Uniqueness and Universality of Christ, the authority of Scripture, our understanding of baptism, and now, that last refuge of order, our Constitution & Canons,” he said. “Like an invasive vine, like kudzu in an old growth forest, it has decked the Episcopal Church with decorative destruction. It has invaded and now is systematically dismantling the fundamental teachings of our Church and our Christian heritage.”

Lawrence slammed The Episcopal Church citing its apostasies as the cause of its declining statistics.

“The General Convention is not the answer to the problems of the Episcopal Church. The General Convention has become the problem. It has replaced a balanced piety in this Church with the politics of one-dimensional activism. Every three years when the Episcopal Church train pulls into the station of General Convention more traditional, catholic and evangelical Episcopalians get off the train and do not return. Do you know that in 1968 this Church had 3,600,000 members? In 2008 we had just barely over 2,000,000. It is even less than that now.”

But Lawrence, who is a Communion Partner bishop, (a group of orthodox bishops committed to staying in The Episcopal Church) may find that his attempt to find a third way of non negotiation with the national church could backfire.

Just days earlier his Standing Committee got what can only be described as a threatening letter from Bonnie Anderson President of the House of Deputies.

She urged the carrot of “commitment” with the stick of conformity. “While what your Convention will consider is a resolution and not a constitutional amendment, the principle is the same. A diocese is, of course, free to express its disagreement with an action of General Convention and to work to change it but it may not declare it to be null and void and of no effect in the diocese.” She went on to say that for the diocese to declare GC2009 Resolutions D025 and C056 “null and void” is itself a nullity.

“Actions of General Convention are binding on dioceses regardless of whether their bishops and deputies voted for or against them, agree with them or even participated in General Convention,” she wrote.

“It is my prayer,” she wrote, “that Resolutions 1-4 are not steps being proposed to move the Diocese away from The Episcopal Church and towards efforts by others to create an alternate Anglican structure in our midst.”

Among orthodox priests still committed to staying in The Episcopal Church, some have been critical of Lawrence’s desire to withdraw from some governing bodies of the church. The Rev. Philip Wainwright President of the Evangelical Episcopal Assembly and an Episcopal priest in the reconstructed Diocese of Pittsburgh criticized Lawrence for not attending Province IV meetings of fellow bishops saying his non attendance will diminish his ability to make a stand for orthodoxy in that province and the wider Episcopal Church.

Wainwright admitted recently that he was staying in TEC, because there is no Plan B. "Many have thought they were the only ones left. It is true we are a floundering church, a church struggling over decisive issues. I was called to remain faithful. It seems clear to me that leaving exacerbates and waters down the voice of orthodoxy."

Lawrence and his diocese have chosen to stay but the story is far from over.

There are growing disagreements within the diocese. St. Andrew's Parish in Mt. Pleasant has begun a 40 Days of Discernment program to decide whether it will separate from the Episcopal Church and, by extension, from the diocese. If that happens Lawrence has said parishes may leave by cutting a deal over property. Clearly this could have a snowball effect with other prominent parishes deciding to leave.

Earlier in mid-September, the Episcopal Forum of South Carolina said the diocese “teeters on the edge of schism” from the Episcopal Church. With this diocesan action it might have pushed itself right over the edge. The ball is now firmly in the court of the national church.

The full text of Bishop Lawrence’s speech can be accessed here. http://www.dioceseofsc.org/lawrence_mark_convention_address_10_24_09.pdf

END

In case you missed this...

Yankees Beat Angels and Advance to World Series

The New York Yankees beat the Los Angeles Angels 5-2 in Game
6 of the American League Championship Series to advance to
the World Series for the first time since 2003. They will
play Game 1 against the Philadelphia Phillies on Wednesday
night in New York.

Source: New York Times

Global South Anglican Primates speak out today about the Vatican offer, preferring to work on the implementation of the Anglican Covenant.

Sunday, 25 October 2009 14:01

A Pastoral Exhortation to the Faithful in the Anglican Communion


1. We, under-shepherds of the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church of
Jesus Christ, bring greetings to the faithful in the Anglican Communion.
Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.

For in his great love for us, we are no longer foreigners and aliens, but
fellow citizens with God's people and members of God's household, built on
the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as
the chief cornerstone. In him the whole building is joined together and
rises to become a holy temple in the Lord. And in him you too are being
built together to become a dwelling in which God lives by his Spirit
(Ephesians 2: 19-22).


2. The Vatican announcement on Apostolic Constitution (Note of The
Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith about Personal Ordinariates for
Anglicans entering the Catholic Church) gives us an occasion in making the
following pastoral exhortation.


3. We welcome Pope Benedict XVI's stance on the common biblical teaching on
human sexuality, and the commitment to continuing ecumenical dialogue.


4. At the same time we believe that the proposed Anglican Covenant sets the
necessary parameters in safeguarding the catholic and apostolic faith and
order of the Communion. It gives Anglican churches worldwide a clear and
principled way forward in pursuing God's divine purposes together in the
one, holy, catholic and apostolic church of Jesus Christ. We urge churches
in the Communion to actively work together towards a speedy adoption of the
Covenant.


5. In God's gracious purposes the Anglican Communion has moved beyond the
historical beginnings and expressions of English Christianity into a
worldwide Communion, of which the Church of England is a constitutive part.
In view of the global nature of the Communion, matters of faith and order
would inevitably have serious ramifications for the continuing well-being
and coherence of the Communion as a whole, and not only for Provinces of the
British Isles and The Episcopal Church in the USA. We urge the Archbishop of
Canterbury to work in close collegial consultation with fellow Primates in
the Communion, act decisively on already agreed measures in the Primates'
Meetings, and exercise effective leadership in nourishing the flock under
our charge, so that none would be left wandering and bereft of spiritual
oversight.


6. As Primates of the Communion and guardians of the catholic and apostolic
faith and order, we stand in communion with our fellow bishops, clergy and
laity who are steadfast in the biblical teaching against the ordination of
openly homosexual clergy, the consecration of such to the episcopate, and
the blessing of homosexual partnerships. We also urge them, as fellow
Anglicans, to continue to stand firm with us in cherishing the Anglican
heritage, in pursuing a common vocation, in expressing our unity and common
life, and in maintaining our covenanted life together.


7. In the closing words of the Anglican Covenant: With joy and with firm
resolve, we offer ourselves for fruitful service and binding ourselves more
closely in the truth and love of Christ, to whom with the Father and the
Holy Spirit be glory for ever. Amen. "Now may the God of Peace, who brought
again from the dead our Lord Jesus, the great shepherd of the sheep, by the
blood of the eternal covenant, make you complete in everything good so that
you may do his will, working among us that which is pleasing in his sight,
through Jesus Christ, to whom be the glory forever and ever. Amen." (Hebrews
13.20, 21)


25th October 2009

Global South Primates Steering Committee:

President: The Most Revd Peter J. Akinola, Nigeria General
Secretary: The Most Revd John Chew, Southeast Asia
Treasurer: The Most Revd Mouneer Anis, Jerusalem and the Middle East.
Members: The Most Revd Emmanuel Kolini, Rwanda
The Most Revd Stephen Than Myint Oo, Myanmar

http://www.globalsouthanglican.org/index.php/weblog/comments/pastoral_exhort
ation/

Spoiling the party

by Robert Hart
Special to Virtueonline
October 23, 2009

I don't want to spoil the party
So I'll go
I would hate my disappointment to show

Except that, unlike those lyrics from a Beatles song, I am not going anywhere, and my response is not disappointment. One cannot be disappointed by what he expects. Actually, I am willing to spoil the party if that is what it takes. I could say, "no more Mr. Nice guy," except that I have never been thought of as a nice guy in the first place. At least, not by "Roman" polemicists and eager Tiber swimmers.

In the midst of heady, enthusiastic (if not Enthusiastic) responses to Rome's big offer, it seems necessary for someone to have the bad manners that it takes to remind people of classic Anglican disagreements with Roman doctrine. Or so some of the comments to my recent post, Thanks, but no thanks, indicate.

And, although it should not be necessary to remind readers of this, the classic Anglican position is not to be found in the multitude of "spirituality" choices currently on the official Canterbury Anglican Communion menu. Neither the perpetual adolescents at Stand Firm, the way out liberals of the modern Broad Church ("Broad" as in 1940s movies- effeminate, with broads at the altar) which includes as well the "sacramental" buggery party, nor the fussy Anglo-Papalists, embrace classic Anglican doctrine. Rather, all of these people live by the humorous lyrics in another Beatles song: "I dig a pony, Where you can celebrate anything you want." Their "Anglicanism" is all made up in their own heads, and mutually affirmed in their own circles just enough to complete the process of deception with confidence. It began with that famous lie, "Anglican has no distinctive theology."

Of course that is a lie only when the sentence is incomplete. It is supposed to end with the words, "but only that of the Catholic Church." How often we have repeated on The Continuum those words, under our blog title, Quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus creditum est. How often we have reminded everybody that the goal of the English Reformers was to restore the full Catholic truth that had been lost by overmuch carnal and demonic "Doctrinal Development." By English Reformers, I mean the men who took up the pastoral challenge to reform the teaching and practice of the Church of England. I do not mean Henry VIII, whose only goal was to rule without interference. It is telling that in his announcement on Monday (Oct. 20, 2009), Cardinal Levada did what Romans always do: He laid the whole English Reformation on Henry, as if there was no Bloody Mary between Edward and Elizabeth, and as if there were no Cranmer, no Hooker, etc. who wanted to teach sound doctrine to the salvation of souls.

If ever we would see genuine Reunion in the Church, then ill mannered men like me will have to be given our say first: That is because real unity can have a chance only if it is to follow sincere discussion about theology, inasmuch as Christians must never divorce themselves from conscience and from love of the truth. Frankly, we have so much in common, that overcoming these theological differences is worth the effort. Therefore, it is necessary to state the differences that remain between us and Rome. Differences that are merely those of custom and ethos are important, but here we shall discuss the heavier matters of theology.

1. The papacy

If we believe in the Universal Consensus of Antiquity then we cannot accept the magnified role of the bishop of Rome. Simply put, we believe in the Conciliar authority of the bishops of the Church, not in the Roman doctrine of Papal Universal Primacy (Before someone lectures us in comments, yes, we do understand the Roman doctrine: We do not agree with it).

2. Teaching authority

Related to point 1, we believe that all doctrine must be thoroughly documented by the standard of Universal Consensus and Antiquity, and must come from the revelation of God in Scripture as its source. Rome claims to believe this too, but in practice they have relied instead on a flawed concept of Newman's theory of Doctrinal Development. Therefore, they have created "dogmas" such as the full blown Medieval theory of Purgatory and its related errors (which we will address), and have felt free to make dogmas out of pious customs, namely the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption, requiring them as necessary to salvation even though they cannot be proved by Holy writ (see Article VI).

3.Justification

The Gospel cannot be preached truly unless we believe that Christ's sacrifice alone is all that is needed to take away human sin. Rome does teach this in their Catechism of the Catholic Church, but on the same exact page they restate their belief that the merits of the saints can be applied by the Church to remit human sins.

May I suggest that this apparent self-contradiction is because Rome confuses Tradition with precedent? The burden of having to keep every doctrine ever taught, instead of weighing truth against error by the standard of Scripture with Universal Consensus and Antiquity, creates a disability that hinders direct and powerful proclamation of the Gospel. They want to proclaim that Christ's sacrifice alone is full and sufficient, but they are in bondage to a Medieval error that ought to be tossed out. This is no small matter. It must be thoroughly discussed and cleared up.

Article XIV. Of Works of Supererogation

Voluntary Works besides, over and above, God's Commandments, which they call Works of Supererogation, cannot be taught without arrogancy and impiety: for by them men do declare, that they do not only render unto God as much as they are bound to, but that they do more for his sake, than of bounden duty is required: whereas Christ saith plainly, When ye have done all that are commanded to you, say, We are unprofitable servants. The above Article is simply the only doctrine known to the ancient Church, and it is consistent with the testimony of every saint who has ever left behind any record of the struggles, the sins and the mercy that were experienced in this transitory life. It is beyond question drawn from the Bible. If the Church has been given some "treasury" of the merits of saints, then it must be that these people were so righteous that God owes sinful mankind a credit based on the merits of these saints; and although that credit is applied against some idea of "temporal punishment" in a state called Purgatory, the idea of any remission of sins that allows one unhindered entrance into God's presence, other than Christ's own sacrifice of himself once offered, is heresy. It is a false Gospel, and therefore no small matter (Gal. 1:8).

"Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ...For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly. For scarcely for a righteous man will one die: yet peradventure for a good man some would even dare to die. But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him. For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life. And not only so, but we also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the atonement." (Rom. 5:1, 7-11)

Saint Paul taught very clearly that justification comes by God's grace, because he does not hold the sinner guilty; not only is the sinner forgiven, but all sin is forgotten; it has been taken away. Justification leads to sanctification, but the justification of the ungodly that comes through faith is immediate, not a process inasmuch as mercy can have no process that delays its full effects.

Article XXII. Of Purgatory

The Romish Doctrine concerning Purgatory, Pardons, Worshipping and Adoration, as well of Images as of Relics, and also Invocation of Saints, is a fond thing, vainly invented, and grounded upon no warranty of Scripture, but rather repugnant to the Word of God. It may be that some kind of theory of Purgatory, other than "the Romish doctrine" referred to here, is the only meaningful interpretation of various passages that speak of the many stripes given to those who knew, and the few to the ignorant, or of Paul's account of loss by fire of wood, hay and stubble. That is, a final cleansing. It is just as reasonable that this purifying will be painful but achieved in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, when the carnal and fallen mortal condition of the saints must finally die as the power of Christ's transforming immortality perfects all those who are raised after pattern of his resurrection.

Nonetheless, we must be unhindered in our efforts to preach the Gospel. The doctrine condemned in Article XXII was an elaborately constructed teaching about how individuals may earn credits, may receive pardons based on merits of the saints, and be granted a shorter sentence in Purgatory. Indeed, the whole emphasis of complete repentance and genuine faith, so as to be restored to fellowship with God in this life and the in the age to come, was lost. The realization that Christ had offered himself once for all (Heb. 10:10) was lost. Instead, people performed works to lessen the time of temporal punishment, an entire concept that is alien to the Gospel of Jesus Christ, contrary to Scripture, unknown by the Fathers, indeed, "repugnant to the word of God." And, the whole idea of long sentences in Purgatory contradicts the clear teaching that Christ will come again, and that "the dead in Christ shall rise first." (I Thess. 4:16) For, in that whole crazy system, sinners working off their sins will always have time to serve in Purgatory, and so Christ could never return. The time would never be right.

In short, it is a damnable heresy that denies the Gospel. Furthermore, it calls into question Christology.

Our Book of Common Prayer draws from the Epistle to the Hebrews and from the First Epistle of St. John to give us this powerful proclamation in our service of Holy Communion (all of which is edited out of the "Anglican" Use Rite approved by Rome-for no good reason):

(Using the version as it appears in the American , Episcopal Prayer Book, edition 1928)

"ALL glory be to thee, Almighty God, our heavenly Father, for that thou, of thy tender mercy, didst give thine only Son Jesus Christ to suffer death upon the Cross for our redemption; who made there (by his one oblation of himself once offered) a full, perfect, and sufficient sacrifice, oblation, and satisfaction, for the sins of the whole world; and did institute, and in his holy Gospel command us to continue, a perpetual memory of that his precious the death and sacrifice, until his coming again."

That the "Romish Doctrine of Purgatory," with all of its related errors, calls into question the Christological truth drawn from Scripture and well defended at the Council of Chalcedon, should be easy to understand. If anything needs to be added to Christ' sacrifice* then we lessen his Divinity. The death of Christ is not full, perfect and sufficient ultimately because of the intensity of his suffering, but because of the Divine nature of his Person. The Man who also the Word made flesh, the one who is complete in two natures, the Eternally Begotten Son who is of the same substance of the Father, God of God, Light of Light, Very God of Very God, begotten not made, has taken time into his eternity, created nature into his uncreated being, and mortality into his immortal Person. The Person who is both God and man suffered and died. He was sinless, holy and righteous as the Lamb without spot, and he was God the Son, like the Lion who appeared as a Lamb that had been slain (Rev. 5:5,6). How could the death of the sinless one be less than redemptive; and how could the death of the one who is fully God and fully man be less than full, perfect and sufficient? The cross saves us from all sin and from death because of the Divine Person who died there. If we claim to need anything else, are we not denying that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh? (I John 4:1f)

This may spoil the party, but before we can enter into real unity, we have genuine work to do.

_________________________

* I fear someone may think that St. Paul's words contradict my point: "Who now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up that which is behind of the afflictions of Christ in my flesh for his body's sake, which is the church." (Col. 1: 24) St. Paul was not setting forth his sufferings as adding to Christ's atonement, but identifying his sufferings with those of his Lord, as all true disciples may, and trusting that those sufferings were all serving a good purpose in the hands of God.


----Robert Hart is Priest in Charge of St. Benedict's Anglican Church in Chapel Hill North Carolina, and a Contributing Editor of Touchstone, A Journal of Mere Christianity. He contributes regularly to the blog, The Continuum.

S.C. Distances Itself from Episcopal Bodies

Posted on: October 24, 2009

The voting margins were huge on Saturday as a special convention of the Diocese of South Carolina approved four resolutions [PDF] supported by the diocesan bishop, the Rt. Rev. Mark Joseph Lawrence.

A fifth resolution addressed diocesan convictions on sexuality, without explicit implications for the diocese’s relations with the Episcopal Church.

As Bishop Lawrence urged approval of the resolutions, he acknowledged criticisms that they have attracted: “The resolutions that are before us, while seeming tepid to some, have to others the feel of haste, even imprudence.”

Those disagreements are clear even within the diocese. Only about six miles from the convention’s meeting site, Christ Church in Mt. Pleasant, is St. Andrew’s Church, which already has begun a 40 Days of Discernment program to decide whether it will separate from the Episcopal Church and, by extension, from the diocese.

In mid-September, the Episcopal Forum of South Carolina said the diocese “teeters on the edge of schism” from the Episcopal Church.

In summary, the five resolutions said:

1. “In the Diocese of South Carolina, we understand the substance of the “doctrine, discipline and worship” of the Episcopal Church to mean that which is expressed in the Thirty-Nine Articles, the Creeds, the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral and the theology of the historic prayer books.”

Approved by 86 percent of voting clergy, parishes and missions.

2. “That this diocese authorize the bishop and standing committee to begin withdrawing from all bodies of the Episcopal Church that have assented to actions contrary to Holy Scripture, the doctrine, discipline and worship of Christ as this church has received them, the resolutions of the Lambeth Conference which have expressed the mind of the Communion, The Book of Common Prayer and our Constitution and Canons, until such bodies show a willingness to repent of such actions … and that the Diocese of South Carolina declares that the most recent example of this behavior, in the passage of Resolutions DO25 and CO56, to be null and void, having no effect in this Diocese, and in violation of our diocesan canon (XXXVI sec.1).”

Approved on a vote by orders.
Clergy: 87 yes, 17 no, 1 abstaining.
Parishes: 39 yes, 8 no.
Missions: 14, yes, 3 no, 2 divided, 1 abstaining.

3. “That this diocese … will work in partnership with such Dioceses as are willing to form missional relationships providing gatherings for bishops, clergy and laity for the express purpose of evangelism, encouragement, education and mission … and that the parishes of this diocese are encouraged to enter into their own missional relationships with orthodox congregations isolated across North America and to pursue effective initiatives which are lay-led and supported.”

Approved, 85.1 percent.

4. “That the Diocese of South Carolina endorses the [Ridley Cambridge Draft] of the proposed Anglican Covenant, as it presently stands, in all four sections, as an expression of our full commitment to mutual submission and accountability in communion, grounded in a common faith.”

Approved, 87.5 percent.

5. “That this diocese will not condone prejudice or deny the dignity of any person, including but not limited to, those who believe themselves to be gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgendered. Nevertheless, we will speak the truth in love as Holy Scripture commends for the amendment of life required of disciples of Christ. It is love of neighbor and the abiding concern for their spiritual well being that compels such honesty and will never allow us to remain silent.”

Tabled until the diocese’s regular convention in March 2010.

In a sweeping address of nearly 4,000 words, Bishop Lawrence gave an extended defense of the resolutions, which were prepared by the diocese’s standing committee in response to his address to clergy in August.

Both in that address and this one, he compared false doctrine kudzu, a fast-growing and destructive vine found in the Deep South.

“This false teaching that I have called the gospel of indiscriminate inclusivity has challenged the doctrine of the Trinity, the Uniqueness and Universality of Christ, the authority of Scripture, our understanding of baptism, and now, that last refuge of order, our Constitution & Canons,” he said. “Like an invasive vine, like kudzu in an old growth forest, it has decked the Episcopal Church with decorative destruction. It has invaded and now is systematically dismantling the fundamental teachings of our Church and our Christian heritage.”

He defended the proposal, in the second resolution, that the diocese withdraw its deputation to the triennial General Convention.

“The General Convention is not the answer to the problems of the Episcopal Church,” he said. “The General Convention has become the problem. It has replaced a balanced piety in this Church with the politics of one-dimensional activism. Every three years when the Episcopal Church train pulls into the station of General Convention more traditional, catholic and evangelical Episcopalians get off the train and do not return. Do you know that in 1968 this Church had 3,600,000 members? In 2008 we had just barely over 2,000,000. It is even less than that now.”

Further, he defended the resolutions as helping the diocese affect not only the Episcopal Church but also the broader Anglican Communion.

“The landscape around us in the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion is changing almost daily,” he said. “This week alone has brought remarkable and gracious news from the Vatican, but it will give us little relief but that of hope that one day all who hold the faith of the apostles shall be one. Meanwhile these four principles need to guide us; otherwise we will be tossed about by every windy gust of news or tidal wave crashing on the shore.”

Douglas LeBlanc

LONDON: 400,000 former Anglicans worldwide seek immediate unity with Rome

Via VirtueOnline:

by Ruth Gledhill, Sophie Tedmanson, Giles Whittell and Richard Owen
The Times
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/
October 22, 2009

Leaders of more than 400,000 Anglicans who quit over women priests are to seek immediate unity with Rome under the apostolic constitution announced by Pope Benedict XVI. They will be among the first to take up an option allowing Anglicans to join an "ordinariate" that brings them into full communion with Roman Catholics while retaining elements of their Anglican identity.

The Pope's move is regarded by some Anglicans as one of the most dramatic developments in Protestant christendom since the Reformation gave birth to the Church of England 400 years ago.

Archbishop John Hepworth, the twice-married Primate of the Traditional Anglican Communion, who led negotiations with the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in Rome, said he was "profoundly moved" by the Pope's decision and would immediately seek the approval of the group's 400,000 members worldwide to join.

He described the development as "a moment of grace, perhaps even a moment of history".

As fully-fledged Anglicans also seek refuge from liberalism in the shelter of Rome, it is feared that the proposal could deal a deadly blow to the 77 million-strong Anglican Communion, which already faces schism over homosexual ordination.

Up to 500 members of Forward in Faith, the traditionalist grouping that opposes women bishops, are meeting this weekend to debate the Pope's offer of a home for former Anglican laity and married priests.

Many are waiting for the publication of a code of practice by Rome to flesh out what is on offer before deciding whether to go.

Insiders believe that Rome's new canonical solution to the Anglican crisis could tempt entire dioceses and possibly even a province.

More than 440 clergy took compensation and left the Church of England, most for Rome, after the General Synod voted to ordain women priests in 1992. More than 30 returned.

The Pope has made it significantly more attractive for Anglicans to move over this time by offering a universal solution that allows them to retain crucial aspects of their identity and to set up seminaries that will, presumably, train married men for the Catholic priesthood. But any serving clergyman would face a marked loss of income. A job as a clergyman in the Church of England comes with a stipend of £22,250 and free accommodation. Catholic priests earn about £8,000, paid by their parish and topped up by a diocese where the parish cannot afford even that.

The Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, indicated that there would be no compensation this time. It was only introduced at the last minute previously as a way of getting the whole women's ordination package through the General Synod with the necessary two-thirds majorities.

Dr Michael Nazir-Ali, the former Catholic who retired this year as the Anglican Bishop of Rochester, welcomed Rome's "generosity of spirit" in its recognition of Anglican patrimony. But he made clear that many issues needed to be resolved before decisions could be made. The two "flying bishops" appointed by the Archbishop of Canterbury to care for opponents of women priests also said that this was not a time for "sudden decisions".

Andrew Burnham, the Bishop of Ebbsfleet, and Keith Newton, the Bishop of Richborough, who went last year to Rome to begin talks with the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, said: "Anglicans in the Catholic tradition understandably will want to stay within the Anglican Communion. Others will wish to make individual arrangements as their conscience directs. A further group will begin to form a caravan, rather like the People of Israel crossing the desert in search of the Promised Land." In the US a writer for the Jesuit magazine America expressed fears that some newcomers would be "nostalgists, anti-feminists and anti-gay bigots".

At Notre Dame University in Indiana, scholars forecast a migration of Catholics into the new Anglican Catholic rite because of the sudden freedom to marry that it would grant. Professor Lawrence Cunningham called the Vatican's move a "stunning" endorsement of the married priesthood, adding that it would have immediate repercussions for Catholics. It would "raise anew the question, 'If they can do it, why can't the priests of Rome?' "

Archbishop Robert Duncan, of the Anglican Church of North America, which broke away from the Episcopal Church over the ordination of the gay Gene Robinson as the Bishop of New Hampshire, said: "We rejoice that the Holy See has opened this doorway, which represents another step in the co-operation and relationship between our Churches."

In Rome, Vittorio Messori, who has co-written books with the Pope, said that the Anglican Communion was already losing followers because of female and gay priests. "More Muslims go to the mosques in London than Anglicans go to church" he said. "The exit of half a million Anglicans to Rome will only confirm a trend."

END

LONDON: Vatican offer may lure Church of England priests

Via VirtueOnline:

By GREGORY KATZ, Associated Press Writer Gregory Katz, Associated Press Writer
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091022/ap_on_re_eu/eu_britain_anglicans
October 22, 2009

On the surface, it looks like a polite tug of war between two of the world's great churches, each saying nice things about the other.

But the ramifications of the conflict between the Roman Catholic Church and the Church of England are broad and not yet completely clear, with details of the Vatican's offer to help Anglicans convert still unpublished.

It is not yet known what part of the Anglicans' liturgy and rites will be incorporated into Catholic worship under the surprise offer made earlier this week in a bold bid by Pope Benedict XVI to capitalize on sharp divisions within the Anglican community over the proper role of women clergy and the acceptability of openly gay priests.

Nor is it evident how many Anglicans will seek to switch churches because of the pope's new policy. The Right Rev. John Broadhurst, the Bishop of Fulham, believes roughly 1,000 Church of England clergy will seek to join the Roman Catholic Church. He is chairman of Forward in Faith, a group of traditionalists opposed to the ordination of women.

He said this was not a direct result of the pope's new policy but a reflection of widespread unhappiness with liberal Church of England policies.

"There are 1,000 priests who are totally disenchanted with the position on women bishops, and if there is no provision for them, they will inevitably leave the Church of England," he said. "The Church of England is in a crisis because of its own internal policies and has been for a long time."

Others predict the exodus will be smaller.

Some changes are certain: it will, for example, be possible for married Anglican clergy to become Roman Catholic clergy under the new rules, a prospect that some believe may open the door, slowly, to the acceptance of married Catholic priests.

The Rev. Thomas Reese, a Vatican expert at Georgetown's Theological Center in Washington, predicted the Vatican announcement may have "significant and unforeseen consequences" for the Catholic Church.

"It may in fact provide the Catholic Church with a steady supply of married priests," he wrote.

Several commentators have suggested that the Catholic Church will be increasingly pressured into relaxing its own celibacy rule for priests because of the expected influx of married Anglican priests. For years, there have been calls for so-called "viri provati" or tested men to perform priestly functions to help relieve the priest shortage in the United States and much of the developing world.

The Vatican has always rejected those calls, saying the celibacy rule is not up for negotiation.

Cardinal William Levada acknowledged that the influx of married Anglican priests into the Catholic Church could create problems. But he said he didn't think the problem would be "insurmountable."

"It's a question of education, of the reasons for this kind of a disposition among our faithful," he told a press conference earlier this week. "And I think that experience has already shown us that if an explanation is given, that people understand that and accept it as an exception."

Part of the problem stems from the fact that, according to the new Vatican norms, Anglican seminarians will be trained alongside Catholic seminarians. It stands to reason that that the already difficult decision a Catholic seminarian must make to live a celibate life will be made even more difficult if his schoolmate is allowed to have a wife.

"I think for some people it seems to be a problem because as you know there have been many catholic priests who have left the priesthood to get married, and the question rises: 'If these former Anglicans can be married priests, what about us?'" Levada said.

But he said the two circumstances are completely different. The Vatican grants an exception to Anglican priests as a way of respecting that their calling to be Catholic happened to have occurred after they were married.

Already, some Catholic groups that have long advocated making celibacy optional for priests are seeing the new ruling as a lever to be used to force the Roman Catholic Church to liberalize its policies on married clergy.

"We're surprised and pleased to see Vatican flexibility in permitting married priests for Anglican converts, but we need the option of a married priesthood in the Latin rite of the Catholic Church too," said Christine Schenk, director of FutureChurch, an Ohio-based coalition that favors liberalization of Church rules.

Other group members predicted that Catholic seminarians who wish to marry will likely join the Anglican branch to take advantage of the new situation. They say acceptance of married priests is a vital step needed to help combat the shortage of priests, both in the United States and around the world.

The number of priests in the US has dropped from about 58,000 in 1965 to 40,000 today. The number of priests worldwide has declined slightly since 1970, during a time when the number of Catholics in the world has nearly doubled to an estimated 1.1. billion, according to figures compiled by the Center for Research in the Apostolate at Georgetown University.

The shortage is caused not only by men leaving the priesthood, many in order to marry, but also by the difficulty of recruiting qualified candidates for the seminaries.

The surprise Vatican move, designed to make the Roman Catholic Church more attractive to Anglicans, seems to have caught senior Anglican officials flatfooted.

Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams, the spiritual leader of the global Anglican church, told followers in a letter that he only learned of the Vatican's plans at the very last minute.

He seemed uncomfortable at a press conference announcing the change, and has said he is waiting for details to see how it will be put in practice.

_____

Associated Press Writers Nicole Winfield and Victor L. Simpson in Rome, Rachel Zoll in New York and Rachel Leamon in London contributed to this report.

Two thoughts on responses to the Pope's move

First, if liberals are upset about this move and are calling it divisive, aren't they the same folks who have not been willing to call the actions of pecusa since 2003 divisive. Is it not disingenuous to call the Pope's action divisive and not be willing to recognize the obviously divisive nature of pecusa actions.

Second, wouldn't it be laughable as in really funny if the PB of pecusa issued a statement like our African brothers that indicated that the Pope's action would have little effect on pecusa since pecusa is strongly grounded in theology? That would not only be laughable, it would be ludicrous, which is why no such statement can be expected.

Vatican Guilty of "Divisiveness" for Anglican Reunification Offer

Via VirtueOnline:

Leftist Critics "Progressives," Leftists and Womynpriest Supporters in a Fury

By Hilary White
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/oct/09102206.html

VATICAN CITY, October 22, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The battle lines in the culture wars within both the Anglican and Catholic Churches have become clearly visible with the announcement of new provisions to bring traditionally-minded Christian Anglicans into the Catholic Church in groups. Some are accusing the Vatican of having torpedoed the remains of the rapidly deteriorating Worldwide Anglican Communion with its surprise announcement by Cardinal Levada, the head of the Vatican's doctrinal office on Tuesday.

Although officially denied by the Vatican, it is being widely acknowledged that the move has been in response to overtures by the Traditional Anglican Communion (TAC), the largest of the "conservative breakaway" groups. The TAC has objected to the Anglican Churches' decisions to ordain women to the clergy and episcopate and to embrace homosexual activity as equal to natural sexual relations, as well as other deviations from traditional Christian teaching. After decades of apparently fruitless "ecumenical dialogue," observers have said the Pope has taken the matter into his own hands and offered a refuge to Anglicans who adhere to the tenets of classical, biblical Christianity.

The doctrinal orthodoxy in the TAC on life and family issues, as well as liturgical questions, give a clue to the true nature of the objections to the Vatican's move by both Catholic and Anglican "progressives," liberals and feminists. Bishop Carl Reid of the TAC in Canada told LifeSiteNews.com, "When it comes to issues of morality, especially family and pro-life, our membership is very strongly on the same page as are Roman Catholics."

Commentators on the left are already saying the decision is "divisive," with Toronto's Globe and Mail, in an unsigned editorial on Wednesday, calling it "a Trojan horse" and a "one sided attempt to reconcile faiths." "It appears to enhance Christian goodwill while inflaming the doctrinal battles between and within the two churches."

While leaders of the disintegrating Anglican Church had no choice but to accept, "Catholics who look for flexibility from their own leadership for themselves, over doctrinal and moral questions - communion for divorcees, abortion, female ordination - get the party line," the Globe and Mail said.

At Tuesday's press conference at the Vatican, Catholic News Service (CNS) correspondent Cindy Wooden brought up the theme of "divisiveness," asking Cardinal Levada whether the decision could be "harmful to the ecumenical movement when you're saying to a dissenting segment of the Anglican Communion that they share the one true faith and you're saying to the rest of them, 'we still have a lot of work to do.'"

In the UK's Independent, Paul Vallely noted that the decision is not likely to gain much support from the Catholic bishops of England, who have been "reluctant to open the door wide to traditionalist Anglicans." Such groups, Vallely wrote, because of their more traditionally orthodox stand on doctrine and liturgy, are "out of step with modern Catholicism" as it is practiced and preached by the largest segment of the bishops.

The Guardian, the voice of liberalism in the UK, wrote that the decision means the Pope has "launched a small craft to ferry the disaffected back across the Tiber, a move to asset-strip the Anglican communion of those bits the Vatican might find useful." The move, the editorial said, "ride roughshod over 40 years of ecumenical work."

Damian Thompson, the Daily Telegraph blogs editor and the editor of the UK's Catholic Herald newspaper, has indicated that the objections to the forthcoming Apostolic Constitution, that will make the provisions official, are not only coming from journalists. He wrote today that insiders at Lambeth Palace, the "Vatican" of the Anglican Communion, and the Vatican's Pontifical Council for Christian Unity, are "implacably opposed" to the new provisions.

Thompson reports that a "good source in Rome" has informed him that Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams "put pressure on Vatican ecumenists to stop the Apostolic Constitution being issued." Cardinal Walter Kasper, the Vatican's chief ecumenist and long-time opponent of the former Cardinal Ratzinger, was notably absent from the Vatican's press conference. The Apostolic Constitution is said to be entirely the work of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and to have largely left Cardinal Kasper out of the loop.

At the press conference in London, held simultaneously with the meeting in Rome, Rowan Williams said that the Vatican's announcement does not "disrupt business as usual" in the "mainstream" of ecumenical dialogues. "As we speak, preparations are going forward for further informal talks," he said.

He made the remarks despite the statement last year from Cardinal Kasper, who said that the decision by the Anglican Communion to ordain women as bishops had effectively brought the ecumenical process to a halt. "Although our dialogue has led to a significant agreement on the idea of priesthood," he said, the decision "blocks substantially and finally a possible recognition of Anglican orders by the Catholic Church."

Some observers have acknowledged what was said in the Vatican's own press release, that the move is plainly an outreach to Anglicans who reject the ultra-liberal direction on sexual issues of the Anglican Communion in the west.

Writing on the website of Catholic Culture, the pseudonymous blogger "Diogenes" said bluntly that the decision has enraged the "progressivists" because those coming into the Catholic Church "will be active in practice, theologically aware, and proportionately resistant to gay and feminist faddishness."

Philip Lawler, founder of Catholic World News, cautioned, however, that some Anglicans may not be looking across the Tiber with much enthusiasm. Also at Catholic Culture, Lawler wrote, "Conservative Anglicans might glance nervously at the Catholic parishes in their neighborhood, notice the theological novelties and the liturgical abuses, and wonder whether they might be leaving one untenable situation only to enter into another."

Meanwhile, the feminist and homosexual "faddishness" of the most liberal sections of the Anglican Communion continues. This July, in defiance of an official moratorium, the Episcopal Church in the U.S. (ECUSA) approved a resolution to continue consecrating homosexual bishops. ECUSA is set to install a virulently pro-abortion lesbian candidate for the bishopric of Minnesota.

Read related LifeSiteNews.com coverage:

Anglicans to be Brought Back to "Full Visible Unity" with Catholic Church: Surprise Vatican Announcement http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/oct/09102001.html

KENYA: Anglicans reject Pope offer

Via VirtueOnline:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/8322069.stm
October 23, 2009

Anglican Archbishop Eliud Wabukala says it is a question of faith

The head of Kenya's Anglican Church, Archbishop Eliud Wabukala, has rejected the Pope's offer to allow disaffected Anglicans to join the Catholic Church.

He told the BBC it would not be easy for African Anglicans to enter into full communion with Catholics.

Earlier this week, the Vatican said groups of Anglicans could join but maintain a distinct religious identity.

There are splits among Anglicans worldwide over homosexuality and the ordination of women.

Causes of discord in the worldwide Anglican communion have included the election of an openly gay bishop and the blessing of same-sex unions.

The Vatican said the new rules followed requests from Anglicans wanting to join while retaining their liturgical heritage.

However, Archbishop Wabukala told the BBC's Network Africa programme there was "no possibility" of his becoming a Catholic.

"The Protestant family understands faith in different ways, for example, the idea of the Eucharist, the Lord's Supper, the interpretation of ministry," he said.

He said his fellow African Anglican bishops were "deeply evangelical".

Ugandan Archbishop Henry Luke Orombi has also said Pope Benedict's measure was not called for in the African Anglican Church, which he said had successfully resisted liberalism from Western countries.

END

UGANDA:'Pope's offer not vital for Africa' - Archbishop Orombi

Via VirtueOnline:

By Moses Mulondo
http://www.newvision.co.ug
October 22, 2009

AFRICAN Anglicans do not need the Pope's intervention over consecration of gay bishops, the Archbishop of the Church of Uganda, Henry Luke Orombi, has said.

Pope Benedict XVI on Tuesday announced new initiatives allowing Anglicans to enter full communion with the Catholic Church while preserving elements of their spiritual and liturgical tradition.

Orombi said such measures by the Vatican are not called for in the African Anglican Church, which he said had successfully resisted liberalism from Western countries.

"Anglo-Catholic Anglicans have been disillusioned by the liberal churches in the West that created a theological crisis with their liberal attitude to sexuality. Many of them would be happy with the Pope's initiative. But the African Church does not need that because it is strong on biblical theology," he argued.

Orombi said the African Anglican Church split after realising that the Western churches had yielded to liberal measures on sexuality, which are contrary to the biblical teachings.

In a historic move, African Anglican churches held a conference in Jerusalem last year during which they officially broke away from Canterbury. "The African Anglican Church has undertaken measures to deal with the excesses of liberalism that invaded the western church. We are a Bible-believing Church," Orombi said.

Kenya's Anglican Church yesterday also rejected the Pope's offer that would have seen married Anglican priests join the Catholic Church.

"The Archbishop of Canterbury (Rowan Williams) sent us letters welcoming the offer, but it is essentially to deal with the local England context and does not apply to other provinces.

"There are theological differences, for instance, the ministry and administration of sacrament are different. I do not see why it is necessary at this point in history," Kenyan Archbishop Eliud Wabukala said.

----Archbishop Henry Luke Orombi is the Primate of the Anglican Province of Uganda

Catholic Beliefs Might Give Anglicans Pause

Via VirtueOnline:

By Robert Mackey
The New York Times
http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/10/22/catholic-beliefs-might-give-anglicans-pause/
October 22, 2009

When the Catholic Church announced this week that the Vatican would make it easier for Anglicans to convert to Catholicism, much was made of the many similarities between the two faiths. And there are a few Catholic beliefs that might strike Anglicans as foreign, and one or two that could be deal-breakers for potential defectors.

The Times of London published a handy list of some Catholic beliefs Anglican converts would have to embrace. Social conservatives who are upset by the Anglican Church's acceptance of female priests and openly gay bishops are unlikely to have trouble adopting the Catholic beliefs that only men can become priests and that, as the Catechism of the Catholic Church puts it, "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered" and "under no circumstances can they be approved."

Ideas that might be harder for Anglicans to accept include the concept that the Pope is infallible, at least at certain moments, that Mary was the product of an "immaculate conception," and so born without sin, and the belief known as transubstantiation, which means, essentially, that the communion bread and wine are not just symbols but actually become the body and blood of Christ.

This last point was the subject of much debate in the sixteenth century and particularly exercised Martin Luther, who called transubstantiation "a monstrous word for a monstrous idea." In the Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion, adopted under the leadership of Queen Elizabeth in 1563 to spell out the fundamental principles of Anglican doctrine, the belief was ridiculed in the strongest terms:

Transubstantiation (or the change of the substance of Bread and Wine) in the Supper of the Lord, cannot be proved by Holy Writ; but is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture, overthroweth the nature of a Sacrament, and hath given occasion to many superstitions.

In an opinion column for The Times of London on Thursday, Libby Purves pointed out that Anglicans will also have to accept "tough teachings on divorce and the contraceptive ban."

Then again, Anglican converts could also just follow the lead of many Catholics and simply decide to not accept the Church's guidance on a host of social issues. According to a survey by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life on the eve of Pope Benedict XVI's visit to the United States in 2008, American Catholics, at least, seem to feel perfectly entitled to not embrace some of the Church's core beliefs.

Pew noted, for instance that "Despite the Catholic Church's strong opposition to abortion, a slim majority (51 percent) of Catholics believe that abortion should be legal in most or all cases." An even larger majority of American Catholics (55 percent) surveyed by Pew supported stem-cell research, despite the Church's opposition, and still more of them (60 percent) said they favored the death penalty, even though the Church opposes it.

What these findings suggest is that, despite the protestations of Catholic officials, there may well be at least as much diversity of belief among Catholics as there is among Anglicans. Given this, it is no wonder that the powerful leader of nearly half of the world's Anglicans, Archbishop Peter Akinola, head of the Church of Nigeria, and the spiritual leader of Africa's 40 million Anglicans, failed to jump at the Pope's offer this week? An aide told The Wall Street Journal that Rev. Akinola is "still weighing the implications of the Vatican's offer."

As Will Connors reported for The Journal from Nigeria on Wednesday, Anglicans in Africa, where homosexuality remains "a cultural taboo," were particularly disturbed by the ordination of the openly gay American Eugene Robinson as a Anglican bishop in 2003. Reverend Akinola's Nigeria's Anglican Church "proffered one of the loudest condemnations of Rev. Robinson's appointment and broke off ties with its American and Canadian counterparts."

Given that, the Pew study of American Catholics might give Anglican conservatives looking for a global community of like-minded coreligionists some reason to look before they leap. In addition to other socially liberal positions, the research found that, in the United States at least, "Catholics are slightly more supportive of gay marriage than is the public as a whole."

END

David Virtue on pecusa numerical decline

In the ongoing statistical decline of The Episcopal Church, brought about by the actions in 2003 to ordain a known non-celibate homosexual to the priesthood, VOL is forced to ask just how accurate are the diocesan figures for 2008 compared to 2007. The national church claims the overall drop was about 3%, but VOL believes that the drop is far higher because of inaccurate reporting figures from some dioceses.

For example, the DIOCESE OF WESTERN NEW YORK under Bishop Michael Garrison claims an ASA figure of 4,452 in 2008 down from 4,627 in 2007, a drop of 175. This completely ignores the parish of St Bartholomew's Anglican Church in Tonawanda (one of the largest in the whole state of NY), which left with more than 900 members. VOL wrote extensively about this at the time. http://tinyurl.com/yzlndvd After St. Bartholomew's left and moved into their own building, Garrison renamed the church. Virtually everyone left with Fr. Art Ward. A parish of about 30 remained. If one takes into account the real loss of 900, the ASA figure for 2008 would be closer to 3500, substantially less than what was reported by the bishop. As the bishop has no vision for growth, no evangelism that will draw people in, it is hard not to imagine at that rate of decline, with aging parishioners and dwindling financial resources, that within five years the diocese will be forced to juncture with another diocese.

Even its overall membership figures are skewed. Recent figures (now in the Red Book) show that in 2008 the diocese had 12,809, whereas in 2007 it was 13,233 down a mere 424. Yet at the diocesan website the bishop claims "approximately 16,000 adult communicants worshipping in 63 different congregations spread across the counties of Cattaraugus, Chautauqua, Erie, Genesee, Niagara, Orleans and Wyoming at the western edge of New York State." Where is the truth here?

*****

A Message from Bishop David Anderson

Beloved in Christ,

The news that has overtaken much of the Christian media (and a good bit of the secular as well) is the announcement from Rome that they are opening up a personal prelature for orthodox Anglicans. This would allow Anglicans to maintain much of their liturgy and custom, and for many of the Anglican clergy, it would offer the option of becoming a Roman Catholic priest.

The details are still sketchy, and much finally depends on the details, but there are clearly some trouble spots even for those Anglicans who are keen about the idea. Those clergy who were baptized and confirmed as Roman Catholics, then left Roman Catholicism for Anglicanism, were then ordained in Anglican orders, and are married, will probably find it difficult if not impossible to bring their Anglican orders into the new Roman Catholic option. In the past, married Anglican priests who were originally baptized and confirmed as Roman Catholics haven't been able to bring the orders and a wife into Rome. The issue is having a wife and a prior relationship with Rome.

Another sticking point is for married Anglican bishops who may wish to take advantage of this new option. Pending disclosure of the new rules and the small print, neither Eastern Orthodoxy nor Rome currently have married bishops, and haven't had for most of their history. Anglican bishops who are married and have no earlier sacramental relationship with Rome may only be able to take the new option as a priest.

The entire issue of orthodox Anglicans rejoining Roman Catholicism after nearly 500 years is one that some Anglican groups have been working on and promoting for some considerable time. The offer is, I think, a very welcome one for those who feel this is right for them. For other Anglicans, some of the remaining issues from the Reformation will dampen the enthusiasm for a reunion, but nevertheless, they see the offer as a positive move.

The one for whom this is not a positive development is the Archbishop of Canterbury, who is trying to hold together a rapidly fragmenting global Anglican Communion. His unwillingness to prune the heterodox Episcopal Church USA, or even to sanction them in an effective way, means that the theological and spiritual division that they are spreading will continue to divide the global Church. TEC, as they now prefer to be called, is exporting both deviant theology and money to conservative African Provinces, targeting dioceses that are vulnerable, and seeking out receptive congregations to plant their seeds of revisionism. Within the UK itself, Dr. Williams has division increasing, with revisionist bishops and clergy who look to Presiding Bishop Jefferts Schori of TEC as the visionary, rather than Dr. Williams. The orthodox in England are increasingly distraught over the deteriorating situation, both in the UK and globally, and their willingness to speak and act boldly is increasing. While staying within the Church of England (CofE), many of them are preparing for asymmetrical responses that will put pressure on the system towards an orthodox direction.

In the past, Dr. Williams has seen GAFCON (Global Anglican Future Conference--held in Jerusalem in 2008) and FCA (Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans--an outgrowth of the GAFCON) as divisive, and has tried to neutralize the FCA, with his friends implying at times that FCA was somehow schismatic. Now, with Rome suddenly opening this new option, Rowan Williams has to contend with Presiding Bishop Jefferts Schori and TEC on one flank, and the Pope himself on the other flank. I would suggest that it is difficult to fight on two fronts at once. It can certainly be done, but fighting on three fronts may exceed Dr Williams' available resources. Will he continue to push against FCA, or wake up and realize that the FCA is his logical ally? Granted that he will lose a portion of the Anglo-Catholics in England to the Pope's offer (and more if he doesn't provide some exclusionary provision when women bishops are actually a fact in the CofE), but his ability to forge a degree of unity will rest on at least making peace with the FCA and the Jerusalem Statement. The Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans could be the glue that gives cohesion based on historic Anglican understandings. The question is WWRD? (What will Rowan do?)

Blessings and peace in Christ Jesus,

The Rt. Rev. David C. Anderson, Sr.
President and CEO, American Anglican Council

The lighting of the beacons

In the comments section of a previous post Jeannette mentions the following blog entry at pajamas media. It is a bit over the top, imo, to extrapolate from this new policy to it's "the end of the Anglican Communion." Comments like this have been published by a number of Roman Catholics since the story broke about the Pope's overture to Anglicans. 1/7 of clergy jumping seems incredibly high as well. So, the author of this post is right, imo, to call attention to the self-inflicted wounds of Anglicanism and to cast doubt on mass defections to Roman Catholicism. ed.

source:
http://pajamasmedia.com/richardfernandez/2009/10/22/the-lighting-of-the-beacons/


October 22nd, 2009 4:09 am

Andrew Brown of the Guardian called the Roman Catholic Church’s offer to admit disaffected Anglicans “the end of the Anglican Communion”, describing the 1/7th of the clergy which its believes will jump ship as a death blow. If so, it is the coup de grace. The Anglican Communion has long been hemorrhaging members, fleeing from a church which many of its members believe has abandoned its traditional beliefs. Most of those who were expected to take up the Catholic Church’s offer to convert are described as social conservatives who think their community has gone too far toward embracing openly gay bishops and women priests. The Daily Mail put the indictment against the Archbishop of Canterbury plainly: he’s no longer a divine, but a politician and those are dime a dozen. “If our Archbishop spent less time fretting about climate change, he might notice the pope is about to mug him”.

it is quite possible for moderately intelligent people to listen to the Archbishop preach a sermon or deliver a lecture on theological matters and not be at all sure what he is on about. … Some will remember how not very long ago he incautiously suggested during a radio interview that officially sanctioned Sharia courts might be allowable for Muslims in this country. … Far too often he sounds like a Guardian leader writer in full flood rather than a divine.

One of his pet subjects is global warming. There may be nothing wrong with that – except that there are already many people, some of them rather more expert than he is, lecturing us about its supposed perils. Shouldn’t an Archbishop of Canterbury offer us guidance on moral issues?

But Andrew Brown’s article in the Guardian fails to see this; and he seems to think that Rome is interested in cannibalizing the Anglican church in order to become more like them; he thinks Benedict is coveting their married clergy, gorgeous liturgy and brilliant seminaries. Brown sees the move as Rome’s way of making itself more hip via the back door. It is only pretending to absorb Anglicanism, secretly it wants to follow in its footsteps.

this is a huge coup for Rome. They may not get the churches – and they certainly don’t want to have to pay for them – but they get so much more. For a start, this establishes a tradition of married Roman Catholic clergy in the west. The language, the services, and the gorgeous choral music of Anglicanism are more obviously attractive, but the real long term significance of this announcement is the talk about seminaries. …

If the former Anglicans can train up successors who will also be able to have wives, the Roman Catholic church may have found a way to escape the prospect of a largely gay priesthood to which the doctrine of compulsory celibacy appeared to condemn them. It is ironic that Anglican efforts to deal honestly with the problem of sexuality should have provided the Catholics with the excuse they needed to strike this decisive blow. God always did move in mysterious ways.

Andrew Brown doesn’t grasp the fact that the Roman Catholic Church is already late to the party. Anglicanism had already been laid low by many years of continuous attack by another, much more powerful religion. This religion had largely eaten it out from within; turned it from a regular religion into a social work organization, changed it from a proclaimer of the Gospel to what in many cases was regarded as a mouthpiece for political correctness. This was precisely what the Daily Mail meant when it accused Rowan Williams of preoccupation with Global Warming and sounding “like a Guardian leader writer in full flood”. The Roman Church comes as a scavenger on a field on which this powerful force stands plucking at the throat of most Christian denominations. That powerful force is a religion itself; the one world faith born in Europe and the real successor to Anglicanism as the source of official piety in Britain. That religion is of course socialism/communism. John Gray in the New Statesman follows the ups and downs of one of the largest churches in the Western world.


“Communism,” he says, “continued an authentic tradition of European radical humanism. … There can be no reasonable doubt that during the Bolshevik period, and to a degree in the Stalin era, communism had many of the features of a religion.” It was religion tricked out as a secular millennial movement. Communism actually tried to build a paradise on earth and failing miserably, devoted itself to saving the earth and turning the world into one great public institution. Gray, reviewing the book The Red Flag, points out that Communism is as indigenous to the West as weiners and sauerkraut. It is deeply rooted in the philosophical, political and religious traditions of Europe. He describe the book The Red Flag as “a comprehensive guide to the biggest political delusion of the 20th century. Starting with the origins of communist ideology in the French Revolution, it presents an interesting analysis of Marx’s thinking as being shaped as much by Romanticism as by the Enlightenment.” That none of its prophecies have come true is beside the point.

It lives in the Force. Like Obi-Wan Kenobi in Star Wars, it grew even more powerful as a religious impulse in the West after the Berlin Wall was struck down. Without the rotting carcass of the Soviet Union to constantly remind Western intellectuals of its criminal failures, socialism in the west could cast itself as a semi-mystical force, free to retell the disasters of its making as conspiracies by capitalist roaders posing as men of the people. As everyone who is a committed communist knows, it only failed in the past because it hadn’t been really tried.

While radical humanism was the feature that beguiled most western intellectuals, it was just one of several elements in communism. Priestland presents a useful typology of the stories in terms of which the history of communism has been understood: the official one, derived from Marx, in which communist regimes were stages on the way to a world of harmony and abundance; a story of modernisation, in which communists were rational bureaucrats committed to developing backward countries; and a narrative of repression, in which communists imposed a totalitarian system on an un willing population.

The heavy blows which laid the Anglican church low were not dealt by the Roman Catholic Church. Indeed the Anglican Church broke away from Rome. What severely weakened the Anglicans was the communist-inspired secular culture which sapped it of vitality; reduced the Gospel to an outlier of the greater scripture of Political Correctness. That’s what its disaffected adherents are fleeing from. The principal attraction of the Roman Catholic Church, at least to conservative Anglicans, lies precisely in that it hasn’t been eaten out by socialist/communist faith to the degree that the Anglicans have been. It’s not that they love Rome, they’re simply seeking shelter within its walls.

That’s not to say that Roman walls are safe from the same relentless attack of secularism which did Canterbury in. Given enough time, Rome too will go under; and Benedict knows it is only a matter of time until some ecclesiastical Barack Obama mounts the pulpit to warn in a honeyed baritone against Climate Change and extol the virtues of Islam. For that reason Benedict is picking up stragglers, having judged the Anglicans already shattered. But its real foe, upon which Rome’s eyes are fixed, are the socialist/communists. Osgiliath is driven in and the orcs are hard behind. Roman Catholic Archbishop Nichols, the primate of England, put it bluntly.

He claimed the Pope had made the decision because he wants worshippers to unite in the face of increasing secularism rather than form numerous smaller churchers. … Quoting the Pontiff, he said: “As he has written: ‘In our days, when in vast areas of the world the faith is in danger of dying out like a flame which no longer has fuel, the overriding priority is to make God present in this world and to show men and women the way to God.’ “

The Roman Catholic Church is living through an extraordinary historical moment. It is facing two religious competitors. From one side, there is the religion which pretends to be a political movement — socialism/communism. From the other flank there is the political movement which pretends to be a religion — Islam. Both religions have massive amounts of money, heavy weaponry and great cultural power. Pope Benedict has probably looked at the ancient but fragile ramparts of Rome and realized that unless something turns up, they may not hold. Indeed, any normal assessment of forces would conclude that Benedict’s Church is doomed. The future looks like a face-off between socialist secularism and unbending Islam. How can Christianity even hope to keep the field? The full power of political correctness are marshaled on the one hand, and the multitudinous throngs of the Jihad are arrayed on the other. Never mind Canterbury’s end. What odds would you give Rome? An observer would give none, but for this cryptic prophecy in Matthew 16:18.

And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

Look to the east on the third day, Gandalf said. But that rescue was in a book of fiction; and Benedict has no choice but to put his trust in another promise in another book of faith.

NEARLY 40 CONGREGATIONS JOIN ANGLICAN CHURCH IN NORTH AMERICA

From the ACNA:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
October 23, 2009

In just three months, the Anglican Church in North America has
welcomed 39 new congregations. When the Anglican Church in North
America officially launched in late June, it included 703 churches in
the United States and Canada. Today, there are 742 congregations
affiliated with the Anglican Church.

"We have an ambitious goal of planting 1,000 new churches in the next
five years. It is very encouraging to see how much progress has
already been made," said Archbishop Robert Duncan.

Some congregations have joined the Anglican Church in North America
with a well-defined identity and history. Christ the King Anglican
Church in Albuquerque, New Mexico, represents the leadership and a
large majority of the people of an Episcopal Church parish. The
congregation, which walked away from property and endowments valued at
more than $2 million, has been in the words of its rector, the Rev.
Roger Weber, "overwhelmed by God's provision."

When the people of Christ the King made their decision to step out of
the conflicts in the Episcopal Church over basic Christian beliefs,
they did not know where they would meet for worship. Within a period
of weeks, God provided an 18,000 square foot church building with
enough seating for their average Sunday attendance of 300 and complete
with office equipment "all for an incredibly reasonable price," said
Weber.

Weber added that Christ the King has also spiritually benefited from
their decision to leave the conflicts of The Episcopal Church behind.
"Being free of it is like being one-thousand pounds lighter. There is
just a joyous, grateful spirit, amazement about what God has done and
a real looking forward to great things," he explained.

A number of the new congregations are recent church plants, like St.
Barnabas in Covington, Kentucky. According to Fr. Christopher
Peterson, who leads St. Barnabas, the young church held its first
worship service on June 7. Just a few months into their life, St.
Barnabas has already benefited greatly from its relationship with
other Anglican Church in North America congregations in Kentucky, said
Peterson. He and other members of the launch team have also been
amazed by the way God has sent people to St. Barnabas. "It is not like
we have found a lot of people, but that people have found us. It is
astounding," said Peterson.

More information about St. Barnabas is available online at
http://www.kentuckyanglican.com

Calling together new congregations is a key goal for The Anglican
Church in North America. "We are convinced that the Good News of Jesus
Christ and the transforming power of His love offer life-change
wherever they are preached. Vibrant, multiplying local congregations
are both the primary tool to fulfill that important evangelical task
and the natural result of our friends and neighbors responding to the
Gospel," said Archbishop Duncan.

Formed in June of 2009, the Anglican Church in North America unites
742 Anglican congregations into a single Anglican Province. The
church's mission is to reach North America with the Transforming Love
of Jesus Christ.

Kendall Harmon: Comments on the Latest Move from Rome

Posted by Kendall Harmon at TitusOneNine:

I have a slew of emails and telephone calls asking what I think of this latest development. Herewith a few thoughts for starters.

(1) It represents a huge indictment of the leadership of the Archbishop of Canterbury. Many people question Rome's motivations, but I believe Rome, which has been watching Anglican developments like a hawk in recent years, wanted Anglicanism globally to succeed. Their response to the Windsor Report, for example, was quite favorable. This move to me shows they do not believe the Anglican moment in history to help global Christianity can take place sufficiently under Rowan Williams.

(2) It represents a sweeping judgment on Anglicanism in particular. Rome believes, as John 17 says, that the world may know the gospel if Christians are one as Jesus and the Father are one. Such a unity is only possible through a church with catholic order and evangelical faith. Rome has watched global Anglicanism evolve and has seen the Instruments of Unity be used repeatedly, over a period of time, and they have judged that Anglicanism itself is not and will not work for the cause of real global Catholicism going forward.

(3) It repesents a judgment that the real story going forward is between Rome and the East. Do not underestimate the significance of the fact that in this present unusual "arrangement," if I may call it that, Rome has drawn the line at Episcopal celibacy. That is a gesture Eastward, among many other things.

(4) It represents a sense that only an external action will have any benefit to Anglicanism going forward. Let us not kid ourselves. Rome put a lot into ecumencial conversations with Anglicans because they believed that more internal mechanisms and persuasions were possible. Now, in their judgment, they are not. They don't see a future of greater Anglican unity they see one of greater Anglican splintering. At this level, it represents a shout which one wonders if any Anglicans will hear--KSH.

ANGLICAN CHURCH IN NORTH AMERICA RESPONDS TO VATICAN ANNOUNCEMENT

Via TitusOneNine:


FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
October 20, 2009

We rejoice that the Holy See has opened this doorway, which represents another step in the growing cooperation and relationship between our Churches. This significant decision represents a recognition of the integrity of the Anglican tradition within the broader Christian church.

While we believe that this provision will not be utilized by the great majority of the Anglican Church in North America’s bishops, priests, dioceses and congregations, we will surely bless those who are drawn to participate in this momentous offer.

We concurrently thank God for the partnership that orthodox Anglicans have long enjoyed with the Roman Catholic Church, and are profoundly grateful for the many acts of kindness shown on local, diocesan and national levels, as they have stood with us in our time of trial.

While our historic differences over church governance, dogmas regarding the Blessed Virgin Mary and the nature of Holy Orders continue to be points of prayerful dialogue, we look forward to an ever deepening partnership with the Catholic Church throughout the world. We pledge our earnest prayers for all those touched by this initiative, as we look forward to the publication of the Apostolic Constitution detailing today’s announcement.


The Most Rev. Robert Wm. Duncan
Archbishop and Primate, Anglican Church in North America

House of Bishops Listserv: Schori vs. Ackerman

from Stand Firm by Greg Griffith

Regarding Katharine Schori's recent acceptance of Keith Ackerman's non-renunciation, for some reason the presiding bishop decided to post to the House of Bishops listserv:

Dear Brothers and Sisters in Christ,

There have been several questions asked regarding Keith Ackerman and acceptance of his renunciation of orders in the Episcopal Church.

Acceptance of Keith Ackerman’s renunciation of orders in The Episcopal Church was the result of consultation with my Council of Advice, and based on his written submission to me describing his intention to function as a bishop in the Diocese of Bolivia, in the Province of the Southern Cone and requesting that he be "transferred" to that church and thus out of the Episcopal Church. It is also based on his public participation in, and signature on a document affirming, the election of Robert Duncan as “archbishop” of ACNA.

Acceptance of his renunciation says nothing about the indelibility of his orders. It does clarify the reality that he is no longer permitted to function as a bishop in The Episcopal Church.

We have been and will be consistent regarding our canons, which clearly state that The Episcopal Church can accept the ministry of a bishop of The Episcopal Church functioning temporarily in another province of the Anglican Communion, when it is clear that that province does not seek to undermine or replace the ministry of this Church. Such temporary duty requires the full and informed consent of the respective ecclesiastical authorities. The ministry of Mark McDonald is an example, but as his position becomes permanent, his loyalty will have to be to the Anglican Church of Canada, rather than The Episcopal Church, and a recognition of his renunciation of orders in this Church will be necessary.

Yours in Christ,

The Most Rev. Katharine Jefferts Schori

Presiding Bishop and Primate

Bishop Ackerman sent this reply to a number of Anglican leaders via email:
There are several errors here:

- I indicated my desire to transfer to the Diocese of Bolivia and she indicated that she would send the appropriate documentation.

- I intentionally did not use the term “renunciation.” In fact I said that my request could not be interpreted as either “renunciation” or “abandonment.”

I have no real interest in responding to her, but am responding to you.

Some of you may see the negative implications of having someone interpret requests without being given an opportunity to provide any additional input. A priest who would run his parish this way – by not contacting a parishioner for clarification regarding a request can soon reduce his parish to the appropriate level of his competence.

Pope's Wooing of Anglicans Challenges Archbishop

From The Wall Street Journal via BabyBlue Online:

By DAVE KANSAS

Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams and Pope Benedict XVI are both noted theological scholars leading flocks through complicated times. In recent days, Archbishop Williams's already tough mission became even more difficult.

Archbishop Williams is the top official in the Church of England and the "first among equals" of the global church leaders that guide the 80-million-strong Anglican Communion. That puts him in the crucial position of holding the Anglican faithful together in the wake of the Vatican's surprise move this week to make it easier for disgruntled Anglicans to convert to Catholicism.

Anglican Times

Track major events in the history of the Anglican Church in North America.

1534 -- King Henry VIII founds the Church of England, naming himself as its supreme head, after Pope Clement VII refuses to annul his marriage to Catherine of Aragon.

1549 -- The Church of England issues the Book of Common Prayer, adopting more Protestant forms of worship.

1563 -- Under Queen Elizabeth the fundamental principles of Anglican doctrine -- the Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion -- are defined.

1579 -- The first Anglican service in North America is conducted in California.

1607 -- The first permanent Anglican colony is founded in Jamestown, Va.

1685 -- King James II attempts to re-establish Catholicism in the British Isles.

1688-89 -- James II is deposed in the Glorious Revolution. Parliament passes the Bill of Rights, which constitutionally establishes that all monarchs must be members of the Church of England. Catholics are barred from public office.

1789 -- The Episcopal Church formally separates from the Church of England, so that the U.S. body does not have to recognize the authority of the British monarch.

1814 -- The Church of England appoints a bishop of Calcutta. This appointment is followed by the dispatch of bishops to the West Indies in 1824 and Australia in 1836.

1867 -- The first Lambeth Conference is held for bishops throughout the Anglican Communion to convene to discuss church matters. These conferences continue to be held once every 10 years, most recently in July 2008.

1910 -- The World Missionary Conference in Edinburgh lays the foundations for the Ecumenical movement, aimed at establishing ties between Christian churches.

1962-1965 -- The Second Vatican Council launches a new era of dialogue between Roman Catholicism and other Christian Churches.

1976 -- The General Convention of the Episcopal Church approves the ordination of women and a new prayer book.

2003 -- Rev. V. Gene Robinson of New Hampshire becomes the first openly gay Episcopalian priest to be elevated to bishop.

2006 -- Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori is elected the first female presiding bishop of the Episcopal Church.

2007 -- The Anglican Diocese of San Joaquin, Calif., becomes the first to claim separation from the Episcopal Church. Portions of three other dioceses later vote to disaffiliate.

Source: Wall Street Journal research

For several years, Archbishop Williams has attempted to unify an already divided global community of Anglicans. Internecine battles over same-sex marriage, the consecration of women bishops and the authority of Scripture threaten to splinter the world's third-largest Christian group.

But unlike Pope Benedict -- who has singular authority over 1.1 billion Roman Catholics -- Archbishop Williams lacks many tools to force cooperation among his church's factions. He can cajole and persuade, but in the end the many churches within the Anglican Communion have a great deal of autonomy, including the Church of England.

"What is he going to do? That's the $64,000 question," said Stephen Parkinson, director of Forward in Faith, an Anglo-Catholic advocacy group within the Church of England that has reacted warmly to the Vatican's move. "Does he try to hold it all together, or does he simply say bon voyage to those who want to take the Vatican's offer?"

Archbishop Williams couldn't be reached for comment. In a letter to Church leaders Tuesday, Archbishop Williams apologized for not alerting his colleagues sooner, but said he himself heard about the Vatican's move only at a "very late stage." He also issued a joint statement with the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Westminster reaffirming the interfaith dialogue between the two Churches that goes back more than 40 years.

The Anglican Communion is one of the last vestiges of the old British Empire. Faith followed trade and the flag, planting the Anglican Church in far-flung places such as Singapore, Tanzania, Canada and South Africa. But the Anglican Communion, by design, has always had a more passive leadership structure, which permitted different forms of Anglicanism to flourish during its more-than-470-year existence.

This diversity, however, has become increasingly tough to manage. Anglicanism was established apart from Rome in 1534 by Henry VIII for several reasons, including the pope's refusal to offer him an annulment. Since then, the Church of England, the mother church of Anglicanism, has grown to include evangelicals, Anglo-Catholics and liberals, among others. The divergent views of each have become increasingly difficult to bridge.

Archbishop Williams, an amiable Welshman with a fondness for rugby, has found himself whipsawed by the winds of social change since ascending to his current position in early 2003. In that year, the Episcopal Church, the U.S. arm of Anglicanism, consecrated an openly gay bishop, sending the Anglican Communion into infighting that has shown no sign of letting up. Archbishop Peter Akinola, head of the Church of Nigeria and one of the most powerful members of the church who leads Africa's 40 million Anglicans, has repeatedly condemned Western Anglicans' move toward a more liberal interpretation of the Bible.

In a bid to keep the Anglican Communion together, Archbishop Williams has argued for a potential "two track" solution to the problems gripping both the Church of England and the Anglican Communion. The idea is that liberals would find common ground along one track and conservatives along another, but they would all remain under the big tent of Anglicanism.

"It helps to be clear about these possible futures, however much we think them less than ideal, and to speak about them not in apocalyptic terms of schism and excommunication but plainly as what they are -- two styles of being Anglican," Archbishop Williams wrote over the summer following the U.S. Episcopal Church's National Convention.

The Episcopal Church, one of the most important provinces in the Anglican Church, has been a challenge for Archbishop Williams since he took office. The Church has been active in backing socially liberal causes, drawing the ire of other Churches in the Communion, notably the large Churches in Africa.

Orthodox critics argue that he should be more assertive in facing down liberals, or at least in pushing for the establishment of "safe" places for those who dissented from such ideas as same-sex blessings and the wider consecration of women as priests and bishops.

The archbishop's two-track approach may be a tougher proposition in the wake of the Vatican's announcement. If enough conservatives take up the Vatican offer, it could diminish the need for two styles of Anglicanism. Ironically, some say that the Vatican's appeal could simplify the church's politics going forward. "This could be the answer to [Archbishop Williams's] prayers," said Forward in Faith's Mr. Parkinson.

Some progressives also think the Vatican move could help resolve the conflicts that have dogged the Church.

"The Vatican announcement this week, if you like, ought to take the heat out of the argument," said the Rev. Cannon Giles Goddard, chairman of the Inclusive Church, a liberal group in the Church of England. "Those opposed to the consecration of women bishops now have somewhere else to go, and that ought to make it easier for the Church of England to find a solution to that issue."

But that might also leave a smaller, homogenous Church behind. And evangelical conservatives with less natural warmth toward Rome are concerned that the Vatican may be peeling away a key ally. The many conservative groups within the Church, including Anglo-Catholics, have recently started working together under the banner of the Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans. They endorse the idea of a two-track approach, giving liberals and conservatives separate oversight.

Said the Rev. Paul Dawson, a spokesperson for Reform, an evangelical group within the Church of England: "We want to retain these people in the Church of England and it could be done."

—Will Connors contributed to this article.

Ms. Jefferts Schori, Produce the Letters!

From the Anglican Curmudgeon via VirtueOnline:

Monday, October 19, 2009

Concerning the "renunciation of the ordained Ministry of this Church" by the Rt. Rev. Keith Ackerman, resigned diocesan of Quincy, the Presiding Bishop said:

In accordance with Title III, Canon 12, Section 7 of the Canons of the Episcopal Church, and with the advice and consent of the Advisory Council to the Presiding Bishop, I have accepted the renunciation of the Ordained Ministry of this Church, made in writing to me in July 2009 by The Right Rev. Keith L. Ackerman, Bishop of Quincy, Resigned . . .

But Bishop Ackerman says:

I have not renounced, and in fact, in my first handwritten letter indicated that my intention was not to be seen as either "abandonment of the Communion" or "Renunciation."

The Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church wrote to Bishop Ackerman as follows:

Thank you for your follow up note regarding your plans to function as a bishop in the Diocese of Bolivia in the Province of the Southern Cone.

But Bishop Ackerman says:

After two months with no communication, I sent another handwritten, unduplicated letter in early October asking about this matter.

Bishop Ackerman describes his earlier handwritten letter to the Presiding Bishop (the one sent in July 2009 which she says constituted his "renunciation") as follows:

This letter was handwritten, sharing with the Presiding Bishop my current health, my new ministry with the homeless, my desire to assist another Anglican partner in ministry in Bolivia and, at their invitation, to participate informally (seat but no voice and no vote) in the House of Bishops of the Southern Cone. At no time did I express dissatisfaction with the Episcopal Church, or make any statement of a desire to be separated from it.

The Presiding Bishop, without bothering to call Bishop Ackerman or ask him for any clarification, took the language I have emphasized as his "plans to function as a bishop in the Diocese of Bolivia". Note the difference: sitting by invitation without voice or vote in the House of Bishops of the Province of the Southern Cone is not "functioning as a Bishop in the Diocese of Bolivia." (News reports that speak of a "House of Bishops" for the Diocese of Bolivia make no sense. There is no House of Bishops for a single diocese; the Bishop of Bolivia is a member of the House of Bishops of the Southern Cone.)

The Presiding Bishop wrote to Bishop Ackerman:

As you know, there is no provision for transferring a bishop to another Province.

But Bishop Ackerman says:

At no time did I request transfer to the Southern Cone.

[UPDATE 10/20/2009: Bishop Ackerman has now clarified that he did request a transfer to Bolivia. (See the comment by Father Rob Eaton below.) However, he asked it of the wrong authority (see my response to Father Eaton); and it does not change the wrongful character of his removal from the ordained ministry.]

It is clear that either the Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church (USA) or Bishop Ackerman must be lying. The one person who can clear this up is the Presiding Bishop: since Bishop Ackerman says he kept no copies of his handwritten letters, the Presiding Bishop should produce them for everyone to see exactly what they said, and exactly how they constituted a statement of renunciation. An official statement of renunciation is not the same thing as a private letter: it forms a part of Bishop Ackerman's record at ECUSA, and since it was the basis for removing him from his ministry, it should be open for anyone to inspect.

Ronald Reagan famously said: "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!"

I am not the president of anything, but as members in good standing of the Episcopal Church (USA), any of us can say to the Presiding Bishop: "Ms. Jefferts Schori, produce those letters!"

Will some bishops who do have regular access to the Presiding Bishop please join us in demanding to see the letters?

There is the stuff of a presentment here, if it should be clear from the letters that the Presiding Bishop has lied in order to remove a bishop from the Church. And not just the Presiding Bishop should be charged, but also the two subscribing witnesses, Bishop Mark Beckwith of Newark and Bishop Herbert A. Donovan, Jr., assistant to the Presiding Bishop for Anglican Communion relations, together with all of the twelve bishops on the Council of Advice who concurred in "accepting" Bishop Ackerman's "renunciation."

Make no mistake: there cannot be two versions of the truth here. Bishop Ackerman not only says he did not ask for a transfer, but made clear as well that he would not be functioning officially as a bishop in the Diocese of Bolivia, and did not want anything in his letter to be taken as "abandonment of communion" or as renunciation. Yet the Presiding Bishop and her Council of Advice did exactly the opposite.

Is the Church to be ruled by cabal, or by bishops who are open and accountable to their colleagues, and to the members of the Church who pay their salaries? Watch closely what happens in the coming days. If the Presiding Bishop does not produce the letters, and if no member of the House of Bishops (active or resigned) calls upon her to do so, then the fix is in.

Neva Rae Fox, 815's program officer for public affairs, says that the Presiding Bishop will probably not respond to Bishop Ackerman, or have a statement in response to his remarks. So it is up to all of us to raise the hue and cry:

"Ms. Jefferts Schori, produce the letters!"



Posted by A. S. Haley

New Vatican announcement takes many Anglicans by surprise

Ecumenical News International
Daily News Service
21 October 2009

ENI-09-0829

By Martin Revis

London, 21 October (ENI)--Predictions that 50 bishops as well as thousands
of clergy and laity might leave the worldwide Anglican Communion for the
Roman Catholic Church have followed a Vatican announcement of new procedures
for admitting discontented Anglicans.

The Vatican announced on 20 October that Pope Benedict XVI is to set up a
structure to "allow former Anglicans to enter full communion with the
Catholic Church, while preserving elements of the distinctive Anglican
spiritual and liturgical patrimony".?

Cardinal William Levada, who heads the Vatican's doctrinal office, the
Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, said efforts by some Anglicans
to "accommodate current cultural values" by ordaining women and "practising
homosexuals" as priests and bishops are "not consonant with Apostolic
Tradition", Religion News Service reported.

The Vatican statement had taken note of efforts over four decades to promote
"full and visible unity" between Catholics and Anglicans. However, in recent
years, the prospect of unity had "seemed to recede", Levada said.

Archbishop Joseph Augustine Di Noia of the Vatican's Congregation for Divine
Worship said 50 Anglican bishops had expressed a desire to join the Catholic
Church, CNN reported.

In London, the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, who heads the
77-million-strong Anglican Communion, and the spiritual leader of Catholics
in England and Wales, Archbishop Vincent Nichols, held a joint media
conference. In a statement, they described the move as, "further recognition
of the substantial overlap in faith, doctrine and spirituality between the
Catholic Church and the Anglican tradition".

Under the apostolic constitution, as the scheme approved by the Pope is
formally described, Anglicans will be able to enter into full communion with
Rome while retaining features of the Anglican liturgical tradition. Those
who choose to join the Catholic Church will be organized in "personal
ordinariates", similar to dioceses, to be led by former Anglicans, probably
bishops or other senior clergy.?

Williams said in a letter to Anglican leaders around the world that he had
been informed of the Vatican decision only at, "a very late stage".

The Times newspaper in London in an editorial described the Vatican
announcement as "potentially the most explosive development in Anglicanism
since the Reformation", in which the "most learned of primates [Williams]
has been outclassed as a politician".

The bishop of Fulham in London, John Broadhurst, chairperson of Forward in
Faith, an Anglican group that opposes women bishops, predicted that up to a
thousand Church of England clergy would leave for Rome.?

A Forward in Faith statement said it had been the, "fervent desire of
Anglican Catholics to be enabled by some means to enter into full communion
with the See of Peter whilst retaining in its integrity every aspect of
their Anglican inheritance which is not at variance with the teaching of the
Catholic Church".

The Rev. David Richardson, the Archbishop of Canterbury's representative to
the Vatican, said he was taken aback by the Vatican decision, The New York
Times reported on 21 October. "I don't see it as an affront to the Anglican
Church, but I'm puzzled by what it means and by the timing of it,"
Richardson was quoted as saying. "I think some Anglicans will feel
affronted."

Still, the Rev. George Pitcher, an Anglican priest who is religion editor of
Telegraph Media based in Britain said that the Vatican had thrown a
"lifeline" to the Church of England over women bishops.

"This is marvellous news for the Church of England?s prospects for making up
women priests to bishops, without creating an Anglican schismatic
bloodbath," Pitcher wrote on a blog on the Telegraph Web site. "There really
is no excuse for Anglo-Catholics who can't accept women bishops now. They
must accept the Pope's offer, or stay in the Anglican Church and accept
women bishops."

The National Secular Society said in a statement, "This is a mortal blow to
Anglicanism which will inevitably lead to disestablishment [of the Church of
England] as the church shrinks yet further and becomes increasingly
irrelevant."

After his election as pontiff in 2005, Pope Benedict said that his first
priority would be to work "to reconstitute the full and visible unity of all
Christ's followers".

The Vatican statement announcing the setting up of the new structure said
the move could be, "seen as another step toward the realisation of the
aspiration for full, visible union in the Church of Christ, one of the
principal goals of the ecumenical movement".

In Kenya, where Anglican leaders have spoken out against gay clergy and
same-sex blessings in the Anglican Communion, Archbishop Eliud Wabukala of
the Anglican Church of Kenya acknowledged that discontented Anglicans had
been in discussions with the Vatican on linking to the Catholic Church.?

"It is not surprising there is this formal recognition of these ongoing
discussions," Wabukala told Ecumenical News International on 21 October.

TESM Professor William Witt Responds to Recent Action

From a comment by Professor Witt at Stand Firm:

"There is really nothing new here. Anglicans have always been free to
convert to Rome.

The sticking issues remain what they have always been. Will Anglicans
who convert to Rome be required to affirm papal infallibility? Yes.

Will Anglicans who convert to Rome be required to renounce the
Anglican understanding of the sufficiency and primacy of Scripture (to
which every ordained Anglican/Episcopal priest swears at ordination)
in favor of the Roman doctrine that Scripture can only be interpreted
properly by the magisterium? Yes.

Will Anglicans who convert to Rome be required to affirm the
Tridentine and new Catechism re-affirmation of Trent that
justification is not by faith alone, and is a making righteous, i.e.,
that there is no distinction between justification and
sanctification? That is, the grounds of our standing before God
(formal cause) is not the finished work of Christ alone, but is rather
our meritorious appropriation of that work as we actually become
righteous? Yes.

Will Anglican priests be required to be re-ordained because their
orders are ?absolutely null and void?? Yes.

Will Anglicans who convert to Rome be required to affirm as dogma such
controverted items of Roman theology as the Marian dogmas,
transubstantiation (as opposed to real presence), purgatory,
indulgences, humanae vitae?s teaching on artificial contraception. Yes.

Will Anglicans who convert to Rome be required to affirm that Christ?s
one true church subsists in Rome alone, and that, with the exception
of Orthodoxy alone, all other Christian bodies are not churches but
mere convocations of lay people? Yes.

It seems to me that those who are really willing to affirm these
propositions should have converted to Rome long ago. Integrity
demands it. Those who cannot do so have no business even thinking
about converting to Rome."

Fr. Steenson: Policy Reflects Pope’s Passion

From The Living Church:

Posted on: October 20, 2009

Even as he studied at the Pontifical Irish College in Rome last year, the Rev. Jeffrey Steenson did not know just how much the Vatican was preparing to widen its arms to Anglican pilgrims like himself.

Fr. Steenson, as he is now known again, served as Bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of the Rio Grande from 2005 to 2007, when he resigned to join the Roman Catholic Church. He now teaches theology at the University of St. Thomas in Houston, Texas.

“I was certainly aware that there were very significant conversations going on at the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, but I didn’t know the scope of things,” Fr. Steenson told The Living Church.

He believes the Vatican’s policy change reflects the passion of Pope Benedict XVI. “I really think the Pope helped move things along,” he said. “Evangelization is really the heart and soul of what he’s about. When people are knocking on the door of the Church, the Catholic Church needs to take extra steps to welcome them in. It’s all about the gathering in of souls.”

Fr. Steenson said the Vatican’s new policy is neither an effort at poaching Anglicans nor at creating a permanent Anglican enclave within Roman Catholicism.

“People would misunderstand the intention of this if they think it’s to created a protected zone or a cul-de-sac in which you can hunker down. The Catholic Church recognizes that there are elements of truth and beauty in Anglicanism that ought to be preserved for the good of the whole church,” he said.

“It is genuinely open-ended. I don’t think there is any timetable or a ticking clock,” he said of Anglicans becoming assimilated Roman Catholics.

Fr. Steenson cautioned that Anglicans, in turn, should not see the Roman Catholic Church as a platform from which they fight with their former communion.

“It’s about wanting to be in communion with Peter,” he said. “It’s can’t just be a matter of being angry about this issue or that issue.”

If any congregations are engaged in legal battles over property, they had better leave those at the banks of the Tiber.

Roman Catholic bishops “do not want to intervene in what they see as a dispute within the Episcopal Church,” Fr. Steenson said. “There’s got to be closure and you’ve got to move forward.”

Douglas LeBlanc

Roman Catholic church to receive Anglicans

From The Guardian (UK):

Pope Benedict approves decree setting up new worldwide institution to
receive Anglican communities

More than half a million Anglicans are set to join the Roman Catholic
church following an announcement from the Vatican today that Pope
Benedict XVI had approved a decree setting up a new worldwide
institution to receive them.

It will be the first time since the Reformation in the 16th century
that entire communities of Protestants have reunited with Rome. The
first group to take advantage of the new rules is expected to be the
Traditional Anglican Community (TAC), which separated from the rest of
the Anglican community in 1991 and has more than 500,000 members
worldwide.

Reflecting the importance of Rome's initiative, the pope set out the
new arrangements in a so-called apostolic constitution, the highest
form of pontifical decree.

Benedict's chief theological adviser, the US cardinal William Levada,
said the decree had been drawn up "to respond to the numerous requests
that have been submitted to the Holy See by groups of Anglican clerics
and believers from various parts of the world who wish to enter into
full and visible communion" with Rome.

He said that, under the new arrangements, Anglican communities that
joined the Catholic church would be able to keep their own liturgy
while remaining outside the existing dioceses. Their pastoral care
would be entrusted instead to their own senior prelates, who would not
necessarily become Catholic bishops. This is a way around the problem
that in the Catholic church, as in the Orthodox churches, married men
are not allowed to become bishops.

HISTORIC MOVE BY VATICAN WILL DRAW IN ANGLO-CATHOLICS

Catholic Church Action Signals Realignment for Anglicans

By David W. Virtue
www.virtueonline.org
10/20/2009

The call from London came late Monday evening. "Have you heard the news? Rome is going to take in disaffected Anglo-Catholics who have been knocking at his door for years."

It might be the biggest news of the decade. Hundreds of thousands of disaffected Anglo-Catholics, marginalized by the liberalizing trends in the Church of England, Australia, The Episcopal Church (US), Canada and NZ, can now find refuge in the bosom of Rome.

The Vatican's announcement caught the Archbishop of Canterbury by surprise. Commentators described it variously as "stunning", "poaching", a serious "realignment" and much more.

What Pope Benedict XVI did was approve a new church provision that will allow Anglicans to join the Catholic Church while maintaining many of their distinctive spiritual and liturgical traditions, including married priests, Cardinal William Levada, the Vatican's chief doctrinal official, told a news conference.

The Roman Catholic Church did not offer a Personal Prelature to Anglo-Catholics something which has only been granted once to the Opus Dei movement.

The new Roman Catholic Church entities are called personal ordinariates, units of faithful established within local Catholic Churches, headed by former Anglican prelates who will provide spiritual care for Anglicans who wish to be Catholic.

They are modeled on Catholic military ordinariates, special units of the church established in most countries to provide spiritual care for members of the armed forces and their dependents.

In the past, such exemptions have only been granted in a few cases in certain countries. The new church provision is designed to allow Anglicans around the world to access a new church entity if they want to convert.

The Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr. Rowan Williams, downplayed the significance of the new provision saying it wasn't a Vatican commentary on Anglican problems. "It has no negative impact on the relations of the communion as a whole to the Roman Catholic Church as a whole," he said in London.

The Vatican announcement immediately raised questions about how the Vatican's long-standing dialogue with the Archbishop of Canterbury could continue. Noticeably, no one from the Vatican's ecumenical office on relations with Anglicans attended the news conference; Levada said he had invited representatives to attend but they said they were all away from Rome.

Just last week, the Vatican's top ecumenical official, Cardinal Walter Kasper, told reporters: "We are not fishing in the Anglican pond," when asked about the Vatican's negotiations with would-be converts.

Perhaps, but some commentators observed that this has been coming for some time, acerbated by the possibility of women bishops in the Church of England and the increasing encroachment of pansexual behavior on the Church of England now fully entrenched in the American Episcopal Church.

Bishop Christopher Epting, speaking for The Episcopal Church wrote, "We in the Episcopal Church continue to look to the Holy Spirit, who guides us in understanding of what it means to be the Church in the Anglican Tradition." Many, however, believe the Holy Spirit fled The Episcopal Church a long time ago, leaving it to its present day debaucheries and apostasies.

The Most Rev. Robert Duncan, Archbishop and Primate of the Anglican Church in North America said he rejoiced that the Holy See has opened this doorway, which represents another step in the growing cooperation and relationship between our Churches. "This significant decision represents a recognition of the integrity of the Anglican tradition within the broader Christian church. While we believe that this provision will not be utilized by the great majority of the Anglican Church in North America's bishops, priests, dioceses and congregations, we will surely bless those who are drawn to participate in this momentous offer.

"While our historic differences over church governance, dogmas regarding the Blessed Virgin Mary and the nature of Holy Orders continue to be points of prayerful dialogue, we look forward to an ever deepening partnership with the Catholic Church throughout the world. We pledge our earnest prayers for all those touched by this initiative, as we look forward to the publication of the Apostolic Constitution detailing today's announcement."

CANA bishop Martyn Minns noted that the Vatican is opening a door for Anglicans who sense a call to be part of the Church of Rome to join that body while still maintaining Anglican traditions. "This move by the Catholic Church recognizes the reality of the divide within the Anglican Communion and affirms the decision to create a new North American province that embraces biblical truth. We urge Lambeth Palace to move swiftly to fully endorse the efforts of the Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans and the Anglican Church in North America to keep the Anglican family together."

Traditional Anglican Communion Primate John Hepworth said he was profoundly moved by the generosity of the Holy Father, Pope Benedict XVI. "He offers in this Apostolic Constitution the means for former Anglicans to enter into the fullness of communion with the Catholic Church". He hopes that we can "find in this canonical structure the opportunity to preserve those Anglican traditions precious to us and consistent with the Catholic faith".

Forward in Faith UK chairman Bishop John Broadhurst commented, "It has been the frequently expressed hope and fervent desire of Anglican Catholics to be enabled by some means to enter into full communion with the See of Peter whilst retaining in its integrity every aspect of their Anglican inheritance which is not at variance with the teaching of the Catholic Church.

"We rejoice that the Holy Father intends now to set up structures within the Church which respond to this heartfelt longing. Forward in Faith has always been committed to seeking unity in truth and so warmly welcomes these initiatives as a decisive moment in the history of the Catholic Movement in the Church of England. Ut unum sint."

"I think this is the beginning of a Grand Realignment not just of the Anglican world, but of Christendom. A Russian Orthodox priest I know says his Metropolitan is about to fly to Moscow to urge the Patriarch to 'talk faster' with Rome so the Anglicans won't get ahead of the Orthodox and steal the show," an insider told VOL.

*****

VOL is putting out this special digest because of the enormity of the news and because there are so many stories that could occupy one complete digest of its own.

We have posted all the available documents from the Vatican plus commentary and links where possible.

All Blessings,

David W. Virtue DD
VIRTUEONLINE

Vatican will allow Anglicans to join Catholic Church

Via VirtueOnline:

Vatican targets disillusioned anglicans

By Jacqueline L. Salmon and William Wan
The Washington Post
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/20/AR2009102000504.html?hpid=topnews
October 20, 2009

In a bid to attract disillusioned members of the Anglican Communion, the Vatican announced yesterday that it would establish a special arrangement to allow them to join the Catholic Church while preserving their own liturgy and spiritual legacy, including married priests.

The worldwide Anglican Communion, which includes the 2.3 million-member Episcopal Church as its U.S. constituent, has been wracked by years of conflict over the interpretation of Scripture that has resulted in clashes over female clergy and, more recently, the rights of gays to serve as clergy.

The Catholic Church plan "reflects a really bold determination by Rome to seize the moment and do what it can to reach out to those who share its stance on women priests and homosexuality," said Ian Markham, dean of the Virginia Theological Seminary, an Episcopal seminary in Alexandria. "It is very, very bold and very interesting."

In establishing the new structure, Pope Benedict XVI is responding to "many requests" from individual Anglicans and Anglican groups -- including "20 to 30 bishops," said Cardinal William Levada, the Vatican's chief doctrinal official, according to the Catholic News Service.

Under the system, the Catholic Church will create "personal ordinariates"-- separate units within Catholic churches headed by former Anglican priests or bishops. While married Anglican priests would be permitted, married bishops would not because they are not in keeping with Catholic tradition.

These former Anglicans would be considered theologically Catholic but with their own traditions, such as use of the Anglican Book of Common Prayer.

The plan is not without precedent. The Catholic Church has long permitted married Anglican priests to join, but only under certain conditions. For centuries, the church has had a similar arrangement with Eastern rite Catholics, who maintain their own traditions.

Between 100 and 200 of the 7,000 Episcopal congregations have broken away in a dispute over the 2003 ordination of Gene Robinson, a gay man, as bishop of New Hampshire, as well as over female clergy and the church's definition of salvation. Many allied themselves with conservative Anglican primates in such countries as Nigeria and Uganda.

Conservative Anglican leaders in the United States say the impact will be greater in England than it is here.

"The British papers are saying it's the biggest thing since Henry VIII, and in some ways it is for them," said Rev. Martyn Minns of Fairfax City, leader of a group of conservative congregations that broke three years ago from the Episcopal Church. "Over there, you have bishops, congregations, even whole diocese that may shift. Here in the U.S., we've already faced the division and what came out of it was the Anglican alternative...What the pope said affirms what I'm doing, but doesn't mean I'm going to become Catholic."

But other conservative Anglican leaders, including those with strong Catholic leanings, said Tuesday that they are unlikely to join the Catholic Church.

Bishop Jack Iker of Fort Worth, Texas, for instance, led one of the founding diocese in the umbrella group of breakaway conservatives and has strong ties to the Catholic Church.

But on Tuesday, spokesman Suzanne Gill said that "while it's true he's an Anglo Catholic bishop with many friends in the Catholic church, we don't have any plans to convert into the Catholic church."

Nonetheless, the Vatican's move could strain the sometimes delicate alliances within the breakaway conservative churches, Markham said. One camp sees Anglicanism as a version of Catholic theology, while the other group is more evangelical and suspicious of Catholicism.

"This offer by Rome could peel off some of those Anglo-Catholics," he said. "I think some of them will be tempted to go."

END

FT. WORTH: Anglo-Catholic Bishop Issues Cautious Endorsement of Vatican Provision

Via VirtueOnline:

By Jack Leo Iker
http://www.fwepiscopal.org
October 20, 2009


I have read with great interest various reports concerning today's announcement from top officials in the Vatican about some new provisions being made whereby Anglicans may enter into full communion with the Holy See. For some time now I have understood that high-level discussions about this were taking place in Rome and that an announcement along these lines would be made before the end of the year. As today's announcement indicates, a new Apostolic Constitution is soon to be released which will spell out Pope Benedict XVI's response to Anglicans who wish to enter into full visible communion with the Roman Catholic Church.

Many Anglo-Catholics will welcome this development as a very generous and welcoming offer that enhances the Pastoral Provision that has been in place for several years for those seeking reunion with Rome. Other Anglicans who desire full communion with the See of Peter would prefer some sort of recognition of the validity of Anglican orders and the provision for inter-communion between Roman Catholics and Anglicans.

The virtues of the proposal as I understand it have to do with maintaining certain aspects of the Anglican way of worship, spirituality, and ethos while entering into full communion with the Pope. But of course, not all Anglo-Catholics can accept certain teachings of the Roman Catholic Church, nor do they believe that they must first convert to Rome in order to be truly catholic Christians.

This option to choose different paths comes at a difficult time for us as together we face the challenges of the litigation brought against us by the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America. Rather than making hasty decisions or quick resolutions, we will continue to work and pray together for the unity of Christ's holy catholic church throughout the world.


----The Rt. Rev. Jack Leo Iker is Bishop of Fort Worth

CANA: Vatican Move Recognizes Reality of Anglican Divide

Via VirtueOnline:

HERNDON, Va. (October 20, 2009) - Bishop Martyn Minns, Missionary Bishop of the Convocation of Anglicans in North America (CANA), issued the following response to the newly approved church provision, announced today by the Vatican, that allows Anglicans to join the Catholic Church.

"The Vatican is opening a door for Anglicans who sense a call to be part of the Church of Rome to join that body and still maintain Anglican traditions. This move by the Catholic Church recognizes the reality of the divide within the Anglican Communion and affirms the decision to create a new North American province that embraces biblical truth.

"While we welcome the positive response from the Anglican Archbishop of Canterbury regarding the Vatican's provision, we urge Lambeth Palace to move swiftly to fully endorse the efforts of the Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans and the Anglican Church in North America to keep the Anglican family together," said Bishop Minns.

"Rome is reminding Anglicans that our historic, orthodox faith is more important than culture and more important than geography. CANA itself bears witness to the fact that God's church is made up of believers across the globe. The centrality of Jesus Christ and the authority of Scripture are the unwavering bonds that have drawn CANA churches and others within the Anglican Church in North America together. Our continued prayer is for Anglicans across the world to be able to stay faithful to orthodox beliefs," Minns concluded.

The church provision, known as an Apostolic Constitution, allowing Anglicans to join the Catholic Church was announced by Cardinal William Levada. An Apostolic Constitution is the highest level of decree that the Pope can issue and underscores the historic nature of this action.

-----The Convocation of Anglicans in North America (http://www.canaconvocation.org) currently consists of 90 congregations and more than 190 clergy in 25 states.

Vatican welcome to Anglicans boldest move since Reformation

Via TitusOneNine:

The Vatican on Tuesday opened the way for Anglican communities to switch allegiance en masse. Hundreds of thousands of Anglicans angry over the church's liberal stance on women and gays may convert.

By Nick Squires | Correspondent of The Christian Science Monitor
from the October 20, 2009 edition

VATICAN CITY - The Vatican launched an historic initiative Tuesday to make it easier for disgruntled Anglicans worldwide to join the Roman Catholic Church. The church said the move was not a swipe at the Anglicans but it could nevertheless result in hundreds of thousands of churchgoers unhappy with openly gay and female clerics defecting to Rome.

Pope Benedict XVI gave his approval to a new framework to bring back into the fold Anglicans who oppose their church's liberal stance on gay marriage and the ordination of women priests and gay bishops while allowing them to retain some of their separate religious traditions.

The move comes nearly 500 years after Henry VIII's desire for a divorce led him to break with Rome and proclaim himself as the head of the newly formed Church of England in 1534. The framework is the Vatican's most sweeping gesture toward any schismatic church since the Protestant Reformation in the 16th century and the Thirty Years' War that followed it in the 17th century. That war ended with the Peace of Westphalia in 1648, which acknowledged the right of monarchs rather than the Vatican to determine their national faiths, prompting Pope Innocent X to declare the document "null, void, invalid, iniquitous, unjust, damnable, reprobate, inane, empty of meaning and effect for all time."

Over the centuries, relations between the various Christian faiths have improved and both Anglican and Catholic leaders were at pains on Tuesday to say that warming relations between the two churches will not be affected by the new plan. But both churches have been struggling to retain adherents in recent years, particularly in the developed world, with poorer countries their only growth spots.

Individual Anglicans have long been free to convert to Catholicism, as former British prime minister Tony Blair did after leaving office in 2007. But the so-called Apostolic Constitution will enable entire Anglican communities to transfer their allegiance en masse.

The pope was responding to "numerous requests to the Holy See from groups of Anglican clergy and faithful in various parts of the world who want to enter into full and visible communion" with the Catholic Church, Cardinal William Joseph Levada told a news conference. He is the American head of the Vatican's doctrinal body.

Vatican officials declined to say how many of the world's 77 million Anglicans might take the opportunity to convert to Catholicism.

ANGLICAN CONSERVATIVES

The Traditional Anglican Communion, a vocal group of 400,000 conservatives who split from the Anglican Communion in 1991, are expected to move towards Rome.

"We have had requests from large groups, in the hundreds," said Cardinal Levada. "If I had to say a number of bishops, I would say it's in the twenties or thirties."

His American colleague, Archbishop Joseph Di Noia, Secretary of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, said after the press conference that he believed the number of bishops ready to convert was closer to 50.

They would come from the United States, Australia, and the island nations of the Pacific, he said.

Cardinal Levada was asked whether the Vatican's new policy weakened the Anglican Church's standing.

"I would not dare to make a comment on that. After the long years of the British Empire, and the work of Anglican missionaries, the Anglican Communion is a diverse and very varied worldwide communion."

Under the new constitution, married Anglican priests will be allowed to enter the Catholic Church but will not be ordained as bishops.

WILL AFRICAN ANGLICANS MOVE?

The initiative was in response to years of lobbying by Anglicans who had become disenchanted with Anglican liberalism, a dissatisfaction which reached a crisis point in 2004 when the Episcopal Church in the United States ordained the first openly gay bishop, Gene Robinson of New Hampshire.

That move and other liberal shifts, such as a Canadian diocese's willingness to bless same-sex unions, have been fiercely opposed by more conservative Anglicans, particularly in Africa.

The new framework was announced simultaneously in Rome and in London, where the head of the Church of England, Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams, said he did not see the Vatican move as "an act of aggression." (Read a Monitor profile of the archbishop here.)

Neither was it a vote of no confidence in the Anglican Church, he said, but a sign of maturity and understanding between the two faiths.

But Vatican commentators described it as a blow to the Anglican Communion. "For people who harbor the vision of Anglican unity, this will be a great disappointment," said Vatican analyst Francis X Rocca, of the Religion News Service.

"But it may also help to let off steam within the Anglican Church. If disaffected traditionalists leave, then they will lower the tensions over issues like gay marriage and women clergy."

Vatican expert John Allen of the National Catholic Reporter wrote in a blog post that while the opening by the Vatican had long been rumored, some Catholics feared "potentially negative repercussions in relations with the Anglican Communion – whose leadership might see it as 'poaching.'"

From Forward in Faith UK

Via TitusOneNine:

FiF reacts to Statement from Rome

Oct 20, 2009


It has been the frequently expressed hope and fervent desire of Anglican Catholics to be enabled by some means to enter into full communion with the See of Peter whilst retaining in its integrity every aspect of their Anglican inheritance which is not at variance with the teaching of the Catholic Church.

We rejoice that the Holy Father intends now to set up structures within the Church which respond to this heartfelt longing. Forward in Faith has always been committed to seeking unity in truth and so warmly welcomes these initiatives as a decisive moment in the history of the Catholic Movement in the Church of England. Ut unum sint!

+John Fulham
Geoffrey Kirk

To the Bishops of the Church of England, and the members of the Primates Meeting of the Anglican Communion

From the Archbishop of Canterbury via TitusOneNine:

20 October 2009



The Vatican has announced today that Pope Benedict XVI has approved an ‘Apostolic Constitution’ (a formal papal decree) which will make some provision for groups of Anglicans (whether strictly members of continuing Anglican bodies or currently members of the Communion) who wish to be received into communion with the See of Rome in such a way that they can retain aspects of Anglican liturgical and spiritual tradition.

I am sorry that there has been no opportunity to alert you earlier to this; I was informed of the planned announcement at a very late stage, and we await the text of the Apostolic Constitution itself and its code of practice in the coming weeks. But I thought I should let you know the main points of the response I am making in our local English context – in full consultation with Roman Catholic bishops in England and Wales – in the hope of avoiding any confusion or misrepresentation. I attach a copy of the Joint Statement that I agreed to make alongside the Archbishop of Westminster, the President of the Bishops' Conference of England and Wales. It can also be found on my website.

It remains to be seen what use will be made of this provision, since it is now up to those who have made requests to the Holy See to respond to the Apostolic Constitution; but, in the light of recent discussions with senior officials in the Vatican, I can say that this new possibility is in no sense at all intended to undermine existing relations between our two communions or to be an act of proselytism or aggression. It is described as simply a response to specific enquiries from certain Anglican groups and individuals wishing to find their future within the Roman Catholic Church.

The common heritage of the achievement of the ARCIC agreed statements, and the IARCCUM principles for shared work and witness (in Growing Together in Unity and Mission, 2007), remain the solid ground both for our future co-operation as global communions, and our regional and local growth in common faith and witness. For those who wish to enter into full communion with the Roman Catholic Church in the near future, this announcement will clarify possible options, and we wish them God’s strength and guidance in their discernment. Meanwhile our ecumenical relationships continue on their current cordial basis, regionally and internationally.


+ Rowan Cantuar:

HISTORIC MOVE BY VATICAN WILL DRAW IN ANGLO-CATHOLICS

Catholic Church Action Signals Realignment for Anglicans

By David W. Virtue
www.virtueonline.org
10/20/2009

The call from London came late Monday evening. "Have you heard the news? Rome is going to take in disaffected Anglo-Catholics who have been knocking at his door for years."

It might be the biggest news of the decade. Hundreds of thousands of disaffected Anglo-Catholics, marginalized by the liberalizing trends in the Church of England, Australia, The Episcopal Church (US), Canada and NZ, can now find refuge in the bosom of Rome.

The Vatican's announcement caught the Archbishop of Canterbury by surprise. Commentators described it variously as "stunning", "poaching", a serious "realignment" and much more.

What Pope Benedict XVI did was approve a new church provision that will allow Anglicans to join the Catholic Church while maintaining many of their distinctive spiritual and liturgical traditions, including married priests, Cardinal William Levada, the Vatican's chief doctrinal official, told a news conference.

The Roman Catholic Church did not offer a Personal Prelature to Anglo-Catholics something which has only been granted once to the Opus Dei movement.

The new Roman Catholic Church entities are called personal ordinariates, units of faithful established within local Catholic Churches, headed by former Anglican prelates who will provide spiritual care for Anglicans who wish to be Catholic.

They are modeled on Catholic military ordinariates, special units of the church established in most countries to provide spiritual care for members of the armed forces and their dependents.

In the past, such exemptions have only been granted in a few cases in certain countries. The new church provision is designed to allow Anglicans around the world to access a new church entity if they want to convert.

The Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr. Rowan Williams, downplayed the significance of the new provision saying it wasn't a Vatican commentary on Anglican problems. "It has no negative impact on the relations of the communion as a whole to the Roman Catholic Church as a whole," he said in London.

The Vatican announcement immediately raised questions about how the Vatican's long-standing dialogue with the Archbishop of Canterbury could continue. Noticeably, no one from the Vatican's ecumenical office on relations with Anglicans attended the news conference; Levada said he had invited representatives to attend but they said they were all away from Rome.

Just last week, the Vatican's top ecumenical official, Cardinal Walter Kasper, told reporters: "We are not fishing in the Anglican pond," when asked about the Vatican's negotiations with would-be converts.

Perhaps, but some commentators observed that this has been coming for some time, acerbated by the possibility of women bishops in the Church of England and the increasing encroachment of pansexual behavior on the Church of England now fully entrenched in the American Episcopal Church.

Bishop Christopher Epting, speaking for The Episcopal Church wrote, "We in the Episcopal Church continue to look to the Holy Spirit, who guides us in understanding of what it means to be the Church in the Anglican Tradition." Many, however, believe the Holy Spirit fled The Episcopal Church a long time ago, leaving it to its present day debaucheries and apostasies.

The Most Rev. Robert Duncan, Archbishop and Primate of the Anglican Church in North America said he rejoiced that the Holy See has opened this doorway, which represents another step in the growing cooperation and relationship between our Churches. "This significant decision represents a recognition of the integrity of the Anglican tradition within the broader Christian church. While we believe that this provision will not be utilized by the great majority of the Anglican Church in North America's bishops, priests, dioceses and congregations, we will surely bless those who are drawn to participate in this momentous offer.

"While our historic differences over church governance, dogmas regarding the Blessed Virgin Mary and the nature of Holy Orders continue to be points of prayerful dialogue, we look forward to an ever deepening partnership with the Catholic Church throughout the world. We pledge our earnest prayers for all those touched by this initiative, as we look forward to the publication of the Apostolic Constitution detailing today's announcement."

CANA bishop Martyn Minns noted that the Vatican is opening a door for Anglicans who sense a call to be part of the Church of Rome to join that body while still maintaining Anglican traditions. "This move by the Catholic Church recognizes the reality of the divide within the Anglican Communion and affirms the decision to create a new North American province that embraces biblical truth. We urge Lambeth Palace to move swiftly to fully endorse the efforts of the Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans and the Anglican Church in North America to keep the Anglican family together."

Traditional Anglican Communion Primate John Hepworth said he was profoundly moved by the generosity of the Holy Father, Pope Benedict XVI. "He offers in this Apostolic Constitution the means for former Anglicans to enter into the fullness of communion with the Catholic Church". He hopes that we can "find in this canonical structure the opportunity to preserve those Anglican traditions precious to us and consistent with the Catholic faith".

Forward in Faith UK chairman Bishop John Broadhurst commented, "It has been the frequently expressed hope and fervent desire of Anglican Catholics to be enabled by some means to enter into full communion with the See of Peter whilst retaining in its integrity every aspect of their Anglican inheritance which is not at variance with the teaching of the Catholic Church.

"We rejoice that the Holy Father intends now to set up structures within the Church which respond to this heartfelt longing. Forward in Faith has always been committed to seeking unity in truth and so warmly welcomes these initiatives as a decisive moment in the history of the Catholic Movement in the Church of England. Ut unum sint."

"I think this is the beginning of a Grand Realignment not just of the Anglican world, but of Christendom. A Russian Orthodox priest I know says his Metropolitan is about to fly to Moscow to urge the Patriarch to 'talk faster' with Rome so the Anglicans won't get ahead of the Orthodox and steal the show," an insider told VOL.

*****

Vatican sees opening, creates provision

It is clear from the press reports that follow this blog post that the Vatican recognizes that the actions over the last years by pecusa, the Anglican Church in Canada and more recently the Church of England have forced many Anglicans to reassess their commitment to the Anglican Communion. We have seen tens of thousands of members depart pecusa over the past six years with the rate of departure accelerating in 2008. It is not surprising that as pecusa abandons catholic Christianity that Rome would respond by making a way for Anglicans who embrace catholic Christianity. As pecusa continues her path away from the Anglican Communion more and more Episcopalians are coming around to understanding that the way of pecusa is neither catholic, apostolic or unifying. The way of pecusa continues to be heretical, apostate and strongly disruptive to the Anglican Communion. No wonder Rome has created a way out for disenchanted Episcopalians and Anglicans from other provinces. I would hope that more Episcopalians would first consider the orthodox Anglican options in the United States, but I understand that the level of distrust of things Anglican these days may make some more comfortable in the Roman Catholic Church.

Pope announces plans for Anglicans to convert en masse

From The Telegraph via TitusOneNine:


By Damian Thompson

Last updated: October 20th, 2009


The Vatican has announced that Pope Benedict is setting up special provision for Anglicans, including married clergy, who want to convert to Rome together, preserving aspects of Anglican liturgy. They will be given their own pastoral supervision, according to this press release from the Vatican:

“In this Apostolic Constitution the Holy Father has introduced a canonical structure that provides for such corporate reunion by establishing Personal Ordinariates which will allow former Anglicans to enter full communion with the Catholic Church while preserving elements of the distinctive Anglican spiritual and liturgical patrimony.”

More on this very important story later. But this is clearly a historic gesture by Pope Benedict which will encourage thousands of disaffected Anglicans to become Roman Catholics.

Vatican creates new structure for Anglicans

Via TitusOneNine:

(AP) – 1 hour ago

VATICAN CITY — Pope Benedict XVI has has created a new church structure for Anglicans who want to join the Roman Catholic Church.

Cardinal Joseph Levada, the Vatican's chief doctrinal official, said Tuesday the new legal entity will allow Anglicans to join the Catholic Church while maintaining their Anglican identity and many of their liturgical traditions.

Levada said the new structure is a response to the many requests that have come to the Vatican over the years from Anglicans who want to join. Many Anglicans have become disillusioned by the ordination of women, the election of openly gay bishops and the blessing of same-sex unions in the 77-million strong Anglican Communion.

Announcement tomorrow on Catholic-Anglican relations; Archbishops of Canterbury and Westminster at joint press conference

Tomorrow is today. This is from The Telegraph (UK) via Babyblue:


By Damian Thompson Religion

Last updated: October 19th, 2009



UPDATE: Fr Z is speculating that tomorrow’s press conferences will confirm that the Traditional Anglican Communion, a rebel Anglican group that left the Anglican Communion many years ago, is to be received into full communion with the Roman Catholic Church. That makes sense, as the TAC has been dealing with the CDF, which it trusts more than the Vatican’s professional ecumenists. If Fr Z is right, then +Rowan and +Vincent may put on a show of (partial) unity in order to prevent talks of splits, mainstream Anglicans “coming over”, etc. We shall see.

Something big seems to be brewing in Rome and London. This from the Vatican:

We inform accredited journalists that tomorrow, Tuesday 20 October 2009, at 11am, in the John Paul II Hall of the Press Office of the Holy See, a briefing will be held on a theme pertaining to the relationship with the Anglicans, at which His Eminence Cardinal William Joseph Levada, Prefect of the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, and His Excellency Mgr Joseph Augustine Di Noia OP, Secretary of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments will take part. (Hat-tip, Fr Finigan.)

And this, from the Archbishop of Canterbury’s office:

PRESS CONFERENCE INVITATION

You are invited to a press conference with Archbishop Vincent Nichols (Archbishop of Westminster) and Archbishop Rowan Williams (Archbishop of Canterbury) on Tuesday 20 October at 1000. The press conference will take place at 39 Eccleston Square, London SW1V 1BX.

(Yes, I know it says “not for publication”, but it wasn’t me they invited, so tough.)

I cannot believe that the two press conferences are not directly related.

Press Release from Bishop Ackerman

From: Bishop K.L. Ackerman [mailto:bishopkla@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, October 19, 2009 11:40 AM

Sent: Monday, October 19, 2009

Members of the press:

I greet you in the precious Name of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, whose
servant I am.

When I retired one year ago as the Bishop, Diocese of Quincy, the Episcopal
Church, I did so for reasons of physical, spiritual and emotional distress,
related to the ongoing demise of the Episcopal Church. When promised
assistance with my health insurance was denied by the Episcopal Church
Center in freezing invested funds in Quincy, my health insurance was
cancelled. It, therefore, became necessary for me to seek part time
employment that would provide the money necessary to have health insurance.

I accepted a position counseling the homeless, and the unemployed, in a
Christian non-profit organization in Dallas, Texas. It became necessary for
me to learn Spanish since 95% of the people with whom I am counseling speak
only Spanish.

I did so and this experience made it possible for me to respond positively
to the kind invitation of the Bishop of Bolivia, to minister part time, in
addition to assisting part time in the Diocese of Springfield (IL). Both
dioceses are duly recognized members of the Anglican Communion. I saw no
conflict of interest with The Episcopal Church, but wrote the Presiding
Bishop for clarification in July, 2009 and believed that there would be no
problem with this extension of ministry.

This letter was handwritten, sharing with the Presiding Bishop my current
health, my new ministry with the homeless, my desire to assist another
Anglican partner in ministry in Bolivia and, at their invitation, to
participate informally (seat but no voice and no vote) in the House of
Bishops of the Southern Cone. At no time did I express dissatisfaction with
the Episcopal Church, or make any statement of a desire to be separated from
it.

I made no copies of my letter because I wanted it to be clear that this was
a very personal communication. She responded by written letter in
September, 2009, telling me that she would send the appropriate
documentation. After two months with no communication, I sent another
handwritten, unduplicated letter in early October asking about this matter.

This past Friday, October 16, 2009, I received an e-mail from the Presiding
Bishop, "indicating that there is no provision for transferring a bishop to
another Province." At no time did I request transfer to the Southern Cone.
Her letter concluded, "I am therefore releasing you from the obligations of
ordained ministry in the Episcopal Church".

I did not ask for release and have never considered ministry in this Church
an obligation, since it has been the source of my greatest joy.

I have not renounced, and in fact, in my first handwritten letter indicated
that my intention was not to be seen as either "abandonment of the
Communion" or "Renunciation."

I have never received telephone calls from either the Presiding Bishop or
any member of her staff asking for clarification. I can only conclude that
assumptions were made in the press of events, which are incorrect. I
intend to continue my ministry wherever possible.

Yours in Christ,

The Rt. Rev. Keith L. Ackerman, Bishop of Quincy, retired

Bishop Ackerman Responds to ‘Renunciation’

From The Living Church:

Posted on: October 19, 2009

The Rt. Rev. Keith Ackerman expressed dismay on Monday that the Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church has described him as renouncing his orders as a bishop. Bishop Ackerman resigned from the Diocese of Quincy in November 2008.

“I did so for reasons of physical, spiritual and emotional distress, related to the ongoing demise of the Episcopal Church,” he said in a statement that he read at the beginning of a conference call arranged by Anglicans United, which is based in Dallas, Texas.

Now that Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori has described him as renouncing his ministry, “I cannot go back to the church of my childhood and perform a funeral,” Bishop Ackerman said. “There has been absolutely no pastoral concern or pastoral care.”

Bishop Ackerman said he would not have responded to the Presiding Bishop’s actions if she had not gone public with the matter. He said that publicity prompted many people to ask whether he had indeed renounced his orders as a bishop.

“For me, this is not a matter of whether I’m in the Episcopal Church or not in the Episcopal Church. I want to be obedient to the call on my life,” he said, adding that his mother had dedicated him to God while he was still in her womb.

The bishop said he had sent two handwritten letters to the Presiding Bishop, the first of which said that he did not write in order to renounce his ministry. Instead, Bishop Ackerman had been invited to serve as a U.S.-based bishop for the Diocese of Bolivia, without a vote in its House of Bishops. Bishop Ackerman requested a transfer to that diocese.

Bishop Ackerman said he wanted his correspondence with the Presiding Bishop to be honorable and discreet, and he wanted to continue ministry to Episcopalians in the dioceses of Quincy and Springfield.

“If this happens to me when I’ve tried to do this above board, what happens to those who have not voted to work within the system?” he said. “I’m concerned that they’re also going to be treated with a lack of love. I don’t want anyone else to be mistreated.”

Bishop Ackerman said he has heard from the Diocese of Bolivia regarding the Presiding Bishop’s actions. “Having heard from the Diocese of Bolivia, I understand that I’m a priest in good standing in that diocese,” he said.

Bishop Ackerman said he is troubled by the Episcopal Church’s apparent inability to transfer bishops peaceably to other provinces of the worldwide Anglican Communion.

“It must see itself as highly independent,” he said. “If orders are not universal in the Anglican Communion, they cease to be catholic in the full sense of the word. … The Episcopal Church does not own the ministry of the one holy catholic and apostolic Church.”

Neva Rae Fox, the Episcopal Church’s program officer for public affairs, said the Presiding Bishop was unlikely to respond to Bishop Ackerman’s remarks.

“I do not know if the Presiding Bishop has seen Keith Ackerman’s statement, nor do I know if he has sent any correspondence to the Presiding Bishop,” she wrote in response to a request for comment. “I do not anticipate that the Presiding Bishop will have a statement.”

Douglas LeBlanc

ECUSA Succumbs to the Second Law

From the Anglican Curmudgeon via VirtueOnline:

By A.S. Haley
http://accurmudgeon.blogspot.com/2009/10/ecusa-succumbs-to-second-law.html
October 18, 2009

Energy flows from hot to cold, and not the other way around. The vast fusion engine of our Sun transforms, every second, seven hundred million tons of hydrogen gas into about 695,000,000 tons of helium and 5,000,000 tons of gamma rays (equal to 3.86 x 1033 ergs of energy). The radiation travels from the inner core towards the surface, and in the course of its journey is absorbed and re-emitted, each time at a lower temperature. By the time the energy reaches the surface, it has cooled from the level of gamma radiation to visible light. Of this inconceivable outpouring, a mere 1.74 x 1024 ergs -- which is less than one two-billionth (.00000000005) of the sun's total output -- reaches the surface of our earth every second, and provides enough heat and energy for all of life to flourish.

But all that energy is eventually absorbed into our surroundings, never to be regained -- as are the other 1,999,999,999 parts of the whole that do not reach us. This is the famous Second Law of Thermodynamics. Energy (order) in the universe dissipates as entropy (the measure of disorder) increases. The process has never been observed to run the other way, although theoretically there is no physical law to prevent it. (Isaac Asimov in 1956 wrote a marvelous short story about mankind's futile attempts to reverse the process of entropy by constructing ever larger and more complex computers in an effort to analyze and solve the problem. If you have never read it, I won't spoil it for you -- read it here.)

Each individual human represents, for most of his or her lifetime, a temporary reversal of the Second Law. Energy is taken into our mass from the moment of conception, and fuels our growth into an adult. It maintains our constant body temperature which is required to keep our brain functioning, and when we are no longer able to take in more energy to sustain us, we die. All of our mass then dissipates back into the world from which we came, as the burial service recognizes: "Ashes to ashes, dust to dust . . ."

In the same way, institutions can for a time defy the Second Law. They accumulate people and energy, and flourish and spread and thrive. Some can maintain their health for centuries, or even millennia. But if the flow of energy out begins to exceed the amount that is taken in, eventually the institution must succumb to the Second Law if the process cannot be reversed.

The Episcopal Church (USA) is no exception to the Law. I submit that all of the outward signs point to a draining from it of people and energy which at the moment is very much greater than what it is managing to attract to itself.

There is no glee to be had here, no Schadenfreude. I am an Episcopalian -- a member of a Church that is in free fall, and whose current leadership is a disgrace, as they say, to the profession. Consider the fifty-year trend in its numbers, as vividly portrayed by Bishop FitzSimmons Allison in this brilliant analysis of what that leadership has done wrong (http://www.wordalone.org/pdf/Allison-keynote-1.pdf)
-- and continues to do wrong, as borne out by the latest figures. Consider the huge drain on its reserves caused by that leadership's decisions to go to court wherever and whenever they think another parish (or diocese) must be sued for its property.

And last, but by no means least, consider the self-inflicted wounds caused by the Church's deposition of more than 200 of its clergy in just the last eight years -- every one of them unnecessary when simple letters dimissory would have sufficed. Add to this, now, the arrogant and lawless leadership of the Chief Kaitiff (for so I must call her when she acts in this way) -- whose respect for the Church's Canons is as non-existent as is her understanding of them.

I will not rehearse the latest canonical absurdities yet one more time; the Anglican Communion Institute and Dean Munday have both provided the sordid details. What I wish to draw your attention to is the sheer smouldering dudgeon that emanates from the Chief Kaitiff's every public pronouncement attempting to defend the indefensible. Here is her pathetic justification for her gratuitous and offensive decision to treat as a "renunciation of ministry" the notification sent to her as a courtesy by the Right Reverend Keith Ackerman that he would be assisting in the Diocese of Bolivia:

Dear Keith,

Thank you for your follow up note regarding your plans to function as a bishop in the Diocese of Bolivia in the Province of the Southern Cone. As you know, there is no provision for transferring a bishop to another Province.

I am therefore releasing you from the obligations of ordained ministry in this Church . . .

Compare that to the equally pathetic display of canonical contumely in the Chief Kaitiff's letter to the Right Reverend Henry Scriven, on the occasion of his return to England to serve under the Bishop of Oxford:

Dear Henry,

. . . I understand your request to resign as a member of the House of Bishops to mean that you will become a bishop of the Church of England, serving as assistant to the Bishop of Oxford. I will on those grounds, and with the consent of the Council of Advice, release you from your orders in this Church, "for reasons not affecting your moral character." Those words are what the canons require . . .

I sense that you may have some misunderstanding of our canon law, given your comments about Robert Duncan's deposition. That action took place on the grounds that he had repeatedly violated the discipline of this Church. Our ordination vows require us to "conform to the doctrine, discipline, and worship of this Church." Deposition means that he may no longer function as a sacramental representative of The Episcopal Church. We understand orders to be indelible, but that licensing is required to exercise them. I fear that that subtlety is lost on some of our Communion partners.

As I say, this is not ignorance, but contumely. The Chief Kaitiff is presuming not only that she has the authority, but also the obligation, to transform a simple resignation request into a renunciation of Holy Orders. She has neither, and it is a another sign of the Church's increasing entropy that there are twelve other bishops of this Church on her Council of Advice who cannot tell her that. (Bishop Ackerman did not even submit a resignation, but had indicated he was going to Bolivia just for a while, and still wished to be able to assist other bishops in ECUSA.)

Does the Chief Kaitiff and her Council of Vice (for that is what they are aiding and abetting) conceive that the Church of England treated Bishop Scriven as renouncing his orders when he came to serve in Pittsburgh? The Church of England did not find it necessary to declare that he was "released from the obligations of all Ministerial offices, and . . . deprived of the right to exercise the gifts and spiritual authority as a Minister of God's Word and Sacraments conferred on him in Ordinations" -- thus why does the Presiding Bishop pretend that ECUSA must do so? (And if orders are truly "indelible" upon deposition, as she admits, then why use a Canon designed for the case when someone truly renounces them [i.e., does not wish to exercise them anywhere else], for the much more routine situation when one wishes to continue to exercise one's ministry, but in another Province of the Communion? Such obtuseness cannot flow from ignorance, especially when one is serving as the presiding officer of the House of Bishops and has a legion of advisors. That is why I say her abuse of the renunciation Canon evinces arrogance -- and high dudgeon.)

The latest edition of The Episcopal Church Annual lists sixteen clergy transferred into ECUSA from other provinces of the Anglican Communion, including England, Kenya, Canada, Korea, the Sudan, the Philippines, Rwanda, Central and West Africa, Mexico and the Southern Cone. Did any of those churches find it necessary to declare that those clergy had thereby renounced their orders? Certainly not -- the very meaning of being "in Communion with" other Churches is that you recognize their orders, and they recognize yours.

The same edition lists another nineteen clergy from ECUSA who were transferred, without being deposed, to other Anglican provinces -- including again to the Southern Cone, as well as to Uganda, Rwanda and Nigeria, among others. No bishops are listed, but then, bishops are not accountable to anyone but their dioceses. If a diocesan bishop wishes to transfer elsewhere, he makes arrangements with his Standing Committee, and if he is resigning his jurisdiction, he submits his resignation to the House of Bishops. (Theoretically, they could refuse to accept it, but what would be the point? The House of Bishops would be powerless to stop the Bishop in question from transferring, because it has no jurisdiction over inter-provincial transfers. And neither does the Chief Kaitiff.)

Diocesan bishops do have power to approve the transfer of clergy (including resigned and inferior bishops under their jurisdiction) to other provinces. They do so by issuing letters dimissory. Presumably all nineteen of the clergy listed in the Red Book as having transferred last year were granted such letters by their diocesans. (It would make no sense for a diocesan to issue a letter dimissory to himself; that is why there is no provision for it in the Canons. When a diocesan wants to transfer, he just leaves.)

What rankles the Chief Kaitiff and her colleagues, apparently, is when a member of the clergy wishes to transfer to another province in the Communion, but to remain geographically within the confines of the United States. They cannot accept that any other province in the Communion could have a legitimate reason for operating parishes and missions within this country. Instead of rejoicing and being glad for the souls thereby being ministered to by others with whom they profess to be in Communion, they insist that such souls must go to another denomination entirely if they choose to leave the Church. "It's our way or the highway." And that desertion of mission is the final (and terminal) sign of ECUSA's succumbing to the Second Law.

In such cases, the Chief Kaitiff and those who think like her hold that the departing clergy (and the intruding provinces) are "competing" with "their franchise." Here is what Ms. Jefferts Schori wrote recently to the House of Bishops on this subject (I have added the bold for emphasis):

I will continue to uphold two basic principles in the work some of us face in dealing with former Episcopalians who claim rights to church property or assets. Our participation in God's mission as leaders and stewards of The Episcopal Church means that we expect a reasonable and fair financial arrangement in any property settlement, and that we do not make settlements that encourage religious bodies who seek to replace The Episcopal Church.

Pragmatically, the latter means property settlements need to include a clause that forbids, for a period of at least five years, the presence of bishops on the property who are not members of this House, unless they are invited by the diocesan bishop for purposes which do not subvert mission and ministry in the name of this Church.

The Chief Kaitiff here gives expression to her greatest fear: that of being "replaced". So to view what is going on is to contribute to the decline and fall of the Episcopal Church (USA), and indeed to hasten its demise. The very act of viewing the mission of the Church as one of "competition" for members skews its mission. To take punitive and protective measures in a vain attempt to wall in the Holy Spirit, as though ECUSA had an exclusive franchise from the Trinity, is to see the Church not as a church, but as a beleaguered camp surrounded by hostile forces bent on doing it ill. That is not only a classic case of projection, but tragically, and fatally, it is to mistake the real enemy.

An organism that is in decline begins to shut down, and to cut itself off from the very outside sources that nourish it, as it feeds more and more upon itself. As dying people refuse all offers of food, so ECUSA is slowly but surely cutting itself off from the rest of the Anglican Communion. And as with C.S. Lewis' The Great Divorce, the punishment will be both self-inflicted and at the same time invisible to the victims. ECUSA had no use for the Windsor Report's reminder that one can choose to "walk apart", because ECUSA sees the rest of the Communion as not in a common purpose with it, but as in "competition". And with the way its leadership continues to act, ECUSA will have no need of the proposed Covenant, either. Its rejection of the Covenant will be fully parallel to the decision of those in Lewis' profound book who reject the world of light (and the Christian fellowship that comes with it) to climb back onto their sad little bus and return to the dismal and dreary surroundings of their own making.

Some say the Second Law is inexorable; that entropy cannot be reversed. As Asimov's story linked above illustrates, it would certainly take a great deal of effort and (divine) energy to do so. Like the Sun, however, the Episcopal Church (USA) is squandering its resources, and will eventually deplete them. The energy still coming into the Church is in decline, and has now fallen below the quantity that is flowing out. The trend only accelerates, as those who perceive the sinkhole make for the exits.

What is going on cannot usefully be called competition. It is called life in a fallen world.

END

The Red Queen Writes Again

Via VirtueOnline:

by Robert S. Munday
http://toalltheworld.blogspot.com/2009/10/red-queen-writes-again.html
October 17, 2009

Alice began to feel very uneasy: to be sure, she had not as yet had any dispute with the Queen, but she knew that it might happen any minute, "and then," thought she, "what would become of me? They're dreadfully fond of beheading people here; the great wonder is, that there's any one left alive." - Lewis Carroll, Alice in Wonderland, Chapter 8

Today, a very godly and humble Bishop, the Rt. Rev. Keith Keith L. Ackerman, received communications from the Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church, accepting his "renunciation of ordained ministry." There is only one problem: Bishop Ackerman never had any intention of renouncing his ministry.

I know from speaking with Bishop Ackerman that he sent the Presiding Bishop a handwritten letter merely asking to have his credentials transferred to the Diocese of Bolivia. He said that he had no intention of renouncing his orders and that, while he intends to assist Bishop Lyons in work in Bolivia, he also wished to remain available to assist bishops in the United States, as requested.

The Presiding Bishop says that "...there is no provision for transferring a bishop to another province." But that is not true. Title III, Canon 10, Sec. 2, provides for the reception of "Clergy Ordained by Bishops of Churches in Communion with This Church" by means of Letters Dimissory and states:

(3) The provisions of this Section 1 shall be fully applicable to all Members of the Clergy (emphasis mine) ordained in any Church in the process of entering the historic episcopal succession with which The Episcopal Church is in full communion as specified in Canon I.20, subject to the covenant of the two Churches as adopted by the General Convention.

And a subsection states that the churches from which such a clergy may be received includes:

(i) those duly constituted Dioceses, Provinces, and regional Churches in communion with the See of Canterbury,

So if the Episcopal Church can receive clergy (and bishops are included when it says "all Members of the Clergy") from other provinces of the Anglican Communion by means of Letters Dimmisory, then it can issue those same letters when a bishop or other member of the clergy transfers to another province of the Anglican Communion.

And, of course, the Episcopal Church has transferred clergy to other provinces of the Anglican Communion throughout its history. If one reviews the clergy list in The Episcopal Church Annual in most years one will find a section listing "Clergy Transferred to Other Churches" with the country or province to which the clergy have transferred given in parentheses. For instance, if you look in the 2003 Annual you find the name of the late Peter Toon followed by (England), because the Rev. Dr. Peter Toon, who continued to live and minister in the United States until his death earlier this year, transferred his canonical residence back to England in 2002.

Further, it is not even necessary for the Presiding Bishop to be involved in transferring a bishop to another province or diocese elsewhere in the Anglican Communion.

CANON III.10.2(a)(2) provides only that Letters Dimissory be issued by "the hand and seal of the Bishop with whose Diocese the person has been last connected."

That a resigned bishop (such as Bishop Ackerman) may transfer to another diocese is indicated in CANON III.12.8(i) which states:

A resigned Bishop may, at the discretion of the Bishop of the Diocese in which the resigned Bishop resides, and upon presentation of Letters Dimissory from the Ecclesiastical Authority of the Diocese in which the resigned Bishop has had canonical residence most recently, be enrolled among the Clergy of the new Diocese, and become subject to its Constitution and Canons including being given a seat and vote in the Diocesan Convention, in accordance with its canonical provisions for qualification of clergy members.

This Canon demonstrates that Bishops are considered to have canonical residence in a diocese and that this canonical residence can be transferred by means of Letters Dimissory. Consequently, the "Ecclesiastical Authority of the Diocese in which the resigned Bishop has had canonical residence most recently" (presumably the "Provisional Bishop" of Quincy) could have transferred Bishop Ackerman to Bishop Lyons in Bolivia by means of Letters Dimissory and his transfer have been recorded without any recourse to the Presiding Bishop or the purported "renunciation" which the PB is now asserting.

It will be remembered that the Presiding Bishop also erroneously asserted that Bishop Henry Scriven renounced his orders when he returned to England. (See 1, 2, and 3.) If the Presiding Bishop would only have bothered to check for precedents in how such tranfers were handled, she could have avoided the scandal of, once again, misinterpreting the canons.

END

HERNDON, VA: CANA Membership Jumps to 90 Congregations

Via VirtueOnline:

People Seek Rich Liturgical Worship and Connection to Global Communion, says Bishop Minns

October 16, 2009


The Convocation of Anglicans in North America (CANA) announced that 13 congregations from six different states plus one in Canada have joined the orthodox Anglican organization.

The new congregations include CANA's first church in Canada, Redeemer Anglican Church in Regina, SK. New CANA congregations in the US include as follows: Christ Anglican Church; Marietta, Ga.; Anglican Mission of Southern Maryland, California, Md.; Holy Trinity Anglican Church, Bowie, Md.; Holy Trinity Anglican Church, Hobbs, NM; St. Stephen's Anglican Church, Roswell, NM; Anglican Community Church, Batavia, NY; Restoration Anglican Church, Arlington, Va.; Holy Cross Anglican Church, Richmond, Va.; Anglican Church of the Valley, Staunton, Va.; Winchester Anglican Church, Winchester, Va.; and New Hope Anglican Church, Lacey, WA. Also added is a satellite congregation in Manassas, Va., being fostered by Church of the Word (Gainesville, Va.).

"We are excited to welcome these new congregations from across North America into the CANA fellowship, a body of orthodox Anglican Christians committed to upholding the Word of God. We as an Anglican body are seeing orthodox Christianity thrive in the U.S. and around the world and are pleased to play a pivotal role in bringing orthodox congregations together.

CANA provides an authentic connection to the worldwide Anglican Communion, and our churches offer vintage liturgical worship which is what many Christians are seeking. Each of these new congregations will grow as they prayerfully exercise the ministry of Jesus Christ which is all about radical inclusion, profound transformation, and inspired service," said CANA Missionary Bishop Martyn Minns.

The Rev. John Pietschman, rector of Holy Cross Anglican Church in Richmond, Va. states that "the birth of the Convocation of Anglicans in North America (CANA) was a God-send to Anglicans who have been confronted with the abandonment of the Christian faith once handed down to the saints. Contending for the Christian faith is embedded in upholding the Bible as the authoritative Word of God, and not in following revisionist church leaders who conject that biblical Christianity is archaic and mean-spirited.

"CANA is 'Christ-centered, mission driven, outwardly focused, and committed to evangelism, discipleship and church planting.' We at Holy Cross Anglican Church, Richmond, Virginia are proud to be Anglicans within CANA and our passion is to reach and serve the least, the last, and the lost," continued the Rev. John Pietschman.

With the addition of these congregations, CANA now includes 90 congregations across the U.S.

----The Convocation of Anglicans in North America (http://www.canaconvocation.org) currently consists of 90 congregations and more than 190 clergy in 25 states. CANA is a founding member of the Anglican Church in North America, an emerging Anglican province that includes about 700 congregations.

New Episcopal bishop selected in Pittsburgh

Via VirtueOnline:

Kenneth Price, named temporary leader during convention

By Ann Rodgers,
Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
Post-gazette.com
October 18, 2009

Bishop Kenneth Price gives his acceptance speech after being voted provisional bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh during a convention at Trinity Cathedral, Downtown, yesterday.

The convention of the formerly fractious Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh was a love fest yesterday as it chose a new bishop, gave emotional thanks to a departing one, adopted all resolutions unanimously and spoke graciously of people in the rival Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh (Anglican).

The approval of Bishop Kenneth L. Price Jr. as provisional, or temporary, bishop received a standing ovation from 111 deputies in Trinity Cathedral, Downtown. In a brief acceptance speech, he praised the diocese for civility in hard times.

"This tone of conciliation, respect and transparency is totally in keeping with my own desires and intentions," he said..

A split into two dioceses occurred in October 2008 after a majority of voters at last year's convention decided that the Episcopal Church failed to uphold biblical doctrine on matters from salvation to sexuality. They voted to follow Archbishop Robert Duncan into the Anglican Province of the Southern Cone in South America, which, like the Episcopal Church, is part of the global Anglican Communion.

The 28-parish Episcopal diocese recently won a lawsuit in Allegheny County Common Pleas Court regarding at least $18 million in centrally-held diocesan assets, but ownership of parish property remains to be resolved. The Anglican diocese has 58 parishes, most of which remain in buildings that the denomination's law says should revert to the Episcopal Church.

When clergy and laity yesterday began to applaud a report on the legal victory, the Rev. James Simons, president of the committee that ran the diocese until yesterday afternoon, quickly silenced them.

They gave thanks to Bishop Robert H. Johnson, the retired bishop of Western North Carolina, who as a part-time "assisting bishop" helped rebuild a diocese that had lost its headquarters, its records and most of its leaders.

The Rev. Simons fought back tears as he called Bishop Johnson "a wise counselor, a gracious pastor and a prayerful mentor." A resolution made him "assisting bishop emeritus."

Despite the split, the Episcopal diocese remains theologically conservative. In an interview, Bishop Price said he won't try to change that.

"I want to represent the theological position of this diocese, which is probably more conservative than maybe the rest of the church," he said.

He repeatedly referred to "Archbishop Duncan" -- some Episcopal leaders call him "Mr. Duncan" -- and said he hoped to renew an old friendship. In 1996 then-Father Duncan invited Bishop Price to assist in his consecration as bishop coadjutor of Pittsburgh. When Bishop Price interviewed here for his new position, he wore a diocesan lapel pin that Bishop Duncan had given him.

"I don't harbor any animosity toward Bob Duncan in any way, shape or form," he said.

He voted to depose Archbishop Duncan in September 2008 -- and signed the order as secretary of the House of Bishops -- because he believed that was the only option. But he felt terrible about it, he said. One reason that the Episcopal diocese has offered to "release" the Anglican clergy for ministry elsewhere without deposing them is that he wanted to find a better way to part ways.

"I wish that we had had a way to have dealt with him in the way that we're handling the clergy in this diocese now," he said. "Since that time we've had time to reconsider and realize that there are different ways to do that."

Leaders at Episcopal headquarters in New York, including the chancellor to Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori, have been supportive of a more concilatory approach, he said.

"I did not feel any interference or any obstacles coming out of New York," he said. "I think there's a level of trust here for the Diocese of Pittsburgh, for the leadership in Pittsburgh, and I think for me in coming here, too."

END

The Presiding Bishop demonstrates that The Episcopal Church will not share bishops with the Anglican Communion

by BabyBlue

Apparently, Bishop Schori has not received the memo that The Episcopal Church is supposed to be in communion with the rest of the Anglican Communion, thereby sharing its bishops. That's the point of "being in communion," isn't it?

But apparently, this is no longer the case as she is now writing renunciation letters for Episcopal bishops who have not actually renunciated their Episcopal ministry. No one has gone to Rome. No one has teetered off the edge and is worshiping vacuum cleaners on Thursdays when the sun goes down. It's absurd and illustrated yet again that either she is just totally clueless - and it's possible, she didn't exactly wow anyone at her first General Convention as Presiding Bishop, in fact she spent much of the time trying to re-explain things she said that caused even the Bishop of Durham to pop his cork. So either she's clueless or the Litigators are running The Episcopal Church (certainly TEC smashed their evangelism budget, throwing even Father Jake of all people out to the curb).

I'll tell you one thing about Bishop Ackerman - I recall seeing him with Rowan Williams during the Lambeth Conference. They were standing outside the gates leading to the Big Top and Bishop Ackerman was telling Rowan Williams a story that just made the Archbishop of Canterbury laugh and laugh. I find highly it unlikely that Bishop Schori has ever made the Archbishop of Canterbury laugh.

And this is certainly no laughing matter.

And we wonder why thousands upon thousands have left The Episcopal Church in my lifetime. It's just plain sad. What a sad and sorry witness to the world.

And it's such a waste - it's purely for litigation purposes, that's what this document is all about - litigation. Bishop Ackerman is still in communion with the Archbishop of Canterbury, after all, he's retired so he still has his pension - this is just plain litigious spite and it isn't lost on anyone.

QUINCY: Presiding Bishop accepts Keith Ackerman's renunciation

Bishop Ackerman has not renounced his holy orders. This is another pecusa lie just like the one about Bishop Iker renouncing his holy orders. As we have come to know, pecusa cares little about truth whether it is in dealing with Scripture, pecusa canons, the media, or the courts. ed.

By ENS staff, October 16, 2009

[Episcopal News Service] Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori notified Keith Ackerman by mail and email October 16 that she has accepted the former bishop of Quincy's voluntary renunciation of ordained ministry in the Episcopal Church.
In a statement released by the Presiding Bishop's office October 16, Jefferts Schori cited Title III, Section 7 of the canons: "I have accepted the renunciation of the Ordained Ministry of this Church, made in writing to me in July 2009 by the Rt. Rev. Keith L. Ackerman, Bishop of Quincy, Resigned who is, therefore, removed from the Ordained Ministry of this Church and released from the obligations of all Ministerial offices, and is deprived of the right to exercise the gifts and spiritual authority as a Minister of God's Word and Sacraments conferred on him in Ordinations."

According to the statement, Jefferts Schori had thanked Ackerman in an October 7 letter "for your follow up note regarding your plans to function as a bishop in the Diocese of Bolivia in the Province of the Southern Cone. As you know, there is no provision for transferring a bishop to another Province. I am therefore releasing you from the obligations of ordained ministry in this Church.”

The full text of the Presiding Bishop's October 7 letter is available here.

The Rev. Charles Robertson, canon to the Presiding Bishop, explained the action. "The Presiding Bishop has accepted the voluntary renunciation as a result of his informing her that he is working for the Diocese of Bolivia in the Province of the Southern Cone," he said. "Research has indicated that there are no provisions for this type of arrangement."

Ackerman's renunciation, effective immediately, was not made for reasons of moral character, according to the Presiding Bishop's office.

Ackerman, 63, could not be reached for comment October 16.

The theologically conservative bishop had abruptly announced his retirement, effective November 1, 2008, the day he was to return from a three-month sabbatical. It was also the day the governing synod voted to sever ties with the Episcopal Church and to realign the 1,800-member diocese with the Argentina-based Anglican Province of the Southern Cone.

Ackerman had conferred with family, friends, members of the standing committee -- which had served as ecclesiastical authority during his absence -- and his personal physicians prior to making the decision to retire, according to a statement released by the standing committee.

Consecrated bishop of the Peoria, Illinois-based Diocese of Quincy in 1994, Ackerman's theological differences over the ordination of women and gays frequently put him at odds with Episcopal Church leadership.

In September 2006, Quincy joined a small number of Episcopal Church dioceses seeking what they called "alternative pastoral oversight" from a primate other than the Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church. The diocese had called a special synod meeting following the 2006 General Convention of the Episcopal Church, which elected Jefferts Schori. The Diocese of Quincy does not ordain women to the priesthood.

A news release issued at the time by the diocese said that part of the reason for the diocese's request was the theology of Jefferts Schori, who allowed Diocese of Nevada congregations to offer blessings of same-gender unions and voted in 2003 to consent to the election of openly-gay Bishop Gene Robinson as bishop of New Hampshire.
Quincy was "unwilling to accept the leadership" of Jefferts Schori, the news release said.

Born in McKeesport, Pennsylvanian, Ackerman, received a bachelor of science degree from Marymount University in Salinas, Kansas in 1971. He received both a master of divinity degree in 1974 and a Doctor of Divinity degree in 1994 from the Nashotah House seminary in Wisconsin.

He currently serves as president of Forward in Faith North America, an organization opposed to what it perceives as liberal trends in the church. He is also as a member of the Common Cause Partnership, which is led by deposed bishop Robert Duncan and is dedicated in part to developing an "Anglican union" that at least some Anglican Communion primates would recognize.

Delegates of the continuing Episcopal Diocese of Quincy, meeting at a special April 4, 2009 synod, unanimously elected the Rt. Rev. John Clark Buchanan, retired bishop of West Missouri, as provisional bishop.

News of the Presiding Bishop's acceptance of Ackerman's renunciation came on the eve of the 132nd Synod of the continuing diocese, meeting October 17 at St. Paul's Cathedral in Peoria.

Va. Supreme Court to Hear Property Case Appeal

From The Living Church:

Posted on: October 16, 2009

The Supreme Court of Virginia has agreed to hear the Episcopal Diocese of Virginia’s appeal in a continuing struggle over church properties.

Both sides in the dispute issued statements that repeat their core arguments. The diocese maintains that a Virginia law permitting congregational control of property is an intrusion of government into freedom of religion.

Member congregations of the Anglican District of Virginia agree with the rulings of Fairfax County Circuit Judge Randy Bellows.

“I believe that this law is unconstitutional and that there is too much at stake to let it remain in effect,” said the Rt. Rev. Shannon S. Johnston, Bishop of Virginia, in a letter he issued in anticipation of the Supreme Court hearing oral arguments for the appeal. “The legal struggle to secure our right to organize as we choose and safeguard our churches from those seeking to seize them has not been easy. This journey has been a long one, but now more than ever we must all gather around those who need us most at this difficult time.”

“We continue to be confident in our legal position and in the rulings of the Fairfax County Circuit Court. These rulings, among other things, found the Virginia Division Statute constitutional,” said Jim Oakes, vice chairman of the Anglican District of Virginia. “While we are, and have been, prepared to continue to defend ourselves, we are ready to put this litigation behind us so we can focus our time, money and effort on the work of the gospel.”

Now we know

Now we know why the presiding bishop was unwilling to talk about the membership statistics when questioned by reporters recently. The decline in 2008 was sharper than in any year since 2004. From 2004 to 2007, pecusa was losing 2% of members per year. It was 3% for 2008. Income to parishes was also down for the first time since 2004. This was as we expected, but pecusa leadership continues to believe or pretends to believe that they can turn things around with their inclusivity gospel.

Susan Russell, the president of the pecusa gay lobby Integrity, said at General Convention that the numbers will go up once the homosexuality issue is settled. Integrity told us that they got all that they wanted at GC09. So, we can expect the numbers for 2009 and 2010 to head up.

Except that even the biblically illiterate understand that pecusa is promoting immorality. The secularists that agree with pecusa's direction don't want a church and the regular, sensible people know that pecusa has fallen off the tracks. Where's the growth going to come from? The truth is obvious - it isn't coming.

In New Hampshire, the epicenter of the debate since 2003 the pecusa decline has been huge. In the Diocese of Newark, which under Bishop Spong was an early proponent of homosexual immorality, the decline has been huge. Newark has established a task force to look into what they can do to stem the tide. Here's a thought, why not try The Real Gospel? That's a proposal I'm not anticipating will come out of any task force in the Diocese of Newark.

With her promotion of immorality and heresy pecusa has signed her own death warrant. We knew all this before pecusa released the figures for 2008. Now we really know.

2008 EPISCOPAL CHURCH ATTENDANCE FIGURES AWASH IN RED

86 Domestic Dioceses show decline: 2008 ASA figure down 3% from 2007

News Analysis

By David W. Virtue and Mary Ann Mueller
www.virtueonline.org
10/14/2009

The Episcopal Church (USA) continued its downward spiral in church attendance in 2008 with 86 dioceses showing decline with the Diocese of South Dakota leading the way with the biggest single decline of 11.6%. Fourteen domestic dioceses revealed small or no gains. Twelve foreign dioceses split with six showing slight up ticks, four losing members and two not filing a report.

After realignment, The TEC "Diocese" of San Joaquin showed a drop of 3,050 from 3,950 to 900, a decline of 77.2%.

Overall Average Sunday Attendance in 2008 was 705257 down from 727822 in 2007, a decrease of 22,565 or 3%. Over the last five years the loss in active membership has been 14%.
The median average attendance went from 75 to 69.

The Episcopal Church claims a shade over 2 million members - (2,057,292) down 2.8% over 2007.

Overall it was not a good year for The Episcopal Church. With sharp losses expected in 2009 due to the departure of the dioceses of Pittsburgh, Quincy and Ft. Worth, attendance is expected to plunge even further.

Individually, dioceses showed even greater financial losses than human departures.

The Diocese of Connecticut met its shortfall of $574,000 for 2010 by slashing funds for youth ministry and congregational development while funding for the national church and the bishops' office, however, went up. Mission expenditure, as a percent of expenditure, was slashed. Evangelism as a line item was eliminated.

Parish income reported in 2008 (the base year for the 2010 funding) allowed projected budget income to be lowered by 12.8% below the 2009 level.


Total Proposed Budget in 2009 is $5,246,633 for 2010 from $5,820,345 down a colossal $573,000. A number of fleeing parishes affected their income and what they hoped to spend. Litigation costs are expected to rise in 2010.

Ironically, the pledge to the National church is going up. In 2009 it was $1,150,000. In 2010 it will be $1,155,000. The logic is they got the money by slashing congregational development and sending money to the national church to fund lawsuits.

The diocese lost three percent of its membership in 2008 dropping from 19,332 to 18,747.

The Diocese of Newark is also feeling the pain and it is not just the economy. Pledging units are declining.

"The challenging context within which we are working is an ever-shrinking diocese," said Bishop Mark Beckwith. "Our average Sunday attendance has gone down diocese-wide six consecutive years. So have the number of pledging units to the parishes. "Since that model was introduced 25 years ago, median average Sunday attendance has declined to 61, the number of pledging units has dropped and only 25 percent of churches can afford full-time clergy. The task force is looking at options including continuing the current model, introducing appoint toward any of them. ... There's nothing even close to a consensus on any of them."

Asked about a straight assessment model, using a model based on the biblical tithe or adopting different percentages for different sizes of parishes, Beckwith said. "Honestly, we are not leaning at this." The diocese lost another 2.6% in membership in 2008 from 2007.

In the Diocese of Massachusetts, six churches have closed over a period of three years. They include St. Andrew's Church, Belmont; St. David's Church, Halifax; St. Luke's Church, Malden; the Church of the Holy Trinity, Marlborough; St. George's Church, Maynard; and the Church of St. Matthew and the Redeemer, South Boston. Two churches (St. Mark's Church and St. John's-St. Stephen's Partnership) have merged with the former Church of the Ascension to form the new Church of the Holy Spirit, all in Fall River. Two are in the process of closing (St. Augustine's Church in Lawrence and St. Alban's Church in Lynn). As a result, the diocese has $1.6 million in hand from property sales, with an approximate additional $2 million in sales pending.

To maintain congregational vitality, a committee has recommended that saving for the future involves allocating up to 50% to an endowed fund and 30% of every dollar back to congregations. Overall income for 2010 is projected to be down with trusts and endowments dropping $280,553 and billed assessments from congregations down $275,912.

The biggest single reduction is in the amount allocated to the Episcopal Church. (The outdated term "the national church" is a misnomer, since the Episcopal Church is a multinational church with 110 dioceses in 16 countries.) The significant reduction of $170,000 reflects the actions taken by the General Convention this past July 17 which reduced the rate at which it "asks" for support from each diocese from 21% to 19% by 2012.

The Diocese of Maine also anticipates a reduction in revenue next year. Despite that, they are increasing their contribution to the National church, while slashing funding for congregational support. It would seem that national headquarters lawsuit costs (which is the biggest area of expense increase at the national level) are essentially being funded at the cost of the weakest parishes.

Income to the diocese in 2009 is $2,105,928, but it is expected to drop to $2,089,895 in 2010. At the same time, National Church asking goes from $374,708 (18%) in 2009 to $399,538 (19%) in 2010.

Anecdotal evidence reveals a number of congregations are experiencing financial difficulty while the number of congregations receiving financial assistance is large. However, changing needs and the possibility of falling congregational incomes led them to examine priorities resulting in total support to congregations going from $613,291 in 2009 to $565,478 in 2010.

In the Diocese of Minneapolis, a proposed 2010 budget offers three options for slashing the Diocese assessment and national church assessment, and handing back money for local use. All the options are based on decreasing income into the diocese.

The most extreme option would involve slashing the assessment rate from an average rate of 16% in 2009 to between 10% and 11% in 2010. Under this option, the assessment to the national church would be cut from $506 000 in the 2009 Budget down to $304 835 in the 2010 budget - a 40% decrease.

All three proposed 2010 budget options have the following similarities which include eliminating five staff positions for a total reduction of $349,142. They include a full time Canon Missioner in Congregational Development, full time Assistant Financial Officer in Finance, full time Development Director in Development, part time Administrative Assistant in Administration and part time Assisting Bishop in Episcopate. Another option is to maintain all remaining salaries at the 2009 level with no Cost of Living Adjustment (COLA) for staff, except where noted.

At the parish level, The Episcopal Church's pansexual push does not seem to be paying off.

A case in point is St. Marks in Seattle. The Very Rev. Robert Taylor resigned as dean of the Episcopal cathedral after leading the congregation for eight years. He said he and the church had differing visions for the church, but declined to say what they were. His tenure there has devastated the church. Attendance at the cathedral went from 1,520 two years ago to around 500 in 2008. The overall ASA for the Diocese of Olympia dropped 7.4 percent as a result.

Clergy statistics. Between 2003 and 2007, TEC lost 10% of its clergy, with the losses hitting the rank of 'Senior Clergy' hardest. The male clergy rank was the hardest hit, declining 14%. The number of missions and parishes has only declined by 2% over the same period indicating a significant number of parishes have survived only by eliminating full time clergy. Total number of senior clergy in 2003 was 986 by 2007 it was 883, a loss of 12%. Solo Clergy totaled 3764 in 2003, by 2007 it was 3400, a loss of 10%. Total male clergy went from 4355 to 3752 while female clergy rose from 1696 in 2003 to 1715 in 2007 a gain of 1%.

Lawsuits have consumed millions of dollars in a number of dioceses.

Foremost among them is the Diocese of Colorado. Bishop Rob O'Neill commented, "As a result of the extraordinary legal expenses associated with the property litigation involving Grace Church in Colorado Springs our reserves have been substantially reduced. Such litigation totaled $2,900,000. The combination of withdrawals for litigation expenditures and the stock market decline have caused the Diocesan unrestricted reserves to decline from $4,900,000 at January 1, 2006 to $750,000 currently. This decline has also led to a significant decrease in the investment income to be received from these reserves in 2010." The diocese fell by 5.4 percent (ASA) in 2008 with 10,772 members down from 11,392.

A lesson for the National Church is that the only winners in litigation are the lawyers. This begs the question: Who is the better steward of diocesan resources: the Bishop of Colorado, or the Bishop of Central Florida? When a number of parishes sought to leave the latter, Bishop John W. Howe spent not a penny on attorneys. Peace flowed with little or no recriminations. Looking at the situation in the Diocese of Massachusetts where they report the large income generated by selling the buildings of those closed parishes, one wonders if this is a new funding model for the Episcopal Church. That is, withdraw support from the weakest parishes. When they fold, use the income generated to continue paying for the expensive diocesan overheads and the huge lawsuit costs.

"Mission" in TEC it seems has come to mean paying for lots of lawyers, accountants, administrators, archivists, and very expensive bishops who don't add much value anyway. Is this the real future of The Episcopal Church?

Official statistics for 2008 released:

http://www.episcopalchurch.org/documents/Statisical_Totals_for_the_Episcopal_Church_by_Province_2007-2008.pdf

http://www.episcopalchurch.org/documents/Statistical_Totals_for_the_Episcopal_Church_by_Province_and_Diocese_2007-2008.pdf

http://www.episcopalchurch.org/documents/Domestic__FAST_FACTS_Trends_2004-2008.pdf

The ADN is up and running

Our two wardens, one other member and I traveled to a retreat center on Sunday afternoon to participate in the first synod meeting of the Anglican District of the Northeast (ADN). The ADN is a district within the Convocation of Anglicans in North America (CANA). There were about 40 representatives from twelve churches present. The ADN includes parishes from New Jersey, Pennsylvania, New York, Connecticut, and Maine. We ratified a constitution for our district and put together a Synod Council.

We have added two parishes in the Northeast in the past year and CANA has grown from 85 parishes to 90 since this summer. Many of our parishes have come out of pecusa, but we have also planted a number of other congregations. For example, Falls Church in Virginia has a vision of planting one new church a year and thus far they have exceeded their goal.

It is exciting to be part of a vibrant and growing portion of Anglicanism. Our parish, St. Andrew's Church in Vestal, is thankful to be a part of CANA and we continue to praise God for what He is doing in our midst, in CANA, and in the new province of the Anglican Communion, the Anglican Church in North America.

VIRGINIA: Bishop Writes Diocese: "The legal struggle will continue...freedom under attack," he says

This is another shameful and pathetic defense of pecusa's biblically indefensible assault on orthodox Christians. The bishop references religious freedom which is at the heart of the pecusa appeals case after they lost in the lower court in Virginia. Of course no religious freedom is being attacked. No one is being denied their constitutional right to worship as they wish. The pecusa claims are part of their dishonest attempt to seize the properties of churches that they didn't pay for and should have no right to own.

When pecusa speaks of preserving the episcopal legacy what they mean is that they are going to sell any buildings they win through lawsuits and thereby enrich their trust funds. This is what has happened in two places in the DCNY and the church building that the DCNY seized in Binghamton is also up for sale. DCNY has not preserved any episcopal worshiping community; they have enriched themselves financially. We can expect the same in Virginia.

The problem all along is that pecusa has a false gospel and a dishonest leadership. Their false gospel empties churches, so all they can do is attack those who disagree with them, collect as many assets as they can through property seizures and hunker down as long as their financial assets will prop up their declining dioceses and congregations. It is a sad story in Virginia, in the DCNY and elsewhere in pecusa. ed.

Via VirtueOnline:

By Shannon S. Johnston
October 9, 2009

Dear Diocesan Family,

A panel of the Virginia Supreme Court will hear our petition for appeal on October 21 and, while it is unfortunate that these legal proceedings were necessary, I trust that this hearing will bring us one step closer to resolution.

I am proud that the Diocese of Virginia and the Episcopal Church have chosen the path consistently to defend loyal Episcopalians, and to safeguard and to protect the Church's legacy and the Church from unwarranted governmental and legislative interference. It is with the same determination to stand by the people, traditions and legacy of our diocese that I look toward our appeal.

For nearly 225 years, the Episcopal Church has had the freedom to govern itself according to its beliefs. But that freedom is under direct attack here in our diocese in the form of a Virginia law that allows the government to interfere with the faith, polity and structure of our Church and other hierarchical churches in the Commonwealth.

I believe that this law is unconstitutional and that there is too much at stake to let it remain in effect. The legal struggle to secure our right to organize as we choose and safeguard our churches from those seeking to seize them has not been easy. This journey has been a long one, but now more than ever we must all gather around those who need us most at this difficult time.

Loyal Episcopalians have been exiled from their Episcopal homes for too long and I ask you to keep all of them in your prayers. This includes St. Stephen's, Heathsville; St. Margaret's, Woodbridge; Epiphany, Oak Hill; and The Falls Church, Falls Church.

These parishioners have been denied the ability to worship as they wish at the very same churches where they were married, where they baptized their children and where they buried their loved ones. I view this next hearing with great hope for the day when I will join these faith-filled Episcopalians as they return to their church homes to celebrate and worship together.

Faithfully yours,

The Rt. Rev. Shannon S. Johnston
Bishop of Virginia

LA CRESCENTA, CA: Conservative Episcopalians prepare for their exodus

Via VirtueOnline:

Worshipers who split from the national church prepare to turn over the keys to the diocese after losing a property battle.

By Duke Helfand
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-stlukes10-2009oct10,0,6123571.story?track=rss
October 10, 2009


The people of St. Luke's Anglican Church have called their La Crescenta parish home for 85 years. Generations of families have grown up within its historic stone walls.

On Sunday, the Rev. Rob Holman will deliver his final sermon there, an epitaph to a bruising legal fight the congregation waged and lost to practice its conservative brand of Christian theology and hold on to the church.

On Monday, St. Luke's leaders will hand over its keys to the Episcopal Diocese of Los Angeles.

The diocese sued to retain St. Luke's property after the congregation voted overwhelmingly in 2006 to leave it and the national Episcopal Church over theological differences, including the consecration of a gay bishop in New Hampshire.

After rounds of costly litigation, the courts ruled in the diocese's favor, concluding that St. Luke's property was held in trust for the diocese and the national church. Last week, a judge ordered St. Luke's congregation to leave by Monday.

For those who were baptized and married and have mourned within its walls, the impending departure is liberating and heart-wrenching at once.

Many are relieved to be free from the distracting litigation of recent years but saddened by what they say will be an impending loss of fidelity to Scripture at their red-tiled church in the hills below the Angeles National Forest. Yet even as they prepare to begin anew in a rented chapel in nearby Glendale, many said they did not regret the legal battle.

"I cannot compromise my faith," said senior warden Debbie Kollgaard, who heads the church's vestry. "I think I can speak for a lot of people at the church: What I have is more important than any property."

The bishop of Los Angeles, the Rt. Rev. J. Jon Bruno, has said that St. Luke's, with its stone facade and stain-glassed sanctuary, always belonged to the Episcopal diocese, not its congregation. Bruno noted that the parish had been known as St. Luke's of the Mountains Episcopal Church for most of its history.

On Monday, Bruno is scheduled to visit the church for the first time in three years, this time to accept its keys. The next Sunday, he will preside over worship services and install two new pastors.

"I offer reconciliation and open hands and open hearts to these people," the bishop said. "We're still moving forward, hoping people will come home."

But it is not yet clear who will stay or who might return.

When the congregation voted to split with the diocese and Episcopal Church three years ago, about a quarter of St. Luke's members left.

Many who departed found homes in other Episcopal congregations. Some say they are now waiting to see whom Bruno installs at St. Luke's helm before deciding whether to come back. Few who left would speak publicly, saying the protracted court fight continues to stir bitterness in the tightknit La Crescenta community.

At least one former parishioner who was baptized at St. Luke's said he plans to return, even though his family is choosing to remain at another church where they have worshiped for the last three years.

"After such a tumultuous period, there are bound to be major changes. I'm not expecting the same church I left," said Charly Shelton, 20. "Whoever the rector is, I'm hoping the feeling of acceptance and love and trust comes back."

The dispute at St. Luke's is part of a larger conflict in the national Episcopal Church that has pitted theological liberals and conservatives against one another over issues of biblical authority and the role of gays in the church.

Last year, four breakaway Episcopal dioceses and dozens of parishes formed the rival Anglican Church in North America. St. Luke's joined the new church last summer.

The exodus of traditionalist congregations has produced similar property disputes around the country, among them one in Fallbrook in the Episcopal Diocese of San Diego.

St. Luke's experience could be a harbinger for three other former Episcopal churches in the region that also have waged losing legal battles over their property, diocese officials said.

This week, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal brought by one of those churches, St. James Anglican in Newport Beach, in its property rights dispute. The church has vowed to continue the fight in the trial court in Orange County.

In La Crescenta, St. Luke's congregation must leave virtually everything behind for the diocese. Every item has been inventoried and cataloged.

In the days leading up to the turnover, there were few visible signs of change at the church. One, however, was unmistakable, contained in a message from the Book of Hebrews on the marquee out front. "You joyfully accepted confiscation of your property," it read.

On Sunday, Holman plans to preach about its meaning, quoting from the remainder of the passage as he tells parishioners that their fight for their principles will bring "better and lasting possessions" -- a reference, he said, to Jesus.

"I'm sad that the Gospel we inherited as a church won't be proclaimed here after we're gone," Holman said. "These walls have been hallowed by the word of God."

END

SOUTH CAROLINA: Episcopalians nearing vote. Bishop discusses protest

Via VirtueOnline:

By Adam Parker
http://www.postandcourier.com/news/2009/oct/11/sc-episcopalians-nearing-votebishop-discusses/
October 11, 2009

In the Episcopal Diocese of South Carolina, concerns over the recent actions taken in July at the General Convention, and over matters of Scripture, polity and authority, have prompted diocese officials to call for a special Oct. 24 convention at which five resolutions will be considered.

Resolution No. 2 calls on Bishop Mark Lawrence and the Standing Committee "to begin withdrawing from all bodies of The Episcopal Church that have assented to actions contrary to Holy Scripture, the doctrine, discipline and worship of Christ as this Church has received them."

Opinions about this and other proposals and statements made by diocese officials vary. Some say the diocese doesn't go far enough; others say a withdrawal from the national church is unnecessary. Lawrence said any withdrawal that might be approved does not constitute a break from the church but, rather, a "protest of conscience." The Post and Courier's Adam Parker posed several questions in writing to Bishop Lawrence.

Here are the questions and answers:

Q: In a nutshell, what is your view of the relationship between the diocese and the Episcopal Church?

A: In a nutshell -- a strained detente.

Q: Resolution No. 2, one of five to be voted on at a special diocesan convention scheduled for Oct. 24, calls for a "withdrawal from all bodies of The Episcopal Church" that have failed to adhere to its canons, doctrines and historical practices. Is that the same as a call for disassociation from the national church? Or we could ask the question in another way: If the diocese votes to "withdraw from all bodies of the Episcopal Church," thereby refusing participation in the General Convention and governing bodies of the national church, does that signify a break?

A: No, this resolution is not "a call to disassociate from the national church." The diocese made a decision regarding that in 2006. This is a call for us to engage in more intrepid ways the radical trajectory the "National" Church has embraced. Flannery O'Connor once said in explanation of her odd characters and aberrant stories, "To the hard of hearing you must shout; to the near blind you draw large startling figures." That's what I see us called to do. The legislative and governing bodies of The Episcopal Church have grown nearly deaf and purblind -- I'm suggesting we speak in louder ways and draw figures that may actually be seen.

Q: You (and others) have said that the national church is walking apart, that it's abandoned in part or whole its doctrines, canons and traditional practices and therefore has relinquished its authority over the Diocese of South Carolina, which remains true to the original canons. And you have said you are ready to re-engage with the national church if it repudiates its recent actions and returns to the Anglican fold. Do you think there is any chance the national church will do so? If yes, why have you called for a withdrawal from it?

A: Actually, the term "walking apart" was used by the Archbishop of Canterbury and many others around the world. What I have said is the authority of national entities in The Episcopal Church has a limited and defined role within a diocese. But ... relinquished its authority? No, I never said that. What I have said is that the Constitution and Canons are what gives the General Convention its authority. When it passes resolutions contrary to those canons or without changing them, it has entered into a theatre of the absurd. Into an irrational way of legislating -- that is what General Convention did when it gave bishops permission to allow same-sex marriages without changing the canons that define marriage as between a man and a woman. Along with being unscriptural and confusing to the laity, it is a dysfunctional way to run a church.

Whether The Episcopal Church will repudiate its recent actions is doubtful at best -- but this is not about reading tea leaves. God has called me as a bishop of the church to proclaim the gospel in season and out of season, regardless of what others will or will not do. This includes protecting the faithful from false teachings.

Q: As you have explained, you are representing two main constituencies: those who want to leave the church, and those who want to stay. You have adopted language in your statements and letters that strives to appeal to both, But in suggesting to one group that you are willing to withdraw from the national church -- and even support individual parishes who want to act immediately -- while simultaneously arguing that this withdrawal does not constitute a separation but only a "protest of conscience," don't you risk compromising your theological and politic position? After all, sooner or later, some action or decision needs to be made, right?

A: Actually, I've never said I represent two main constituencies -- it's closer to four. But you ask "Sooner or later some action or decision needs to be made, right?" Are you kidding? I have to make decisions and take actions almost every day. There's no one defining moment in this fluid landscape. Certainly there are those within the Diocese who are weary of the extremist position taken by many in The Episcopal Church.

They have been ready to leave for some time. My job is to decide what needs to be done today -- right now. But I am not interested in some mere place to stand. We need to shape the future. I believe we can do that far better as a diocese if we are together. As one of the founding dioceses of The Episcopal Church we are rich in heritage; but heritage without a future is poor consolation. It is the future of the church and our culture that I want people to see is up for grabs and that it will go to the ones who are willing under God's providence to help shape it.

Many within The Episcopal Church have maneuvered us into an extreme agenda. They did it sometimes by protesting, sometimes by intimidation, sometimes by stretching the canons and teachings of the church, sometimes by disregarding or disobeying them publicly (usually without consequences). But they risked and they've seized control while most Episcopalians were snoozing. I'm becoming a rare commodity I guess -- an orthodox bishop within the church who is willing to risk. Now that heterodoxy is the dominant "orthodoxy" of The Episcopal Church, it is those who believe like me who must challenge an unthinking conformity. How long we can do this -- well that's the open question.

Q: In your August address to clergy, you said, "Should a parish find it needs to be served by alternative Episcopal care, I will work with them toward that end." Is it a breach of church canon law to facilitate, support or encourage individual parishes to leave the national church, potentially taking their property with them?

A: Your question suggests a complete misreading of my statement. My offer was made to those parishes in the diocese that may feel uncomfortable with engaging the "national" church in such an assertive manner as I've described. It is directed toward those who may feel themselves more in step with The Episcopal Church, not those who might want to leave the Church.

Q: Bishop David Anderson, president and CEO of the American Anglican Council, and strong opponent of The Episcopal Church, argued last month that you are caught between a rock and hard place. Leaving the national church now makes sense, Anderson wrote on his Web site, because the recent S.C. Supreme Court decision in the All Saint's Pawleys Island case, which favored the parish, bodes well for other congregations in the diocese. If you choose to stay, you risk a "steady erosion of some of (your) larger parishes," leaving you with fewer people willing to break from the national church, and reducing your options. Anderson goes on to write "that the strategic time for Bishop Lawrence to act is in the next three or four months. ... It may be that this is a Kairos moment that has now been presented to him." What do you think of Anderson's comments?

A: If one understands a Kairos moment as a convergence, an opportune time, then my entire episcopacy -- from candidacy, election, consent, consecration to the present -- has felt like a Kairos moment. I don't expect that to change. What I do know is the landscape changes weekly; it has already changed thrice since David Anderson made that statement and I have no doubt it will change again -- many of those who aren't on the ground here simply don't know all we have to take into consideration. That goes for people all across the theological spectrum. If some congregations decide to leave us, that will both sadden me and weaken the diocese. But I cannot control that.

Q: Though the new organization, which formed earlier this year, is not yet officially recognized by Canterbury, will you advocate that congregations in the diocese join Bishop Robert Duncan's Anglican Church in North America, or some other Anglican entity whose theology is more agreeable?

A: No. I pray for Bishop Duncan and my many friends in the Anglican Church in North America regularly. But why would I advocate for a congregation to leave the Diocese of South Carolina? The more we stay together the stronger we are.

Q: If the special convention votes to approve the five resolutions, what will happen next?

A: We will continue to look for ways to make believers who are informed, missional, evangelistic and faithful. We will look for ways to engage this culture both within and outside the church that is deconstructing the Good News of Jesus Christ with a false gospel that while appearing to be inclusive is in fact a pale imitation of the true freedom found in the Gospel. We will work with those both near and far who share a common faith in order to shape the emerging Anglicanism of the 21st century and help spread the message of forgiveness and transformation in Christ to every creature under heaven.

Q: If there is a point you'd like to make that hasn't been included in the answers to these questions, please feel free to add it.

A: The Anglican or Episcopalian scene in North America is in a season of stormy waters. The Anglican Church in North America has charted their direction in this sea-change. Those who are advocating what I have called a false gospel of indiscriminate inclusivity are listening to the sirens of the culture -- they'll go down in the whirlpool.

Those moderates within the Church who have made a practice of accommodating unscriptural innovations with as little institutional disruption as possible are steering us toward the rocks of shipwreck. No earthly helper can save any of us. My sights have remained on the port of call known as the Anglican Communion.

During the first consent process, I said I was tying myself to the mast of Jesus Christ and would ride out this storm wherever the ship of faith takes me. It brought me to this fair town of Charleston and this great Diocese of South Carolina. Its 30,000 members are in my thoughts every waking moment.

Likewise, the question of the Anglican way of being a Christian is a daily concern. It is one thing to tie oneself to the mast. It is quite another should a whole diocese tie itself there. For the sake of the diocese I wish it wasn't so stormy.

END

The Mind and Mission of Anglican Archbishop Robert Duncan

COMMENTARY

By David W. Virtue
www.virtueonline.org
10/12/2009

By any historical reckoning, what Archbishop Robert Duncan, the architect of the Anglican Church of North America (ACNA), has accomplished is nothing short of monumental. If there was the equivalent of a Nobel Peace Prize for ecclesiastical figures, he would win it hands down.

There isn't of course, so only the odd article like this, and perhaps a few chapters in a book on the history of North American Anglicanism, written by a scholar decades from now, will recall his efforts and enshrine him in the annals of Anglicanism on this continent.

That he achieved it in a relatively short space of time can only be described as miraculous, bearing in mind the theological and ecclesiastical differences and potential for disaster that awaited a wrong move, a wrong word, a wrong appointment a slight of one person or another. But none of that happened.

He did what many believed was impossible, bearing in mind the track record of North American Anglicans following the 1977 St. Louis Convention that saw a plethora (some 58) variety of Anglican (Anglo-Catholic) jurisdictions, separated by far less than what unites the AC-NA today.

The Anglican Church of North America is a reality that the Episcopal Church cannot ignore. and what It is something TEC's Presiding Bishop Jefferts Schori will have to reckon with even as this new North American Anglican jurisdiction grows and her church continues its gadarene slide.

Several things characterize Robert Duncan. The first is restraint. Those of us in the media, looking for a bold headline, or an off the cuff remark that would grab attention, have been sorely disappointed. He has watched his words with all the care of St. Paul writing his letter to the Ephesians.

He is politically astute, careful not to offend anyone, praising any and all attempts by people to guard both the unity of the church and the faith once and for all delivered to the saints.

He drew a wide circle, so wide that it and he became the ground for strident criticisms and personal attacks. Foremost of which is his belief in the ordination of women, a sticking point with Anglo-Catholics and not a few Evangelicals.

But he brilliantly and deftly drew into the circle perhaps the most rigorous disbeliever in women's ordination in North America, the Bishop of Ft. Worth, The Rt. Rev. Jack Leo Iker.

While this has not silenced Duncan's critics, Iker has stood by his friend and argued that the church is going through a period of reception on that issue and he would hang his miter in with the new jurisdiction for as long as it takes. Other supporters of Duncan include the former bishop of Eau Claire, the Rt. Rev. William Wantland and the retired Bishop of Quincy, Keith Ackerman, both high churchmen.

The delicate issue of whether or not AC-NA is a new province (the 39th) remains a sticking point as it has not been recognized by the Archbishop of Canterbury or the Anglican Consultative Council., but here again no one seems to mind when Duncan calls it a province. It is, well, a province. So be it.

When questioned by this reporter precisely on this point, Duncan says he speaks regularly with Dr. Rowan Williams at Lambeth Palace. He dodges the bullet.

When he officially launched AC-NA, he shrewdly drew in the two most extreme polarities of North American orthodoxy - the mega-evangelical pastor Rick Warren and the head of the Orthodox Church in America, His Beatitude Metropolitan Jonah.

Conservative blogs went ballistic, but Duncan stood his ground. Whatever pain they were about to dump on him would only serve to remind him of the pain he had already experienced at being deposed by a once "brotherly" House of Bishops.

In Warren, all the evangelical fervor that could be drawn from the successor to Billy Graham was focused on this one man. Dr. Warren is a Baptist, about as non- liturgical and, non- traditional a figure as you could find, a brilliant speaker, purpose-driven, and fully conversant with saving souls that you could find on the planet. It was a bold move by Duncan.

On the other had hand, he had to draw in someone liturgically like unto himself (sans the filioque clause), a leader who stood for the ancient traditions of the church, a man who would lend gravitas to the occasion and impress Dr. Williams who is an authority on Russian orthodoxy.

Again, this was a brilliant move. Duncan could not invite a Roman Catholic leader as Rome would not nor could not recognize AC-NA, (even though they might be sympathetic to it), but the Orthodox could. That Metropolitan Jonah of the Orthodox Church in America is an Episcopal convert to Orthodoxy when he was in college just ground it in the face of The Episcopal Church and Mrs. Jefferts Schori one more time. Irony was everywhere.

(You will may recall that grand moment when Cardinal Ratzinger sent greetings to the Plano One gathering of orthodox Episcopalians in Texas in 2003, the biggest single slap in the face to PB Frank Griswold in his tenure).

But AC-NA is of a different order. This new movement was fraught with danger. The broken glass of Anglican disunity Duncan walked across to make a new orthodox province a reality would have ripped the feet of a lesser man. Duncan pulled it off.

But still the Anglican blogs blamed him for selling out the Reformed Faith. Neither Warren nor Jonah represents represent their views.

Enter the Reformed Episcopal Church, a major player in AC-NA. By drawing them in, Duncan is hoping to calm the fears of the followers of Ridley, Latimer and Cranmer, but it won't be without pain. The REC has entered a concordat with the Anglican Province of America, bringing an ecumenical (Anglo-Catholic) twist to their desire for a broader understanding of the faith in our time. The Covenant Union of Anglican Churches Concordat also included includes The Anglican Church of Nigeria making AC-NA even more globally connected. In time, AC-NA would will be recognized by the GAFCON primates.

Again, this has brought out violent reactions from purist Reformers who see any linkage with an Anglo-Catholic jurisdiction as a deep betrayal of the Reformed understanding of the faith which they hold dear. One cannot help but be moved by their call for evangelical purity, but there is an edge to it all that is troubling for many who believe the Big Tent can incorporate a vision closer to that of C.S. Lewis's "mere Christianity".

Through it all, Duncan has maintained a humility not normally associated with contemporary triumphalist evangelicalism. His has been a measured, not a strident voice. His bushy eyebrows and demeanor are more in keeping with an archbishop like Michael Ramsey than George Carey. He is probably closer to Carey theologically though one should not be dogmatic.

In an odd sort of way, Duncan's Evangelical Catholicism has made him a perfect fit for the job. In common parlance, he can swing both ways. And he has done so.

He has weathered his critics on the right who believe his stand on women's ordination will ultimately bring AC-NA down (it might, but that seems unlikely) as forward Forward in Faith NA is now a constituent member of ACNA, apparently willing to see the bigger picture now with their own recently consecrated bishop.

On the left, the inclusive pansexual crowd of the Episcopal Church dismisses his efforts and mocks his attempts at bringing unity out of what they perceive to be a group of ecclesiastical wild-west Anglican desperados. History may well prove them wrong.

There would certainly be a lot to lose if this movement were to fail. The gloating would be heard all the way to Lambeth Palace and beyond to Constantinople, with the Vatican sighing, hoping the smarter ones will cross the Tiber as bishops Steenson, Herzog and others have done.

But the story is not over. Not by a long shot. Just this week, the Dean and President of Nashotah House announced unity talks with St. Vladimir's seminary, Metropolitan Jonah's home, solidifying relationships there. Speaking to an international audience, Archbishop Duncan stated that signing the conference's inter-seminary covenant, committing Nashotah House and St. Vladimir's seminaries to mutual prayer and fellowship, "lays the groundwork of something very much larger", namely "serious dialogue" with the OCA and "the resumption of ecumenical discussion between two separated parts of the Church."

Despite this common ground, Duncan believes that there are still obstacles to overcome along the road to full communion of the two Churches. He listed three areas: The "filioque" clause, which was added to the Nicene Creed by the Western Church, stating the double procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son;, the ordination of women, which is strenuously objected to by Orthodoxy and permitted in parts of the ACNA; and lastly, the Archbishop's reference to the Calvinism of some of ACNA's membership, prohibited by Orthodoxy and condemned as heresy.

Score another success for Duncan along the ecumenical Appian way.

Ambridge-based Trinity School for Ministry is training priests for the next generation of AC-NA leaders. The new Anglican train will not soon be derailed. It also has several cars filled with Canadian Anglicans hitched to it.

Only time will tell if it all holds together. With each passing week, however, ties seem to grow stronger, even as the grip on Episcopalians by TEC grows weaker. Latest figures reveal that almost every Episcopal diocese lost members in 2008, while almost every one of the 28 dioceses in AC-NA grew.

There isn't a peace prize for Archbishop Robert Duncan, and perhaps there ought not to be one, it might go to his head. But it would be very odd if he did not hear "in that day" the ultimate accolade from the Almighty himself with the words, "well done thou good and faithful servant."

END

Nashotah House President Reflects on his Seminary and its Mission to the Church

Posted by David Virtue on 2009/10/9 0:10:00 (1718 reads)

By David W. Virtue with Mary Ann Mueller
www.virtueonline.org
October 9, 2009

The Rev. Dr. Robert S. Munday, President and Dean of Nashotah House spoke recently with VirtueOnline and agreed to answer questions about his seminary, its role in the church, and its hopes and aspirations for the future. Nashotah House Theological Seminary is based on Mission Road in Nashotah, Wisconsin.

VOL: Will Nashotah House grads be welcome in the new TEC that is pluriform in theology and not sympathetic to orthodox Christianity? Are you having difficulty getting students placed in TEC?

Munday: The demand for Nashotah graduates continues to be very strong, both within TEC and elsewhere. Nashotah House is known for producing faithful, well-trained priests who know how to lead congregations--and, in most cases, that is the primary concern of most parishes when they are searching for a rector or a curate.

Are there dioceses that will actively try to keep out priests who are orthodox? Yes, there are. But there are also a number of dioceses where the bishops have told me the best, most effective priests they have are Nashotah House graduates.

VOL: Are you preparing students for Anglican jurisdictions other than TEC?

Munday: Yes, while a majority of our students still come from dioceses of the Episcopal Church, we have a growing number from other jurisdictions. In contrast to the politically charged atmosphere that exists in many places as to whether one is from a TEC diocese or another jurisdiction, there is surprisingly little discussion of those kinds of issues on our campus. We are concerned with seeing individuals grow in their relationship with Christ and forming priests whose primary motivation is to love God and serve the Church. Where our graduates serve after graduation is a matter that is between them and the jurisdiction that ordains them. Our primary concern is that they serve faithfully in Christ's one holy catholic and apostolic Church and that they become the best priests they can possibly be. You can't imagine how freeing it is to view our task that way and let God take care of the rest.

VOL: TEC Liberal seminaries are withering and slowly dying. Is that the case with Nashotah House?

Munday: The rising cost of a three-year, residential seminary cost has risen over the last few decades to the point where many seminaries (both liberal and conservative) are seeing declines in enrollment. Anglicans and Episcopalians used to pride themselves on having the best-educated clergy of any tradition. And they even tended to look down their noses at evangelical traditions who they believed did not train their clergy as well. The problem is that Anglicans and Episcopalians have historically provided very little financial assistance to seminaries or students attending seminary. This has continued so that Anglican/Episcopal parishes, dioceses and jurisdictions still want the best-trained clergy, but they have never gotten into the habit of paying for it. So we are looking at a crisis affecting all seminaries, but it is perhaps affecting Anglican/Episcopal seminaries more than most.

In general, Nashotah House has fared better than more liberal seminaries in recent years. Our students come from conservative parts of the Church that are either growing or at least have not seen as great a decline as more liberal parts of the Church. Our greatest challenge is convincing conservative churches that we can provide the kind of clergy leadership they need and persuading them that they must do more to support seminaries and students attending seminary if they truly want excellent clergy.

VOL: If not, what is it that separates you from liberal TEC seminaries?

Munday: I believe the fact that we have not seen the declines that other seminaries have experienced is primarily because, when congregations compare clergy who are trained at Nashotah House with clergy who are trained elsewhere, they realize that we produce priests who are very faithful to the teaching of Scripture and the tradition of the Church, highly committed the calling God has given them, and exceptionally well-trained to articulate the Faith and to lead growing congregations.

VOL: Are you working hand in glove with Trinity (Episcopal) School for Ministry as the only other orthodox seminary? What is your relationship like with them?

Munday: We have a very good relationship with Trinity. Bishop John Rodgers, former Dean of Trinity, once said "the real difference in the Church today isn't between those who are high-church and those who are low-church, but between those who believe Jesus' tomb is really empty and those who don't." Both Trinity and Nashotah House share a commitment to the authority of Scripture and the tenets of the Creeds, and we rejoice that the Faith that unites is is far more important than those things that distinguish us from each other.

One thing that gives our two schools a close affinity is that I was a faculty member and associate dean at Trinity for 15 years before coming to Nashotah House as Dean. Father Doug McGlynn, our Seminary Sub-Dean at Nashotah House, taught on Trinity's faculty as well. Fr. Arnold Klukas, our professor of Liturgy and Spirituality has taught at Trinity also. So we have lots of ties and friendships between the faculties of the two schools.

We have hosted Trinity's entire faculty for a visit at Nashotah House, and our faculty looks forward to reciprocating with a visit to Trinity in the future. There is a warm fellowship and collegiality between the members of both faculties, and we are often involved with the same mission agencies, speak at the same conferences, and cooperate in all sorts of ways.

VOL: Trinity (Episcopal) School for Ministry is focused on evangelicalism. Nashotah House is more on the catholic wing can you see a uniting of seminary forces in the future?

Munday: Leaders who are thinking seriously about the future of Anglicanism recognize that we must cultivate Christians-and especially leaders and clergy-who are grounded in Scripture, steeped in sacred tradition, and filled with the power of the Holy Spirit. We often speak of the future of Anglicanism (and of Christianity as a whole) as being necessarily a "three stream movement."

Nashotah House brings its rich heritage and its emphasis on the catholic tradition to this movement. We take Scripture just as seriously as evangelicals, plus we are well versed in the early fathers and doctors of the Church and other aspect of Church tradition so that we understand the history of the Church's interpretation of Scripture and its application in the faith, order, and ministry of the Church.

VOL: What do you see as Nashotah's greatest strength? What can Nashotah most offer the various Anglican Communion churches in America?

Munday: Nashotah House has four strengths: 1. the formation of the whole individual in the Benedictine tradition of prayer, study, and work. 2. The worship life of our Chapel, which consists of daily Eucharist and Morning and Evening Prayer. 3. Life on a beautiful campus in a warm and caring community that provides a great environment for seminarians and their families. 4. The outstanding quality of our faculty. Alumni who have returned to Nashotah House for visits attest that our faculty is the finest they have ever seen-not merely experts in their fields, but personally interested in the growth and formation of students into Christian leaders and priests.

VOL: What do you consider Nashotah's greatest accomplishment?

Munday: Probably our greatest accomplishment in recent years is that we were the first Anglican/Episcopal seminary to offer a master's degree program through distance education, so that students who cannot relocate to seminary for three full years can receive excellent training for ministry while remaining in the jobs and ministries they already have. This program combines online learning with residential weeks on Nashotah House's campus, so that all our students engage in our formative life in community and receive other benefits of a residential education as well.

We are also very pleased with our new Doctor of Ministry program, offering continuing education and an advanced degree for clergy in biblical exposition, liturgy, Anglican spirituality, and congregational development.

VOL: What do you see as Nashotah's worst failing?

Munday: Our greatest failing is that we have not done an adequate job of presenting what we have to offer to all those who need it. People who visit Nashotah House, encounter our worship and our community, and experience the teaching that goes on in our classes fall in love with the place. We continue to struggle with how to provide a taste of Nashotah House to all those who could benefit from what we have to offer.

VOL: Nashotah House has been around for more than 150 years. Do you see it being around for another 150 years?

Munday: Yes, we have been here for 167 years, and we are already planning for what Nashotah House will look like, God willing, at 200 years and beyond.

VOL: Why?

Munday: We believe that Nashotah House has a vital role to play in communicating the apostolic tradition and the Anglican ethos to future generations of the Church-not merely Anglicans, but the whole Church.

VOL: How has Nashotah House helped to formulate the current face of American Anglicanism today?

Munday: Nashotah House was established by Bishop Jackson Kemper, the Episcopal Church's first missionary bishop, when Wisconsin was the American frontier. Churches all over the upper Midwest and as far away as California were planted by early Nashotah graduates. Nashotah House's first graduate, in 1845, Gustav Unonius, ministered in the United States for 17 years before returning to his native Sweden and continuing his ministry there. A later graduate, Bishop John McKim, took the Gospel to Japan. Fourteen American and Canadian bishops who are graduates of Nashotah House were in attendance at the 2008 Lambeth Conference, and this does not count those who have received honorary doctorates, which includes nearly two dozen American, Global South, and British bishops, including the Archbishop of Canterbury. Our aim today is to learn where the mission frontiers are in this generation and to take the Gospel there. Our training in missions and evangelism and planting and growing congregations is aimed at insuring that we play a role in fulfilling Christ's Great Commission and reaching future generations around the world with the saving Gospel of Jesus Christ.

VOL: Is Nashotah House able to successfully teach both the evangelical as well as Anglo-Catholic spiritualities which are inherent to Anglicanism?

Munday: Our emphasis at Nashotah House is very definitely that of the Anglo-Catholic tradition, and we reflect the spirituality of the whole of the catholic tradition-the early church fathers, the medieval mystics and doctors of the church, the Caroline Divines, etc. But the tradition of the whole catholic Church also includes evangelicals, pietists, Puritan Divines and others who have made rich contributions to Christian spirituality. We are not only capable of incorporating the evangelical and charismatic streams in our teaching; we are very strongly committed to doing that, so that our graduates reflect the accumulated wisdom of the whole Christian tradition in their ministries.

VOL: How will Nashotah be able to keep its traditional orthodox Anglican teaching stance in the future with very essence of Anglican faith and order being undermined by the spiritual pollution of the world which has crept into the Church?

Munday: The founding Dean of Trinity Episcopal School for Ministry, Bishop Alfred Stanway, had a number of principles or aphorisms that guided his work. One of the principles he articulated was, "Under God, having the right people is the key." I have always found that to be true. The key to keeping a school orthodox is, first of all, having faculty and trustees who are committed followers of Jesus Christ and who understand that, as James 4:4 says, "friendship with the world is enmity with God." That is to say, we recognize that there are worldly values that are in conflict with the Gospel and the teaching of Scripture; and when those values collide, our unswerving allegiance must be to Jesus Christ our Lord, who saved us and "bought us with a price" (1 Corinthians 6:20, 7:23).

VOL: What is the most important aspect of priestly formation? How does Nashotah House meet it?

Munday: The most important aspect of priestly formation is Christian maturity. We must, first of all, begin by training those who are fully, radically committed to Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. If you start with anything else, it is like trying to make a piece of fine furniture out of wood that has knot holes in it.

Through the years, I have met people who viewed seminary as a place to "find their faith" or even to "have their faith taken apart and put back together again." I have to say that this is not the right way to think of seminary. There have been occasions when we have admitted students who were less than completely committed to Christ as Lord and Savior, or who used those words without fully understanding what they meant. And, frankly, we got burned-and so did they, and so did the Church. So that has made us all the more serious about not admitting students with a view to helping them "find their faith," but rather admitting students who are mature in their faith and called and gifted to be leaders, and then forming those individuals into priests.

Then, in addition to Christian maturity, priestly formation involves priestly identity. We gain an understanding of the identity of those God calls to be priests from Scripture and the Church's tradition. We aim to live out that tradition by incarnating the message of the Gospel for those to whom God calls us to minister. I think of George Herbert's poem, "The Priesthood," which contains this stanza:

But th' holy men of God such vessels are,

As serve him up, who all the world commands:

When God vouchsafeth to become our fare,

Their hands convey him, who conveys their hands.

O what pure things, most pure must those things be,

Who bring my God to me.

The call to the priesthood (and the diaconate and episcopate as well) is not like any other vocation. While I am convinced that God can and does call everyone (if we listen to Him) into that profession by which we can best glorify Him and use the gifts He has given us, ordained clergy have the task of conveying God to the world. There is something very special about that. Clergy are God's gifts to the Church. At the same time, the worst thing clergy can do is to think of themselves as "God's gift to the Church"-if you know what I mean.

Finally, at Nashotah House we are engaged in teaching the craft of being a priest-and all that that entails. Students here are steeped in things that other seminaries simply can't approximate. That is why I often hear bishops say that graduates of Nashotah House are better able to "hit the ground running"-that is, they are better able to take a parish and know what they are doing from the first day than graduates of any other seminary.

VOL: As Nashotah's dean what is your greatest accomplishment? As Nashotah's dean what would you still like to accomplish? When you eventually leave Nashotah, what would you like your legacy to be?

Munday: In addition to our new our Doctor of Ministry program and our Master of Arts degree by distance education-I am very pleased that the enrollment has grown considerably in my eight years as Dean, and that our finances are in better shape. However, we still have much work to do in both these areas of enrollment and finances. A major concern of ours right now is that, in addition to the Episcopal dioceses we have served in the past, Nashotah House will be embraced by newer Anglican constituencies (such as ACNA, AMiA, CANA, etc.) who need the training that Nashotah House is uniquely able to offer.

The accomplishment that gives me the most satisfaction, personally, is the quality of the faculty that has come together under my deanship. Nashotah House has an outstanding faculty of professors who are exceptional teachers and who reflect their love for God and for students in what they do. They are uncompromising in their faithfulness and very committed to seeing that what they teach enables our graduates to go out as priests and leaders who can transform congregations.

But, really, both my greatest accomplishment and my legacy are illustrated by something that was pointed out to me recently: We pray for a portion of our alumni, by name, in Chapel every day. We also pray for a portion of our current student body (both residential and distance students) every day. As we came out of Chapel the other day, Dr. Carol Klukas, our Director of Admissions, asked me: "Have you noticed that the list of students and alumni we pray for each day is twice as long as when you began your deanship, and half the names are those who have graduated from Nashotah House in the past eight years?" Frankly, I hadn't thought about it, and it was stunning to realize that it was true.

While we may have added degree programs, seen our enrollment grow, and beautified the campus in various ways, the only legacy I really care about is what God has done in the hearts and minds of those who have studied here under my deanship. Faithful graduates of Nashotah House are having an impact on countless lives and souls of people in the Body of Christ, the Church. That is the only legacy that really matters, because it is the only legacy that lasts for eternity.

VOL: Thank you Dr. Munday

Footnote: Some 15% of the student body of 115 on campus, including graduates and distance learning are women with a number going into the ordained ministry. Nashotah House trains women for the priesthood.

END

The Church, (P)ECUSA and the DFMS

From the Anglican Curmudgeon:

THURSDAY, OCTOBER 8, 2009

I have been asked to explain the difference between "the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America" and the "Domestic and Foreign Missionary Society of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America." In law, the first is a voluntary unincorporated association of dioceses; the second is a religious corporation, formed under New York law. A little history is in order.

You see, PECUSA originally came together as a common-law voluntary association of individual churches which constituted the successors, in each of the respective States represented, of the established Church of England. Those churches in each State became referred to as "dioceses", by analogy to the Church of England.

However, as a common-law association of dioceses, the Church could not hold title to any property, or receive gifts or bequests. At first this did not matter, because the individual parishes in each diocese held the title to their property, and received gifts and bequests. There was no need for the national Church to have any assets, since it consisted solely of a gathering which met for just ten days or so every three years.

All of this changed when a wealthy New Yorker, Clement C. Moore (of "'Twas the Night Before Christmas" fame), offered to make a gift of sixty lots in New York City for the building of a school for the training of Episcopal clergy. For some years previously, the Church had been discussing the founding of such a "theological school", and how to raise funds for such a purpose; a campaign was begun, and a trust established under Connecticut law with which to receive donations. The "Theological Seminary" had opened its doors in New Haven in September 1820 in rented premises, and begun its first year of classes. But with the proffered gift from Clement Moore (whose father had been the second Bishop of New York), there was a substantial incentive to locate the Seminary in New York City, and hence the need to create a corporation under the laws of that State able to receive donations and administer Moore's gift.

General Convention in May 1820 had hastily approved a "Constitution of the Protestant Episcopal Missionary Society", to be governed by a board of twenty-four managers, "twelve of whom shall reside in or near the city of Philadelphia," with the Presiding Bishop as President and the other bishops in the Church as vice presidents. This proved unworkable, as no provision was made for how the bishops would function together with the "managers". The managers made a proposal to the bishops which was not accepted, and the society disbanded soon afterwards.

The need to form a society under New York law became more urgent when in March 1821 it was learned that a Mr. Jacob Sherred of New York City had died and left a bequest amounting to some eighty thousand dollars (approximately $ 1,278,000 in today's terms) conditioned upon the establishment of an Episcopal Seminary in the State of New York under the direction of General Convention. Presiding Bishop William White accordingly called a Special General Convention of the Church to meet in Philadelphia over the period October 30 to November 3, 1821 in order to address how best to meet the terms of the gift. The result was the establishment of a separate entity under New York law to operate the Theological Seminary under the terms of Moore's and Sherred's gifts.

In response to a report from its managers, the Special Convention of 1821 also took up the plight of the stillborn "Missionary Society". With the seminary provided for separately, it was decided to establish a permanent corporation for the mission of the Church on the model of the Church of England's Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts. An amended Constitution was approved by both Houses, after further negotiation on the role to be played in its governance by the bishops of the Church, and the Domestic and Foreign Missionary Society of the Protestant Episcopal Church of the United States of America formally came into being. Its members were designated as all bishops and deputies in General Convention, plus any others who should subscribe at least $3 annually to its mission.

The Society thus formed operated chiefly out of Philadelphia for its first twenty-five years, and went through several revisions to its Constitution. It was finally incorporated in its present form under the laws of New York in 1846.The provisions of its Constitution are incorporated into the Canons of the Episcopal Church (USA) as Canon I.3. Its first two Articles are as follows:

ARTICLE I This organization shall be called The Domestic and Foreign Missionary Society of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America, and shall be considered as comprehending all persons who are members of the Church.

ARTICLE II The Executive Council, as constituted by Canon, shall be its Board of Directors, and shall adopt By-laws for its government not inconsistent with the Constitution and Canons.
Thus every person who is a member of an Episcopal parish or mission, and every licensed member of the clergy, are in some unspecified way deemed part of the DFMS. However, Canon I.3 does not use the word "member", and the DFMS does not have "voting members" as such. Its affairs are controlled and run by another canonically created body, the Executive Council (which recently itself underwent an "informal" reorganization). The Presiding Bishop is ex officio the President of the DFMS, and the President of the House of Deputies is one of two Vice Presidents of the DFMS; the other Vice President is the person actually hired as the Executive Director of the Society. The Financial Officer and the Secretary of the Executive Council, respectively, are ex officio the Treasurer and the Secretary of the DFMS.

What does the DFMS do? First and foremost, it holds and invests the assets of (P)ECUSA. As explained in the latest edition of the Trust Fund Book [CAUTION: 3.07MB .pdf download], the DFMS is the custodian of over $363 million in accumulated trust funds donated to PECUSA, primarily for missionary purposes, although there are many gifts as well which were unrestricted when made. These funds are all invested, and the Church uses the income to supplement its other sources, such as government grants and voluntary contributions by dioceses. (For more detail about the Trust Funds and their relation to the Church's current litigation expenses, see this earlier post. To obtain copies of the latest budget and audited financial statements of the Church, go to this link. To see the charter of the Audut Committee of the DFMS and Executive Council, click on this link.)

The DFMS also coordinates and organizes the missionary work of the Church that is not carried on at the diocesan or parish level. It does this through the Mission Program Office located at Church headquarters in New York, which is under the authority of the Presiding Bishop.

So this is the way things work in practice. (P)ECUSA itself -- the voluntary association of Dioceses -- is not itself a church; it is a denomination. It also, under its Constitution, has no officers as such: instead, General Convention has its officers, including the Presiding Bishop of the House of Bishops, and the President of the House of Deputies, and so forth. There is, therefore, no "President" or CEO of (P)ECUSA. The Constitution leaves it an unincorporated association, and since its members are all individual dioceses -- who themselves are mostly unincorporated associations -- there are no members who are individuals who could even occupy the position of "President" or "CEO" of (P)ECUSA.

General Convention is the vehicle by which (P)ECUSA's member dioceses come together to work for the common purpose and good of "the Church" -- which is just a handy collective noun for all of the thousands of parishes which make up the member Dioceses. General Convention itself is not "the Church" -- nor could it be, because it comes into existence for just two weeks out of every 156 weeks in a given triennium.

As you can see, this creates a vacuum at the very top of "the Church". The Dioceses could not hold any property or assets of the Church collectively, so they formed the DFMS to do that. As a corporation, DFMS had to have officers, including a President, a Vice President (or two), a Secretary and a Treasurer, and it had to have a Board of Directors. The Church Canons -- not the Constitution -- fill all those positions from the officers of General Convention and the members and officers of the Executive Council, which itself is another canonical (and not constitutional) creation.

Because the Presiding Bishop, the President of the House of Deputies, and the Executive Council have by canon been appointed to manage all of this accumulated property and money that has been donated to the DFMS over the years, they have tended with time to see themselves as the real "officers of the Church." Their high profile in all the news about the Church lends support to that image. But it is well to remember that the real Episcopal Church (USA) is not General Convention, not the DFMS, nor the people at 815. Instead it is the over 7,000 individual parishes and missions who are the real Church; without them, there would be no "Church" as the ordinary person understands that term. The bureaucracy is supposed to work for the parishes and missions, and not the other way around.

And that is why this and other Episcopalian blogs get so exercised when the bureaucracy acts as though they were "the Church."


Posted by A. S. Haley at 1:30 PM

Statement Concerning the Court Ruling of October 6, 2009

From the pecusa DoPitt via TitusOneNine:

We are grateful that Judge Joseph James has ruled that the 2005 Stipulation and Order concerning diocesan property is “clear and unambiguous” in requiring that those assets be held and administered by the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh of the Episcopal Church of the United States, and that we are that diocese.

The Judge has ordered that a process for an orderly transition of diocesan property begin within 30 days. We look forward to that transition and will cooperate in the process. We are hopeful that the former leaders of the diocese who sought to retain control of diocesan assets after they themselves separated from the Episcopal Church will also cooperate in the transition and not seek to delay implementation of the Court’s order.

Questions have been raised in a number of quarters, including the news media, about the meaning and effect of this decision on the issues of parish property.

The Court’s order encompasses the "real and personal property that is subject to Paragraph One of the Stipulation of October 14, 2005," and the parties have been directed to meet with the Special Master previously appointed by the Court to identify all of the property that falls within that paragraph of the Stipulation. In general, that will include all of the real and personal property held by the diocese (or the Board of Trustees of the diocese) except real or personal property "as to which title is legitimately held in the name of a parish" of the diocese.

The Stipulation of October 14, 2005 includes a separate section (Paragraph Two) that provides a procedural process applicable to the real and personal property of parishes falling outside the scope of Paragraph One - in other words, the property "as to which title is legitimately held in the name of a parish." The decision by Judge James did not address Paragraph Two of the Stipulation directly, but the decision does affirm that our diocese is the "Diocese" referred to in that portion of the Stipulation.

Paragraph Two of the 2005 Stipulation requires that there be a dialogue between the diocese and any parish seeking to disaffiliate from the diocese regarding the disposition of property specifically held for or in the name of the parish, followed by mediation (where a neutral third party helps the parties resolve any disputes between them), before the diocese or the parish may resort to the courts to decide the dispute.

The diocese intends to follow this procedural mechanism, now that the Court has made it clear that we are the "Diocese" referred to in the Stipulation.

It needs to be understood, however, that Paragraph Two is procedural only. It does not alter the legal or ecclesiastical principles surrounding the questions of whether a parish can disaffiliate from the diocese or whether a disaffiliating congregation may retain parish property.

To everyone in parishes where members have separated from the Episcopal Church, we say that despite our different views, we sincerely invite you to be reconciled with us and return to active participation in the diocese, so that no disputes over property are necessary. We pledge to you that we do not seek to punish but rather only to be reconciled with you. In our work together over the past year, we have learned that we have widely different opinions on many of the issues facing the Episcopal Church today; we have also learned that if we refuse to allow those differences to harden into divisions, many fruitful things can be accomplished.

Some media reports have incorrectly suggested that we will now begin simply to transfer buildings and land to parishes that do not want to be active in the Episcopal Church. Our fiduciary duties as trustees and stewards, as well as the terms of the Stipulation, do not permit that to be the case.

But it remains our desire, within the constraints of the Stipulation and the canons and legal principles which govern our stewardship of these matters, to find a means to use these sacred spaces to the greatest glory of God.

Posted on October 9th, 2009

PITTSBURGH: Diocesan Offer to Release, Not Depose Clergy Rejected by Pittsburgh Anglicans

By David W. Virtue
www.virtueonline.org
October 9, 2009

An offer by the Potemkin Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh to release diocesan priests from their ministerial ties to the Episcopal Church so that they can become licensed in any entity they choose has been rejected by Anglican officials of the former diocese.

A news release from the diocese said the decision affects approximately 100 priests and deacons who have not been active in the Episcopal Church since October 2008 when a majority of members of the diocese and its leadership voted to leave the Episcopal Church and align with the Anglican Province of the Southern Cone.

The clergy are being given two weeks to respond.

However, Robert Devlin, Chancellor for the original Diocese of Pittsburgh now the Anglican Diocese of Pittsburgh, put the brakes on the idea urging clergy of the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh (Anglican) to consider not signing up to this till both Standing Committees had come together to find a joint solution.

He wrote, "We have been informed that the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh (TEC) has sent a letter to you seeking to release those clergy who so desire under the provisions of Canon III.9.8." The stated purpose of this action is to update TEC's records in a way that "does not involve deposition.

"While we are very much in favor of avoiding further discord among our respective organizations, we cannot recommend that you accept this option. Canon III.9.8, entitled 'Renunciation of Ordained Ministry', has the effect of removing you from ministerial office and depriving you of 'the right to exercise the gifts and spiritual authority as a Minister of God's Word and Sacraments conferred in Ordination.' The letter indicates that this action is only effective with respect to TEC. The plain language of the Canon is not so clearly limited.

"If this is solely a matter of record keeping, we encourage the two diocesan standing committees to come together to find a solution that involves neither deposition nor renunciation of ministry. The Standing Committee of the Anglican Diocese is ready to propose at least one way that this might easily be accomplished."

Allan S. Haley an attorney for the Diocese of San Joaquin had this to say; "Canon III.9.8 is the counterpart (for ministers) of Canon III.12.7 for bishops, by which the Presiding Bishop claimed to accept the 'renunciations' of Bishops Iker, Wantland and Scriven from the ordained ministry, based on statements they had made which she unilaterally interpreted as satisfying the Canon's requirements. The Chancellor for Bishop Duncan's Diocese is correct to caution any clergy from accepting such a route to assist the Episcopal Church (USA) in record-keeping problems of its own creation, which would create a cloud on their orders.

"I shall not presume, however, to offer any canonical advice to clergy in another Diocese who are so ably represented already. I would just second Chancellor Devlin's advice, and point out as well that the Canons of the Episcopal Church (USA) have a ready means of effecting a transfer of clergy to other jurisdictions through the issuance of letters dimissory. All that is required is that the Bishop in charge of the Diocese which wants to remove the clergy from its records issue such letters to each person involved, and then that Bishop reports to 815 that the clergy in question have transferred and are no longer canonically resident in that Diocese."

The Rev. J. Philip Ashey, Chief Operating Officer and Chaplain for the American Anglican Council told VOL, "I know some of those who sit on the Standing Committee of the new Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh; I served with them while I was there from 1998-2001, and I do not at all doubt their motives for trying act towards those clergy who have left TEC in a less punitive way than through inhibition and deposition.

"However, if their goal is as stated 'simply to clean up the records,' they have received some very poor advice from whomever they are consulting with regards to interpretation and application of TEC Canons.

"They can easily clean up their records and remove the departing clergy by less drastic means that Canon III.9.8. They can remove the departing clergy by declaring they are no longer licensed to officiate in the new Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh, per Canon III.9.6. Or they could transfer them to the Southern Cone by Letters Dimissory per Canon III.9.4.

"But to 'clean up the records' by application of a Canon for the Renunciation of Ministry is like using a bazooka on a fly.

"The operative effect of action under Canon III.9.8 is as follows, and I quote: 'the Priest is released from the obligations of the Ministerial office, and is deprived of the right to exercise the gifts and spiritual authority as a Minister of God's Word and Sacraments conferred in Ordination.' The language is clear. A sentence pronounced under Canon III.9.8 is a formal renunciation of ministry, period. It is a revocation of Holy Orders-- and even though it is not for reasons of discipline under Title IV, it is equally as final a revocation of Holy Orders as deposition under Canon IV.9.

"Even if the Standing Committee of the new Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh says that they are not revoking forever the Holy Orders of those who have departed, they are in fact doing so under the plain language of Canon III.9.8.

"They are also adding insult to injury by effectively denying the interchangeability of Holy Orders within the Anglican Communion. For, in imposing this irrevocable renunciation of ministry, they are in effect denying the continuing validity of their Holy Orders as clergy in the Southern Cone. And in doing so, they have added a hundred more tears and rips to the fabric of our beloved Communion. This is exactly the message that ++Henry Orombi of Uganda delivered to the TEC bishop of Virginia when I received the same sentence of "implied renunciation" under Canon III.9.8 in 2005.

"And I have not even addressed here the "due process" requirements of a written letter from each priest formally renouncing-- not resigning, not transferring, not leaving, but RENOUNCING-- their Holy orders under Canon III.9.8, if the standing committee proceeds as they have announced.

"Is this really they way they wish to treat their former brothers and sisters in ministry? Is this really the best that they can do in observing both the law and grace?"

At its website the American Anglican Council has documented canonical abuses by the leadership of the Episcopal Church, violating its own canons in furtherance of the new theology: including the abuse of abandonment and renunciation canons in order to inhibit and depose 10 bishops and 104 priests and deacons. http://tinyurl.com/bks6ro

Concluded Devlin; "We appreciate the sentiment, if it is sincere, but we are reading the canon differently. We will work toward a solution."

END

TEC Diocese of Atlanta to Take Part in Gay Pride Parade/ Gay Pride Eucharist

Source: Diocese of Atlanta via American Anglican Council:

October 7, 2009

Atlanta's Pride Festival is Oct. 31 - Nov. 1 and, for the sixth year in a row, Episcopalians from throughout the Diocese of Atlanta will take part. Members of Episcopal churches will staff a booth in Piedmont Park, march in a Midtown parade and distribute water at St. Luke's Episcopal Church on Peachtree Street.

"Everyone is invited to participate, at whatever level you can, and help to spread the message that the Episcopal Church welcomes everyone!" said the Rev. Mac Thigpen, rector of St. Bartholomew's, Atlanta.

The Nov. 1 parade starts at 1 p.m. Episcopalians will gather at the Civic Center MARTA station to march behind the "Episcopal Church Welcomes You" banner. All are welcome: gay and straight, single people, families, laity and clergy. For more information, contact Thigpen, mac@stbartsatlanta.org.

The annual Gay Pride Eucharist will be held the previous week, at 7 p.m. Thursday, Oct. 22, at All Saints' Episcopal Church, 633 W. Peachtree St., Atlanta. The Rev. Dr. Elizabeth M. Kaeton, rector of St. Paul's Episcopal Church in Chatham, N.J., and currently president of The Episcopal Women's Caucus will preach. The Rt. Rev. Keith B. Whitmore, assistant bishop for the Diocese of Atlanta, will preside.
_________________________

TEC Executive Council expresses concern with covenant's disciplinary section
Source: Episcopal Life Online
October 8, 2009
By Mary Frances Schjonberg

The Episcopal Church's Executive Council said October 8 that the majority of the General Convention deputations and individual deputies that expressed an opinion do not support the disciplinary process outlined in the latest draft of a proposed Anglican covenant.

The comment came in the council's official response to the Ridley Cambridge Draft, which the members said addresses "some of the most difficult matters and substance relating to such a covenant."

The Anglican Communion's provinces were asked for specific comments on the draft's Section Four, which contains a dispute-resolution process.

"One [General Convention] deputation stated that Section Four is 'disturbing' because it creates a system of governance contrary to our understanding of Anglicanism and establishes a punitive system executed by a select committee," the council said. "On the other hand, a deputation felt that the fourth section is important because a governance section is needed to maintain a covenant."

Another response called the authority the communion's Standing Committee would have in the disciplinary process so "ill-defined as to endanger the very essence of Anglicanism." (The Standing Committee is a group of elected representatives of the Anglican Consultative Council (ACC) and the Primates Meeting).

The Executive Council said that the comments it received on Section Four were "so interwoven" with comments on the covenant as a whole that "separating the two is difficult."

"The majority of deputations and individual deputies that responded are not convinced that the covenant in its current form will bring about deeper communion," the council said. "Several stated that the overall idea of a covenant is 'un-Anglican.' One went as far as to say that the 'document incorporates anxiety.'"

On the other hand, the council noted, another deputy called the covenant "a presentation of the Christian community as a dynamic spiritual body in which God-given freedom is inextricably bound up with God-given accountability." . . .

_________________________

A Message from Bishop David Anderson

Beloved in Christ,

There is a certain suspense in watching the unfolding battle between the Episcopal Church (TEC) and Anglican orthodoxy around the world. As TEC's demographics continue to implode, both in membership and finances, it funnels ever-larger amounts of money and resource into domestic litigation and overseas charm offensives.

Presiding Bishop Jefferts Schori is unwilling to reveal the current statistics of membership decline, but TEC continues to count many of those who have left as if they were still in TEC. For example, the membership of St. James Newport Beach, CA, which departed in 2004, is still being counted by the TEC Diocese of Los Angeles as if all those people were still a part of the Diocese. This is replicated in much of the United States, so whatever number Jefferts Schori is afraid to show us is still not as bad as the reality. Perhaps it has finally gotten to the point where she doesn't want her own people to know what her regime has done to the church. As she turns off the money flow for real mission and fires some of her staff, money and people are flowing to African dioceses in Tanzania, central African nations, and even dioceses here and there in GAFCON/FCA Provinces. All it takes is a willing TEC bishop or priest to bring help, money, books, teachers or whatever to a targeted diocese, and turn on the charm.

If some of the orthodox bishops in the Global South expect that they can "work with" TEC and still maintain their purity, they may find that they are riding the tiger. Tanzania is especially targeted and a priest from the Diocese of Atlanta is over there now doing a teaching mission.

Speaking of the Diocese of Atlanta, the Diocese proudly proclaims its support and participation in the Gay Pride Festival Oct. 31 - Nov. 1 (note that they are are planning the parade for All Saints' Day - are they using "all saints" to signal inclusivity?). Leading up to the Festival is the Diocesan Gay Pride Eucharist on Oct. 22 at...you guessed it...All Saints' Episcopal Church, North Avenue and West Peachtree Street.

The gay agenda of TEC stretches from coast to coast and from north to south on both coasts. Far to the north of Atlanta, the TEC bishop of Maine is busy advocating for same-sex marriage. He is so proud of his heterodoxy and corruption of the faith and morals of the church that he posts information about it on his Blog. At this point, the orthodox Episcopal bishops are an endangered minority, and their people and priests are at high risk. After the voting tsunami of the last TEC General Convention, it became clear that the days of Jefferts Schori putting up with any dissent are numbered. In fact the only reason to delay her reprisals against the orthodox may be concern about how this would play out with Dr. Rowan Williams. If she continues to see that he will only wring his hands, appoint a committee, and release inconclusive statements, she will grow more and more bold. It is likely that as TEC's membership and income continue to dwindle, the level of intolerance of orthodoxy will increase.

Although last week brought some good news from the legal sector, with encouragement from a Fort Worth, Texas judge and the Supreme Court of South Carolina, this week brought some disappointment as the lower court judge in Pittsburgh, apparently forgetting some of his own statements, issued a ruling against Bishop Duncan and the orthodox Diocese of Pittsburgh. More news about this will unfold over the next several weeks. The United States Supreme Court declined to accept an appeal request from my former parish, St. James, Newport Beach, although many hoped that they would understand the gravity of the situation. They apparently feel that the lower courts have not completed their work, and that the legal situation has additional maturation that needs to take place. As John Eastman, attorney for St. James, explained, "The Supreme Court normally considers only cases that are final, so it is not surprising that the Court decided to wait until further developments in this case are completed." By the time that the lower courts actually deal with all the issues of fact and law, which should support St. James' claims, there may be other legal appeals lining up as well.

The travesty of all of this litigation is that it is unnecessary. Most of the departing churches would have been willing to negotiate over their property if given the chance, but Jefferts Schori is on record as preferring that the buildings be sold for any use whatsoever except that of departing Anglicans. Why is she so full of hatred and malice? Because if she doesn't destroy the AC-NA she knows that it will increase even as her "Church of the False Gospel" will dissipate into the dust of history. Fortunately for former Presiding Bishop Frank Griswold, Jefferts Schori will be blamed for shipwrecking the church, even though Griswold should rightfully share in the opprobrium.

There are better times coming, of this I am confident, and the present earthly trials will in the end seem insignificant, as we see men and women come to Christ, and as lives are transformed by God's grace in action. What we now see by faith we shall live to see with our own eyes.

Blessings and peace in Christ Jesus,

The Rt. Rev. David C. Anderson, Sr.
President and CEO, American Anglican Council

________

Presiding bishop hides membership/attendance statistics

From the BibleBeltBlogger via Stand Firm:

The Episcopal Church has compiled its membership and average Sunday attendance (ASA) figures for 2008, but is declining to release them.

Membership and attendance figures have dropped every year since the consecration of the church’s first openly-gay bishop, the Rev. Gene Robinson, as bishop of New Hampshire, in 2003.

Church spokesmen originally said the 2008 figures would be released in September. But that date came and went.

In a conference call with the media this afternoon from Memphis, Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori confirmed that she has the information, but wouldn’t say whether the numbers look good or bad for the 2.1 million-member denomination.

Bonnie Anderson, president of the church’s House of Deputies, also declined to reveal the details.

The church trumpets its transparent governance and its openness on its home page but it wasn’t very open this week about its numbers.

Having been tipped that the numbers were being shared with the Executive Council during its Oct. 5-8 meeting, I e-mailed church public affairs officer Neva Rae Fox late Wednesday, Oct. 7, and asked for a “copy of the new ASA and membership figures that were passed out to the Executive Council at this week’s meeting.”

She e-mailed me back that “ASA and membership figures have not been passed out to Exec Council.”

So I e-mailed back: “Perhaps passed out is the wrong word. It’s my understanding that the figures are finished and were shared with the Executive Council this week.”

This morning, she responded: “if so, not yet. nothing has been shared yet.”

That didn’t match what I’d been led to believe by a very reliable source. So I asked Anderson and the Presiding Bishop about the numbers during the press conference. Here’s what they said:

BIBLE BELT BLOGGER: The ASA and membership figures for 2008 have been compiled. I’m wondering if those were shared with the Executive Council this week and what the ASA and membership figures show for 2008 for the domestic dioceses.

PRESIDENT ANDERSON: Yes. (Clears throat). Excuse me, yes, they’ve been, um, circulated to the Executive Council via electronic means but we’re not going to be talking about those per se. Our agenda’s pretty full and we’ll probably be taking those up in the future at our next meeting.

BIBLE BELT BLOGGER: Can you share, though, what the results are?

PRESIDENT ANDERSON: We don’t know. I mean we have it written out but we’ll be posting it I’m sure as soon as we’re, they’re, approved and available. But yes, you’ll be able to get them.

LOCKWOOD: But presiding bishop, can you tell us what they show?

PRESIDING BISHOP JEFFERTS SCHORI: I, I’m sorry. I’m not able to comment on that at the moment. I don’t have it in my head.

BIBLE BELT BLOGGER: Do you know approximately? Can you give an approximation? Are they up or down?

CHURCH PUBLIC AFFAIRS OFFICER NEVA RAE FOX: Frank, we need to move on now. Um, I believe the presiding officers have indicated that the figures will be available at a later time, but not right now. Thank you.

So there you have it. The numbers have been circulated, not passed out. The figures have been shared with the Most Rev. Katharine Jefferts Schori, but the theologian/scientist can’t comment on them because “I don’t have it in my head.”

Based on the above, do you think the statistics — if they were in the presiding bishop’s head — would be good news or bad news for this badly divided denomination?

Judge James Goes off the Deep End

From the Anglican Curmudgeon:

Tuesday, October 6, 2009

Up until now, I have reserved judgment about the legal abilities of Judge Joseph M. James of the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County in Pennsylvania. Based on the transcripts of the arguments before him, he had seemed to maintain an open mind in the proceedings, which placed at issue the ability of the Diocese of Pittsburgh headed by the Rt. Rev. Robert W. Duncan to hold the assets it had acquired for the benefit of the parishes which made up its membership.

Now, unfortunately, Judge James has demonstrated that he is unequal to the task before him. He has issued a decision that entirely skips over the complex issues raised by 815's formation of a Potemkin diocese out of the parishes which did not agree with the vote of the Diocese to withdraw, and which were allowed to retain their property. He concludes, without any reasoning at all, that the Potemkin diocese is entitled to all of the property and assets of the one true diocese. Clergy in the former, led by the Rev. Dr. Jim Simons, have been gifted with a temporary victory won by unprincipled means -- and thereby have managed to demonstrate the wisdom in St. Paul's admonishment to Christians who would take their disputes to the secular courts for resolution.

Judge James claims to be enforcing the language of a stipulation entered into by the parties which was intended to settle the original lawsuit, which had been brought by Calvary Church and some individuals in 2003. The Stipulation provided in paragraph 1 as follows (I have added emphasis to stress the relevant parts):

1. Property, whether real or personal . . . held by the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh of the Episcopal Church of the United States of America (hereinafter "Diocese") for the beneficial use of the parishes and institutions of the Diocese, shall continue to be so held and administered by the Diocese regardless of whether some or even a majority of the parishes in the Diocese might decide not to remain in the Episcopal Church of the United States of America. . . .

So now let us apply an objective lens to the quality of analysis which Judge James brings to the interpretation of this language. He seems to think that the issue was decided long before the Stipulation was signed in 2005, when he refused in March 2004 to grant the defendants' Motion to Dismiss (emphasis added):

After the filing of an answer and a number of other pleadings, on March 17, 2004, the court denied defendants' Motion to Dismiss and ordered the parties to go forward with discovery. At the hearing on that Motion to Dismiss, the court found that the Canons of the Episcopal Church of the United States of America imposed a constructive trust on parish property for the benefit of the Episcopal Church of the United States of America and the Pittsburgh Diocese of that church.

Maybe you did, Judge James, maybe you did so find. But even you characterize that earlier "ruling" as dealing only with parish property, and not diocesan property. The Dennis Canon, of course, addresses the former, but not the latter:

Sec. 4. All real and personal property held by or for the benefit of any Parish, Mission or Congregation is held in trust for this Church and the Diocese thereof in which such Parish, Mission or Congregation is located. The existence of this trust, however, shall in no way limit the power and authority of the Parish, Mission or Congregation otherwise existing over such property so long as the particular Parish, Mission or Congregation remains a part of, and subject to, this Church and its Constitution and Canons.


Property held by a Diocese (a real one, at any rate) is not held "by or for the benefit of" any particular parish. To bring this point home, let us look at the rarely quoted second section of the Dennis Canon:

Sec. 5. The several Dioceses may, at their election, further confirm the trust declared under the foregoing Section 4 by appropriate action, but no such action shall be necessary for the existence and validity of the trust.

If the intent of the Dennis Canon were to apply to the property of dioceses as well as to the property of parishes, why would section 5 give dioceses the option of "further confirm[ing] the trust declared under the foregoing Section 4", but not give that same option to the parishes themselves? Such reasoning, of course escapes Judge James; he maintains he decided this case long ago, in March 2004, and is only now getting around, more than five years later, to informing the parties of that fact.

In the process of doing so, however, the honorable Judge shows that he has not mastered the basic underlying facts (emphasis added):

In fact, at the Diocesan Convention of October 4, 2008, a resolution to withdraw the Diocese from the Episcopal Church of the United States of America and align it with the Anglican Province of the Southern Cone received a majority of the votes cast.

After defendants took this action to withdraw from the Episcopal Church of the United States of America, the Episcopal Church of the United States of America removed Bishop Duncan as Bishop of Pittsburgh and named new members of the standing committee of the Diocese of Pittsburgh.

No, Judge James, the Episcopal Church of the United States of America claimed to have removed Bishop Duncan from his position before the Diocese of Pittsburgh held its vote to withdraw from the Church. But since your mind was made up in this matter in March 2004, why let the facts get in the way?

Those parishes that remained loyal to the Episcopal Church of the United States of America (including plaintiffs) are now recognized as the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh of the Episcopal Church of the United States of America.

As the Episcoleft is so fond of telling us, only General Convention can create dioceses. So what is this use of the passive voice about -- that the departing parishes "are now recognized" as a Diocese? Who did the recognizing? Again, to Judge James, the facts just do not matter.

Thus we come to the heart of the honorable Judge's decision. Notice the appeal to "clear and unambiguous language", instead of legal reasoning:

Many pages of the parties' briefs have been used to explain what Paragraph One means. However, I find that the language is clear and unambiguous and, therefore, requires no further explanation. The property is to be held or administered by the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh of the Episcopal Church of the United States of America. Regardless of what name defendants now call themselves, they are not the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh of the Episcopal Church of the United States of America.

"Many pages", Judge James? How about hundreds and hundreds? And over fifty separate exhibits? All to elucidate the meaning of a paragraph which you say is "clear and unambiguous" on its face?

Judge James then justifies his conclusion with these words:

Credible evidence establishes that the entity now represented by Attorney Andrew Roman has been recognized as the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh of the Episcopal Church of the United States of America. Defendants contend that this designation is invalid and that they are entitled to continue to hold and administer the subject property. There is no basis in law or fact for their position. The Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh of the Episcopal Church of the United States of America did not cease to exist when the defendants chose to withdraw. The defendants could not extinguish an entity that was created and recognized by the intervenors. The action to designate a subsequent board of governance and appoint a successor to Bishop Duncan is further evidence that the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh of the Episcopal Church of the United States of America never ceased to exist.

There's that passive voice again -- "has been recognized". By whom, Judge James? Not by General Convention enacting a resolution admitting the Potemkin group into union with it, that's for sure. If you take the word of the Church's expert, Dr. Bruce Mullin, that is the only "recognition" that counts. (Oh, wait -- Dr. Mullin did not testify in Pittsburgh; no need to, since the case was apparently resolved in March 2004, long before the Potemkin diocese was created.) And then we come to this startling statement:

The Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh of the Episcopal Church of the United States of America did not cease to exist when the defendants chose to withdraw. The defendants could not extinguish an entity that was created and recognized by the intervenors.

Extinguish? Who said anything about extinguishing? I have used a word search on all of Bishop Duncan's legal briefs submitted to the court, and I did not find that word anywhere in them. This has all the appearance of ignoratio elenchi, the setting up of a straw man in order to show how he can be knocked down.

And what becomes of the Diocese headed up by Bishop Duncan? If the group that chose to leave the Convention after the vote remains "the Diocese" because it could not be "extinguished", then I guess the vote taken was not to amend the Diocesan Constitution, but instead to create an entirely new Diocese. Because that is the only way one can conclude that the group that walked out of the Convention suddenly became "the Diocese" (but only after it was "created and recognized by the intervenors", of course).

So let us try this reasoning on for size. Here are the steps which logically must have occurred, according to Judge James:

1. The Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh, a lawful entity under Pennsylvania law and a defendant in the Pittsburgh lawsuit, voted in October 2008 to amend its Constitution so as to remove the language which made it a constituent part of the Episcopal Church (USA). Certain delegations to the Convention walk out after the vote.

2. The same Diocese meets in a Special Convention two months later and elects the Rt. Rev. Robert W. Duncan as its bishop. Both it and he continue to be defendants in the lawsuit before Judge James. However, according to Judge James, they are not the same entities any more.

3. Thus, the vote in October did not amend the diocesan Constitution, despite the fact that everyone there though that was what was happening. No, by some legal magic, what happened was that a new entity was instantly created and constituted under Pennsylvania law, and that new entity was the one who met in Special Convention a little later.

4. Because, you see, the group that walked out of the Convention, and who opposed the vote to amend, remained the original Diocese, which the group voting to amend could not "extinguish". So if they remained the original Diocese, then Bishop Duncan's group must somehow have instantly become a new legal entity which called itself a Diocese.

5. But there is no need to substitute that new entity into the lawsuit, as would normally be done when any new entity is formed in the place of an old one. No, instead, we will let that new entity continue as a defendant in the lawsuit, even though it is not the same entity it was before the vote to amend.

6. And the entity that remained in place, that was not "extinguished", must now be allowed, once it has first been "recognized" by those who "created" it originally, to intervene in the legal proceedings as an intervening plaintiff -- even though, before the vote to amend, that same entity was a defendant.

All perfectly clear? That settles that. Next case!

Posted by A. S. Haley at 10:53 PM

Judge Favors TEC Diocese in Pittsburgh Property Case

From The Living Church:

Posted on: October 7, 2009

A county judge has ordered the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh (Anglican) to surrender diocesan property and assets to the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh of the Episcopal Church in the United States.

Calvary Church, Pittsburgh, filed the lawsuit against the Rt. Rev. Robert W. Duncan, then the Episcopal Church’s Bishop of Pittsburgh, and the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh in October 2003.

Pittsburgh’s diocesan convention voted in 2008 to leave the Episcopal Church and join the Anglican Church of the Southern Cone, based in Argentina. The Episcopal Church has reconstituted the diocese, which consists of approximately 40 percent of its previous membership.

Judge Joseph M. James of the Court of Common Pleas in Allegheny County ruled on Oct. 6 that a court-approved agreement from 2005 requires that property remain with a diocese of the Episcopal Church.

“Regardless of what name defendants now call themselves, they are not the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh of the Episcopal Church of the United States of A