By Robin G. Jordan
What is happening in the Anglican Church in North America? At the Amesbury meeting of the Provincial Council this past June the College of Bishops voted to receive CEEC Bishop Derek Jones as a Bishop of the ACNA. From a Catholic perspective Bishop Jones was irregularly if not invalidly consecrated. The CEEC episcopal line of succession is derived from Eastern Orthodox and Old Catholic lines of questionable validity. They place Bishop Jones in the category of the episcopi vagantes. They put Bishop Jones’ episcopal status in doubt. In their reception of Bishop Jones the College of Bishops appears to be recognizing the validity of the CEEC bishops’ line of succession.
The Western Church’s theology is generally ready to admit that the
irregular consecrations of episcopi vagantes are valid. The Eastern Church, however, takes the position that a bishop must be in communion with the Eastern Church in order to be a valid bishop. How will Bishop Jones’ reception affect the relationship of the ACNA with Orthodoxy?
Resolution 54 of the 1958 Lambeth Conference states that Anglicanism “cannot recognize the Churches of such episcopi vagantes as properly constituted Churches or recognize the orders of their ministers.’” The ACNA College of Bishops appears to be willing to ignore Resolution 54. What other church’s House of Bishops has ignored a Lambeth Resolution in recent years? Is the ACNA following in its footsteps?
The ACNA did not release how the individual bishops voted on Bishop Jones’ reception. One must wonder how the Catholic bishops voted. They are supposedly committed to promoting Catholic order, doctrine, and practice in the ACNA. Do they accept Bishop Jones as being consecrated by bishops in a valid line of succession from a Catholic perspective? Did they vote against Bishop Jones’ reception or abstain from voting? Was some kind of deal cut to obtain their support?
Title III, Canon 5, Section 4 states, “No Bishop from another jurisdiction not in Communion with this Church shall be received as a Bishop of this Church except by the consent of the College of Bishops and in accordance with the Canons of this Church.” The latter appears to be a reference to the following canons: Title III, Canon 1, Section 2 states, “…the Bishop of each Diocese owes canonical obedience in all things lawful and honest to the Archbishop of this Church.” Title III, Canon 8, Sections 1-3 describes the New Testament requirements for bishop, the ministry of the bishop, and the criteria for the episcopate. There appear to be no other applicable canons.
While deacons and presbyters wishing to become deacons and presbyters of the ACNA must be ordained by a bishop in the historic succession or be reordained, the canons do not apply this requirement to bishops. They are not required to be consecrated by bishops in the historic succession. Why this requirement for deacons and presbyters but not bishops?
Article I, Section 3 of the ACNA Constitution states, “We confess the godly historic Episcopate as an inherent part of the apostolic faith and practice, and therefore as integral to the fullness and unity of the Body of Christ.” What does the College of Bishop’s consent to the reception of CEEC Bishop Derek Jones reveal about how those who voted for Jones’ reception interpret this fundamental declaration?
Bishop Jones’ reception raises some very important questions about the future direction of the ACNA? Does Bishop Jones’ reception signal that the ACNA is no longer pursuing Anglican Communion recognition? Is the ACNA with Jones’ reception hoping to bring Convergence congregations and clergy into the ACNA fold and increasing its size through their absorption? Is the ACNA moving away from Anglicanism to become a Convergence church? What are the implications for confessional Anglicans and confessional Anglicanism in the ACNA? How will such a movement affect Anglo-Catholics in the ACNA and their commitment to Catholic order, doctrine and practice? Will the reception of a bishop from a church that ordains women further strain relations with Anglo-Catholics in the ACNA and move the ACNA closer to the consecration of a women bishop?
Bishop Jones’ reception not only raises such questions but it also draws attention once more to how the ACNA leadership operates, to its lack of openness and transparency. It further points to the existence of an old boy network and a patronage system in the ACNA—two of the worst features of prelatical episcopacy.
If the ACNA is emerging as a Convergence church, there is an even greater need for confessional Anglicans, those committed to the faith of the reformed Church of England and its historical formularies, to classical Anglicanism and Reformation Christianity, to band together to uphold what they believe and to maintain a genuine Anglican witness in North America, faithful to the Bible and the Reformation. Isolated from each other and scattered throughout North America they are like a low-burning candle—a tiny flame—swallowed by the darkness. United together they would be a blazing fire driving back the darkness, filling North America with the bright light of the gospel of Christ. They would truly be Anglicans ablaze!
Here, here!
ReplyDeleteRobin:
ReplyDeleteI think u myopic. Methinks, rather, that we are in a Babylonian Captivity.
Glad u think there r grounds for optimism, but this grossly limited scribe does not see it.
Veitch
What should it matter to you who has mashed hands on his forhead? If he's been given legal authority (and he's had it for a long time from the military, and for two years from CANA) to oversee chaplains...what is your complaint?
ReplyDeleteBishop Keith Ackerman consecrated him as bishop. Do you really consider Ackerman one of the episcopi vagantes? You've run out of sharks to jump.
ReplyDeleteKeith,
ReplyDeleteAre saying that Bp Ackerman participated in a CEEC consecration? When and where did this take place?
Wait a second, RMBRruton...you are dangerously close to admitting that +Keith Ackerman (an unrepentant AngloCatholic who employs a full variety of Marian devotions) is an actual bishop in the Church of God and an authentic Anglican bishop. That might just get you moderated.
ReplyDeleteChris,
ReplyDeleteYou may very well think that; I couldn't possibly comment. In any event I see this all as illustrating that ac/na is becoming more convergent. Continuing-Episcopalianism may be slightly more conservative in some respects and minus Vicky Gene, but this apple didn't fall too far from the tree.
The College of Bishops can easily resolve this issue. They can make public the basis for their decision to receive Jones. It is simple as that. If they had on good authority that he was consecrated by Bishops in a recognized Historic Succession they should release this information. If they chose to recognize him for other reasons, they should say so.
ReplyDeleteAs for my complaint, see my latest article, "Sauce for the goose, sauce for the gander."
First, a bishop is only a "vagantes" when he has no recognized jurisdiction. Bp. Jones has had a jurisdiction, and he has been exercising additional jurisdiction in collaboration with CANA's chaplain corps. There is the issue of who provides recognition of jurisdiction - but if you press that question TOO far, you end up with only two options: 1) the Papacy (or some other singular provincial head such as the ABC) or 2) call a full ecumenical synod. Good luck with the latter.
ReplyDeleteSecondly, if AngloCatholicism rules the day in ACNA (as you suggest) then Bp. Jones' consecration is valid in sacramental terms. Old Catholic lines and Eastern Orthodox lines (and his Duarte Costa line, only removed from communion with Rome around WWII) are all valid in AngloCatholic terms - and Bp. Jones has these lineages.
While I have general hesitations about the training & formation of a vast number of persons ordained in the CEEC and the CEC, their lineage in terms of AngloCatholic reception is in general unquestionable. Bp. Jones' own training and usefulness to the ministry seem to be above reproach. And he has received the order of bishop in sacramental theology terms. Thus the only question is jurisdiction and fitness for exercising his episcopacy within Anglican terms. The latter seems to be your real objective (because he is unlikely to be a 1662 BCP man or to be the greatest defender of the 39 Articles).
Many who have walked apart from Canterbury for more than the last 10 years have had to be humble in receiving episcopal oversight from non-Anglican bishops. The Chambers succession being an exception, most have had to receive orders from Old Catholic bishops. Within the Anglican world - whatever else it emphasizes - receiving Holy Orders in the historic succession is a visible sign that we intend to continue the catholic faith that we received with no alteration in fundamental form. And that is the essence of Anglicanism - continuing what we received, under the overruling authority of Scripture.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteChris,
ReplyDeleteIf what you say is so, why wasn't Tony Clavier received as a bishop in TEC and why weren't three other bishops who joined CANA in the last year or so received as bishops? If there was something wrong with their orders as bishops why were they accepted as priests? For anyone interested in the Vagantes they might take a look at Episcopi Vagantes And The Anglican Church by Henry R. T. Brandreth as well as Bishops At Large by Peter F. Anson. Both books are still in print and available from Apocryphile Press www.apocryphile.org
Chris,
ReplyDeleteThank you for your interpretation of Anglicanism. But as you well know not all Anglicans interpret Anglicanism that way only those who are Anglo-Catholic or influenced by Anglo-Catholicism.
Bishop Jones' consecration raises a number of legitimate issues particularly in regards to how the ACNA leadership goes about things. The ACNA leadership has not shaken off the influence of the Episcopal Church and operates very much like Episcopal Church's leadership. There is a definite need for more openness and transparency in the ACNA and greater accountability. The ACNA leadership's policy of doing what it thinks to be expedient is not only setting bad precedent but it is going to come back to haunt the ACNA. As the Scriptures tell us, we reap what we sow.
Let's see. Maybe we should define "episcopi vagante" as anyone calling oneself a bishop when one has departed from the faith once delivered or from the plain teachings of Scriptures. Most bishops it seems have done so.
ReplyDeleteJoe:
ReplyDeleteRead the old divine, the English Reformers. Those men paid for their faith with their lives.
What's on offer here on modern dilettantes arguing about their irrelevant lineage.
ACNA is a footnote of irrelevance in history. 100K, a micro-outfit in the grand scheme of things.
The old fellows are rich.
Bruton:
ReplyDeleteI have no knowledge of TEC's interior dealings. That he abandoned an episcopal ministry among orthodox Anglicans in order to pursue union with TEC says more about him personally than his orders.
As for why other bishops weren't received in ACNA, I have some knowledge of how things have been handled in MDAS. One of the diocese's goals is bringing the continuum and the distanced mainliners back into communion with each other. (As happens at FiF meetings and FACA's work.) Obviously, dioceses that want to join can't come in together as one diocese unless their bishops are ready to retire (as mine was) or are willing to function only as presbyters / rectors. Too many chiefs and not enough braves, if you catch my meaning. While some would say that ACNA is already too top-heavy, it would become burdensomely so if all who wished to join did so as bishops.
So when the Missionary Society of St. John was received into the MDAS, their bishop (+Fred Fick) decided *not* to apply for standing as a bishop in the ACNA College of Bishops. He is recognized as a bishop because all those who received their orders through him have been received. In FiF-NA, he still is part of their informal college. He still exercises episcopal ministry at the bequest of the ordinary or his suffragan in the MDAS (which will mean largely continuing the same acts with the MSJ). And he still oversees the order's missionary interests. However, he did not want the responsibility of being a member of the College of Bishops in ACNA. Thus, while he sacramentally is a bishop (uncontested in ACNA), he does not juridically function that way except by requests from the ordinary.
Another bishop from the CCR had a reasonably large diocese (6 parishes and almost 20 missions). He doesn't feel ready to step down from active episcopal ministry. (He also has an active teaching ministry - both writing and lecturing.) So he's focusing on growing the parishes and missions he has so that he can either enter ACNA as a full diocese or, when he is close to retirement, pass their oversight to others (such as the REC, with whom he's been in dialog).
So there are a variety of reasons that bishops who have not been formal members of the Anglican Communion might not wish to become members of the ACNA college of bishops. And those reasons are rarely (maybe even "never") about questionable episcopal orders.