By Robin G. Jordan
The ACNA constitution stresses the historic episcopate: “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” (Article I.3) The ACNA canons require that a minister of a jurisdiction not in Communion with the ACNA must be ordained by “a Bishop of the Historic Succession” (Title III.5.3) and “in the Historic Succession” (Title III.5.3.1) in order to be received as a deacon or presbyter of the ACNA. Otherwise, he must be conditionally re-ordained and even conditionally re-baptized and confirmed (Title III.5.3.2). The phrase “in the Historic succession” refers not to any succession of bishops but a particular succession of bishops that is recognized as conveying the apostolic succession in the way that Catholics understand the nature of the apostolic succession and the manner in which it is transmitted.
Canon Title III.8.2 supports this view of apostolic succession: “By the tradition of Christ’s One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, Bishops are consecrated for the whole Church and are successors of the Apostles through the grace of the Holy Spirit given to them.” This section is taken the description of the ministry of bishops in the Rwandan canons and the latter is taken from the description of the ministry of bishops from the Roman Catholic Code of Canon Law and gives expression to the Catholic doctrine of tactual succession. As my readers may recall, I devote several articles to the analysis of the sources of the ACNA canons and their doctrine.
As I drew attention to my readers in my recent article, “Episcopi Vagantes in the Anglican Church in North America,” Canon Title III.5.4 only requires the consent of the College of Bishops for the reception of a Bishop from a jurisdiction not in Communion with the ACNA. The canons are silent on whether such bishop must have been consecrated by Bishops in the Historic Succession. Why stress the historic episcopate, insist upon the re-ordination of ministers not ordained by a Bishop of the Historic Succession, and attribute apostolic succession to the grace of the Holy Spirit (conferred by tactual succession), which is to take a Catholic view of ordination, bishops, and apostolic succession, and then not impose the requirement of consecration by Bishops of the Historic Succession upon any Bishop received by the College of Bishops as a Bishop of the ACNA? Why make an exception for Bishops?
From a Catholic perspective a Bishop not consecrated by Bishops in the Historic Succession does not have the grace to confirm and ordain and with the latter to confer the grace to transmogrify bread and wine into Christ’s Body and Blood and to give water the power of regeneration. Such a Bishop does not have the grace to consecrate a Bishop. The ACNA constitution and canons take the Catholic position until Canon Title III.5.4. Canon Title III.5.4 gives the College of Bishops authority to receive any Bishop as a Bishop of the ACNA, subject only to the New Testament qualifications for an overseer in Canon Title III.8.1 and the criteria of the episcopate in Canon Title III.8.3. The latter criteria are taken from the Rwandan canons and the criteria for the episcopate in the Rwandan canons are taken from the Roman Catholic Code of Canon Law. The minimum age requirement of 35 for an ACNA Bishop is the minimum age requirement of a Rwandan Missionary Bishop and was adopted to accommodate the Anglican Mission, which has since the adoption of the canons opted to become a ministry partner with the ACNA, rather than an actual part of the ACNA. Why are individual Bishops bound only to receive without re-ordination ministers of a jurisdiction not in Communion with the ACNA who have been ordained by a Bishop of the Historic Succession and in the Historic Succession but the Bishops of the ACNA are collectively not likewise bound in the case of a Bishop of a jurisdiction not in Communion with the ACNA?
My grandparents, my mother’s parents, were particularly fond of proverbs and other old sayings. One of them is “What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.” This is usually applied to men and women but it can also be applied more broadly. It can be applied to this particular situation. For the sake of doctrinal consistency the canons should either permit Bishops to receive ministers of jurisdictions not in Communion and not ordained by a Bishop in the Historic Succession without re-ordaining them or they should require the re-consecration of Bishops of jurisdictions not in Communion with the ACNA and not consecrated by Bishops in the Historic Succession, received by the College of Bishops as Bishops of the ACNA. This lack of doctrinal consistency in Title III is one of a number of flaws in the ACNA canons.
If the College of Bishops indeed recognizes Bishop Jones as having been consecrated by Bishops in the Historic Succession, then it needs to issue a statement to this effect and the basis upon which it drew that conclusion. The original CEEC Bishops were consecrated by Bishops who claimed to be Eastern Orthodox and Old Catholic. The episcopi vagantes have historically made such claims. Whether such persons, however, are genuinely Bishops in the Catholic sense, having themselves been consecrated by Bishops in the Historic Succession, is highly debatable. If the College of Bishops believes that Bishop Jones is a Bishop in the full Catholic sense, they need to say so. If they received him solely on the basis of his training of military chaplains for CANA and his ties with the military chaplaincy program, then Anglo-Catholics need to refrain receiving any kind of sacramental ministry at his hand as a Suffragan Bishop until this question has been addressed and the College of Bishops has either made public its findings into the validity and regularity of his consecration and his status as a Bishop in the Historic Succession or re-consecrated him, thereby eliminating any further doubt.
How does Bishop Jones’ recognition affect conservative evangelicals like myself? For conservative evangelicals major considerations are Bishop Jones’ adherence to apostolic teaching, his acceptance of the doctrine of the Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion and the Biblical and Reformation teaching of the 1662 Book of Common Prayer and the 1662 Ordinal annexed to the Prayer Book, and his commitment to classical Anglicanism and Reformation Christianity. At issue are not his qualifications to be Suffragan Bishop but to be an Anglican Suffragan Bishop. Conservative evangelicals are affected in other ways.
Before they were adopted, it was drawn to the attention of the Governance Task Force that the proposed ACNA constitution and canons had a Catholic doctrinal bias. This doctrinal bias and the canonical provision requiring unreserved subscription to the ACNA fundamental declarations has served as a barrier to the participation of conservative evangelicals in the ACNA who are unwilling to compromise their beliefs. The Governance Task Force and the Provincial Council showed no willingness to modify the language of the constitution or the canons to make them more acceptable to conservative evangelicals. At the Bedford meeting of the Provincial Council the Anglo-Catholics in the Council blocked an effort to make the language of the fundamental declarations less partisan.
Yet the College of Bishops appears to be willing to grant exceptions to the doctrine of the constitution and canons when the College thinks it expedient. Indeed a loophole in the case of Bishops was incorporated for the College of Bishops in the canons in the form of Title III.5.4.
Bishop Jones comes from a denomination that ordains women. Both conservative Anglo-Catholics and conservative evangelicals on the basis of their theological convictions do not affirm the ordination of women. From their perspective the reception of a Bishop from a denomination ordaining women means another bishop in the ACNA College of Bishops willing to receive, license, and ordain women. In the light of what happened in the Anglican Church of Canada and the Episcopal Church and what is happening in the Church of England, the ordination of women to presbyterate is an invariable step toward the consecration of a woman bishop. The assurances that the ACNA offers those who cannot affirm women’s ordination that the ACNA will not consecrate a woman bishop are found in the ACNA canons, the easier of the two instruments of governance to change. The disregard that the present ACNA leadership has so far shown for the provisions of the constitution and canons make it quite evident that this provision of the canons offers no real guarantee against the consecration of women bishops. The addition of another bishop accepting women’s ordination to the ACNA episcopal bench hastens the day when a woman bishop will join the bishops on that bench.
Whatever is expedient appears to be the rule for the ACNA leadership. The Provincial Council approved Archbishop Duncan’s appointment of Bishop Don Harvey as dean of the ACNA, an appointment for which the ACNA constitution and canons made no provision. As I have noted elsewhere the ACNA leadership show little respect for constitutionalism or the rule of law and treat the ACNA constitution and canons as a mandate to do whatever they please. For the ACNA leadership expediency trumps everything—the constitution, the canons, doctrine, and what next—the Bible? And who determines what is expedient—the ACNA leadership!
The recognition of Bishop Jones as an ACNA Bishop is an example of arbitrariness in governance, which comes from allowing leaders too much discretion in judgment. Arbitrariness in governance invariably leads to abuse of power. The Provincial Council, the Executive Committee, the Archbishop, and the College of Bishops do not operate openly or transparently. Decisions are announced well after they are made when it is too late to rally any opposition to an unwise decision. This is the way authoritarian political regimes do business. It is not acceptable conduct for supposedly Christian leaders. What are done in darkness are not things of God. If the present ACNA leadership cannot make decisions out in the open and subject to public scrutiny, if they must wheel and deal behind closed doors, then they should step down. They are not the right leaders for Christ’s Church. Their conduct is not worthy of the Gospel of Christ.
7 comments:
If I am correct, Bishop Jones' episcopal lineage also includes (Arch) Bishop Carlos Duarte Costa of Brasil, whose ordinations and consecrations of others were considered valid but illicit by the Roman Church. This would put him in the same apostolic succession as Bishop Salomao Barbosa Ferraz ( consecrated by Costa ) who was accepted into the RCC as a bishop without re-ordination or re-consecration sub conditione. Granted, this lineage is a bit different from that of most of the Anglican episcopate but they should all spring ultimately from one Source.
If a bishop becomes a Muslim, and consecrates fellow Muslims to the Episcopate using a valid form of ordination; then is he still a bishop, and are those he consecrates bishops? Rome would answer yes to both; but that is clearly making a mockery of the Church.
Review the scripture; for it clearly defines ministry by the duty and character of the minister. Biblically speaking, a minister negligent of his ministerial duty (whether through heresy or mere neglect) is not a minister for he is not that man described by scripture.
Taken to its logical and necessary conclusion, if one wishes to uphold 'episcopal lineage' and 'sacramental apostolic succession', we must add the proviso that only those consecrated by scripturally orthodox and committed Bishops can be considered validly ordained.
We must then discount from every line, including amongst those in Rome, all those Bishops who are known to have grossly neglected their work, corrupted their office, preached a false Gospel, or otherwise revealed themselves not to be acting as ministers of God in the way required by scripture.
The Roman concept of dividing the title of a minister from the work of the minister is nowhere to be found in scripture; indeed, I suggest it is repugnant to scripture. It is the role and work of the minister which is required by the Bible, not the name.
When was Ferraz accepted into the REC? Recently? The REC at one time had a policy of receiving non-episcopally ordained clergy without reordination. With its new 2005 constitution and canons, it has changed that policy.
So far CEEC has not been forthcoming about who consecrated Jones, stating that the ACNA and the Church of England recognized the validity of his consecration and referring inquirers to Bishop Jones himself. CEEC has not identified who in the Church of England recognized Jones' consecration. The ACNA College of Bishops has so far issued no statement on what basis it determined that Jones' consecration was valid. A statement from that body could easily settle the matter unless it fears to create more controversy by revealing the basis of its decision. Typically ACNA organs like the College of Bishops can be expected to say nothing but will chose to wait until the controversy dies down, and then go about business as usual. The Governance Task Force and the Provincial Council did the same thing when a number of provisions in the constitution and canons were the cause of controversy. What does this say about the people who are leading the ACNA?
If the folks in the ACNA do not start demanding more openness and transparency and greater accountability from their leaders, there will come a day when they will regret that they did not. It is only a matter of time.
Well, I'm glad that Holy Writ teaches that salvation is by grace and not by works and that nothing can separate the elect from the love of God, and that no one can snatch the elect out of Christ's hand. I am also glad that Scriptures teaches that the traditions of man make to none effect the law of God. Man's traditions are a stumbling block. The scribes and Pharisees stumbled over them and so do the anglo-catholics.
Bro. Robin,
Ferraz was received into the Roman Catholic Church as a bishop @ early 60s and participated in Vatican II. Bishop Ferraz was a rare instance of a married Roman Catholic bishop; he also had seven children and died in '69. Jones, I believe, shares this episcopal lineage through Archbishop Russell McClanahan of the CEEC Province of St. Peter who shares lines of succession from Ferraz' consecrator, Bishop Carlos Duarte Costa.
My memory ain't what it used to be so I'll go through my papers and find out for sure.
Why no response from ACNA to your questions? If they responded to every groundless article, they’d never get any sleep – that is assuming they’ve even read this blog. I’ve read enough of your stuff to realize you don't like the ACNA. So why would ACNA waste their time reading or responding? Enough ‘red herrings’ Robin! Canon Cross is correct in his review of but one apostolic line of the 20+ Bp Jones would have. Since your discussion is on apostolic lineage, Robin, this would make him more Catholic than you! (lol) Your blog prompted me to look at the CEEC. With some easy internet searches and a phone call, here’s what I found:
CEEC orders have transferred in and out of the Anglican Church since the CEEC’s inception. There are many Anglo-Catholics in the CEEC. There is even a CEEC Bishop working with the Vatican! Several CEEC lines are shared with other Anglican bodies in addition to the one Canon Cross accurately refers. You cite two questionable lines – if that is your litmus test, the entire Anglican Church fails. To parrot your zeal for parental 'sayings,' I say, "the proof is in the pudding." The CEEC has silently partnered with TEC, Rome, Priests for Life, etc. for the cause of Christ; even church planting for other Anglican communions. And what other substantive Anglican presence exists in Islamic States? The CEEC has over 1000 underground churches in those places. CEEC ministers have been martyred just this past year (quoting CEEC Bp Kevin Higgins). CEEC orders have been accepted as much in part because of who the co-consecrators were that assisted in the CEEC's formation - all coming from orthodox communions including the one uncontested line from the RCC already mentioned. The CEEC, being a ‘grassroots’ movement and not part of the continuum, I think, has been to its credit.
Have you asked Bp Jones about his positions? No. You've admitted you haven’t. And why wouldn’t the CEEC bishops refer you to Bp Jones himself - for that would be the responsible thing to do. So, have you tried to contact him? Here’s some help… your friend RMBruton knows how to get in touch with Bp Jones. Based on another blog, it appears he made application to Bp Jones and CANA for endorsement (which I’m guessing he didn’t get).
Some more stuff I found? Lord Carey hangs around CEEC bishops! A picture can “say 1000 words” http://www.glcarey.co.uk/Images/Pictures/Houston3.jpg Why, it’s a virtual “who’s who” of CEEC Archbishops and priests concelebrating the Eucharist! I’m flabbergasted! (lol) When the Abp of York was installed, it was CEEC Bp David Carr who prayed over him in front of 5 million TV viewers, and not the Abp of Canterbury. RMBruton asks, why other continuum bishops have not been received as Bishops? Perhaps because these bishops had only a handful of priests, if any, and no real congregations.
Two more things I’ll point out and then I’ll stop: The CANA ordinations last week. Three high ranking General Officers attended. (One was LTG David Rodriquez, GEN Petraeus’ second in command, who stayed an extra day following Gen McChrystal’s retirement just to attend the ceremony.) Why would they attend? Perhaps it is because Bp Jones is doing something no one else has – he is assembling, arguably, the most professional and reputable orthodox Anglican chaplain corps possible – and those committed and opposed to orthodox Anglicanism have taken note.
Clearly, the ACNA did their homework to confirm Bp Jones’ orders or he wouldn’t have been received. For you to assume the contrary, and provide no evidence – is simply argumentative gibberish. We knew he was on the Amesbury agenda – why didn’t you? Oh, and in one simple phone call, I found Bp Jones was consecrated in January 2007. The chief consecrator was, then, presiding bishop of the CEEC, Abp (Dr) Russ McClanahan. So, there’s your answer. I’m glad you’ve moved on to a new issue, Robin, because there was nothing here but diatribe.
CM
Just
May I ask why you are unwilling to use your own identity? Are you speaking as an official representative of the ACNA? The CEEC?
Your response still does not explain the ACNA's failure to publish a statement in regards to the Jones' reception and the validity of his orders.
The canons of the Church of England require more than one bishop to consecrate and require an archbishop or his designee. The designee must be a bishop of the Church of England. He cannot be a guest bishop. Permitting a CEEC bishop to "pray over" the Archbishop of York does not constitute formal recognition. It is at best only a gesture of fellowship like the Pope welcoming the Archbishop of Canterbury and treating him as more than a layman. This does not mean the Pope recognized his orders.
We have only CEEC's word as to how many congregations that it has around the world. There are a number of church bodies claiming large numbers of congregations around the world. However, upon close examination it becomes quite apparent that they are inflating their number of congregations.
The bishops of a number of so-called Anglican church bodies have questionable episcopi vagantes lineage. This does not make CEEC bishops' lineage any more acceptable because they share that lineage.
The REC lineage to which you refer has several questionable figures in it once it moves outside of the REC. These figures raise immediate red flags to anyone who has studied the episcopi vagantes.
The CEEC bishops could have provided a straightforward answer to the query. The truth is that they did not want to be quoted in regards to Jones' orders or their own.
Whether a former Archbishop of Canterbury is seen in the company of one or more CEEC bishops carries little weight. It does not as you imply mean that he recognizes their orders. If he was seen in the company of a rabbi or an ayatollah, what would you have us conclude?
Trying to destroy Richard's credibility by portraying him as a disgruntled applicant raises questions about your own credibility and your own vested interest in this matter.
Whatever Bishop Jones' achievements may be, they do not put to rest the question of the validity and regularity of his orders. I think that you know better than that.
Post a Comment