Overlapping Bishops

[Wigglesworth]

Can anyone contrast for me the difference, if any, between the overlapping areas of (A) Old Catholic bishops and Episcopal bishops and (B) American Episcopal bishops and African Anglican bishops establishing ministries in America?

I'm guessing that the major difference between these two scenarios is the difference between (1) being in communion with the Church of England and (2) being a member of the Anglican Communion.

 

[J-Tron]

I'm not sure I follow what you're saying.

 

[Bonifatius]

Hi Wigglesworth,

I don't really see a difference, if (at all) maybe that the OC and Anglicans do come from slightly different church traditions whereas American and African Anglicans come from the same ...

It is a problem we encounter in Europe as well. In Germany we have three overlapping episcopal jurisdictions: Church of England, ECUSA and Old Catholics. The OC here are German speaking, but C of E and ECUSA churches are both English speaking. These churches are in full communion but have different episcopal oversight - which in the light of the early church is pure nonsense.

 

[benedictine]

I agree.

 

[Rev. Smith]

Can anyone contrast for me the difference, if any, between the overlapping areas of (A) Old Catholic bishops and Episcopal bishops and (B) American Episcopal bishops and African Anglican bishops establishing ministries in America?

I'm guessing that the major difference between these two scenarios is the difference between (1) being in communion with the Church of England and (2) being a member of the Anglican Communion.

While the Anglican and OC churches here in the USA are in communion, we do use a different liturgy for Mass (Communion Service for my ECUSA friends), although we do use the Book of Common Prayer as an approved liturgy for Weddings, funerals etc. (I use it for weddings regulalry). So for us it is really about customs and usage (my congregation calls me "Father" and I wear a Roman collar, we follow the Roman Lectionary etc.). And yes Bonifatius, a fair number of my congregation are of German or Dutch ancestry (all English speakers though)

In the USA the African Anglican Bishops being invited to take juristiction over some churches is a compromise, it allows those congregations to maintain some distance from the ECUSA's implicit rejection of traditional moral positions in its pursuit of inclusiveness, while still remaining part of the greator Anglican whole (as opposed to the Continuing Anglicans who have gone autonomous)

Hope that helps...

 

[J-Tron]

In the USA the African Anglican Bishops being invited to take juristiction over some churches is a compromise, it allows those congregations to maintain some distance from the ECUSA's implicit rejection of traditional moral positions in its pursuit of inclusiveness, while still remaining part of the greator Anglican whole (as opposed to the Continuing Anglicans who have gone autonomous)

Well, I suppose that's one way of looking at it. Another would be that the traditional understanding of bishops as having pastoral jurisdiction over a particular area is not respected at all by either the African and Asian bishops who do that or the American churches who are using them. Both the Archbishop of Canterbury (the current one and the last one) and the ACC have been clear that bishops who take oversight of churches in other dioceses without the permission of the local bishop are violating the integrity of the Communion, something that ECUSA gets accused of on a regular basis these days.

Are you talking about African bishops taking oversight of American churches with the permission of the American bishops? Or are we talking about AMIA? Neither sits well with me, but I respect the rights of the American bishops to give oversight as they see fit, so long as they're not heretical.

 

[Rev. Smith]

Hi J-Tron: I've heard of instances of both cases, the local ECUSA Bishop consenting, to allow the more conservative congregation to have distant oversight. There are also, regretable, cases of congregations removing themselves from the authority of the local Bishop in order to come under the authority of a more conservative one. I havn't heard of any cases of a liberal congregation rejecting the authority of a traditional Bishop ((doesn't mean it hasn't occurred, just that I missed it - surprisingly few Bishop's feel the need to keep me briefed (sometimes even my own))

 

[Wigglesworth]

I revived this old thread, because I've been pondering a related issue recently.

I understand that the Archbishop of Canterbury was and/or is in full communion with the Archbishop of Utrecht, or the Utrecht churches. Now, since the Anglican Communion generally includes only one national church from each province, wouldn't communion between Canterbury and any of the various Old Catholic communities in the United States be precluded on the basis of the Episcopal Church USA being THE member of the Anglican Communion in this country?

An easy way to say "NO" would be to give an example of churches with overlapping physical jurisdictions being in the Anglican Communion. For example, is there an Anglican church in the same geographical area as a diocese of the Utrecht Union?

Is my premise even true that there is only one church in each province in the Anglican Communion?

 

[Albion]

I revived this old thread, because I've been pondering a related issue recently.

I understand that the Archbishop of Canterbury was and/or is in full communion with the Archbishop of Utrecht, or the Utrecht churches. Now, since the Anglican Communion generally includes only one national church from each province, wouldn't communion between Canterbury and any of the various Old Catholic communities in the United States be precluded on the basis of the Episcopal Church USA being THE member of the Anglican Communion in this country?

An easy way to say "NO" would be to give an example of churches with overlapping physical jurisdictions being in the Anglican Communion. For example, is there an Anglican church in the same geographical area as a diocese of the Utrecht Union?

Is my premise even true that there is only one church in each province in the Anglican Communion?

Yes, there is generally only one province in the AC per country BUT WITH A FEW SMALL EXCEPTIONS THAT ARE SOMETIMES CITED. For instance, ECUSA has churches overseas in areas in which there are other member AC churches, and the C of E, I think, has a jurisdiction in Gibraltar even though the AC recognizes a Spanish church. Anyone, check me on the details of that.

The question about recognition of the Utrecht Union, however, I think is not quite right. It's the Anglican Communion's decision in the first place, not the ABC's, and recognition and intercommunion is in addition to whatever Anglican province is in place. Utrecht still represents a different church organization.

As an example, The Polish National Catholic Church was until just recently the US member of the Union of Utrecht. It isn't anymore, but all the time that it was, you had both PNCC and ECUSA on the same soil, but one Anglican Communion Church only and one Old Catholic Church only recognized by Utrecht.

 

[pmcleanj]

Overlapping Bishops

Ah, the horrors of a vivid visual imagination.

If you have overlapping Bishops, you obviously have tried to crowd too many place settings along the side of your table. You'll have to set their chairs farther apart, at least until the bishops in question undertake some serious fasting.

Can anyone contrast for me the difference, if any, between the overlapping areas of (A) Old Catholic bishops and Episcopal bishops and (B) American Episcopal bishops and African Anglican bishops establishing ministries in America?

Old Catholic bishops and Episcopal bishops overlap geographically (in 2-space) but not in terms of their heritage (a third non-physical dimension). I am always reminded of this ambiguity when we talk about "the Bishop of Rome". There are, of course, a very few Anglicans living in Italy, including in the city of Rome. Who is their Bishop, and could he be referred to as "the Bishop of Rome"? It would be highly ambiguous to do so, but those Anglicans do need episcopal oversight, and they certainly aren't going to get it from the other "Bishop of Rome". The ancient rule was one city, one Bishop. But here in this city of a million people we have a Vatican-Catholic Bishop, a Lutheran Bishop, a couple different EO Bishops, and of course the one, true Anglican Bishop. (I definately need a longer dinner table!)

The main difference between our dear Bishop Barry's relationship with our dear Bishop Stephen (ELCIC), and American Episcopal bishops relationship with African Anglican bishops establishing ministries in America; is that they overlap in this dimension of heritage and historical ethnicity, as well as geographically. I don't believe the in-communion/out-of-communion distinction is as relevant. And, I'm afraid, the sadder difference is that their oversight lacks the cooperative mutual respect that I see even between +Barry and +Fred(RCC).

 

[Colabomb]

Well, I suppose that's one way of looking at it. Another would be that the traditional understanding of bishops as having pastoral jurisdiction over a particular area is not respected at all by either the African and Asian bishops who do that or the American churches who are using them. Both the Archbishop of Canterbury (the current one and the last one) and the ACC have been clear that bishops who take oversight of churches in other dioceses without the permission of the local bishop are violating the integrity of the Communion, something that ECUSA gets accused of on a regular basis these days.

Are you talking about African bishops taking oversight of American churches with the permission of the American bishops? Or are we talking about AMIA? Neither sits well with me, but I respect the rights of the American bishops to give oversight as they see fit, so long as they're not heretical.

By and large the Anglican Communion considers ECUSA Apostate (The African Church). Is an Apostate Church, or Apostate Bishops to be protected by such canons or Tradition?

The reason they are doing this, is not to infringe on a valid Anglican community, but to provide one.

 

[Albion]

While the Anglican and OC churches here in the USA are in communion, ...

I've read and heard that from OCs frequently...but I can't find any mention of it anywhere on an Episcopal or Anglican church site. Just the opposite. AnglicansOnline lists churches in full communion and there are no Old Catholic churches in the USA. To settle this, can you refer us to any documentation, a particular agreement, etc.?

Or do you mean that in the absence of any communion or intercommunion agreement between the church bodies, the clergy of each side frequently do behave as if there were one?

 

[Wigglesworth]

I suppose it is a matter for each bishop to decide whether to allow ministers of other traditions to participate in services or not. At least one bishop has decided not to allow joint activities.

 

[Albion]

I suppose it is a matter for each bishop to decide whether to allow ministers of other traditions to participate in services or not. At least one bishop has decided not to allow joint activities.

Well, each bishop is also governed by the Constitution and Canons of his church. They do not make it a matter for each bishop to decide. Customarily they do not allow intercommunion, access to the pulpit for clergy of outside churches, or such things to be decided except at the provincial level.

On the other hand, there are bishops who behave in defiance of their church's regulations all the time and seldom are disciplined for it.

What I was asking about, however, is the meaning of the statement, "Anglican and OC churches here in the USA are in communion." Is it correct, incorrect, correct only if we interpret "churches" to mean local parishes but not the national jurisdictions, or something else. Nothing I can find indicates that The Episcopal Church or the main Continuing Churches have such agreements in place, but if it's somewhere to be found I'm sure we'd all have an interest in reading the document(s).

Bishop Queen's group never was in intercommunion with the "Protestant Episcopal Church," so I guess his proclamation is only to the effect that he won't consider it if a chance were to arise.

 

[Polycarp1]

There is a difference in fact and in application between three different things here:

1. The two communions, Old Catholic and Anglican, are in full communion with each other, but independent (though parallel) in origin and in polity. Hence the principle of "one area [originally city], one bishop" does not apply except to the extent that a bishop in one communion may call upon his opposite number to assist him in his responsibilities towards his see. (This very much parallels the Orthodox problem in America, where representatives of various national churches have overlapping sees and do likewise.)

2. The concerns of parishes of a different philosophical bent from their bishop (largely in conservative parishes with liberal bishops, though my sister attends a liberal parish in Pittsburgh) are to be addressed by the invitation of the diocesan bishop to a fellow bishop to handle visitations and other episcopal ministries for that parish. Note that the authority remains with the diocesan; the other bishop serves at his invitation. Gene Robinson has made arrangements with Dan Herzog of Albany to visit his more conservative parishes, Dan (a personal friend of mine) being a strong conservative with a bent toward unity and irenicism. This is largely being done within ECUSA, with its bishops of each faction willing to assist each other in the interest of preserving unity and minimizing discord. There is, of course, no reason why an African bishop might be invited to provide alternative episcopal oversight in this manner.
3. The actions of a few African bishops (and the Abp. of Singapore) in (1) assuming oversight over parishes licitly within the Diocese of New Westminster, BC, and (2) consecrating schismatic priests as "bishops" in breakaway communions, are contrary to the principles of the Anglican Communion -- at least as much so as the actions of ECUSA and ACCanada that allegedly provoked them. This is not to defend one side over the other, but to state a fact: each unilaterally acted in a manner that was provoking to the other side, and contrary to what the other side had understood to be common ground for the whole communion.

 

[Bonifatius]

I've read and heard that from OCs frequently...but I can't find any mention of it anywhere on an Episcopal or Anglican church site. Just the opposite. AnglicansOnline lists churches in full communion and there are no Old Catholic churches in the USA. To settle this, can you refer us to any documentation, a particular agreement, etc.?

Or do you mean that in the absence of any communion or intercommunion agreement between the church bodies, the clergy of each side frequently do behave as if there were one?

Hi Albion,

the link between the OC and Anglican Churches is the "Bonn Agreement" dating from 1931. In this agreement all member churches of the Anglican Communion and the Old Catholic Churches of the Communion of Utrecht declared full intercommunion and interchangeability of priests. In 2006 there will be a major celebration of its 75th anniversary in Freiburg (Germany) with the Archbishop of Canterbury and the OC Archbishop of Utrecht. The fact that you did not find any mention of the Bonn Agreement on any site may be due to the fact that the OC Churches are quite small and not too well known. You'll find the Bonn Agreement mentioned on the Anglicans Online Site under "In Full Communion". I found the text (German and English) on the German OC website: http://www.alt-katholisch.de/oekumene/bonn_agr.htm#ba

Recently another problem has occured: In the states the PNCC (Polish National Catholich Church) was the official branch of the Utrecht Union of OC Churches. After most of the OCs have started to ordain women to the priesthood, the PNCC has left the Utrecht Union, so that there is no official branch of the Utrecht Union in the States at the moment. The Utrecht Union has started talks with the OC Church to which our Father Rick belongs to explore the opportunity to make them the official partner church of the Utrecht Union in the States. (Please correct me, Father Rick, if I am wrong).

There is a thread about the Utrecht Union somewhere in the sticky department of this forum.

Greetings
Bonifatius

 

[Albion]

Hi Albion,

the link between the OC and Anglican Churches is the "Bonn Agreement" dating from 1931. In this agreement all member churches of the Anglican Communion and the Old Catholic Churches of the Communion of Utrecht declared full intercommunion and interchangeability of priests. In 2006 there will be a major celebration of its 75th anniversary in Freiburg (Germany) with the Archbishop of Canterbury and the OC Archbishop of Utrecht. The fact that you did not find any mention of the Bonn Agreement on any site may be due to the fact that the OC Churches are quite small and not too well known. You'll find the Bonn Agreement mentioned on the Anglicans Online Site under "In Full Communion". I found the text (German and English) on the German OC website: http://www.alt-katholisch.de/oekumene/bonn_agr.htm#ba

Recently another problem has occured: In the states the PNCC (Polish National Catholich Church) was the official branch of the Utrecht Union of OC Churches. After most of the OCs have started to ordain women to the priesthood, the PNCC has left the Utrecht Union, so that there is no official branch of the Utrecht Union in the States at the moment. The Utrecht Union has started talks with the OC Church to which our Father Rick belongs to explore the opportunity to make them the official partner church of the Utrecht Union in the States. (Please correct me, Father Rick, if I am wrong).

There is a thread about the Utrecht Union somewhere in the sticky department of this forum.

Greetings
Bonifatius

Thank you, Bonifatius. I believe we all are aware of the situation between Utrecht and Canterbury. What I was specifically asking about was Rev. Smith's statement, "While the Anglican and OC churches here in the USA are in communion...."

As you noted, there is no Old Catholic church in the USA currently in communion with Canterbury as a result of the Bonn Agreement. Those churches of the Utrecht Union, by the way, which are in communion with Canterbury are indeed listed on various websites and can easily be referenced. Further, the usual Continuing Anglican churches in the USA are not in communion with any American OCs either, to my knowledge.

What I suspect is that Fr. Smith means something else by the term "Anglican" in his post, or perhaps by the word "communion," and so I was just curious about the details. In fact, I think we all are interested, since we care about cooperation and the prospects of churches of similar beliefs overcoming their separation. Rev. Smith can probably clarify what he meant for us.