“I’m saddened by Bishop Lee’s unnecessary action,” said Rick Wright, rector of The Falls Church in the town of the same name. “It demonstrates not only the division in the diocese between us and them, but between the Episcopal Church and Anglican community.”
Jim Oakes, vice president of ADV, echoed Wright’s comments, saying it seemed the diocese was following a “scorched-earth policy.”
Diocesan spokesman Patrick Getlein said the move was merely procedural, as the churches’ decision to leave the Episcopal Church set in motion a six-month process. At the end of this process, if the clergy in question have not retracted their decision to leave the church, they are removed from ordained minister status.
“They were priests of the Episcopal Church,” Getlein said. To align with something other than the Episcopal Church would mean they are no longer priests of that denomination, he added.
“I quit! You’re fired!”
“It demonstrates not only the division in the diocese between us and them, but between the Episcopal Church and Anglican community.”
Let’s follow this to its logical conclusion. Obviously there is a problem. People are saying that these priests are in a different jurisdiction. However, the Church of Nigeria (Anglican) does not recognize TEC as being in communion. They consider themselves in broken communion, not simply impaired. So from +Lee’s perspective, these priests have left the priesthood.
No, Brian, but a nice try. When has Lee said that he is not in communion with Nigeria? Pecusa has not made any declarations of being out of communion with anyone in the AC. So, when Lee doesn’t allow priests to transfer to another province of the AC he (and other bishops) are admitting by action what they won’t say verbally: pecusa has torn the fabric of the Communion.
[b]”They were priests of the Episcopal Church,” Getlein said. To align with something other than the Episcopal Church would mean they are no longer priests of that denomination, he added.[/b]
If they had moved to England, and been received in the Church of England, with or without Lee’s “approval”, would he have deposed them? Or even if they had physically moved to Nigeria, and become Nigerian priests?
What would Lee’s reaction be if Nigerian bishops began deposing TEC priests? Would he not cry out about how ridiculous that is?
#2: Bishops throughout TEC have apparently been told by David Booth Beers that this step of deposition is necessary to clear the way for the diocesan to establish a new, rump vestry (no matter how unanimous the vestry and people were in aligning with CANA) and make the claim to “owning” the property. If you can defame the pastor and pretend to remove him from his flock, you can began your hostile take-over!
The spokespersons for bishops tend to try to make the act of deposition sound like a little administrative detail…sort of like asking for the keys to your old office, signing your exit interview, etc…instead of what this actions is reputed to do: remove someone from the priesthood! If you carefully read the pertinent canons, it is clear that the spirit of the canon is intended to discipline (severely) those who have either disgraced their office of holy orders or left the communion of the church to become…Buddhists? Jews? Roman Catholics? Atheists?…some other religion. The irony of all this is that it is men like Bishop Lee who have walked away from the Faith into which they were baptized, confirmed and ordained…not this brave and steadfast clergy from the DoVa.
My question, along the same line, is; “Why is Bishop Lee required as an administrative process to begin this 6 month waiting period, with the ultimate conclusion of defrocking them, when Bishop Shaw of Boston and Bishop Wolf of Providence allowed some of their clergy to leave, [of course, without their property], with no need of this administrative process?”
This TEC is sending so many mixed and confused messages…
Bishop Lee and many TEC bishops JUST like him only demonstrate the shallowness of their own Christianity by doing things like this. Only demonstrates for the entire Anglican Communion WHY the Episcopal Church is in the mess it is in.
Getlein said, “They were priests of the Episcopal Church,” Getlein said. To align with something other than the Episcopal Church would mean they are no longer priests of that denomination.”
If TEC wants to regard itself as a “denomination” then it cannot claim to be ordaining priests for the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. Further, by ordaining women to the priesthood, TEC demonstrates its departure from the ancient wisdom of the Church. So TEC is a denomination with severed roots and even now withers.
(I’ve just published 2 essays on the male priesthood at Just Genesis, for those interested. Click the link below.)
If TEC wants to regard itself as a “denomination†then it cannot claim to be ordaining priests for the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.
I sometimes wonder if TEC knows what “ordaining priests for the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church” means anymore. Maybe they want to be a denomination.
Re #3: [i]What would Lee’s reaction be if Nigerian bishops began deposing TEC priests? Would he not cry out about how ridiculous that is?[/i] By setting up an American hierarchy, Nigeria has in fact declared that TEC bishops have no jurisdiction and are not valid members of the Anglican episcopate. Bp. Lee has actually been pretty restrained in crying out about his own alleged deposition.
While it is true that Virginia considers itself to be in communion with Nigeria and the rest of the Anglican Communion, Nigeria has expressly declared itself to be out of communion with the Episcopal Church. Even if it had not, the fact that Nigeria has organized parishes in the Commonwealth demonstrates that the Church of Nigeria does not recognize the spiritual jurisdiction of the TEC Bishop of Virginia. The clergy in question have not only joined a church that does not recognize Bp. Lee as a bishop, but they have personally stated that they are out of communion with him. It seems pretty obvious that people who expressly state that they are out of communion with TEC, and that they have left it to join another denomination that has similarly declared itself out of communion with TEC, have “abandoned the communion of the Episcopal Church.” How else could you describe it?
Re #4: if they had physically moved to England or Nigeria while in good standing with the Diocese of Virginia, the Canons of the Episcopal Church (which are, as to this particular provision, directly dependent on the Canons of the First Council of Nicaea) would require Bp. Lee to issue letters dimissory. Virginia recognizes the ministry of Nigeria, even if Nigeria considers itself out of communion with Virginia.
However, it is hard to argue that somebody who doesn’t even move houses has “removed to another jurisdiction” when jurisdictions are, and have been since at least 325, defined geographically (with limited exceptions that require the consent of both jurisdictions). Clearly, the Communion could change that definition and allow the operation of multiple competing provinces within the same territory, but it has not done so yet. Bp. Lee—like most other bishops of whatever denomination—apparently does not feel free to alter the definition by himself. Other bishops may have different policies, but they aren’t binding on him or his legal advisers.
If these ministers cannot be removed from the clergy roll of the diocese by transfer, deposition [i]from the ministry of the Episcopal Church[/i] (which is what the canon says, not deposition from the priesthood of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church or even deposition from the Anglican priesthood) is the only other available way. Leaving them on the rolls is not an option for several reasons: (1) it has financial consequences for the diocese with the Pension Fund, insurance premiums, etc. (2) it would leave the diocese liable to suit if there is an allegation of misconduct against one of them (3) the clergy themselves do not want to be in the ministry of the Episcopal Church or Diocese of Virginia.
I noticed the same thing, Alice. I give credit to Getlein for admitting Rome was right: he’s in an “ecclesial community.”
#10: If you are deposed from “the Episcopal ministry”, and that is the ministry into which you were ordained, are you not picking a nit when you deny that bishops are deposing priests from their priesthood?
Why would you bring up the jurisdictional issue, Dale? Christian marriage has been defined as being between one man and one woman, and the only relationship within which sex is proper, since well before 325 A.D., and your church cares little for it. How naive to think ECUSA will be afforded the luxury of picking and choosing which ancient practices to follow by those that have been targeted for personal destruction by its six- and seven-figure lawyers.
TEC has all ready demonstrated that it picks and chooses which canons to follow. As we have now learned, some canons are more equal than others – and some provinces are less equal than others.
bb
[b]Getlein said, “They were priests of the Episcopal Church,†Getlein said. To align with something other than the Episcopal Church would mean they are no longer priests of that denomination.†[/b]
Oh good, I guess that muslipalian priest out in Washington is no longer a priest then.
the snarkster
Re #13: I brought up the jurisdictional issue because that is what this thread is about. We have people claiming that Bp. Lee acted improperly when he deposed these clergy rather than allowing them to transfer to Nigeria. Bp. Lee and his lawyers have answered that he did not have the authority to do anything else because these clergy have not physically “removed to another jurisdiction.” So, the question of whether CANA is an Anglican jurisdiction that must (or even can) be recognized by the Diocese of Virginia is at the root of the issue. I believe it is entirely inconsistent to claim that Virginia must recognize CANA’s jurisdiction when CANA (and the sponsoring Church of Nigeria) clearly do not recognize Virginia’s jurisdiction. It is also entirely inconsistent to insist that TEC cannot act unilaterally on sexual matters (and I agree that it should not have done so) while simultaneously claiming that Nigeria can unilaterally depose the Bishop of Virginia.
Mr. Getlein has an email today to clergy and lay leaders. It’s available here,
http://www.episcopalcafe.com/lead/dioceses/virginia_property_cases_in_cou.html
I am firmly in the reasserter camp, but I think that Bp. Lee is probably right to dismiss priests who have come under another jurisdiction. He recognizes that TEC is not the same church as CANA and is acting accordingly. My hope is that Canterbury will recognize that TEC is no longer part of the wider Anglican Communion, but really just a bunch of closet Universalists who like fancy clothes. It is not much of a hope, but there it is
John,
Thanks for providing a link to Patrick Getlein’s email. As one of those laymen sued by the Diocese of Virginia, I thought it important to point out a few errors in his email:
PG: “Clearly The Episcopal Church faces challenges as our church is beset by groups and individuals determined to hijack the legacy of our ancestors and make off with the inheritance we are honor bound to protect, preserve and pass on to future generations.”
>>>> Bishop Lee and the PB TEC are in fact among those who are hijacking the faith not those of us at Truro who continue in the historic creeds and faith—“the inheritance we are honor bound to protect, preserve and pass on to future generations.”
PG:”Closer to home, this is an important week in The Diocese of Virginia’s defense of its heritage and stewardship of its future. On Friday, August 10, The Diocese of Virginia and The Episcopal Church will appear in Fairfax Circuit Court to defend our claim to Episcopal Church property against non-Episcopal groups that are trying to appropriate our churches for their own uses.”
>>>>> 92% Truro voted to severe ties with the Episcopal Church and as a trustee for the property I have taken no action. Contrary to the claim by Patrick and Bishop Lee no one has “appropriate(d) our churches for their own uses. ” The same parishioners who have always worshiped at this location still do!
PG:”Later, in November, the court will hear arguments on the lawsuits, styled as petitions, filed by the Nigerian congregations that started this dispute. The Diocese and The Episcopal Church are named as defendants in that action.”
>>>>>Three major errors in this statement: 1) Truro didn’t sue the Diocese: the Diocese sued Truro, its Vestry, and the Truro Trustees.
2) Truro didn’t start the dispute, Bishop Lee did when he voted to consent to VGR election ignoring his own Diocesan policies 3) The court records clearly show neither the Diocese nor TEC is a defendant in the Fairfax court….but I am.
Dale, I don’t need to go through the various overlapping jurisdictions in the Anglican Communion, do I? I think you know about this.
bb,
I was wondering who would be the first to comment on the following of canons, whether re: TECusa or Virginia, specifically. I was going to do that and my comment would have been labeled #14. That we were thinking along the same lines is a very scary thing, especially since I don’t frequent those coffee places anywhere near what you do. : )
Tomorrow I’ll try to post a longer thought at Surrounded.
RGEaton
Dale, I always enjoy reading your comments because you are an intelligent, rational person. I may disagree with you, but you are never arrogant or boastful; your temperament is both peaceful and probing. In [url=http://new.kendallharmon.net/wp-content/uploads/index.php/t19/article/4943/#91292]#10[/url], above, you write: [blockquote] It seems pretty obvious that people who expressly state that they are out of communion with TEC, and that they have left it to join another denomination that has similarly declared itself out of communion with TEC, have “abandoned the communion of the Episcopal Church.†How else could you describe it?[/blockquote]
I would describe it as choosing to remain in communion with the members of the Anglican Communion.
Basically, the issue comes down to “who moved?”
While you would categorize me and my kind as being those who have left to join another denomination, we see it as being faithful to the Anglican Communion and the faith once delivered. Over the past two decades (or more) we have perceived the Episcopal Church to be leaving the Christian faith and the Anglican Communion. We have tried calling it to faithfulness, but have not been successful. We have expressed our desire to remain in communion with our brother and sister Anglicans. During this time, we have lost friends and relatives who have not been able to tolerate the drift toward apostasy by the leadership of the TEC. They have, indeed, moved to other denominations.
When we have asked TEC for clarity, we have been assured (and our brothers and sisters in the Anglican Communion have been assured) that the leadership is still in accord with the faith. (although, we have suspected that the way they use words is not the way we use words.)
Finally, there was a presenting event — ECUSA elevated a non-celibate priest to be a Bishop — there was no way to spin this as anything other than what it was – a complete and unequivocal break with the past and with the rest of the Church catholic (not to mention the rest of the Anglican Communion). Yet we still stayed on, calling TEC to return to her first love. And so have our brothers and sisters in the Anglican Communion, primarily those in the Global South.
But the leadership of TEC, in typically American fashion, would rather go its own unilateral course and ignore its neighbors. Accordingly, the Anglican Church in the Province of Nigeria recognized that TEC had broken communion with it (of course, Nigeria was not the only Province to declare TEC’s broken communion).
After a long (some would say too long) period of prayer and discernment, many congregations determined that they would stay in the Anglican Communion rather than leave with TEC. Recognizing the need for spiritual oversight and guidance, they have sought shelter from the Anglican Communion in Nigeria, among others.
TEC apparently sees itself as a large ocean liner and when the ship’s captains turn the ship, the rest of us are bound to follow. We may not even seek the shelter of a lifeboat. I believe the rest of the Anglican Communion sees this union more like the tribes of Israel — if the TEC leadership wants to leave, they may do so, but they can’t take those who want to stay faithful.
Like I said, the issue comes down to the simple one: “who moved?”
Re #22: I thought of that as soon as I pushed the “Submit” button. It would have been more accurate to say that the CANA clergy “are no longer in communion with the Episcopal Church,” which from the viewpoint of CANA means that TEC abandoned them, but from the viewpoint of TEC means that the CANA members abandoned their prior affiliation. Since it was a TEC bishop doing the deposing, the subjective motivation for his actions must necessarily be viewed from his own standpoint. If he is to justify remaining in communion with TEC himself, he has to see the other folks as leaving. Having done so, he really had no logically consistent choice other than to proceed through inhibition to deposition… which he carefully characterized as deposition from the ministry [i]of the Episcopal Church[/i].
Traditionally, ordination—like baptism—imparts a permanent character which cannot be repeated (Ps. 110:4, “Thou art a priest forever”), so someone who has been deposed has only lost his authority to act licitly as a priest within a particular ecclesial community, not his ability to perform valid priestly acts within the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. Bp. Lee never pretended the authority to depose these folks from the ministry of another church. He simply recognized that they are no longer ministers in the Episcopal Church. That is what deposition means.
Re #20: Of course there are overlapping jurisdictions in Anglicanism. There have been “peculiars” in England since before the Reformation, and still are (because the City of Peterborough is in two dioceses, the diocesans have appointed each other as Assistant Bishops so either bishop can act on either side of town). There were overlapping English and American missionary dioceses in Africa and Asia for most of the 19th century, and there still is an overlap in Continental Europe. Everyplace in New Zealand has at least three Anglican bishops with jurisdiction. There are dozens of Church of South India parishes in the US affiliated with several different dioceses; I know of CSI clergy who have transferred in and out of TEC while living in the same area.
So, I have no problem with overlapping jurisdictions; if North American reasserters had been granted their own jurisdiction early on it might have saved a lot of grief. However, what all these examples have in common is that they involve the consent and cooperation of both jurisdictions. That is very different from having one diocese unilaterally excommunicate another and treat its boundaries as an open missionary territory. It seems to me that an action like that should require the express advance approval of the rest of the Communion. Absent such approval, I don’t know why the jurisdiction that has been invaded should accept the legitimacy of the action.
Dale, thank you for your response. I am in agreement in particular with your second paragraph.
grace and peace,
wm.