[via e-mail. Update: here’s the link on the Network website]
A number of folks in the comment threads have asked to know which bishops were in Pittsburgh. Here is a partial list we received by e-mail.
——
Bishops Attending the Common Cause Council of Bishops
An incomplete list of bishops present at the Common Cause Council of Bishops. We plan to finalize this list in the very near future.
Bishops
The Rt. Rev. Keith Ackerman (The Episcopal Church – Quincy)
The Rt. Rev James Adams (The Episcopal Church – Western Kansas)
The Rt. Rev. Dr. Bill Atwood (Kenya)
The Rt. Rev. Fitz Allison (The Episcopal Church – Retired)
The Rt. Rev. Peter Beckwith (The Episcopal Church – Springfield)
The Rt. Rev. David Bena (Convocation of Anglicans in North America)
The Rt. Rev. Richard Boyce, OCD (Anglican Province of America)
The Rt. Rev. C. Peter Brewer, OSF (Anglican Province of America)
The Rt. Rev. Robinson Cavalcanti (Guest, Network International Convocation)
The Rt. Rev. Alex Dickson (The Episcopal Church – Retired)
The Rt. Rev. Charles Dorrington (Reformed Episcopal Church)
The Rt. Rev. Robert Duncan (The Episcopal Church – Pittsburgh)
The Rt. Rev. Andrew Fairfield (Uganda)
The Rt. Rev. Michael Fedechko (Reformed Episcopal Church)
The Rt. Rev. George Finke (Reformed Episcopal Church)
The Rt. Rev. Sandy Green (Anglican Mission in the Americas)
The Rt. Rev. Royal Grote, JR. (Reformed Episcopal Church)
The Most Rev. Walter Grundorf, D.D. (Anglican Province of America)
The Rt. Rev. John Guernsey (Uganda)
The Rt. Rev Donald Harvey (Anglican Network in Canada)
The Rt. Rev. Paul Hewett (guest)
The Rt. Rev. David Hicks (Reformed Episcopal Church)
The Rt. Rev. Jack Iker (The Episcopal Church ”“ Fort Worth)
The Rt. Rev. T.J. Johnston (Anglican Mission in the Americas)
The Rt. Rev. William Love (The Episcopal Church ”“ Albany)
The Rt. Rev. Frank Lyons (International Convocation)
The Rt. Rev. William Millsaps (guest)
The Rt. Rev. Maryn Minns (Convocation of Anglicans in North America)
The Rt. Rev. Daniel Morse (Reformed Episcopal Church)
The Rt. Rev. Winfield Mott (Anglican Province in America)
The Rt. Rev. William Murdoch (Kenya)
The Rt. Rev. Chuck Murphy (Anglican Mission in the Americas)
The Rt. Rev. Donald Parsons (The Episcopal Church – Retired)
The Most Rev. Leonard Riches (Reformed Episcopal Church)
The Rt. Rev. John Rodgers (Anglican Mission in the Americas)
The Rt. Rev. Henry Scriven (The Episcopal Church ”“ Pittsburgh)
The Most. Rev. Dr. Larry L. Shaver, Obl./OSF (Anglican Province of America)
The Rt. Rev. Ray Sutton (Reformed Episcopal Church)
The Rt. Rev. William Wantland (The Episcopal Church ”“ Retired)
The Most Rev. Yong Ping Chung (guest ”“ Anglican Mission in America)
Bishops-Elect
The Rev. Cn. Roger Ames (Convocation of Anglicans in North America)
The Rev. Cn. David Anderson (Convocation of Anglicans in North America)
The Ven. Amos A Fagbarniye (Convocation of Anglicans in North America)
The Rev. Nathan Kanu (Convocation of Anglicans in North America)
I count seven sitting TEC diocesans and suffrigans (Quincy, Fort Worth, Albany, Pittsburgh, Western Kansas, Springfield), and three retired; 12 from the African Acronyms plus 4 +elect; eight REP, five APA; the rest “guests,” includng two SA bishops. It will be interesting to see if there are any more current or retired TEC bishops among those not yet identified (including +San Joaquin).
Elves,
He was indeed a guest, but you might expand the information on +Millsaps a bit. He is the PB of the Episcopal Missionary Church.
APB
Right now these men (and the priests and people they represent) are being drawn together by the manifest departure of TEC from the settled and irreformable Christian teaching on human sexuality. But, it seems to me, that any alliance formed among them (and any jurisdiction that flows from that alliance) is necessarily temporary and unstable because of the inevitable parting of ways that must come over the Innovation That Dare Not Speak Its Name: the ordination of women.
An obvious follow-up is: “Who actually signed the final statement, including the commitment to create an alternative Anglican structure in North America?” That, not mere attendance, is what is likely to trigger a legal/canonical response from TEC loyalists within several of these dioceses.
Kendall, don’t forget almost +Al Gadsen, Bishop-elect of the SE Diocese of the REC…
Don’t worry Fr Newman: it Looks lke the majority of these folk are against WO.
Several reports indicate +Howe was present for part of the meeting and that the Canon to the Ordinary from San Joaquin was present. If these reports are accurate, the only Network dioceses/bishops not there were +Steenson (good excuse), +Stanton (good excuse), and +Salmon (good excuse). I agree, however, that the more interesting question is whether they were in agreement with the outcome, not the fact of their mere presence.
I served on the Episcopal – REC/APA dialogue that met three times 2001-2004. Bishop Salmon was the Episcopal co-chair. I have great respect for him and for Bishops Riches, Grundorf, and the other REC and APA bishops I have met. We did not get to the point of drafting a full communion statement, but there was informal agreement that differences on ordaining women were not church-dividing issues. The Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion can include dioceses and provinces that do and that do not ordain women. Male clergy are eligible for service in other churches with the permission of the bishops or other ecclesiastical authorities of both churches. The same rule holds for ELCA clergy since the agreement between the Episcopal Church and the ELCA. Those ordained at the time of the agreement and by bishops since are eligible for service in the Episcopal Church. Those few not so ordained are not.
Tom Rightmyer in Asheville, NC.
I count six dioceses in TEC represented by bishops at this meeting (less than 5%), and less than 10 total sitting bishops who are in communion with Canterbury. That sort of turnout, coupled with the fact that several of TEC’s conservative bishops (ie, Howe, Wimberly) have spoken adamently against withdrawal from TEC, seems to heighten significantly the likelihood that any “realignment” in North America will result in a structure that is fully out of communion with Canterbury. Unfortunate, but ultimately a good emblem of the fact that the rest of TEC, as well as the Archbishop of Canterbury and most Provinces of the communion, are ready to move on. The Episcopal Church has done what most of the Primates, the Archbishop of Canterbury, and the Lambeth Commission on Communion have asked of them. I think the best we can do now is be prayerful that the people involved with Common Cause will reconsider an apparent course that will put them fully outside of communion with the Archbishop of Canterbury (and thus, the Anglican Communion).
I recognize most of the names or judicatories except for Bishop Paul Hewett, a guest. Where does he serve?
Tom Rightmyer in Asheville, NC.
Tom, Bishop Hewett is the bishop of the Diocese of Holy Cross, which is (according to their website), “comprised of parishes affiliated with Forward in Faith – United Kingdom whose goal is to establish a ‘free orthodox Anglican Province.'”
These parishes are scattered around the United States.
http://dioceseoftheholycross.org/
Todd Granger in Chapel Hill, NC
#9:
It’s a start. When St. John’s, Tallahassee left the Diocese of Florida, everybody said “well, it’s just one.” Then The first wave of parishes in Florida left, and everybody said, “well it’s just those few.” Then more left.
It’s a start. As far as “bishops in communion with Canterbury”, well that’s debatable. Can you show me definitively where Rowan has said that, for example, the AMiA bishops are in or out of communion with him?
SanderD: I think your math is mostly correct. However, whether most of the Provinces of the AC are “ready to move on” is questionable. Also I do not yet know how the ABC will go if the majority of the Primates are against TEC.
+Paul Hewitt is a bishop in the Diocese of the Holy Cross.
The fact that the most strongly Anglo-Catholic bishops of the ECUSA (Ackerman, Iker, Schofield) were either their or represented speaks volumes.
A good start, indeed.
If San Joaquin was also represented, as #7 Mark indicates, then that would seem to make the total of (currently) TEC dioceses signatory to this agreement seven: Quincy, Western Kansas, Springfield, Pittsburgh, Fort Worth, Albany, and San Joaquin.
Western Kansas (+Adams) isn’t an ACN diocese; interesting. And ACN dioceses Central Florida, Dallas, Rio Grande, and South Carolina are not represented on this (avowedly partial) list; although it’s hardly surprising that +Steenson wasn’t there.
#12
I believe that Lord Carey when ABC specifically stated that the AMiA bishops were not in communion with him and Rowan has stated that he has not changed their status. That is why they received no invitations to Lambeth 2008.
Re: #10, 11, and 14. Thank you. I know John Sharpe and my wife’s family were members of St. Francis, Spartanburg, SC. I don’t see on the Diocese of the Holy Cross website any reference to the Affirmation of St. Louis though Bishop Hewett’s comments on Anglicanism in the Delaware Valley makes reference to some of the churches for whom that statement is important. I hope that issues about women’s ordination do not present major problems for the Common Cause churches and dioceses.
Tom Rightmyer in Asheville, NC.
#5 Grandmother:
I am so happy about the announcement:On Thursday, September 13, 2007, Rev. Alphonza Gadsden, Sr. was elected to serve as
Bishop Ordinary of the Diocese of the Southeast. (of the REC). It has been a long time coming. Are you in the Diocese of the Southeast? If so, I would love to know what else happened at the Diocese.
Re #18 I don’t know how problems over the ordination of women can be avoided in the long term. So far, those who disagree on this issue have been content to let the problem lie because they are engaged in a campaign of co-belligerancy against sacramental sodomy, but if a separate Anglican jurisdiction is created, then an immediate problem is at hand: Those who believe that women cannot validly be ordained cannot accept the ministrations of women deacons, priests, or bishops. And at a deeper level, even those Anglicans who now accept women priests but oppose homosexual marriage will in due course find themselves without a theological leg to stand on, because both the ordination of women and homosexual marriage rest on the same anthropological and theological misake, i.e. that the human person is a spiritual (and hence disembodied) Self which uses the body as a tool. And once that error is embedded in a theological system (which is what the ordination of women does), it will attack the entire Body Ecclesiastic as an unstoppable virus. If women can take the place of the Lord Jesus in the ministerial priesthood, there is, finally, no compelling reason why two men cannot marry each other. And I suspect that his grasp of the relentless logic of this problem is at the heart of +Rowan’s paralysis on the issue of homosexuality.
A leadership meeting in the Diocese of Albany was told by our bishop today that:
He attended only as an observer, not as a participant
He left early
He did “not sign anything”
We will have to “wait and see” and we are now “in a holding pattern”
So we are still going nowhere around here. Pray that we get [i]some[/i] sense of direction here [b]soon[/b] because several people (and remember that this was a [i]leader’s[/i] conference) told me that they are leaving TEC — — NOW
Note to Bishop Love. I am very VERY tired of “waiting and seeing.”
AP+
If the CCP does not follow the “geographical monopoly” model of the TEC, then the ordination of women should not be a big deal. let the structures grow organically and let them find strength in their commonalities. Unlike our progressive counterparts, there doesn’t seem to be this passion to make sure everyone “embraces and accepts” the ordination of women. There is a level of trust, I believe, that this will not be enforced canonically or otherwise. Unlike the heavy hand in the Diocese of Washington DC, which chose to send a female bishop to a congregation they knew was opposed to her. My guess is we’ll do a better job of “living in tension” than 815 has done.
RE: “Unfortunate, but ultimately a good emblem of the fact that the rest of TEC, as well as the Archbishop of Canterbury and most Provinces of the communion, are ready to move on.”
LOL.
RE: “I think the best we can do now is be prayerful that the people involved with Common Cause will reconsider an apparent course that will put them fully outside of communion with the Archbishop of Canterbury (and thus, the Anglican Communion).”
Well . . . if that’s what reappraisers want to do . . . should be fine by reasserters.
RE: “So far, those who disagree on this issue have been content to let the problem lie because they are engaged in a campaign of co-belligerancy against sacramental sodomy . . . ”
While this may [or may not] be true for reasserters in ECUSA, it is not the case with the Primates of the Global South who disagree on the issue but are very happy [and public] about being in communion with one another. As they have stated publicly and on stage together, it is not a dividing issue for them.
RE: “If women can take the place of the Lord Jesus in the ministerial priesthood, there is, finally, no compelling reason why two men cannot marry each other.”
But, since so many Anglicans do not hold with the Roman Catholic belief that the male priest “can take the place of the Lord Jesus” either, then this argument is entirely unconnected and inapplicable.
re #21 and 22. Please note that Bishop Love pointed out that we are in a holding pattern because the process is still ongoing. He was very clear that we are waiting for the rest of the world to respond. This is what will take some time. It is the reality of our situation; whether we like it or not we need to wait.
Do. Not. Like. It. But. Will. Wait. (Sigh). Do love Love ++, though.
AP+
On Women Bishops: I am sure that some of the CCP Bishops would not agree to have women Bishops in their meetings. They will be just as exclusive as TEC has been inclusive.
I’m out of the loop – are the ‘good excuses’ for the absences of +Salmon and +Stanton publicly known?
Re #25 Sarah, you put your finger on the sorest point of all. Is it possible for one church to be constituted officially of sacramental and theological commitments which are mutually exclusive? Can Anglicanism, in any form or jurisdiction, embrace doctrines both Catholic and Protestant? This was once claimed by many as the unique glory of Anglicanism, but the implosion of TEC suggests what others have maintained since (at least) the Elizabethan Settlement: these differences cannot be split, since holding one position necessarily excludes the other. Any attempt to avoid the demands of right reason in doctrine automatically yields an essentially schizophrenic Christian communion.
Now to cases: if the ministerial preisthood does not place the presbyter or bishop in persona Christi, then the Eucharist is merely a memorial and not the re-presentation of the Paschal Mystery, and the Real Presence is a philosophical fantasy, no matter what theological explanation of it is given. And if the ordained ministry is simply a function needed by the community to arrange the details of worship and the minister is but a delegate of the baptized, then the only sacramental priesthood available to Christians is that of Baptism. But, on the other hand, if the ministerial priesthood is a second and separate form of sacramental participation in the unique priesthood of the Lord Jesus which confers by grace a sacred power on the one ordained to stand in persona Christi in the administration of the sacraments, then all Protestant construals of ordained ministry are incomplete and inadequate at best. No Christian community can have it both ways. And what I meant to suggest above is that even the Anglicans now fleeing the wreckage of TEC still seem to want to have it both ways. I understand the impulse to reach for any lifeboat available when one’s ship sinks, but if the lifeboat also has gaping holes in its sides and bottom, the journey is still over.
[blockquote] They will be just as exclusive as TEC has been inclusive[/blockquote]
Which means they will not be exclusive at all.
#29
What I meant by my parentheticals was that Bp. Stanton is in Uganda with a large group of people for a major event for the Christian university there. South Carolina seems to be keeping their collective heads down for understandable reasons.
Fr Jay Scott Newman,
I started out thinking I would respond to your post in detail, but since I discovered that, as a Protestant, I disagree with the Roman Catholic sentiments of nearly every sentence, I merely need to state that, of course, I disagree, and point out that my original response to your comment simply pointed out that your statement about the consecration of practicing homosexuals was incompatible and inapplicable to the issue of WO because Anglicans are not Roman Catholics.
I should add that I continue to be opposed to WO, based on Protestant theological beliefs, so you are certainly not speaking to a supporter of WO . . . but you are speaking to a very happy [though embattled] Protestant.
Sarah, my posts above were not intended to persuade Protestants to become Catholics (a task to which I am dedicated, but which is not apposite here). Rather, my chief points were two: 1) Those Protestants who accept the ordination of women really have no final theological justification for rejecting the marriage of homosexuals, and 2) Anglicanism bears within it an unavoidable fault line between Catholicism and Protestantism which cannot but make it unstable. And when these two are put together, I conclude that the current crisis in TEC was inevitable after the ordination of women was instituted and that the Anglican life boat being assembled by the Common Cause crowd will in the end prove no more durable than TEC, again because of the incoherence introduced by the ordination of women.
And my secondary point was that until now the various groups against changing traditional Anglican teaching on homosexuality have temporarily suspended their arguments with each other over the ordination of women, but the very minute a new jurisdiction is created to preserve the teaching on homosexuality from revision, the disagreement over women priests will re-assert itself with greater energy than before.
Fr Jay Scott Newman,
RE: Sarah, my posts above were not intended to persuade Protestants to become Catholics . . . ”
I did not think that they were.
RE: Rather, my chief points were two: 1) Those Protestants who accept the ordination of women really have no final theological justification for rejecting the marriage of homosexuals . . . ”
And as I pointed out, using Roman Catholic arguments to claim that the two are similar will not do for Protestants. So the first point won’t be made, it seems, since you do not seem able to make the argument using non-Roman-Catholic theology.
RE: “. . . and 2) Anglicanism bears within it an unavoidable fault line between Catholicism and Protestantism which cannot but make it unstable.”
I agree that Anglicanism bears within it an unavoidable fault line between [Roman] Catholicism and Protestantism.
But there are many reasserting Anglo-Catholics who are not Roman Catholic, and as such they will probably do well with those reasserters who are Reformed Anglicans.
But . . . no way to know that until or if we observe it.
We’ll see, I guess.
RE: “. . . and that the Anglican life boat being assembled by the Common Cause crowd will in the end prove no more durable than TEC, again because of the incoherence introduced by the ordination of women.”
Well, then, one would have to say the same thing about the Primates of the Global South who disagree on WO and yet maintain a happy unity — publicly professed, too.
But again, one may predict doom — and I certainly have, only not on the basis of WO, in the least — but we won’t know until we watch it, I suppose.
I personally believe that WO won’t be any sort of thorn in the side of the Common Cause crew — as they will probably do what ECUSA should have done all along, but would not — but other things will most certainly.
#21, 22. 26, 27, Can you imagine Joshua saying, “Choose this day whom you shall serve. But as for me and my family we’re in a holding pattern?”