The appointment of an American priest to the Anglican-Roman Catholic International Commission (ARCIC) does not mean that the Archbishop of Canterbury’s ban on members of churches in violation of the Windsor Report serving on ecumenical dialogue committees has been lifted, the staff of the Anglican Consultative Council reports, as the new commission member is not American enough to trigger the ban.
The appointment to the ARCIC III team of one of the author’s the Episcopal Church’s apologia for gay ”˜bishops and blessings’ has caused disquiet among conservatives. It is also likely to set back Dr. Rowan Williams’ hopes for regaining the trust of the majority faction within the Communion, who hold a jaundiced view of the probity of the ACC staff.
“as the new commission member is not American enough to trigger the ban.”
Thank you for my first “LOL” moment of my Friday.
The rules, promises, pledges will be adhered to “by the letter” or “ignored completely” depending upon the ACC’s interpretation of the progressive interest. I mean how could the ACC not pass up the opportunity to share the gospel of full-inclusion with our Roman Catholic sis-bre-thren (just trying to anticipate the next progressive linguist fad). The ordinariate is looking better and better every day. Goodness knows my Byzantine-Catholic grandmother is in heaven pulling for me to change teams.
“Not American enough?” How about the Canadian credentials of the suffragan bishop of Toronto? The “ban” was a sham anyhow. Canon Ashley has it right:[blockquote]This explanation has rung false with critics of the ACC, who note that some Americans appear to be more American than others. Canon Phil Ashey, who was barred from taking his seat as a delegate from Uganda at the ACC meeting in Jamaica on the grounds that although he was a bona fida priest of the Church of Uganda he was an American and former Episcopal priest, stated he was disappointed by the news, saying this was “further evidence†that the ACC, Canon Kearon and “ultimately the Archbishop of Canterbury make up the rules as they go along and then choose whether or not to abide by them.â€[/blockquote]
The Archbishop of Canterbury is making himself irrelevant to of the Anglican Communion. He is becoming the head of the Anglican group of colonialist powers that are all becoming irrelevant to the majority of Anglicans worldwide.
The Archbishop of Canterbury has truly become a toothless wonder, hoping to gum opposition into submission. Truly sad…
Hey, it’s the “one-drop rule” played out in the Anglican Communion!
Keep digging Archbishop, you might get to Australia one day. You will know you are getting there when you start spinning the other way in the hole.
The conservative provinces should start their own dialog with the Roman Catholic and other Churches.
From the Pentecost letter:
[blockquote][I]t is very hard (as noted in my letter to the Communion last year after the General Convention of TEC) to see how members of that province can be placed in positions where they are required to represent the Communion as a whole. This affects both our ecumenical dialogues, where our partners (as they often say to us) need to know who it is they are talking to, and our internal faith-and-order related groups….[/blockquote]
Is McIntosh a member of TEC? As of today he is listed as [url=https://www.ecdplus.org/clergy/?clergyID=36218]canonically resident[/url] in the Diocese of Chicago.
Does the Roman Catholic Church “know who it is they are talking to”?
Less than a year ago the Secretary General said TEC representatives were removed from ecumenical dialogues because they do not “share the faith and order of the vast majority of the Anglican Communion.†McIntosh is one of the primary articulators of TEC’s revisionist faith and order,as is the Canadian bishop.
Does it matter that the Anglican ARCIC representatives do not share the Anglican faith and order in talks with an ecumenical partner? Or only that they can be disguised?
Or is the explanation even simpler: “that was then; this is now.”
Maybe he was the only one crazy enough to take the job.
For anyone who doubted the direction the AoC is steering things (in his unique hands off the wheel approach), this should be evidence to support the view that his course and methods are leading towards the inevitable split of the Church.
#8 Wildfire
Thank you for finding that quotation from the Archbishop. I was just thinking about the complete dissonance of these appointments with his prior published criteria, but couldn’t remember where I had read them.
And this is not just the only action he has taken recently which flies in the face of what he has previously said, and indeed the Communion Instruments [as they once existed] have previously determined.
The ABC seems to be behaving like that Australian bishop who decided to smash the chalice on the altar on his way out. I wonder just how big a mess he will leave behind.
What is that line from a famous song?
“Send in the clowns; Don’t bother they’re here.”
I try very hard not to wish vengeance on the moral degenerates who destroyed the church of my youth and middle age. I hope God in His mercy will forgive me the occasional glee I feel anticipating some of their exit interviews. On the other hand, He hardened Pharaoh’s heart to a purpose. It’s above my job description…. Kyrie eleison.
Ah–more, I see, from the Williams-Kearon show.
“It is also likely to set back Dr. Rowan Williams’ hopes for regaining the trust of the majority faction within the Communion, who hold a jaundiced view of the probity of the ACC staff”.
Hmmm…how ’bout we discuss how he lost the trust in the first place?
“A spokesman for Lambeth Palace told The Church of England Newspaper the chairman of the new ARCIC team, Archbishop David Moxon of New Zealand, was appointed by the Archbishop of Canterbury, while the members of the team were selected by ACC Secretary General Canon Kenneth Kearon in consultation with Archbishop Moxon”.
Methinks the “selectors” thought that no one would notice this and tried to slide it by. Next to their lofty elitism, I imagine we’re all considered “stupid”. Thanks to driver8 and others for pointing this out.
And I hope it’s been brought to Pope Benedict’s attention, too.
I wonder what the Roman Catholic Church will think of this.
[b]@wildfire[/b],
You asked [blockquote]Does it matter that the Anglican ARCIC representatives do not share the Anglican faith and order in talks with an ecumenical partner? Or only that they can be disguised?[/blockquote] Speaking as someone who is now Catholic, and having given this only brief consideration, I think the answer to your question may be negative for one or any of a few reasons.
• On the one hand, I think the Roman representatives are not unaware of the current state of much of the Anglican Church, and not insignificantly of the current degree of what I can only charitably term the latter’s [i]latitudinarianism[/i] on issues of chaste conduct and related moral questions. This leaves open the possibility that ARCIC III may be viewed by Rome as a teachable moment for those whom they will meet across the conference table.
• On the other hand, it might be the case that Rome considers her message as an opportunity to share Christ’s imperative to be holy in our actions, and to contrast that with what I suppose might be termed the [i]moral malleability[/i] of those segments of Anglicanism represented by such as the Rev. Prof. McIntosh. In this case, she may view it as an opportunity for evangelism, not solely, nor even primarily, among those at the conference table, but rather for those Anglicans disturbed by that increasing malleability. Contrasting the two Churches moral teachings ([i]e.g.[/i], on abortion, sexual morality, [i]etc[/i].) publicly but charitably, through the documents that will report the results of ARCIC III, certainly won’t hurt the Ordinariates, nor the cause of planting a seed among those who watch from outside of ARCIC III which might lead some to conversion.
Either of the above represent an opportunity to increase unity amongst Christians, even if it is unlikely to lead to unity between the two ecclesial bodies. And there may be other considerations which Rome has in mind that have not occurred to me. But I don’t think it is undesirable that all parties clearly understand what stands in the way of unity.
[i]Pax et bonum[/i],
Keith Töpfer
How ironic. A promise is exposed for the sham it is. But does it really matter? The “dialogue” with Rome is just as much a sham if you accept the stated objective of establishment of sacramental communion.
What is actually perplexing here is that it seems one can be a priest in two dioceses under two different bishops. That is not a little odd in light of Nicene canons, for instance.
One should not be condemned, as it were, because one is born in the USA and thus a member of the American Episcopal Church. Surely we ought to be allowed to change our provincial affiliation (if I move to Africa or Europe or wherever, surely I ought to be allowed to change my provincial membership)? There is a curious complaint against McIntosh in claiming that he can’t be on ARCIC as it implies a sort of provincial fatalism. However, it is also very odd that one – indeed, anyone – could be resident in two places. This points to the deeper ecclesiological problem within Anglicanism today, namely, one in which episcopal order and canonical structures need to be reformed so that this sort of thing can’t happen (precisely because it causes administrative problems).
#16 He is unsuitable, because other TEC representatives have been found unsuitable, coming from a church whose actions are neither acceptable to the Anglican Communion, nor to the Roman Catholic, and the decision was made that representatives from such churches would not be put forward in ecumenical dialogue. Without any discussion, the Archbishop of Canterbury has reversed the policy which he put forward.
The objection to this appointment is not to McIntosh, but to an Archbishop who makes up the rules as he goes along and applies them selectively. When we do that, we are no better than Mubarak, and that is unfortunately the situation we now find ourselves in.
In general, there is no longer a concept of canonical residence in the COE and thus no ordinary function for letters dimissory. There is however a concept of actual physical “residence” in parishes (for parish priests) – parishes being geographical entities, of course – or within a certain distance of cathedrals (for canons). The US concept that one may be “canonically” resident in one diocese (and so subject to that bishop’s jurisdiction ) whilst actually living or even serving in another is, to my knowledge, unknown in the COE. (There may be some weird and rare counter examples but I never heard of such in my time in England).
In the COE clergy are “licensed” to serve by the local Bishop and for parish priests to be “licensed” one must promise obedience to the Bishop of the geographical diocese in which the parish is found. (Retired clergy have slightly different rules).
So in theory, there may be no need for an Episcopal priest formally to transfer his canonical residence, if he or she wishes to serve in the COE. He or she would have to be accepted as Anglican by the relevant Archbishop (in this case York), promise obedience to their local bishop (in this case Durham) and swear an oath of loyalty to the Monarch.
Of course, the PB has said that TEC clergy who transfer to other Provinces must, under TEC Canons, be seen as having voluntarily “renounced’ their orders. If such a view has been taken in this case, the Rev’d Canon Dr McIntosh not only couldn’t be canonically resident any longer in the Diocese of Chicago, he couldn’t serve any priestly functions within TEC when he returns to the US on vacation.
Looking at the COE Canons there may be a function for letters dimissory in the COE (Canon C.5.4 and .5). I moved dioceses several times during my service in the COE and never heard of them. I wonder if they are ordinarily exchanged from the Registrar (lawyer) of one diocese to another without the involvement or knowledge of the clergy.
I wonder too if such letters dimissory (whose function in the COE seems to be to indicate that the cleric has been validly ordained and is in good standing) would necessarily canonically function as letters dimissory in TEC – given that the COE doesn’t seem quite to share with TEC an identical concept of canonical residence.
Just for completeness I note that clergy ordained overseas may not have to take the oath of allegiance to the Monarch when they take up a post within the COE. (Overseas and Other Clergy (Ministry and Ordination) Measure 1967 s2).
FWLIW Lambeth I (1867) wanted to make uniform the processes by which clergy were transferred from one branch of the Anglican Communion to another. Thus seems never to have been done.
As Simon Sarmiento points out at in a comment Thinking Anglicans, not only is McIntosh still listed as canonically resident in Chicago as I noted in #8, he is [b]not[/b] listed in Crockford’s as a member of the CofE clergy.
As Keith noted in his insightful and persuasive comment #14, Rome probably knows exactly “who it is they are talking to” when they talk to Anglicans. Maybe they can explain it to us.
#16–‘under two Bishops’ — No, under one. Either +Chicago with a permission to officiate (pto) in the CofE. Or, he has moved his orders to Durham and the records are simply not showing that.
‘Surely we ought to be allowed to change our provincial affiliation’ — and so we can. At issue is whether McIntosh has done that. If not, then he is a Priest canonically resident in Chicago and so ineligible to serve according to the previous statements.
Not sure where all the reference to fatalism and Nicaea fits in.
CSeitz –
Thank you for the clarification. My point about fatalism was that there is no need to claim or imply, as some have done, that because McIntosh was educated and a priest in ECUSA that this itself makes him ineligible – as if, once an American Episcopalian, always an American Episcopalian.
The point about Nicaea was that the canons allowed you to only be under one bishops. The issue of licensing clarifies the matter, although in truth it seems to me that as driver8 points it in post #19 above, we need to smooth the process of movement across the Communion – an old goal, it seems, and quite regrettably abandoned.
I don’t understand the question about smooth processes. I have received a license in the Scottish Episcopal Church. There was nothing complicated about it. Ditto, the C of E — though background checking is difficult/time-consuming because across nations. The idea of being licensed to preside in a diocese not ones own is already common practice inside TEC. Should anglican clergy simply be interchangeable, that is, once one takes up employment in a new country one just become a clergy member of a new province automatically? For lots of reasons this is not possible/desirable. In the case of McIntosh, he may prefer to remain in Chicago/TEC. He may believe he will finally return. It may have to do with pension, etc.
As for fatalism, I have not heard much about McIntosh being ineligible because he was educated in the US but because from the sounds of it he is canonically resident in TEC and TEC members were not to serve on these committees. As a TEC member, he also was a contributor to a publication whose stand on the issue of the day is at odds with the Communion teaching — if we can use that language anymore.
Complete and automatic exchangeability of clergy also must rely on the assumption now being tested, that is, Communion or federation of autonomous churches. TEC presses for the latter so in what way could its clergy presume automatically to be received into a different province — even if this was relevant in the present case, which I don’t think it is.
Perhaps Williams is trying to spike ARCIC. That would be the logical conclusion from these appointments. In which case, as people say, why bother with it.
Regardless of where he is canonically resident, it seems (to me at least) that this appointment may meet the letter of the law, but clearly ignores the spirit. As an author of “the Episcopal Church’s apologia for gay ‘bishops and blessings’,” there can be no question that his teaching is at odds with official teaching of the Anglican Communion. He should not be allowed on the ARCIC committee.
Complete and automatic exchangeability of clergy also must rely on the assumption now being tested, that is, Communion or federation of autonomous churches. TEC presses for the latter so in what way could its clergy presume automatically to be received into a different province—even if this was relevant in the present case, which I don’t think it is.
But this has never been the case. You always need the permission of the ecclesiastical authorities in both Provinces.
I suspect the Anglicans presenting this line up to the Roman Catholics as their ARCIC team will actually do more damage to ecumenical relations than they would by not turning up at all; that is once the Catholic delegation have picked themselves off the floor clutching their sides in agonised laughter.
BabyBlue reports of McIntosh:
[blockquote]He also serves as the Canon Theologian to Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori as well as chaplain under her authority in the Episcopal House of Bishops.[/blockquote]
Open archepiscopal mouth, insert foot, then insert the other one. Who can take Williams seriously?
However, we now know where she gets her theology from.
[Ad hominem comment deleted by Elf]
#27. Thank you for restating my point. Perhaps you could try your own response to #16?