Gator, #1 – While I can see that simple courtesy might require him to get permission, I would think that his assent to the Church of Rome would cause him to view the authority of KJS as being null and void. Or am I wrong?
#1 Gator:
He did it by the book and in consultation with 815 – http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/6198/
“At the House of Bishops meeting about to be convened in New Orleans, my intention is to ask them for permission to begin the process to resign as diocesan bishop. The bishops must give their consent, and then I will step down by the end of the year.”
#5 Maybe if they knew he was going to join Rome they would not have allowed him to resign! What kind of message is that for a Protestant Bishop to join Rome!
Cardinal Law is the Archpriest of the Basilica, so he is definitely in charge. It would not surprise me if Cardinal Law received him since he was the Ecclesiastical Delegate (or whatever the title is) of the Pastoral Provision and was involved in talks with Rome-ward looking Anglo-Catholics who were upset with women’s ordination back in the 70s – long before he was Archbishop of Boston.
Re #6: Unlike some other recent events, the conversion of Bp. (former Bp.?) Steenson occurred in the full light of day. The House of Bishops knew exactly what he was doing and why. It should perhaps be noted that this was not a case where reappraisers drove him out of the church. He had become increasingly convinced over time that the internal logic of Anglicanism—specifically its fuzziness on issues of authority—tended towards Protestant sectarianism (whether of the left or right). He was no more inclined to participate in a split from TEC than to remain behind. Getting caught in the middle during the secession of St. Clement’s, El Paso, seems to have been the final confirmation of his need to go.
Mr. Sulik–Thanks, I think you are right in what you wrote. I was mainly asking a timing question. I hadn’t seen news that the HOB voted to let him resign. My last memory is that a vote might be delayed to let him twist in the wind a little.
Dale Rye–You are not quite right. In his interview with Sarah Hey, Bishop Steenson made pointed reference to the vote of the HOB in their first reaction to Dar. He said he no longer could recognize (in the common sense of perceiving) this church as being the one he had taken vows in. It was the new autonomy-trumps-catholicity that got him bad.
Re #10: I fully agree that “It was the new autonomy-trumps-catholicity that got him bad.” However, that game isn’t just being played by reappraisers. The “Anglican” alternatives to TEC are infected with the same disorder. That is why Bp. Steenson went to Rome rather than one of those alternatives.
Eugene – Just speculating, but I suspect 815 is fine with bishops flowing to Rome (though four in one year seems a lot). It reduces the ranks of the orthodox in power, sows dismay among orthodox laity, and might pull some Catholic-leaning orthodox laity along. And 815 can magnanimous saying, “Hey, great for X, he’s doing what he feels is right, following his conscience, etc” instead of dwelling on the implicit rejection of the validity of Anglican orders, etc. What had the people in 815 falling out of their tree was Steenson’s agreement to allow a parish to buy it’s property from the diocses before bolting to another Anglican province. If Steenson had gone the Bena route, becoming a bishop in a competing Anglican province (individually, not taking the diocese with him), one suspects 815’s reaction would be more severe, even without the property issue.
I wonder if a Roman Catholic bishop resigned from the Catholic episcopate and sought to become an Anglican (or Methodist or Baptist) it would receive as very little coverage in the MSM as has the recent departure of 4 Episcopal bishops for Rome??? Most of the coverage I have seen has been on the internet, not cable news, or newspapers, or the evening news, or news magazines. Is this because the stories are not newsworthy??? or because it doesn’t put radical religious change in a very good light as far as being very attractive.
In any event, may God be with the good former bishop on his Catholic pilgrimage.
I take it he didn’t wait for the permission of the HOB to resign his office, or did I miss it. Did they vote to release him.
Anyway, Godspeed Jeffrey.
Gator, #1 – While I can see that simple courtesy might require him to get permission, I would think that his assent to the Church of Rome would cause him to view the authority of KJS as being null and void. Or am I wrong?
Was he received by Cardinal Law, late of Boston, who is I believe in charge at Santa Maria Maggiore?
I don’t think Cardinal Law is “in charge” of Santa Maria Maggiore–that’s just where they parked him. But it’s an interesting question.
#1 Gator:
He did it by the book and in consultation with 815 –
http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/6198/
“At the House of Bishops meeting about to be convened in New Orleans, my intention is to ask them for permission to begin the process to resign as diocesan bishop. The bishops must give their consent, and then I will step down by the end of the year.”
Blessings to him and those he leaves behind,
#5 Maybe if they knew he was going to join Rome they would not have allowed him to resign! What kind of message is that for a Protestant Bishop to join Rome!
Cardinal Law is the Archpriest of the Basilica, so he is definitely in charge. It would not surprise me if Cardinal Law received him since he was the Ecclesiastical Delegate (or whatever the title is) of the Pastoral Provision and was involved in talks with Rome-ward looking Anglo-Catholics who were upset with women’s ordination back in the 70s – long before he was Archbishop of Boston.
Re #6: Unlike some other recent events, the conversion of Bp. (former Bp.?) Steenson occurred in the full light of day. The House of Bishops knew exactly what he was doing and why. It should perhaps be noted that this was not a case where reappraisers drove him out of the church. He had become increasingly convinced over time that the internal logic of Anglicanism—specifically its fuzziness on issues of authority—tended towards Protestant sectarianism (whether of the left or right). He was no more inclined to participate in a split from TEC than to remain behind. Getting caught in the middle during the secession of St. Clement’s, El Paso, seems to have been the final confirmation of his need to go.
Mr. Sulik–Thanks, I think you are right in what you wrote. I was mainly asking a timing question. I hadn’t seen news that the HOB voted to let him resign. My last memory is that a vote might be delayed to let him twist in the wind a little.
Dale Rye–You are not quite right. In his interview with Sarah Hey, Bishop Steenson made pointed reference to the vote of the HOB in their first reaction to Dar. He said he no longer could recognize (in the common sense of perceiving) this church as being the one he had taken vows in. It was the new autonomy-trumps-catholicity that got him bad.
Re #10: I fully agree that “It was the new autonomy-trumps-catholicity that got him bad.” However, that game isn’t just being played by reappraisers. The “Anglican” alternatives to TEC are infected with the same disorder. That is why Bp. Steenson went to Rome rather than one of those alternatives.
Eugene – Just speculating, but I suspect 815 is fine with bishops flowing to Rome (though four in one year seems a lot). It reduces the ranks of the orthodox in power, sows dismay among orthodox laity, and might pull some Catholic-leaning orthodox laity along. And 815 can magnanimous saying, “Hey, great for X, he’s doing what he feels is right, following his conscience, etc” instead of dwelling on the implicit rejection of the validity of Anglican orders, etc. What had the people in 815 falling out of their tree was Steenson’s agreement to allow a parish to buy it’s property from the diocses before bolting to another Anglican province. If Steenson had gone the Bena route, becoming a bishop in a competing Anglican province (individually, not taking the diocese with him), one suspects 815’s reaction would be more severe, even without the property issue.
#7: I stand corrected.
Wouldn’t it be more accurate to say he was “confirmed” in the R.C. Church? I thought it was Anglicans who received Romans and not vice-versa.
I wonder if a Roman Catholic bishop resigned from the Catholic episcopate and sought to become an Anglican (or Methodist or Baptist) it would receive as very little coverage in the MSM as has the recent departure of 4 Episcopal bishops for Rome??? Most of the coverage I have seen has been on the internet, not cable news, or newspapers, or the evening news, or news magazines. Is this because the stories are not newsworthy??? or because it doesn’t put radical religious change in a very good light as far as being very attractive.
In any event, may God be with the good former bishop on his Catholic pilgrimage.
May God grant him grace to serve in his new ministry.
No. 15 – Once a bishop always a bishop. Regards