Dioceses per se aren’t in communion with Canterbury?

Comments

6 responses to “Dioceses per se aren’t in communion with Canterbury?”

1. 

   2007-06-18

   Jim Stockton

   Question is raised about the validity of my argument that a dicoese per se cannot be in communion with the Anglican Communion. This question is raised by reference to the preamble of the Episcopal Church in which is written “The Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America, otherwise known as The Episcopal Church (which name is hereby recognized as also designating the Church), is a constituent member of the Anglican Communion, a Fellowship within the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, of those duly constituted Dioceses, Provinces, and regional Churches in communion with the See of Canterbury, upholding and propagating the historic Faith and Order as set forth in the Book of Common Prayer.” The challenge to my argument is perceived in the inclusion here of the term ‘duly constituted Dioceses.’ It should be readily apparent, however, that this phrase is precisely the strength of my argument. ‘Duly constituted dioceses’ cannot include self-proclaimed dioceses that claim someehow to be no longer bound by their necessary ascesion to the Constitution of the Church of which they are a part and under which they were duly constituted. Each of the Churches of the Anglican Communion has a process for duly constituting dioceses, which thus derivatively participate in the Communion. There does not exist a way for a diocese to be created within the jurisdiction of an extant Church that would yet exist outside that jurisdiction. Recent attempts by a couple African Churches to do so in America have demonstrated this in that their self-proclaimed missions and bishops thereof have received resounding lack of recognition from the Archbishop of Canterbury. Historically, the Church Catholic has rejected as invalid such incursions into existing jurisdictions based solely upon dogmatic differences. In those instances where such attempts have lingered, e.g. the papal controversies that led to the concilliar movement that would have virtualy ended the papacy, the results have been traumatic for the fellowship of the Church and its witness. Such obvious hypiocrisies in an insitution claiming to be founded on love for God and neighbor actually helped fuel the reformation that led to the formation of the Church of Enlgand and thus to our own respective Churches in the Anglican Communion. Again, the preamble itself reinforces the fact that no diocese of an extant Church is or can be in independent communion with the wider Anglican Communion.

   Reply
2. 

   2007-06-19

   Viriato da Silva

   Actually, there *are* “free-standing” dioceses (or in one case, a non-province church comprised of two dioceses). The correct term is actually “extraprovincial.”
   There are five of them, in fact, of which four are under Canterbury’s metropolitical authority but are not “under” or part of the Church of England — plus there’s even one extraprovincial parish!
   And they are all both “duly constituted” and “in communion” with Canterbury.
   They are:
   Portugal (i.e., the Lusitanian Church, or more fully, the Lusitanian Catholic Apostolic Evangelical Church): http://www.anglicancommunion.org/tour/province.cfm?ID=Y4
   Spain (i.e., the Spanish Reformed Episcopal Church): http://www.anglicancommunion.org/tour/province.cfm?ID=Y6
   Bermuda (i.e., the Anglican Church of Bermuda): http://www.anglicancommunion.org/tour/province.cfm?ID=Y3
   Sri Lanka (i.e., the Church of Ceylon, with two dioceses, but it’s not a province of its own): http://www.anglicancommunion.org/tour/province.cfm?ID=Y1
   Cuba (i.e., the Episcopal Church of Cuba): http://www.anglicancommunion.org/tour/province.cfm?ID=Y2 (formerly part of TEC/ECUSA, but now under not Canterbury but a metropolitical council that consists of the Primate of Canada, the Archbishop of the West Indies, and the President Bishop of the Anglican Church of the Central American Region)
   Falkland Islands (not a diocese but a “parish,” albeit with an episcopal commissary): http://www.anglicancommunion.org/tour/province.cfm?ID=Y7
   Constitutional mystery solved!

   Reply
3. 

   2007-06-20

   Anonymous

   The ‘mystery’ may be solved, but the pressing dilemma is not about ‘extraprovincial’ dioceses or parishes. The question is whether or not a diocese or parish that is PART OF AN EXTANT CHURCH can divorce itself from the Church by which is was constituted, especially over ideological differences. The creation of a second Anglican province in the geographic jurisdiction and composed of dissident members of the first province has not been done. Also, Episcopalian and Anglican polities all stand against it.
   Diocese or mission Churches have petitioned effectively to be removed from the jurisdiction of another body, typically in order to become an independent Church. ButAnd this process is not autonomous one. It requires the majority approval of the member Churches of the Anglican Communion.
   The question raised by the actions of some folks in the Diocese of Texas is whether or not dissidents here can reasonably hope to elect a bishop who will ‘take the diocese out of the Church.’ The polity of the Church, and historic precedent, indicate that there is no way to accomplish this.

   Reply
4. 

   2007-06-20

   Anonymous

   The Churches cited by Viraiato da Silva are extra-provincial under the Archbishop of Canterbury or, in the case of Cuba, under a Metropolitan Council, due to the fact that each was unable or unprepared to sustain itself financially and numercially. The province of the Falkland Islands is a typical example. With the possible exception of Lusitania, it’s simply the case that none has yet matured to autonomy. There is among them no analogy whatsoever to the case of the Diocese of Texas or other dioceses that may be contemplating a split with the Episcopal Church. None was formed as a dissident response to an exisitng parent Anglican Communion Church from whom it wished to depart because of ideolgocial differences.

   Reply
5. 

   2007-06-21

   Viriato da Silva

   I’m not sure who the anonymous poster(s) of June 20 at 04:04 PM and 04:25 PM is/are, but I trust s/he/they is/are not mistaking me for a reasserter, or my citation of the extraprovincial dioceses as somehow supporting DOT’s or any other diocese’s attempt somehow to take itself out of TEC.
   “The ‘mystery’ may be solved, but the pressing dilemma is not about ‘extraprovincial’ dioceses or parishes. The question is whether or not a diocese or parish that is PART OF AN EXTANT CHURCH can divorce itself from the Church by which is was constituted, especially over ideological differences.”
   No, that was *not* the immediate question, although it is an important question.
   The specific question that had been posed here by the blog owner — in connection with the phrase in the preamble to TEC’s constitution that defines TEC as being a member of the Anglican Communion, which is then more specifically described (in relevant part) as being “a Fellowship within the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, of those duly constituted Dioceses, Provinces, and regional Churches in communion with the See of Canterbury [etc.]” — was:
   “Since it’d be tough for Jim to prove the negative, does anyone know of historical cases where individual dioceses per se (other than those of the Church of England) were deemed to be in communion with Canterbury?”
   My citation of the extraprovincial dioceses was by way of answer to that specific question, thereby clarifying what the preamble actually means when it refers to “those duly constituted Dioceses [outside of Provinces and regional Churches but nonetheless] in communion with the See of Canterbury.”
   Since it is clear that that reference is to the existing extraprovincial dioceses within the Communion, it follows that it is ***NOT***, as some reasserters are claiming, reasonable evidence that dioceses (such as DOTexas) that are *within* recognized “Provinces [or] regional Churches” have a *direct* connection of communion with Canterbury that somehow runs outside of, and apart from, their *derivative* communion with Canterbury via the “Province [or] regional Church[]” under the metropolitical authority/jurisdiction of which they fall.
   Under the principle of legal “construction” (i.e., interpretation of a legal document) that holds that all words within a document should be given meaning, because if they weren’t intended to have meaning the probably would not have been inserted there in the first place, the reasserters’ theory of the proper construction of this language would perhaps have some degree of reasonableness ***if and only if*** such a thing as the extraprovincial dioceses did not exist.
   But they *do* exist, and that’s what the preamble means by “duly constituted Dioceses [i.e., freestanding ones, and so enumerated *apart* from Provinces and regional Churches] in communion with the See of Canterbury.”
   Ergo, implicitly, dioceses *within* Provinces and regional Churches are *not* in direct communion with Canterbury, only *derivative* communion — they are parts of a whole, and the *whole*, as a *unit*, is in communion with Canterbury, and if you cleave off that part, it’s not automatically in communion with Canterbury on its own.
   Which *does* ultimately answer not only the good blog owner’s specific question, but *also* “whether or not a diocese or parish that is PART OF AN EXTANT CHURCH can divorce itself from the Church by which is was constituted….”
   QED, dammit.
   Sheesh.

   Reply
6. 

   2007-06-23

   Jim Stockton

   Viriato, it was I who posted the two anonymous messages, though not intentionally. I don’t know why my name was not included. Some technical piece with the signing in of which I’m unaware, I’m sure. I posted a second time when I noticed that my first message had been posted without my name attached, as is decidedly not my custom. All that saie, I apologize for the frustration my responses elicited. QED, indeed! And quite well done. I am very glad to have you clarify that your citation of the extraprovincial dioceses under the ABC (or the Metro Council) was in no way intended to support the dissidents. I’m doubly glad to read your argument that such examples as these support the position that dioceses of a extant Church have only derivative communion with the ABC and the wider Communion. Again, my apologies, and again, well done.
   (In case this post anonymously: this is posted by Jim Stockton)

   Reply