Breaking: Bishop Lipscomb requests release from vows, reception in Roman Catholic church

I don’t understand why the likes of Lipscomb and Steenson receive such accolades for their orthodoxy at times like this. The fact is, they are abandoning their people at the worst hour. I’m sure, from their point of view, “The Anglican Experiement has failed.” As I see it, Anglicanism hasn’t failed, Anglicans (like Lipscomb) have failed because they won’t stand up squarely against heresy and threats from 815. “He who is a hireling and not a shepherd, whose own the sheep are not, sees the wolf coming and leaves the sheep and flees; and the wolf snatches them and scatters them.” St. John 10:12

David Houk+, Dallas, Texas

What a sweet and grace-filled letter. My the Lord be so kind as to teach me to write with a spirit. I love the prayer by Thomas Merton at the end. I do hope and pray all goes well for the bishop as he makes these steps and may the Lord be with the diocese in this transition.

You got to know when to hold ‘em, know when to fold ‘em.
Know when to walk away, and know when to run.
You never count your money, when you’re sittin’ at the table.
There’ll be time enough for countin’, when the dealin’s done.

The song is often characterized as a metaphor for life in that you need to know when to stand your ground (when to hold ‘em) and when to retreat (when to fold ‘em). The gambler has learned that the trick to life isn’t the cards you’ve been dealt, but how to play them (every hand being a “winner” or a “loser” depending on how they are played).

Thank GOD for people like Bishop Lipscomb.

It is increasingly hard to see those members of the Episcopal Church who are serious about faith and who are careful thinkers give up and swim the Tiber.  I wish them well - and know that they are still brothers and sisters in Christ - but one feels like a member of a battalion outnumbered by far and ever smaller in size.

“The fact is, they are abandoning their people at the worst hour. I’m sure, from their point of view, ‘The Anglican Experiement has failed’.”

Well, from their own point-of-view, they are not “abandoning” their people but “giving them a lead”.  Obviously, they have concluded that if you want to be “Catholic Christians” you have to be in the Real Catholic Church to be one, and not in a Protestant denomination that affects to be “both Catholic and Reformed” but which in fact proves to be neither, but merely an Erastian religious organization.

Just the other day I read this

http://trushare.com/0150NOV2007/17Way we live.htm

in “New Directions” (the monthly journal of the English Forward-in-Faith organization) by Fr. Geoffrey Kirk, a priest of the Church of England for whose wit and discernment I have the utmost admiration (and indeed whom I think to be the contemporary Elisha to the late Dom Gregory Dix’s Elijah), and it is no wonder that generically “Catholic” Episcopalians (even ones, like Bishop Lipscomb and the former Bishop Herzog of Albany, that have fallen so low as to practice WO) are coming to their senses and taking the appropriate action.

But be of good cheer, Episcopalians, for in return for every Steenson or Lipscomb we get from you, you probably get a dozen Matthew Foxes, +Jerry Lambs, and ++KJS’s from us, and I would be pleased to give you even more of them.

God bless Bishop Iker:
From time to time someone will ask, “Why don’t you just resign and go away and join some other church where you will be happy?” My reply is always the same; because I cannot forsake the faithful people of this Diocese.  I cannot renounce the sacred vows I took when I was called by God to serve as your Bishop. I will not desert the flock that has called me to shepherd them in this Diocese. I will not cease to guard the faith.  I will not forsake those who look to me for spiritual leadership and guidance.  As Jesus himself said, it is the hireling who, when he sees the wolf coming, runs away and abandons the sheep.  The good shepherd remains to defend and lead the sheep entrusted to his protection and care.  I am not going to abandon the faithful of this Diocese in the midst of the assaults and threats being hurled at us for standing up for what we believe.

Beware of the comment policy folks.  Thin ice ahead.

Peace,

The polity of Anglicanism is such that once you pass the tipping point, orthodoxy cannot survive. The tipping point has been passed and bishops like John Lipscomb are showing the only secure path away from the liberal hegemony.

Here is the conclusion of Fr. Kirk’s essay that I linked to above—and do remember, Fr. Kirk is a priest of the Church of England, not a Roman Catholic:

“For me this brief analysis of ‘What’s in a Name’ issues in rather depressing conclusions. People talk of an Anglican Way’ which is in some sense an intellectually coherent mode of Christian thinking and living alternative to the ancient churches of East and West. For all the intellectual and literary achievements of Anglicanism (mostly of the Church of England, it has to be said) only three things seem permanently to characterise it: national identity, cultural conformity (to the ambient culture of each province or nation), and a persistent antipathy to Roman Catholicism.

Anglicans have proclaimed themselves a ‘bridge church’ across the Roman-Protestant divide; but they have proved singularly incapable of delivering the goods. TEC leads where others will undoubtedly, if belatedly, follow, multiplying the reasons for division. Even in the Church of England the intellectual rationale upon which the Reformation Church was based has long since sunk into oblivion. In the final analysis ‘we’re here because we’re here because we’re here’. Or sometimes, of course, there.”

Hi David Houk,

I haven’t seen the accolades for Bishop Lipscomb. 

RE: “I don’t understand why the likes of Lipscomb and Steenson receive such accolades for their orthodoxy at times like this. The fact is, they are abandoning their people at the worst hour. I’m sure, from their point of view, “The Anglican Experiement has failed.””

I’ll say again what I said about Bishop Steenson’s conversion to Roman Catholicism.  If somebody becomes convinced of the truth of the doctrine, teaching, and practice of the Roman Catholic church, then they should certainly convert.  It would be wrong to stay in a church when one actually believes the teachings of another church.

It appears to me that that is what both Bishop Steenson and Bishop Lipscomb are doing.

From my perspective—as I’ve been pretty clear about over the past years—if the Anglican Communion fails to discipline ECUSA then the Anglican experiment at least within the US will have failed, and I will move to another non-Anglican church and worship as simply a Christian [though I will remain an Anglican in theology].  I am fully conscious that folks on all sides disagree with what I have just said.

And so it appears to me that Bishop Lipscomb has come to the conclusion that, since the Anglican Communion has failed to discipline ECUSA, and since he is able to believe and adhere to the doctrine, teachings, and practice of the Roman Catholic church, then he will convert.

This seems a straightforward conclusion to me.

I may be able to offer some blame for Bishop Lipscomb’s failures in renewing and reforming his diocese over the past 11 years, after that diocese received the tender ministrations of Bishop Rogers Harris.  But I don’t know how anybody can blame a man for coming to some conclusions about what he sees as the truth—and then acting on those conclusions.  I can only assume that he sees the Roman Catholic doctrine, teaching, and practice to be the truth - -and therefore he must convert.

People should not stay on in churches which they no longer believe in, solely for the convenience of those laypeople in those churches.

William,
Do you believe that the RC Church embodies a more faithful witness to God? There is nothing behind this question, I’m just curious if you would answer the first question affirmatively, as to why and how you believe, they do in fact have a truer witness to God than does the Anglican or any other protestant denomination?

Couldn’t agree with you more Father Houk.

I went round and round with a certain blogging priest once with the same argument. Unfortunately to no avail. Even more unfortunate, these types of converts often come to experience a great deal of dis-satisfaction with their choice. They are still Anglicans at heart who have lost sight of the positives of being part of this communion. This does not a good decision make.

In the meantime, their people are left to make do, to struggle to find an orthodox bishop and to get him confirmed. Its one thing to retire honorably out of such service to the church and its another to leave as this bishop has. Most people will not follow him to Rome. There will be some who will just up and leave out of frustration for a net loss to the Church Universal. 

I don’t doubt that he is a good man. But I think its a bad decision because of its impact on those in his care.

BTW, Its good to see you posting here Father. I once saw a post here from your wife and have been wondering when I would see one from you. Regards from St Matthias’.

—Peggy R

Well, Sarah, they certainly have my accolades—which I have personally communicated to Bishop Steenson in his case.

As one who is almost certainly going to make a similar move, though in an eastern direction, I can’t criticize Bishop Lipscomb’s motives.

At the same time, I find Rev. Houk’s comment inarguable: “Anglicanism hasn’t failed, Anglicans (like Lipscomb) have failed because they won’t stand up squarely against heresy and threats from 815.”  In the final analysis, those that have been serious about a “catholic and reformed” faith had opportunity after opportunity after opportunity to prove William Tighe wrong and maintain (critics would say create) a Christian, apostolic, sacramental and liturgically coherent witness for its members, and beyond.  Every single time, those people failed - and, as has been said many times here, you can count me, as a simple parishioner, as part of “people.”  For that I can’t help feeling regret and shame.  And yet, if we believe the fullness of truth is manifested elsewhere, of course we have to go.  That fullness will always be better for working out our salvation in fear and trembling than partial truth performed well.

I wish Bishop Lipscomb Godspeed, and that he will receive the fullness of Christ.

Last spring at St. Vincent’s Cathedral here in the diocese of Fort Worth, we hosted a major colloquium for Anglo-Catholics. The famed Roman Catholic apologist Prof. Peter Kreeft was invited as a guest speaker, and we were much enlightened and entertained by him. Then Fr. Kirk was invited to give an “Anglican perspective” on one of the topics of discussion. I remember that as I listened to him I actually checked my program to make sure the man I was listening to was an Anglican priest! Fr. Kirk’s remarks on Anglicanism were so disparaging that I find it hard to imagine that he can longer remain with the Anglican Communion himself. Might we expect a similar letter from Fr. Kirk soon? (Fortunately, Bishop Lindsay Urwin was on hand to give an actual “Anglican” response to the topic in discussion.)

As for Bishop Lipscomb, may God speed him on his spiritual journey and give him peace.

Yeh, sure, William Tighe.  But I had assumed that David Houk was speaking of those who are Anglicans giving the accolades and not those who are already in communion with Rome, which would be standard, and not very surprising.

It is increasingly hard to see those members of the Episcopal Church who are serious about faith and who are careful thinkers give up and swim the Tiber.  I wish them well - and know that they are still brothers and sisters in Christ - but one feels like a member of a battalion outnumbered by far and ever smaller in size.

I agree, Montanan.  Those of us left in the trenches feel abandoned by our leaders who seem to have grown tired of the fight.  I wish Bp. Lipscomb well, but what is his diocese going to do now?  He may rest comfortably, having made a personal choice.  But what of the flock he leaves behind to the wolves of 815?

Recommended reading:

The Panther and the Hind by Aidan Nicholls O.P. with a foreward by +Graham Leanord.  A Thelogical History of Anglicanism.  ISBN 0 567 29232 0.  A lot of good information.

All, please keep in mind that Southwest Florida elected and consecrated their bishop some months ago.  So they are not left without a bishop.

RE: “They are still Anglicans at heart who have lost sight of the positives of being part of this communion. . . . “

PeggyR . . . I don’t know that you can be sure of that.  Seems to me that we have to give the benefit of the doubt to both Bishops Steenson and Lipscomb that they have come to a realization that they believe and uphold the doctrines, teachings, and practice of the Roman Catholic church.  If they do, they can really not remain a part of another church.

“I don’t understand why the likes of Lipscomb and Steenson receive such accolades for their orthodoxy at times like this. The fact is, they are abandoning their people at the worst hour.”

Certainly, that would have been true in the past.  Sarah’s relatively irenic response would likely not have been expressed 40-50 years ago.  These, however, are not normal times - things are shaking out in strange ways that are difficult to anticipate.  As for Lipscomb, this is not a switch that I would have anticipated… at all.

“William,
Do you believe that the RC Church embodies a more faithful witness to God? There is nothing behind this question, I’m just curious if you would answer the first question affirmatively, as to why and how you believe, they do in fact have a truer witness to God than does the Anglican or any other protestant denomination?”

Well, I believe that the Catholic Church (i.e., that communion of Churches in communion with the Pope of Rome) is “the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church” in which the Nicene Creed professes belief and that Protestant denominations (of which I consider Anglican churches to be, just as much as Lutherans, Methodists or Baptists—even if, arguendo, Anglican Orders are “valid”) are not churches, simply communities of Christian believers (“ecclesial communities” as the documents of Vatican II characterize them).  It may be that the “Christian witness” or “moral integrity” of members of one or another protestant denomination may be superior to that of the Catholic Church (or of the Catholic Church in their particular time and place) in some instances, but I think this largely irrelevant to the respective “truth claims” of Catholicism and Protestantism.

Then, also, I think that the two bedrock pillars of Protestantism, *Sols Fide* and *Sola Scruptura* are false rather than true; and that their modern corollary “third pillar” (which I think that the principal Reformers, e.g., Luther, Zwingli and Calvin, would have rejected had it been presented to them) “Private Judgmentalism” or the ability, right and resposnsibility or each individual to determine Christian Truth for himself or herself and to pick a denomination (or to migrate from denomination to denomination) on that basis, is likewise false; and that no trace of then can be found in the Fathers of the Church or, really, anywhere in orthodox Christianity for nearly the first 1300 or 1400 years of Anni Domini.

[comment deleted—personal comments about Lipscomb]

Hi TeddyMak—please recall our comment policy.

Please do not make personal comments about Bishop Lipscomb’s character or actions—as you have done above—in his departure. StandFirm’s comment policy is that those who leave and those who stay will not be subject to attacks on their characters or actions.

Further, all, this thread is not about whether Roman Catholicism is a good thing or a bad thing.  Further comments along these lines will be deleted.  So this is a double warning.

Thanks.

Teddy Mak, I agree with you wholeheartedly.

IMHO folks really need to pray about what THEY are called to do by the LORD. I’m currently with a Fedcon group thus probably guilty of all the thing listed here against +Lipscomb and +Steenson.

Okay, whatever, think of me what you will for at the end of the day, it’s not you that I’ll stand face to face and must give an account for my actions. Trust me, these men will be held to account, just as each of us, including myself. It is most important we seek what the LORD would have us do and obey. I’m a peon foot soldier and He is the General in charge and there must be a little trust that others may have prayed long and hard and believe there called to a mission that I may not understand, then I do not see the whole battlefield and what is needed where.

” Sarah’s relatively irenic response would likely not have been expressed 40-50 years ago. “

Wow. Had to look up irenic first to doublecheck the meaning, but if I had to write a sentence with “irenic response”, Sarah would not come first to mind. (smile)

Now see, John B Chilton . . . I keep trying to tell people what a Moderate I am.

Matt and David—radicals.

Greg and Jackie—radicals.

Me—moderate.  Inclusive.  Affirming. Dolphin-like.

; > )

Sarah wrote:

“Seems to me that we have to give the benefit of the doubt to both Bishops Steenson and Lipscomb that they have come to a realization that they believe and uphold the doctrines, teachings, and practice of the Roman Catholic church.  If they do, they can really not remain a part of another church.”

This seems reasonable and unexceptionable, but it also seems reasonable to speculate and reflect as to why they chose the Catholic Church rather than, say, the PCA or the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod or the Assemblies of God, all three of which are healthy and clearly Protestant denominations.  It must have something to do with the nature of the previous beliefs about the nature of Anglicanism, the Anglican Communion and the particular Anglican Church (ECUSA) of which they were members, clergy and finally bishops.  Protestants do become Catholics, and Catholics Protestants, but the multiform and conflicting notions of Anglican identity (whether it is “essentially” Catholic but with some Protestant features or particular doctrines, or “essentially” Protestant but with a Catholic structure and liturgical heritage, or both Catholic and Protestant in a happy reconciliation or in an incoherent and unstable juxtaposition) which have been so prominent a characteristic of Anglican Christianity since 1559 (or 1625—take your pick) seem to form an unavoidable backdrop to such decisions as these.  It might be interesting to ask, for example, why no Anglican (or Episcopalian) bishop (and relatively few clergy, or at least that is my impression) have chosen to join the PCA or the Missouri Synod (or the Reformed Episcopal Church) and what this says about their prior self-understanding as Anglicans about the nature of Anglicanism and of Anglican churches.

Violent Papist,

I’m not certain what you mean here: “Certainly, that would have been true in the past.”  I don’t believe that it is ever “abandoning their people” to leave a church and go to another whose doctrines they believe and support, when these matters are of such deep importance.  If somebody believes in the doctrines, teaching, and practices of the Roman Catholic church, it would be a simple lie for them to stay in another church.

As in the past, present, and future, if people do not believe one thing about deeply important theological issues, and do believe another, firmly, then they should go where that church is teaching those things which are deeply important that they believe.

I continue to be amazed that anybody would recommend that a person who believes the things that the Roman Catholic church teaches and practices should deceitfully and sneakily belong in another church that does not believe those things, thus lying to the world about what they believe.

[comment deleted—off topic]

[comment deleted—personal comments about Lipscomb]
Posted by teddy mak on 11-21-2007 at 08:46 AM [link]

Teddy Mak, I agree with you wholeheartedly.
Posted by RMBruton on 11-21-2007 at 08:56 AM [link]

Now this is an example of trust!

Dear Moderate & Modest Sarah (who happens to be to the right of Pat Robertson on the presidential endorsement issue):

I’d have to agree somewhat with Violent Papist.  Certainly, no one was or is asking anyone to go against their core beliefs.  But for many of the old school, (some who went to the old schools) the phrase “Fr. X is swimming the Tiber” was said with a certain upper crust disdain.

Peace,

And another one gone, and another one gone, another one bites the dust-ah.

Hi William Tighe . . . I expect that those bishops who would not normally convert to Rome, as they do not believe the theology of Rome, would remain in ECUSA fighting and working, rather than converting to another Protestant entity.  You know . . . sort of like I am as a layperson.  ; > )

Dr. Mabuse—I deleted your comment, which I generally agree with, because it continues with the deleted comment of TeddyMak, thus continuing the conversation about the character of Bishop Lipscomb, which I hope will cease.

Sarah,

In my comments re being Anglican at heart, I was speaking generally not specifically. I don’t claim to read people’s minds but in general those who leave Anglicanism for the apparently greener pastures of Rome are often no happier there than they were here.

I think there is a real Anglican spirit and its hard to shake for those who have really encountered it. I think people lose perspective and then act out of despair. Its only human to do so when the going gets rough.

Sarah, you are absolutely right that “it is ever ‘abandoning their people’ to leave a church and go to another whose doctrines they believe and support, when these matters are of such deep importance.”  It seems so reasonable and obvious, but historically speaking, switching from TEC to the Roman Catholic Church was almost always seen as a great betrayal, the ecclesiastical equivalent of treason of the highest order.  There are still people who think like that, even today.  Just an example, Father John Jay Hughes, a former ECUSA priest, was disowned by his family when he entered the Catholic Church.  His father was an elderly Anglican priest.

That first sentence was a botch that unintentionally misrepresented Sarah’s position. Sorry.  I think it will be understood in context.

Well, yes, Sarah, but even Protestants (insert smiley face here) have a ne plus ultra, when their denomination embraces heterodox beliefs or practices which they cannot stomach any longer, nor communcate with those who advocate or practice them; and even from the comments on this website it does not seem that all Protestant Episcopalians have your strong stomach.  I am simply surprised that so many PEs have such strong stomachs (or indifference to the historically Protestant and Reformational notions about separating from heretical or apostate church bodies) and that no prominent PEs have (say) “crossed the Missouri.”

Bishop Lipscomb carefully arranged for a successor to take over the Diocese before making his final decision to followhis conscience and Peter. I think he deserves better than some of the opprobrium heaped on him here by dyed in the wool Rome-haters.

I don’t understand why the likes of Lipscomb and Steenson receive such accolades for their orthodoxy at times like this. The fact is, they are abandoning their people at the worst hour.

For starters, it’s *not* all about us.

It’s fairly obvious to me that God called Steenson and Lipscomb to follow Him in another direction. Ask for the faith to believe that God will send a shepherd to lead each of us where He wants us.

[comment deleted—off topic]

Well, local circumstances vary.  In USA, however, one hardly will have a total lack of anti-WO, or antigay, or anti-progressive/liberal believer churches if one looks around carefully in most locations.  Such a local worshipping community will not always be Anglican - but if conservative Anglican believers can now exist, only apart and never as part of a larger wider spectrum of Anglican ethics and theologies, then the conservatives have helped the modernity they so dislike, to paint themselves into that dire corner.  One maybe has to draw upon whatever interfaith resources one may have - to keeping worshipping among old fashioned broad church Anglicans, comfortable with being in something of a local parish minority; or one has to seek more conformed church life venues where limits are narrower, confessions basically trump discernment in all instances, or other favorable climates obtain even if the church label is not properly Anglican.

Swimming the Tiber sounds dramatic, but in fact, one can easily find a local Roman Catholic - and in many urban areas, even one of the eastern Orthodox - churches.  Barring that, a sojourn among those of like doctrines and like minds may still expose one to cultural and social-economic variations.  In USA, ever since the Christian Right more or less dominated the Republican Party, one cannot still say: The Episcopal Church is the Republican Party at prayer.

Funny how that big tent was intentionally collapsed, in ways quite similar to the current campaigning to collapse Big Tent Anglicanism - and, surprise, using more or less the same circular false witness accusations of moral decay, fuzzy liberal thinking, and betrayal of good citizenship values.

From a non-conservative point of view: Nobody can completely avoid these and many other changes coming down the modern turnpike systems. Or so it would seem. It is all pilgrimage, one way or another, and often the journey is the destination.

For example, we will all probably see one another again, come work team meeting on Monday morning.  Called, or uncalled, God is there, too.

I think Bp Lipscomb has simply taken to heart all those stern reminders of KJS that under the ancient practices and traditions of the Church as stated in the Nicene Creed there can only be 1 Bishop in a See.  I am sure that he and Bishop Lynch engaged in some deep and theological discussion over whom should be in the seat.  Or heck maybe they just tossed for it.  Perhaps at some point the local TEC Bishop and Catholic Bishop could alternate years of Diocesean authority.  Which is quite possible since we now know there is no such thing as division in the TEC.
Welcome back to Rome y’all.

And thank you Sarah for defending the decision of Bp Lipscomb.  If Grace should move a man who am I to demand he hold back?

While I rarely agree with Dr. Tighe, this snippet is particularly good:

“...the multiform and conflicting notions of Anglican identity (whether it is “essentially” Catholic but with some Protestant features or particular doctrines, or “essentially” Protestant but with a Catholic structure and liturgical heritage, or both Catholic and Protestant in a happy reconciliation or in an incoherent and unstable juxtaposition) which have been so prominent a characteristic of Anglican Christianity…”

At its best, Anglicanism is a happy reconciliation of Catholic, Protestant and Reform thought. Dr. Tighe has expressed many times, and in my opinion overly stridently, that Anglicanism is incoherent and unstable. Given the current facts on the ground in North America, I don’t have a lot of counter-examples to refute him. The reformation of Anglicanism needs to start with godly bishops who defend the faith, not ecclesiastical politicians who manage budgets. Bishop Steenson was, and is, such a defender of the faith. Would that there were more.

I am sorry that the Anglican Church is losing a gracious and godly overseer in these troublous times.

RE: “it does not seem that all Protestant Episcopalians have your strong stomach . . . “

Well—there’s almost a thousand whom I communicate with via email who do!  So my strong stomach is not particularly unusual.

But those Protestants who are called away from the Episcopal church join [surprise!] other Protestant bodies.  In my own diocese many have joined the PCA, Missouri Synod, etc, etc. 

Obviously, bishops who are Roman Catholic in their theology should certainly convert.  And I am heartened to see them engaging in this kind of action of integrity and honor. And bishops who are not Roman Catholic in their theology I would expect not to convert.  Sort of . . . obvious, there.

Well, Sarah you certainly surprised me this morning with this announcement.  I appreciate your discussion and your 8:21 post on this thread and how you are moderating the content. I doubt anybody who has lobbed some personal ad hominum comments toward Bp. Lipscomb knows him personally and what he has endured physically and emotionaly because of the state of things in TEC and the Communion over the last several years.
I personaly don’t question his direction.  I know first hand, because he told me, that eventually all of us will have to make difficult personal choices resulting from this crisis in the church.  Why a person with a Baptist background and Episcopal Ministry would choose Rome, I think is summarized in the second paragraph of his letter and that focuses on the concept and efficacy of a full Eucharistic Community.  Frankly, on a personal note, the further down this road I go the more catholic I become (me with a Presbyterian background).  The truth is the Anglican communion is failing as a catholic church and communion.  It has no means of protecting the faith and assuring the Ministry of the Word; it has failed to discipline itself; and, most fatal of all it is failing to provide Unity in the fullness of Christ’s sacrifice for us as expressed in the true Sacramant of Unity, Holy Eucharist. It is instead seeking to construct unity out of humanistic and authoritian means.
There really can be no unity in diversity where the revelation of God In Jesus Christ is concerned. As I told you earlier, if he were to begin to develop an Anglican Rite ministry or church within the Roman Diocese here in SW Florida, I would be tempted to follow him…
Doug

Optimus Prime,

It is pretty obvious that the Holy Spirit is not preserving the faith directly without visible human participation, because if the Assemblies of God, TEC, the Southern Baptists and the United Church of Christ are all teaching the faith, the faith is not a consistent corpus of beliefs at all that extends beyond “Jesus loves me, this I know.”  It can’t even finish the verse without risk of disagreement.

When I first read the headline, I thought Bp. Lipscomb had left as a sitting diocesan bishop. I started to be upset that he would abandon his flock to 815’s wolves during his tenure as their pastor.  Further investigation (looking at the Dio of SW FL website) found that he was succeeded by his bishop coadjutor, +Dabney Smith, on Sept. 15th, so the diocese now has a new pastor. (Remarks I might make about my less than thrilled opinion of +Smith are not the point here.) 

About 11 or 12 years ago, our rector’s announcement that he was going to Rome hit me like a blow to the gut.  It felt similar to being a kid who’s father announces that he’s divorcing the family.  It took me quite a while to get over my feelings of anger and betrayal.  I think it would have been more honorable for him to announce his retirement or leave in some other fashion before taking the step that he took while still our rector. 

Nevertheless, each and every one of us who come to this blog must serve God in the way that our consciences dictate.  I cannot fault those who choose to stay in either TEc or the Anglican Communion or those who leave for a different communion, even if my initial visceral response is to feel abandoned by those who have swum away.

Ok last post on this subject for me.

I have been thinking about this and realize that my position could use a little clarification. I don’t think that anyone should stay once their theology becomes incompatible with Anglicanism. However, I don’t think we should be silent or too accomodating when our clergy leave in this manner.

Once a clergyman has reached the point of no return, it makes no sense to expect them to stay. But I also think that their decision is often the ultimate product of despair and pessimism. I think we should use these times as teaching moments. We shouldn’t be shy to state reasons why someone should want to stay Anglican.* We shouldn’t hesitate to point out the dangers of allowing ourselves to lose perspective and be overwhelmed by negatives. We shouldn’t be afraid to point out the negatives to others.

As I said in my original comments, no decision which is the product of despair can be a sound one. Let me add that while there may be nothing we can do about someone who has already given up, we can warn others not to do the same. We can also point out for others the consequences to the laity of a bishop or clergy leaving like this in hopes that someone in the future would include this in their considerations. Iker seems to have done this. He has found a way, a reason to stay and I think its an admirable one even if its not for everyone.

By offering a contrary view, one which acknowledges reality while also standing up the value of the Anglican tradition, we can hope to provide some needed perspective. If we truly love our tradition, it seems to me that the last thing we should do is just roll over saying nothing more than bon voyage to those who want to leave, especially when they are in a position of influence. If we love the tradition, then we should be concerned about encouraging people to stay. 

* I don’t think we should be anti-anything about it. We should always be careful to avoid seeming to be against any other Christian body. I am truly sorry that Dr Mabuse feels that we are anti-Roman Catholic around here. I certainly am not anti-RCC but I also love Anglicanism and am not afraid to express it. If I have ever erred in that then I sincerely regret it.

Ed, no of course the faith is not preserved without visible participation of the faithful. It is more an issue of how that participation is played out. I think, if we lean too heavily on the structural/official side, we assume an authority and power which is not ours to assume, but of course if we lean too heavily on the spiritual, we end up with individualism and schism right left and center. Looking at the history of authority in the Church, we’ve been fairly unsuccessful and maintaining a balance between the two (office and spirit), but I think its something we should continually strive toward; the question is, how do we do that?

Dr. Tighe explains the deal:

... be of good cheer, Episcopalians, for in return for every Steenson or Lipscomb we get from you, you probably get a dozen Matthew Foxes, +Jerry Lambs, and ++KJS’s from us ...

Umm, gee, thanks, I feel so much better now…  You deliver them free in the handbasket, right?

All the best to Bishop Lipscomb.  I would be dishonest to say that this does not cause sadness to me, as an Episcopalian in the trenches.  Not because of his decision, but because the church has come to this.

Don’t accuse me of being a defeatist, but sometimes I wonder if God has decided he does not need ‘the middle way’ anymore.  I’ve wondered, for some time, whether the Protestant Mainline is about to join the dinosaurs—as the pull from other poles (Charismatic movements and the historical catholic churches) becomes stronger.

As a priest in the Diocese of Southwest, I am saddened by John Lipscombs decision. Like Sarah, it bothers me that people leave while many of us remain to give a continuing orthodox witness in TEC. I am also bothered that as a Diocese we will be making large annual cash pay outs for a financial package to a former bishop who has abandoned us in the midst of the spiritual battle.

[comment deleted—personal comments about Lipscomb]
Posted by teddy mak on 11-21-2007 at 08:46 AM [link]

Teddy Mak, I agree with you wholeheartedly.
Posted by RMBruton on 11-21-2007 at 08:56 AM [link]

Now this is an example of trust!

Ed,  you’re still my hero.  Now excuse me while I clean the water off my keyboard

- OFF TOPIC of Bp. Lipscomb, ON TOPIC - dolphin-like -

Bottlenose Dolphin Gang Rumble
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_J2N5ttFBN8

It seems many around here are dolphin-like. 

Peace & again with tongue firmly in cheek,

Parson, the financial package is a point I forgot about in my considerations posted above.  I have to muse on that for a while.

OK, I’m pulling out the info Jackie posted on the 7th and writing a check to assist Bishop Duncan and the Diocese of Pittsburgh in their legal battle ahead right now!

I do not understand why anyone would be upset over paying someone under an agreed upon arrangement for past services.  Bishop Lipscomb will not get a dime for what he does as a Roman Catholic, but for what he did as an Episcopal bishop.  Frankly, I don’t see how you could attract anyone to such a job if you told him, “but if you decide to join another church, all the work you did will not count towards the pension you arranged with us.”

StayinAnglican says, “I don’t think that anyone should stay once their theology becomes incompatible with Anglicanism.”

The trouble is that those who hold to a true Anglican faith have been bushwhacked by those with an ersatz Anglican faith—all “churchy” style and no Christian substance.

I wish that Bp Lipscomb had done what Bp Bena did, and joined up with an African Anglican Church, or the Southern Cone.  If he had, we would have had an ally at work.  (Of course, everyone’s situation is different; there is much we do not know about what went into Bp Lipscomb’s decision.)

Bp Schori can, I trust, count.  She should note all the defections going on and recognize that such moves out of the Episcopal Church by those who have given their entire adult lives to serving it mean that something is drastically wrong.  However, I expect that she, and those who elected her, only see what they want to see.  At some point, the light will down upon them, whether they like it or not.

At a personal level—it will be REC, CANA, or something in that family for when the time comes.  Or maybe the Evangelical Presbyterians or the PCA.  As W. H. Griffith Thomas indicates, the Reformed faith IS the Catholic faith.

Looking at the history of authority in the Church, we’ve been fairly unsuccessful and maintaining a balance between the two (office and spirit), but I think its something we should continually strive toward; the question is, how do we do that?

Optimus (forgive me if that’s too familiar),

I think that the aggregate history of the bodies that have dispensed with the Episcopate prove pretty definitively that part of the answer to your question is, “not without bishops.”  Even in those bodies that have bishops but have them weakened there is a lot of doctrinal variance.

Bp Schori can, I trust, count.  She should note all the defections going on and recognize that such moves out of the Episcopal Church by those who have given their entire adult lives to serving it mean that something is drastically wrong.  However, I expect that she, and those who elected her, only see what they want to see.  At some point, the light will down upon them, whether they like it or not.

My guess is that she will conclude something along the lines that what’s wrong is the large number of bad elections there were in TEC over the last thirty years, and that she is very fortunate to be able to weed the garden.

StayinAnglican - I don’t think it’s fair to assume that a decision to leave Anglicanism is often the result of despair and pessimism.  It might be a good assumption that these are often motives to start considering one’s options, but the reality is, many people find there’s a lot they didn’t know, and which points elsewhere.  For these people, as beautiful as the Anglican experience can be, it takes critical aspects of the Faith of the undivided Church and makes them optional.  What starts as a negative motivation thus becomes very much a positive one, not “anti” but “pro” something else.  There’s nothing in Bishop Lipscomb’s letter that should cause us to assign any motive other than this.

Even tho’ I worshipped in Bp. Lipscomb’s Diocese several winters, I never met the man and can’t offer any personal observances.  It was clear to me the the Diocese of SW FL was a divided diocese, in particular in regard to the Clergy/Parish orthodoxy.  I suspect that Bp. Lipscomb felt strongly about the vows he had made and couldn’t see his way to guiding his diocese out of TEC without, at least in his mind, dishonoring those vows.  I would guess he feels that his actions now are honorable.  We might disagree with that but he’s the one that made those vows and only he can make that determination.  As for money packages, that was for services rendered wasn"t it?  Not for services to be rendered.  Nothing wrong there that I can see.

Parson:
John Lipscomb earned his paycheck when he was priest and our Bishop and thus earned his pension.  It can be easily argued that his malaria is work related.  This is where church feelings need to step aside and good old American contract law needs to supersede.

John is now on a journey ... and I bet dollars to donut holes he will evangelize more to Christ in his remaining years than his entire tenure as the Bishop of SW Florida. 

God’s speed to John, make us proud!

why they chose the Catholic Church rather than, say, the PCA or the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod or the Assemblies of God

It seems to me that the only reason to join the Roman Catholic Church is if one were convinced of its claims that the bishop of Rome is the infallible successor of Peter.  Given that conviction, one would be required to sign up; absent such conviction, good conscience would forbid it.

As for the PCS or the LCMS or the Assemblies of God, there might well be reasons unconnected to one’s deciding not to join Rome that might cause one to hesitate signing up with one of the former.  On the other hand, there might actually be some similarities between the choices that might well cause one to hesitate as well.  Sometimes one self-proclaimed infallible body looks much like another.

It seems to me that the only reason to join the Roman Catholic Church is if one were convinced of its claims that the bishop of Rome is the infallible successor of Peter.

Surely that’s not the *only* reason one would choose Rome?

“...the hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshippers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for such the Father seeks to worship him. God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth.” (John 4:23 & 24, RSV)  Please tell me, is that two denominations (Spirit, and Truth) or is it one denomination (Spirit and Truth)?  I’ve moved around the country, small town to smaller town, and have usually been very limited as to where I could worship; the “spirit and truth” parameters have helped me make my decisions.  I very much doubt that the Father is all that concerned In which denomination’s pew we park our bodies.

Ed, no not too familiar at all, as I hope my address is not (let me know if it is).

I think that the aggregate history of the bodies that have dispensed with the Episcopate prove pretty definitively that part of the answer to your question is, “not without bishops.” Even in those bodies that have bishops but have them weakened there is a lot of doctrinal variance.

I would agree entirely; I think the episcopate is absolutely necessary with clear evidence of the sacramentality of that position (unlike that of say the office of the primate). How to structure that office such that its responsibilities of authority and discipline are carried out with a balance of structure and spirit is a very challenging matter to discern. I’m not sure how effective it is to spend our time focused on polity, our efforts for the last 500 years have been relatively futile and I think our way forward lies elsewhere; I think only studying our past will enable us to figure out what we’ve looked like as the people of God and thus in what way we might move (or be being moved) forward.

It seems to me that the only reason to join the Roman Catholic Church is if one were convinced of its claims that the bishop of Rome is the infallible successor of Peter.

William, you would know more about this than I, but might it not be better to say that one must be convinced that one is only guaranteed infallible guidance in matters of faith by being in communion with the see of Rome?  The pope’s infallibility is supposed to be an extension of the infallibility of the church, not its source.  Or so I thought.

D Hamilton & others,

I don’t begrudge any pension money to anyone. The Church Pension fund money is funded as a part of any priest’s or bishop’s compensation package. I believe that after five years all the contributions are vested. John Lipscomb certainly is entitled to his pension money.

I am speaking about a sizeable package that was given by the Diocese on an annualized basis to cover insurance and other expenses until age 65. This package was in excess of $200,000 and appears in the Diocesan budget. I doubt that this money would have been agreed to by the Diocesan Council if John Lipscomb had shared with them about his apparently concurrant discussions with the RCs.

IRNS,

This William would agree with your qualification.  As I recall, the Vatican I decree Pastor Aeternus explicitly states that the Pope of Rome possesses that same infallibility wherewith Christ hath endowed His Church.

IRNS,

I’m not sure that there is a real difference here.  The pope’s infallibility can be an extension of the infallibility of the church only if both the pope and the church are infallible.  If one is not convinced of the latter, then one logically would have questions about the former as well.

Surely that’s not the *only* reason one would choose Rome?

It is the conditio sine qua non before which all other reasons either for joining or not joining pale in signficance.  You would be dishonest not to become Roman Catholic if you came to believe it.  And, as I’m sure, William Tighe would tell you, if you do not believe it ex animo, you would not be welcome.

We have lots of trouble with cradle Catholics who don’t accept it, after all; we don’t need to import converts who think that way. 

WW,

This William also agrees with you wrt “ex animo.”  You can’t (or rather, you shouldn’t—you might be able to get away with it if you tried) join the Catholic Church “with your fingers crossed” and giving yourself leave to disbelieve contrary to the profession converts have to make when entering the Catholic Church (“I believe and profess all that the Catholic Church teaches to be revealed by God”—which includes, btw, papal infallibility and the authoritative and “irreformable” [unalterable] nature of the Church’s teaching on WO and contraceptive practice).  That would be tantamount to treating Christ’s Bride as your own “doxy” (to use no stronger term).

I believe that most people (including, I expect, Bishop Lipsomb) who convert to the Roman Catholic Church don’t do it lightly, but with much time, thought, reading and prayer. One of the things Bishop Lipscomb may well have read is the good advice (I can’t remember where from—the RC Catechism?) that the prospective convert should not be converting out of despair or anger. In other words, the Roman Catholic Church should be the home you’re going joyfully towards. It shouldn’t be any old port in an anti-Anglican storm.
As for the charge that Bishop Lipscomb is abandoning the orthodox laity in the trenches, perhaps he’s still leading but he’s going somewhere you don’t want to follow. Remember: no whining, no freakouts.

The “likes of +Steenson and + Lipscomb” indeed Fr. Houk. Would that +Stanton had half their gumption.

William Tighe wrote, in response to Sarah:
“This seems reasonable and unexceptionable, but it also seems reasonable to speculate and reflect as to why they chose the Catholic Church rather than, say, the PCA or the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod or the Assemblies of God, all three of which are healthy and clearly Protestant denominations.  It must have something to do with the nature of the previous beliefs about the nature of Anglicanism,”
Without intending to be pejorative, one major difference is that priests and bishops leaving an Anglican body to go to Rome may well have the hope and expection of receiving orders there.  They would have no hope of that in the PCA (can’t speak about LCMS), not based on their Anglican orders anyway.  They would simply be ‘one of the sheep’.  Maybe the folks Sarah knows in her diocese are mostly lay folks, rather than priests? Position is a hard thing to give up for anyone.

Where can one find basic biographical info re Bp Lipscomb?

WW and WT,

The difference is not in logic, but in premise.  Many seem under the impression that Rome teaches that the Pope’s infallibility is a personal possession; i.e., that the Roman Catholic church teaches a doctrine of papal infallibility that makes the pope the source, rather than the sum, of unity.  In other words, the logic would be

—a revealed religion requires an infallible interpreter

—that infallible interpreter is the church

—the Incarnation requires that this infallible church be a visible, present body

—the unity of that visible, infallible church requires a visible, infallible center

—that center is the see of Rome

Don’t misunderstand me—I don’t believe in papal infallibilty.  I can buy almost every one of the above steps but the last.  But I find that for many who are puzzled by it—“How can any man be infallible?”—it is best to explain it in terms of the papacy as the sum, and not the source. 

But hey, who am I to engage in RC apologetics?  That’s Bishop Lipscomb’s job now.  Good luck to him

Hey, IRNS, you’re doing a good job.  Don’t stop on my account. 

Many of us are wondering if the “Anglican experiment” or whatever it is, is coming to an end.

I have no doubt that what will be there after the realignment will not be like the Anglican churches have ever been.  TEC clearly abandoned a middle way in 2003, or rather abandoned it for good.

But if postings here are any evidence, the strongly conservative movement is not hankering after a place to be full of compromises and ambiguity about points which are now considered essential.

The call for conformity to a resolution of Lambeth, as such, is new.  Maybe right, but new.

So Anglicanism is being changed all over the place.

There is no church communion without many very unpleasant problems.  Rome included.  From a different perspective than many here hold, I think in reality for many people it is mix: convictions about teachings, and deciding what problems you are willing to have.

I am very sad to see the Anglicanism I thought I knew falling apart.
I can’t find a place that God is calling me to, in my real situation.
An Orthodox( from Russia) priest I know told me, stay with your people( i,e, don’t go Orthodox).  But then, he is not as freaked out by homosexual blessing as many here are.  There are those in both the RC and the Orthodox world who don’t consider this THAT important, but their bishops won’t let on about this.

MJM

Bishop Lipscomb’s letter said “… I have come to believe this is the leading of the Holy Spirit and God’s call to us for the next chapter of our lives.”

I do not see how one can follow a higher calling than that.  I did not hear the call, Bishop Lipscomb did.  I will not sit in judgment of his response to that call.

Bishops and other clergy resign and retire from various posts for various reasons, frequently best known to them.  I see no inference that he has abandoned anyone.

One of the things for which I will be thankful this Thanksgiving is the example of faithful, Godly men like Bishop Lipscomb.

I wish him God Speed in this next phase of his journey in faith.

According to the 1999 Clerical Directory: John Bailey Lipscomb, Bishop of Southwest Florida 1997 - Born Arlington, VA, son of the Rev. Clyde Bailey Lipscomb. University of NC BA 73, Sweanee MDiv 74, GTF DMin 86. Ordained Deacon June 74 Bp West, Priest March 75 Bp Ceveny, Bp. Coadjutor SWFl 24 Feb 96, married 28 December 68. Served Federal Point and Bunnell FL 74-76, Greenville SC 76-78, Greer 78-81, Baton Rouge LA 81-86, Bastrop LA 86-89, Lake Charles, LA 89-95. Associate OSB. Many diocesan and civic positions.

Bishop Lipscomb was a member of the General Board of Examining Chaplains when I was on the staff and I have great respecxt for him. I wish him well in his new church.

There’s a good article about Bp Lipscomb at the Tampa Tribune (thanks to Peter C on MWJ for the link)

Simply put, I am pained that a good and faithful bishop would feel the need to leave the Epixscopal Church, but I understand WHY he had to do it.

Would we here want him to stay with his Dioces and lead it out of TEC, yes, yes a thousand times yes.  Do understand that he did not believe that given the vows he took he could do that, yes - but I disagree with him.

What is better, to corrode your spirit with the drivil ccoming out of 815, or to compromise with Rome.  I say neither, but revolt against the powers of the World in our Church.  This bishop has taken another road; we’ll just have to understand.

RSB

Sad times indeed.

RSB

montanan,

This is one of the greatest flaws in the ACI strategy, of wait in TEC.  There is no more time.  Whether it is movement to the RC Church, retirement, death of simple acquesence (giving up), an alternative US entity must be created and nourished now.

Another soul freed from the Episcopal Church.  God is good!

Mean’t to say:

This is one of the greatest flaws in the ACI strategy, of waiting in TEC.  There is no more time.  Whether it is manifested in movement to the RC Church, retirement, death or simple acquiescence (giving up), attrition is surely eliminating the ordained orthodox leaders, while the orthodox in the pews continue to flee.  TEC knows this well. The orthodox movement in TEC are suffering a death by a thousand cuts.

I doubt very much Bishop Lipscomb sees his conversion as “compromising with Rome,” RSB. After all, he’s coming from the church in which compromising or “holding our truths more lightly,” as we say nowadays, is a centuries-old tradition. I also doubt that clergy convert to Rome as opposed to another Protestant denomination because they want to continue in orders. Perhaps an RC on this thread could confirm this, but I don’t think an Anglican clergyman converting to Roman Catholicism automatically becomes a priest. I especially don’t think an Anglican bishop gets to be a Roman Catholic bishop as soon as he emerges from the Tiber.

HumbleAccess

If one truely believed as an Anglican there are many compromises you have to make theologically in order to submit yourself to the Roman Church.  To start with - the role of the sacraments.  Do you really even want to tread in to the nature of the bread and wine in communion?

RSB

Bp. Lipscomb let us down. Not by going to Rome (which his conscience may require) but by failing to provide strong, effectual leadership while he had the opportunity and duty to lead. He did not, for example, lead his diocese into the Anglican Communion Network. Indeed, he seemed to keep his distance from the strong Network bishops (as distinguished from the fuzzy Windsor bishops). He voiced eloquent but ineffectual dissents.

In sum, Bp. Lipscomb seems as bishop to have stayed within his personal comfort zone. Now he washes his hands of the results.

If matters in the Anglican Communion have deteriorated to the point that he believes he must leave for Rome, why didn’t he do and say more while he had the power, pulpit, and duty to do so?

[Also posted on T19]

I think that’s the whole point, RSB. If you’re joining the Roman Catholic Church, I expect you feel liked you’ve stopped making compromises in your beliefs. You are no longer “truly believing as an Anglican.”
As far as the role of the sacraments, there are Anglicans whose belief re: the Real Presence of Christ in the bread and wine is virtually indistinguishable from Roman Catholics, Anglicans who believe the bread and wine represent “the memorial which he hath commanded,” and Anglicans who believe they’re part of a community happy meal.

Here is the problem I have with the conversion of any Bishop or priest for that matter to Rome.  To enter the Roman church one is essentially admitting that any sacramental act they performed or were a part of throughout their ordained ministry was null and void…baptism excluded.  It is hard for me to understand how anyone could admit all the eucharists offered were null and void…I wont even touch upon the questionable sacraments (of course for Rome they are not questionable, so what about all the marriages, ordinations, confession, and holy unction that one performed over the many years?).  This is a sad commentary indeed…I wonder what those who were ordained by this ex-bishop of the church now think…I wonder if, since he acknowledges that the sacraments were hocus pocus, if they do too?  This is a dark day…

Humble Access,

Rome regards Anglican Orders as invalid, pure and simple (I won’t go into the convolutions of the “Dutch Touch” and analogous “PNCC Touch” arguments here).  A convert Anglican clergyman might in some instances be “fast-tracked” to ordination in the Catholic Church, but that would be done only by way of exception, and on an individual basis (usually, as with Graham Leonard, formerly Bishop of London, in 1994, on the basis of age).  Even when an Anglican clergyman brings a congregation with him, as when Fr. Richard Bradford brought part of his congregation as Rector of All Saints, Ashmont, Boston into the Catholic Church with him a decade ago, there was a space of nearly a year before he was ordained.  (By contrast, when an Anglican clergyman brings a congregation with him into the Orthodox Church, as Fr. Richard [Chad] Hatfield brought half of the congregation of the ECUSA cathedral parish in Salina, W. Kansas diocese, into the OCA in 1994, he was ordained immediately—but without a congregation to serve an ECUSA clergyman who became Orthodox might not be ordained for some time, even years.)

Among Protestants, many denominations, such as Methodists, most Presbyterians, most Evangelical denominations, allow ministers to “transfer in” without reordination.  Traditionally, I believe, Lutherans have always reordained clergy coming into their churches from other Protestant denominations, and in some cases, even Catholic priests*; but the ELCA does not do this any longer, I gather, although the Missouri Synod does so.  If you have a low/congregationalist view of ordination, such that it’s no big deal, just a form of commissioning, then it’s not of much importance whether it’s omitted, because you’ve already received a commission to exercise “the call,” or whether it’s repeated, as commissioning you for service in exercising “the call” in “our denomination.”

* as did Reformed (Calvinist) Christians in the 16th Century and for a long time thereafter, and some (e.g., the OPC and I think the PCA) even today.  When Protestants received a limited degree of religious toleration in France in 1561, and Calvinist ministers from Geneva emerged from “underground,” the Bishop of Troyes, Antonio Caracciolo, turned up at a gathering of Calvinist ministers in his see city, announced his belief in Reformed Protestantism, and informed then that with their cooperation and assistance he, as bishop, would undertake the “reform” of his diocese.  Aftere some consideration, the ministers informed the bishop that he would have to renounce his “unchristian popish orders,” make a Reformed Confession of Faith, be examined in his doctrinal knowlwdge and preaching ability and then, if he was deemed adequate on all thes ecounts, they would “ordain” him to the “Ministry of the Gospel” and as such he would be able to serve among them as an equal—no more.

Going Home:

I should clarify - my parish is now Ugandan, so I can’t very well claim staying and fighting the good fight.  I agree, however, TEC is happily letting the orthodox leave in their various ways and to their various places, with the remaining aggregate being more and more liberal - and less and less concerned with the heterodoxy.

I simply find it discouraging to see so many people of faith, intellect and integrity leaving, rather than remaining Anglican - whether that be as an orthodox rebel in TEC or among one of the many Anglican options increasingly available.  It makes the putative orthodox Anglican province in North America weaker before it even starts.  In this regard, I suspect you are right about the need for the orthodox N.A. province to begin right away, so as to stem the tide (there is no tide on the Tiber, but the euphamism wasn’t meant to carry over) of those leaving (to Rome and to PCA, congregationalism, etc.).

I have no doubt Bps. Lipscomb, Steenson and Herzog (and the many priests and lay who have followed) have freestyled, breaststroked, butterflied or backstroked the Tiber for good reasons of conscience, having come to believe all the doctrine, including that which is different from Anglican doctrine.  In this scenario, they should leave.  I wish each of them well and certainly continue to count them brothers in Christ.

RE: “I wonder what those who were ordained by this ex-bishop of the church now think…I wonder if, since he acknowledges that the sacraments were hocus pocus, if they do too?”

I would think that—unless they also are Roman Catholic in theology and practice—that they could not care less about Lipscomb’s ordaining/baptizing/confirming/etc, etc. or have any fear at all that the sacrament was invalid.  Were the bishop that confirmed me to go to Rome, I should be very sorry to see him go, but I would have no hesitation or thought about the validity of the sacraments—because I do not believe Roman Catholic doctrine.

Cathedral Curate:

I, too, have wondered about weddings, funerals, confessions, etc. performed by a friend who is now waiting for ordination exams in the RCC, having left TEC.  I am godparent to one of his daughters - and I wonder what that means now.

Nevertheless, one must do as one’s belief and conscience dictate in this matter.

You know, montanan, I really don’t think there should be any haste towards “the orthodox N.A. province.”  I don’t think that having such a thing would stem the tide at all for those leaving the Tiber or of those leaving to go to a non-Anglican entity.

I think that those in those two situations simply don’t believe that a non-Communion alternative is actually an option.

In one sense my saying this has appeared to be a frustrating thing to some [but not all] Common Cause folks.  These few either deny that it is true, or they begin saying pejorative things about those Episcopalians for whom it is true.  But in another sense, it should take all the pressure off the Common Cause folks to “hurry up.”  They have plenty of time to get it right, by their own definitions.  And even getting it right by their own definitions would do nothing, I think, to make those for whom Rome is an option say “hmmm . . . maybe I should consider Common Cause.”

montanan, you are stil godparent to his daughter.  That hasn’t changed a bit.

Sarah,
I believe you and I differ in that I am looking out from within the Anglican Communion to the world around us in search of a common language and belief while you are satisfied with looking within the ever shrinking AC for a people who will still have a common language and belief.  Neither is more right than the other. 

Regarding my original post…I am not satisfied with simply accepting that it is now time for a bishop of the AC to move on in his faith journey while at the same time rejecting the validity of the ministry that took place within his diocese.  I hurt for all the sheep who now must struggle with legitimacy of their faith as their most recent Father in God shakes the dust from his sandles in leaving them.  I am greatly saddened that I now have yet another brother in Christ who no longer shares a common belief with the AC.

Cathedral Curate,

A look at the Roman Catholic documents re: the “significant and operative elements” of the Catholic Church which are present outside the Roman communion—things are not unuanced as far as the reality of the sacraments in “ecclesial communities” such as ours.
BTW,  “ecclesial communities” in Roman parlance does not mean a group of “individual Christians sitting around” or something like that.  It means ecclesial communities, that is “churchly” in our English words. Check out the declaration from the CDF this summer which caused all the anguish in some quarters.

In fact I’d bet many of you have little idea how much nuance and even. . .(gasp)ambiguity… works within the Roman system.  If you are looking for a church which doesn’t have any leeway in practice for people who (in that awful liberal way) “struggle” with parts of the tradition, look elsewhere than Rome. Dare I say that kind of thing smells to me like ideology, not theology. And I hear no hankering after that in either Steensen’s or Lipscomb’s statements.
The Catholic Church is not the LCMS writ large.

Ed the Roman:  Thanks for clarifying the godparent arrangement.  It is awkward, though he and I desire to work it through - I refer to much of our relationship, not just the godparent status.  I mourn that he and I have both let his change get in the way.

MJMiller:  “Churchly” doesn’t really give the loving embrace of brotherhood.  It has always sounded more like, “playing at being a church.”  And the anguish over Pope Benedict’s affirmation of RCC doctrine about other churches was real - and appropriate, IMHO.  So while I understand RCC doctrine doesn’t recognize my ecclesial community as a church, that does not deter my ecclesial community recognizing my RCC brothers and sisters as members of a valid church.  Grace can extend within that relationship, though we may wish for it to be easier.

Sarah:  I understand your position vs. my earlier statement as articulating the FedCon/ComCon argument - which I think you have been eloquent on, as have others on the other side.  I disagree with you on this - but, then, I’m a Ugandan Montanan, so my position should be obvious.  I respect those who stay to fight from within, hoping for reform & discipline - but I worry for the strength of the orthodox NA province as it withers away before it is formed.  If TEC is disciplined, but a majority of orthodox have left, there aren’t many to gather up the pieces.

Sarah - my apologies.  I realize I didn’t address your argument.  No doubt you are right about some who are leaving - that having a “non-Communion alternative” [or an alternative Communion alternative (showing the difference in how we view being an outpost of a Global South province)] would not keep them in that alternative.  However, I think there are many who would stay in that structure - such as I have (and has my parish).

I have no idea how to calculate what percentage would leave despite such a structure and what percentage would stay.  It would be an interesting and strategically helpful survey, could we figure out how to get a valid national sampling.

TEC is not happily watching the orthodox leave.  They are suing them.  The congregations that managed to make a deal with their bishop have watched helplessly while DBB and KJS made the bishop cancel the deal.  Witness all the litigation going on.  TEC doesn’t care about the people——just the money and property.  You would think that Anglicans would be happy to see a congregation realign with another Anglican entity, but not our esteemed PB.  Other Anglicans are the enemy.  Why does she want to stay in communion with the AC if she prefers to see people leave the AC completely?

Thank you for such an in-depth answer to my questions, Dr. Tighe.

With respect to sacraments performed by an Anglican priest/bishop who joins the Roman Catholic Church:

Baptism:  Since baptism can be performed by any Christian, that is a non-issue.

Weddings:  Couples marry each other.  Theoretically they can do it even in the absence of a priest.

Funerals:  There is no sacrament involved in funerals.  The sacrament is the Last Rites which official Anglican teaching does not even recognize as a sacrament (there being, officially, only two sacraments recognized by Anglican theology).

So the biggie is, of course, the Eucharist.  If you’re a real Reformed Christian, you probably take a pretty non-sacramental view of the Eucharist anyway, so I don’t see why this question would bother you.  If, in fact, you take a Catholic view of the sacraments, for what it’s worth, the Second Vatican Council said that not only were Protestants real Christians but that the Holy Spirit “did not refrain from making use even of their sacraments” for His purposes. 

While some posters have commented on Bishop Lipscomb’s departure along the lines of “well, if you believe in Roman Catholic doctrine, then obviously you had best leave off being an Anglican and hie thee hither to Rome” I think there is more to it than that.  Does any poster here (Sarah, for example) believe that if all of this had not happened in TEC that Bishop Lipscomb would have just woken up one day and said to himself “You know Papal infallibility is starting to appeal to me.  And I’m starting to have the strangest urge to put a statue of Mary on my front lawn.”  Rather, my guess is that the events in the Anglican Communion led him to re-think whether it was ever possible in the first place to have a “Catholic” church outside the Catholic Church.

RE: “I am not satisfied with simply accepting that it is now time for a bishop of the AC to move on in his faith journey while at the same time rejecting the validity of the ministry that took place within his diocese.  I hurt for all the sheep who now must struggle with legitimacy of their faith as their most recent Father in God shakes the dust from his sandles in leaving them.”

Well . . . what I am saying is that Bishop Lipscomb’s rejecting “the validity” doesn’t mean that those who are still Anglicans reject “the validity.”  Quite the contrary, unless of course those people who are still Anglicans also really hold to Roman Catholic teaching.

RE: “And the anguish over Pope Benedict’s affirmation of RCC doctrine about other churches was real - and appropriate, IMHO.”

I understand that you are speaking to MJMiller here, but I and many other Anglicans were glad that Pope Benedict said what we all already knew Roman Catholics believe, as they had been on the record about this practically forever.  I always think clarity is a good thing in ecumenical matters, and I was thoroughly un-anguished to have affirmed what was already very well-known.  It meant for much less confusion.  And it’s good for Rome, good for Canterbury!

I do agree with you that there is a segment of Episcopalians who would happily go with a new alternate Anglican province.  I don’t think it is nearly as large as some people claimed that it was as recently a year ago . . . but I definitely think it is there.  I think there are probably three segments of Episcopal reasserters who are currently remaining within ECUSA: those whose “Plan B” option is Rome or Eastern Orthodoxy, those whose “Plan B” option is something Protestant, and those whose “Plan B” option is a Common Cause province. 

I just don’t think that there is much—if any—overlap amongst those three segments.  And I sincerely believe that most everybody has self-selected into one of those three groups and it will be pretty amazing for people to “switch over,” although certainly some may still.

RE: “Does any poster here (Sarah, for example) believe that if all of this had not happened in TEC that Bishop Lipscomb would have just woken up one day and said to himself “You know Papal infallibility is starting to appeal to me.  And I’m starting to have the strangest urge to put a statue of Mary on my front lawn.” Rather, my guess is that the events in the Anglican Communion led him to re-think whether it was ever possible in the first place to have a “Catholic” church outside the Catholic Church.”

Hi Catholic Mom—I absolutely believe that the events in TEC have caused each and every reasserting Episcopalian to look around and say “wow—wonder if I have the wrong theology and am in the wrong church! I think I’ll do a little scouting around and see if there is some other church that I agree with more.” 

I certainly did.  And after I did that for some while, I realized that the same reasons I became an Episcopalian were the same reasons still!  Couldn’t do Westminster.  Couldn’t do Tiber.  etc, etc, etc.

But the close of your question reveals exactly the differences between a Roman Catholic and a Protestant!  ; > )

You said: “led him to re-think whether it was ever possible in the first place to have a “Catholic” church outside the Catholic Church.”

Yep—that’s a church-in-communion-with-Rome question!!!

Anybody that asks that question is already buying in to Roman theology.

A Protestant 1) doesn’t think the Roman Church is “catholic” at all, 2) thinks it perfectly possible to have a “catholic” church outside of Rome and why ever not!  ; > )

We don’t grant that Rome [iTlh] is the one true church.  And we don’t grant the Roman church’s definition of “catholic” at all.

I say all the above only to point out that once somebody says “hmmm. . . I wonder if something can be a ‘church’ without being a Roman Catholic ‘church’” they’ve already become Roman Catholic in their thinking . . . which of course is the point anyway.

So yes.  Those who think Rome an option did indeed wake up one day and say all of the above: “You know Papal infallibility is starting to appeal to me.  And I’m starting to have the strangest urge to put a statue of Mary on my front lawn. And you know, it’s not possible to have a “Catholic” church outside the Catholic Church.”

They all run together . . .

I think there are probably three segments of Episcopal reasserters who are currently remaining within ECUSA: those whose “Plan B” option is Rome or Eastern Orthodoxy, those whose “Plan B” option is something Protestant, and those whose “Plan B” option is a Common Cause province.

I just don’t think that there is much—if any—overlap amongst those three segments.  And I sincerely believe that most everybody has self-selected into one of those three groups and it will be pretty amazing for people to “switch over,” although certainly some may still.

Perhaps I’m projecting, Sarah, but I think you are only half right.  I think there may be considerable overlap between your first and third groups and between your second and third groups, but just not between your first and second.

What was Camp Allen bishops: Those who were Anglo-Catholic…are now Roman Catholic. Those who were evangelical…are heading south. Those who were neither…are stoolies for Katherine Jefferts Schori.

(Should be, “What were CA bishops.”) The loss of Steenson and Lipscomb is devastating to the Anglo-catholic in the orthodox Episcopal remnant. Agreed or not?

Much earlier today, far up on this comment thread, Optimus Prime queried a statement of mine, and asked if I had read Francis Sulllivan’s *Magisterium*.  No, I haven’t, and in fact I regard Fr. Sullivan with some distaste.  Back in 1994, when Pope John Paul II issued his *Ordinatio Sacerdotalis* I was asked to analyze a commentary on that document (which states, at one point, “we declare ... that the Church has no capacity whatsoever ... to confer the Orders of bishop and priest upon women”) which he wrote, and I was amazed (and disgusted) by the fetches to which he went to try to reduce its status to that of an expression, if “authoritative” (but not “binding”), of the pope’s personal theological opinion on the subject, and not in any sense a “magisterial” statement.

When the then Cardinal Ratzinger, as Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, produced in 2000 the document *Dominus Iesus:*

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20000806_dominus-iesus_en.html

it was widely viewed as a correction, or even repudiation, of ecclesiological views such as Sullivan’s, as was the document issued this past June focussing on the meaning of the phrase in *Lumen Gentium* ch. 25 about the Church of Christ “subsisting in” the (Roman) Catholic Church:

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20070629_responsa-quaestiones_en.html

and:

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20070629_commento-responsa_en.html

all of which (but especially the final two) I would urge you to peruse.

I say all the above only to point out that once somebody says “hmmm. . . I wonder if something can be a ‘church’ without being a Roman Catholic ‘church’” they’ve already become Roman Catholic in their thinking . . . which of course is the point anyway. 

Well, actually, I said “can be a Catholic church without being a part of the Catholic Church.”  I’ve always gotten the Baptist point of view, for example, perfectly.  I frequently go into my local non-denominational mega-church for various reasons (like my son’s scout meetings) and it is totally clear to me that this is a real church outside the Catholic Church.  Completely logical.  Doesn’t appeal to me on many levels, but I understand the appeal to others.  My kids even went to Vacation Bible School there one year (the Protestants do one thing better than we do).  And it was great.  But they would never in a million years tell you they were “catholic.”  So this would not cause them to start pondering if you can be a catholic without being a Catholic.

“You know Papal infallibility is starting to appeal to me.  And I’m starting to have the strangest urge to put a statue of Mary on my front lawn. And you know, it’s not possible to have a “Catholic” church outside the Catholic Church.”
They all run together . . . 

Well…I don’t have a statue of Mary on my front lawn.  But I do have a nice St. Francis birdbath in the back yard that I got at Home Depot.

The loss of Steenson and Lipscomb is devastating to the Anglo-catholic in the orthodox Episcopal remnant. Agreed or not?

Not.

Everybody who should be out of the Episcopal Church is out or on the way out.  Anglo-Catholics who have chosen to remain in the remnant have already decided that they are not devastated by ... well, by much of anything apparently.

RE: “Perhaps I’m projecting, Sarah, but I think you are only half right.  I think there may be considerable overlap between your first and third groups and between your second and third groups, but just not between your first and second.”

Well . . . you could be right.  I dunno.

But I’m one of those who is in the second group and I assure you that for me, there is no overlap between the second option and the third.  My plan B is the second option and none other.

Which of course is why I’m fighting so hard not to do Plan B!!!
; > )

And I suspect, why others are too.

RE: “Well, actually, I said “can be a Catholic church without being a part of the Catholic Church.”

Right—but I’m a Protestant.  So that question is like saying “hmmm . . . I wonder if I can be a Presbyterian church without being a part of the Methodist church.”  It’s a “huh”?  But not for you . . . because . . .

Ah well . . . ; > )

I agree with Chazaq.

It is only devastating in so far as it is very sad to see people go.  But in that sense it’s devastating for me, a Reformed evangelical.

But as far as devastating to a particular segment I don’t think so [although maybe there are masses of Anglo-Catholics out there who will weigh in and disagree!].

Robroy wrote:

“(Should be, “What were CA bishops.”) The loss of Steenson and Lipscomb is devastating to the Anglo-catholic in the orthodox Episcopal remnant. Agreed or not?”

Absolutely; but add +Herzog to the group as well.  +Steenson was an Evangelical Protestant Wheaton College graduate who became Anglican/Episcopalian.  From the beginning he was a doctrinally-orthodox Anglo-Catholic, indeed an Anglo-Papalist (see here for Anglo-Papalism:  http://www.newoxfordreview.org/reviews.jsp?did=1297-tighe), but he had a deep abiding love for the Anglican ethos, plus an ability to stretch himself to “think into” Anglican Evangelical sensibilities (as Rector of the rather “Low Church” St. Andrew’s Church in Fort Worth especially in the 1990s) that led him in the 1990s to suggest that Anglo-Catholics give more attention to the 39 Articles and consider eschewing practices, such as Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament, that were strange and needlessly alienating to Evangelicals in ECUSA with whom the ACs shared a common “mere Christian” orthodoxy and opposition totneh dominant liberalism in ECUSA.  With all that he was a firm and unyielding, but polite and unconfrontational, opponent of WO (when Bob Maxwell reported in July 2006 that he had changed his mind on the subject I personally verified that he had not).  So with +Steenson TEC and Anglicanism has lost a scholarly orthodox Anglo-Catholic of broad sympathies.

+Herzog was an RC seminarian in the 1960s who became an Episcopalian so that he could be married and a priest.  He seems to have cherished the hope that Anglicanism and Catholicism could be reconciled by good will ans common ecumenical effort and cooperation.  He was always conservative on basic doctrinal and moral questions, but after some time as a clergyman in ECUSA he appears to have come around to support WO, which he had initially opposed, and as Bishop of Albany he ordained a large number or women priests for his diocese which until that time had been largely free of them, despite his predecessor as bishop reversing his previous oppositional stance towards the end of his episcopate and ordaining a couple there himself.  It would thus appear, that by “returning home to Rome” Herzog implicitly admitted that his vision of Anglican/Roman reconciliation on the basis of a shared “Catholicity” had been an illusion, that his own journey from Rome to ECUSA had been a dead-end, from which he needed to reculer pour mieux sauter, that his accepting WO had been an error and against the “Catholic Faith” and that ECUSA was not the “Catholic church” that by joining it he had professed it to be.  So with +Herzog TEC and Anglicanism lost one who had joined it precisely because he had believed it to be as Catholic as the (Roman) and in a similar sense.

I do not know much about +Lipscomb’s background.  He seems to have been more on the “Catholic side” of Anglicanism than the Evangelical side, although he came to ECUSA from a Southern Baptist upbringing when he married his Episcopalian wife—but he was taken with Anglicanism even before that, when he first accompanied her to church.  On the other hand, he practiced WO without any evidence of hesitation in a diocese (SW Florida) has been a bastion of opposition to that, umm, development throughout the 70s and much of the 80s, down to his predecessor’s time as bishop there.  He thought that he had found a church that was both “Catholic and Reformed” in ECUSA, but in leaving it for Rome he impliictly admits that the only Catholic church is that church called the Catholic Church.  So with +Lipscomb TEC and Anglicanism lose an Evangelical Protestant who had joined on the basis that it combined the best of Catholicism and Protestantism.

I suppose that when I was an Anglican I would have considered +Steenson as a proper Anglo-Catholic, and the other two pseudo-Catholics or Liberal Catholics, and probably I remain much of th same mind.  But the loss of three such bishops is devastating to any kind of Anglo-Catholicism, however strictly or loosely defined, and presages the “Affirming Catholic” pretenders to the name as the final squatters inhabiting the ruined edifice once tenented by Andrewes, Montague, Ken, Wilson, Keble, Pusey, DeKoven, Grafton, Ramsey, Dix, Farrer and Mascall.  Eheu, fugaces—but also Veritas temporis Filia!

I absolutely believe that the events in TEC have caused each and every reasserting Episcopalian to look around and say “wow—wonder if I have the wrong theology and am in the wrong church! I think I’ll do a little scouting around and see if there is some other church that I agree with more.”

Absolutely!  I can’t count how many times in the last two or three years I’ve looked around and longed for a place I could feel as good about the melding of the evangelical, the sacramental, the liturgical, the credal and the charismatic, and about a style of worship which, in fact, facilitates my worship.  It would have been very easy to go had I found such a church.

Having not found another place, I am a Ugandan Anglican - in the frozen wilds of Montana! 

Just a little quibble here, Chazaq: “Everybody who should be out of the Episcopal Church is out or on the way out.”

I’m actually confident—have been and still am—that there will be several other formerly Anglo-Catholic bishops who will realize that they are actually Roman [iTlh] Catholic, and move on to Rome.  I just think it’s taking a bit of time to get ducks in a row, so to speak, which I think is understandable.

montanan posted -“I’ve looked around and longed for a place I could feel as good about the melding of the evangelical, the sacramental, the liturgical, the credal and the charismatic, and about a style of worship which, in fact, facilitates my worship.”

Likewise, those of us in the hinterlands have little or no choice. Most larger towns here (small however by any standards) have 2 churches, one RC and the other ‘United’ or Federated (this is where two or more demonational churches membership went so low they had to consoldate), or a ‘now independant’ barely basically Christian, or maybe just an adult (mostly older woman) ‘club’ centered around church suppers and booksales.

The frustration is palpable. Another Anglican or Anglican like church would be like water in the desert.  I can’t swim the Tiber.
re: Sarah’s post above, are there any difficulties with CANA or Common Cause, or GS or Southern Cone as a choice? My active church background likewise is/was evangelical. (Cradle Episco.)

Dr. Tighe,
Thank you so much for the links. I am writing a paper for one of my classes that will touch on some of Sullivan’s arguments with respect to dissent (his standing to the side of a non-infallible teaching on the basis of conscience). He is not the focus of my paper, I’ll be looking at Gladstone and Newman on authority, dissent and the nature of conscience but having another perspective of Sullivan’s work (which I read and will tie into the paper I’m sure) will be incredibly helpful - thanks a ton!

Sarah,

I think, being Protestant, you miss part of the catholicity thing.

If an Anglo-Catholic believed that the Anglican Churches actually WERE the Church Catholic minus medieval corruptions centered in Rome, he would expect that it would preserve the faith once delivered, more or less (given that the Articles expressly denounce the full reliability of conciliar truth).

That Anglo-Catholic, looking at TEC and ACoCanada moving rapidly to deny central tenets of the faith once delivered*, and at international organs of unity that give no clear appearance of wishing to correct this, could reasonably conclude that the Anglican Churches don’t qualify as preserving the faith once delivered, more or less.

That said, he may feel compelled to re-examine whether he was mistaken in his axiom that cutting off from Rome (and therefore the great majority of Christians at the time of separation) was the better course of action than staying.  From a continuity standpoint, after all, I’d be much happier trying to reconcile BXVI with BXV than I think most Anglicans would be trying to reconcile KJS with the PB of 1928.

In other words, Anglo-Catholics think that the RC Church needed some correctives, chiefly regarding Papal Supremacy, and that the Anglican churches provided them.  The second half of this sentence is becoming so hard to believe these days that they’re re-examining the first half.  Your being Protestant I wouldn’t expect this to be your first explanation for the departure data.  Thanks for your patience.

* we’re not talking about theories of how justification is accomplished here, we’re talking about whether there is anything that requires justification in the first place

Hmm.  An exodus of powerful, privileged white males to another bastion of powerful privileged white men.

I respect Bishop Lipscomb’s courageous decison. I think its “easier” today to choose to leave the church and leave one’s office for
another protestant denomination or even a nondenominational church
then to become a Roman Catholic. You can see that in some of the responses posted on this board. Crossing the Tiber seems like
bad timing, even a betrayal to some, but it can be a welcome relief.
As one who had made that decison myself as a layperson, I realize its much more difficult when you have reached such an Office
as Bishop Lipscomb. My heartfelt prayers are with him and his family.
                                            Secco

Hmm.  An exodus of powerful, privileged white males to another bastion of powerful privileged white men.

* rolls eyes *
Oh please - take your politically correct liberationist drivel somewhere where it’s actually wanted.

Sarah,
What do you mean, “Plan B”?!

Good heavens, give Bp. Lipscomb a break, please. He is a sick man; he has Parkinson’s disease and malaria. He’s been on medical leave since February, and he stepped down as diocesan bishop some months ago. It’s not even clear that he’s going to be ordained a Roman priest. Perhaps, after a busy and fruitful life, he and his wife just want to belong to and enjoy the church to which their hearts call them.

Ed the Roman misses the point, at least with regards to me personally, when he writes,

In other words, Anglo-Catholics think that the RC Church needed some correctives, chiefly regarding Papal Supremacy, and that the Anglican churches provided them.

I consider myself an Anglo-catholic evangelical. I am not sure whether there are others that agree with me. Organization of the church is adiaphora. Jesus obviously told Peter that he was the Rock (that is redundant!). He did not say and there will be an unending chain of successor rock. Papal infallibility is also adiaphora. It is applicable only to few statements of the pope. Unfortunately, the majority of those relate to elevation of Mary, her immaculate conception (where did that come from?) and assumption (again, where did that come from?).

I have been to Mexico during the feast of our Lady of Guadalupe. It is sad. This is not adiaphora.

The notion that there is need for a personal rather than corporate acceptance of the atoning sacrifice of the cross is foreign to many Catholics.

The anglo-catholic in me is only the notion of the centrality of the sacramental aspect of worship. It is the Anglo-catholic aspect of Anglicanism that gets liturgy right. That is its contribution. With the loss of many of the Anglo-catholic leaders to Rome, I fear that the Anglican expression of Christianity in North American, which certainly will not be carried on by the moribund TEC, will be “just another form of protestantism.”

This again points to the criticalness of the hour. Anglicanism will be dead in North America if a true expression of it is not established before Lambeth 2008.

I consider myself an Anglo-catholic evangelical. I am not sure whether there are others that agree with me. Organization of the church is adiaphora.

No offense, but no one who uses the term “Anglo-catholic”, even as an adjective modifying “evangelical”, should be able to write that second sentence.  Otherwise, we are in Humpty-Dumpty land where words simply mean what we want them to mean.

IRNS,

I’m not sure about combining the adjectives “Anglo-Catholic” and “Evangelical,” since, in common parlance, “Anglo-Catholic” refers to heirs of the nineteenth century Oxford Movement.  But I have no problem whatsoever in combining “Catholic” and “Evangelical,” because I believe that is exactly what the original Anglican Reformers believed they were doing.  The foundational Anglican documents in this regard are John Jewel’s Apology for the Church of England and Richard Hooker’s Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity. 

Hooker did indeed believe that “organization of the church is adiaphora,” but precisely in the sense in which Melanchthon used the term, not in the modern sense of “indifferent” or “irrelevant.”  Thus, Hooker argued not that episcopacy is mandated, but that it is permissible and desirable.  It is not present in Scripture, but it has a long history in the Church, and it has worked.  It is a good thing that the Church preserves it.  Nonetheless, Hooker did not “dechurch” churches (like those of the Continental Reformation) that did not preserve it, and he recognizes them as true churches.

I’m with Ed the Roman.

Catholic = [RC, Orthodox, Anglican]
catholic = all empty tombers

As for chazaq, maybe their is some truth to what you say.  But, remember we lost a lot of good anglo-Catholics 30 years ago.

Peace,

“Thus, Hooker argued not that episcopacy is mandated, but that it is permissible and desirable.  It is not present in Scripture, but it has a long history in the Church, and it has worked.  It is a good thing that the Church preserves it.  Nonetheless, Hooker did not “dechurch” churches (like those of the Continental Reformation) that did not preserve it, and he recognizes them as true churches.”

Then why consider Hooker (and Jewel) in any sense more “Catholic” than Luther, Bullinger or Cranmer?  Anglo-Catholicism, historically speaking, from the Tractarians onwards, has been characterized by a belief in the absolute necessity of episcopacy to the being of a church; and this Anglo-Catholic emphasis finds abundant (but not complete) support in seventeenth-century Anglican divines like Andrewes, Laud, Montague, Taylor, Pearson, Bull and Ken—men who were far more influential in their several generations than Hooker in his, or until he was busked out after the Restoration as an icon of Anglican via media “moderation.”  Certainly, in terms of robustness of sacramental belief and retention of traditional liturgical and ceremonial practice, 16th-, 17th- and early 18th- century Lutherans were, for the most part, far more “Catholic” than any Anglicans, and most Anglicans who encountered and reflected upon Lutherans in this period censured them as such (as did Hooker).  Hooker’s view of episcopacy is simply common garden-variety Reformation Protestantism, and looks “Catholic” (in any historical sense) only when contrasted with the “divine-right presbyterianism” espoused in Geneva by Calvin’s successor Beza, by most 16th-century French Huguenot divines and by the leading Scottish Reformed divine after Knox’s death in 1572—but which was always a minority position among Reformed Christians generally.

On Jewel, see *John Jewel and the English National Church: the Dilemmas of an Erastian Reformer* by G. W. Jenkins (Ashgate, 2005) for abundant evidence that Jewel was in no sense any more “Catholic” in his views than, say, Cranmer or Bullinger, and more disdainful as regards the positive views and inept in his handling of the Fathers (whom he used only as a stick with which to beat the papists, and not as in any way authoritative or positively useful for the formulation of Christian doctrine or modelling church practice) than Calvin.

Robroy,

The Marian stuff is present way, way back in the undivided Church, not as fuly developed as now, but visible in the language referring to the Theotokos and to her Dormition.  See also “kecharitomene” (rendered in Eglish as “full of grace”), a direct quote from Luke.

It’s also worth pointing out that in the Episcopal Cathedral of St. Luke in Orlando, there is a grand Marian alcove.  The Catholic Cathedral of St. James across the street doesn’t have one. Anglican devotion to Mary gets much closer to the Catholic and Orthodox positions than you may like.

William Witt,

I too have no problem with combining “Catholic” with “Evangelical,” and I have a higher regard for both Jewell and Hooker than does William Tighe.  However, I have an even higher regard for the other divines he lists, and still higher for that divine who first (so far as we know) even used the very term “catholic” in an ecclesial context at all, St Ignatius of Antioch, ca. 116, whose letter to the Smyneans (a text probably unknown, at least in its authentic form, to Hooker) bears remembering and repeating each time someone wants to apply the term “catholic” to himself:

Let that eucharist be considered valid that occurs under the bishop or the one to whom he entrusts it.  Let the congregation be wherever the bishop is; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there also is the catholic church—Smyrneans 8.

The meanings of words change, of course, but if we want to maintain a certain consistency in our terminology stretching back to the beginnings of the Christian church (something that debates over “marriage” would imply that we do), and if we are going to make such a fuss over, say, the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral, then it is long past time to argue that “catholic” and “church order is adiaphora” can exist in the same sentence.  Either “catholic” implies (among other things) a particular church order, or it has very little meaning at all.

Dr. Tighe:

Thank you for your scholarship on this issue.  I believe the tractarians had a different view & helped us rediscover our Catholic roots.  Cardinal Newman certainly found his Catholic roots.

Peace & Happy Thanksgiving,

DaveB in VT :

I understand the difficulty of what I’m going to propose - since I was in the thick of having to do it myself about 1.5 years ago - but it seems to me the only way to preserve the Anglican faith is to build it in your town or community since TEC has abandoned it wholeheartedly. 

One of the most encouraging stories I heard when contemplating that option was that of Christ the King in Spokane, who began their membership with 6 families who met together for morning prayer because they could not find a church that wanted to remain true to the Christian Faith and Anglican traditions.  Today that church is growing has its own priest and is effecting change in its community.  Visit them and you find people filled with hope, vision, and future.  That is where we ALL need to be.

You can do that as well where you are - you cannot be the only Anglican in VT. 

God is giving us this opportunity to get out of our ‘comfort zone’ to begin a new mission and message for our communities all across the nation.  We CAN rebuild the Christian Faith and be a positive force anywhere we live.  The choice is ours -  are we going to turn away from it and give up?  Or see it as the challenge God has given us? 

The choice continues to be ours as it has been since Christ came.

PS Oh, anotherone, I’m an underprivileged female - cat actually - you are obviously a speciesist ... I plan to call the Humane Society later today…

IRNS quotes: “Let the congregation be wherever the bishop is; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there also is the catholic church—Smyrneans 8.”

As a RC or even strict catholic argument, you’ve lost me. Unless you are saying that Jesus Christ is not in any community other than those that can claim proper ‘succession’, I clearly read that:

“wherever Jesus Christ is, there also is the catholic church”.

Sounds to me like our Savior’s own words - “where two or three meet in my name ...”

Methinks, as a former RC and an advocate of catholicity (in the terms outlined by W.Witt and Hooker) that you form your argument around your thesis rather than around scripture and even the likes of Smyrneans.

Be of good cheer - a true Anglo-Catholic Evangelical home is forming here in NA.  Support you local Common Cause / Network warriors.

Wilkie,

The church exists in its fullness when it is in communion with an orthodox (small “o”) bishop, whether or not the bishop is physically present for a particular occasion of prayer (“Where two or three are gathered . . . “), a communion created by baptism and sustained by eucharistic fellowship with the bishop, who through his communion with the universal church maintains its catholicity.  That is the meaning of catholicity.  That is why VGR is such a Big Problem.  The Sign of Unity has become the Symbol of Division.

If there is no such communion, then the fullness of the catholic church is simply not there.  That is not to say that there is nothing, just not the church in its sacramental entirety and sacramental integrity.

Eclipse thanks for your response… The States population is about 600,000. Diocese Stats. Show 8,000+ members with 2500 going to 49 churches. I know of - not personally - of about 25 reasserters. There are a few folks associated with ACN (Pittsburgh) meeting in a house somewhere once a month. I know of no coalesced reasserter/faithful group. It may be a little early here as more ‘shoes’ will drop with TEC.
To say I’m disappointed with TEC (and the locals) is an understatement. The reappraisers took control by stealth - of course we were lulled to sleep - and now they are in firm control taking us in non-scriptural paths.
However, God is with us, it’s just very uncomfortable to say the least here in Egypt waiting for the Exodus and maybe the proper plague.

IRNS:

But you were arguing (I thought) that this quote of Smyrneans gave some weight to your version of Catholicity that requires a certain “order” to the church in opposition to that expressed by Hooker (through W.Witt).  However, the quote (and my response) seems to be in opposition to that.  In fact, a simple reading (and that is all my scholar allows me) seems to concur 100% with Hooker.

Much of the Catholic “order” is not biblical.  Although I do believe it is preferrable if and ONLY when it results in proper doctrine and discipline.  Certainly not as an end or goal in itself.

DAveB,

It may be time or you to be the catalyst for a new move of God in VT.

It took Eclipse and her band of MT stalwarts two years to get to their present point, we have been attempting the same in SD for just over two years, others have started with a few and have grown to a ‘synagogue’ (ten families) within a much shorter time period. 

Just start, restart, and keep at it…God will provide.

Happy Thanksgiving to all, from the beautiful Southern Black Hills.

Chip+, cj

Then why consider Hooker (and Jewel) in any sense more “Catholic” than Luther, Bullinger or Cranmer?

Or, conversely, why consider Luther, Bullinger or Cranmer less catholic than Hooker?

Anglo-Catholicism, historically speaking, from the Tractarians onwards, has been characterized by a belief in the absolute necessity of episcopacy to the being of a church;

Indeed, which is why I am very careful about throwing around such terms as “Anglo-Catholic.”  If Anglo-Catholicism means subscribing to the Tractarian understanding of order (and the unchurching of those who do not have the right pedigree) then I am certainly not and never have been an Anglo-Catholic.

Hooker’s view of episcopacy is simply common garden-variety Reformation Protestantism, and looks “Catholic” (in any historical sense) only when contrasted with the “divine-right presbyterianism” espoused in Geneva by Calvin’s successor Beza, by most 16th-century French Huguenot divines and by the leading Scottish Reformed divine after Knox’s death in 1572—but which was always a minority position among Reformed Christians generally.

I do find it interesting that Hooker’s view of episcopacy is “garden-variety Reformation Protestantism, when contrasted with . . . “garden-variety Reformation Protestantism.”  If Beza, the French Huguenot, the Scots Presbyterians, and the Puritans are not “garden-variety Protestantism” and represent a “minority position among Reformed Christians,” then the by Roman Catholic accusation that Hooker and Anglicanism are just “garden-variety Protestant” does not really have a lot of sting.  Yes, there really are differences among Reformation Christians after all.

And on Jewel, I would suggest reading . . . . Jewel.

IRNS,

I am, of course, aware of what not only Ignatius, but also Ireneaus and a number of other 2nd century writers say about the importance of the bishop, which, of course, makes no sense apart from the canon and the Rule of Faith.  All three are mutually related and have to do with both continuity and unity of faith.  The canonical Scriptures are those Scriptures whose content can be summarized in the Rule of Faith, and which are read in those churches that have apostolic succession.  The Rule of Faith is the essential summary of the faith taught in Scriptures and believed by those churches that are in apostolic succession.  Those churches that are in apostolic succession are those who, tracing their origins to the apostles read the Scriptures that are of apostolic origin, and summarize their baptismal faith in the Rule of Faith.

The arguments in Ireneaus and Ignatius are about historical continuity with an original content of faith and practice.  They are not arguments about a theory of orders.  That came later.

Either “catholic” implies (among other things) a particular church order, or it has very little meaning at all.

Actually, “catholic” can have a great deal of meaning, as it did for Ireneaus and Ignatius—and, as it did for Jewel and Hooker.  Hint: look to the canon and the Rule of Faith.

But you were arguing (I thought) that this quote of Smyrneans gave some weight to your version of Catholicity that requires a certain “order” to the church in opposition to that expressed by Hooker (through W.Witt).  However, the quote (and my response) seems to be in opposition to that.  In fact, a simple reading (and that is all my scholar allows me) seems to concur 100% with Hooker.

Well, I think St Ignatius is actually quite clear: no bishop, no eucharist; no eucharist, no church.  All I can say beyond that is, see the entire Ignatian correspondence (though that is still something of a matter of controversy).  You can go here

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/ignatius.html

or better still, get either the Penguin edition (in the volume Early Christian Writings) or the recent Loeb edition edited by Bart Ehrman.

As far as Anglicanism and such matters, I would simply refer you to the Ordinal (including its preface) in the 1662 Book of Common Prayer.  That certainly has to take precedence even over Hooker.

William, you and I mostly agree, I suspect.  However, the question is not whether a specific order is nakedly asserted, but is rather implied, as is also the case with a great deal of pre-nicene doctrine.  I think it is.  In fact, I find it impossible to read the entire New Testament and sub-apostolic literature, including Irenaeus, and conclude otherwise.  Thus Ignatius links the bishop not simply to a tradition of teaching, but to a sacramental mystery as the source his authority.  I’d find other apt quotations, but its Thanksgiving, and I’ve got onions to cut.

Happy Turkey day!

But you did not use the Ordinal or the disputed Ignatius correspondence in your argument against Hooker’s understanding of Anglo-Catholic “order”.  The quote you did use did not seem to make your case.  And to take your argument further - who defines orthodox (little “o”) when it come to a certain Bishop?  I would venture to say that ABofC and KJS are certainly at question.  Does this make the entire AC non-catholic and the Eucharists celebrated under their authority not valid?
And how does this argument fair with the questions of those sacraments which took place under +Lipscomb?

I have printed out John Jewel’s Apology for the Church of England for a little light reading and study over this Thanksgiving holiday, with the intent of convincing myself that there is any good reason anymore to remain Anglican (besides the music).

Wilkie,

Now that I’ve finished peeling the onions and can take a break before the hors d’oeuvres . . .

First of all, I’m not in opposition to Hooker; I am, generally speaking, pro-Hooker—as were, by the way, the Tractarians themselves.  Keble edited Hooker’s works.  I just don’t think Hooker is, in and of himself, definitive of Anglicanism, although he plays a key role, and his views of episcopacy are well-known to be primarily pragmatic and not charismatic (though I think you can tease some of the latter out of him).

However, this conversation started out when I disputed that anyone could describe himself as “Anglo-Catholic” and then declare that church order was adiaphora; and on that point William Witt and I actually agree (I think), even if his judgment is negative and mine positive.

Second, I made the claim (I won’t say I “made a case”) that even “catholic” alone implies a belief in a certain kind of church order, and pointed to St Ignatius of Antioch.  As such, my quote does not stand alone as proof of my overall view episcopacy and sacramental order, but I do think it supports it (as does my reference to the Ordinal, but that’s another story).  If you do not, well, fine.  Some day, God willing, you and I will share a seminar in which we can go through all of Ignatius together, chapter and verse (it’s not that long).  However, I do not believe that it is a coincidence that the term “catholic” (“universal”, from the Greek kath’olos, literally “according to the whole”) first turns up both early and in the context of the church’s ordering and central sacrament.  William Witt seems content to confine the Ignatian view of episcopacy to teaching (the Rule of Faith), and he is quite right that it is primarily as a succession of teaching that Irenaeus considers apostolic succession.  Presumably those who are more, well, protestant-minded who nevertheless use “catholic” as a descriptor must mean something like that.  However I do not believe that order—church, eucharist, episcopacy—in the text of Ignatius, taken as a whole, can be limited to that, and I believe that passage I quoted implies as much. 

But to go beyond that would require prior agreement on wider terms of reference, as would any discussion of how to define who is “orthodox” and the whole vexed question of validity of sacraments—and frankly, on Thanksgiving Day I’m just not up for that.  Perhaps another time.

“I do find it interesting that Hooker’s view of episcopacy is
‘garden-variety Reformation Protestantism’, when contrasted with . . ‘garden-variety Reformation Protestantism’.”

On the subject of Church Order, ministry and ordination, Luther, Melanchthon, Zwingli, Bullinger, Bucer, (?)Cranmer and Jewel were one (I query Cranmer because of the statement in the Preface to the Ordinal which it is generally assumed that he wrote, and which goes against his otherwise seeming indifference to questions of “ordination pedigrees”), despite their profound divergence on the Eucharist and strongly different emphases (at least) on how to reform worship.  They all agreed that the Bible laid down no form of Church Order, that Church Order was an adiaphoron to be determined by the civil authorities (once true doctrine was secure) and that bishops and presbyters were the same order of ministry (and that bishops were presbyters upon whom certain supervisory functions had been conferred), and that if the civil authorities wished to retain episcopacy it could be retained, and if they wished to abolish it, away with it; it made no difference to the essence or standing of a church.  (Jenkins, in the book that I mentioned above, deminstrates this fully wrt Jewel.  Hooker thought that episcopacy had been instituted by either the apostles or by Christ himself, and so was a venerable and unexceptionable form of Church Polity, but that it was nevertheless possible to replace it, where necessary, by a different form of Church Order, as he observed had been done in Scotland in the 1590s).  Calvin, by contrast, thought that he discerned in the NT a fourfold form of Church Order consisting of Pastors, Teachers, Elders and Deacons, which he reckoned should be a pattern for Reformed Churches, but which was not necessary jure divino; and on occasion, as in a letter to the Reformed Christians of Poland in which he praised the possibility of retaining bishops there among the Reformed (which did not happen) as a suitable “token of continuity” (although by no means necessary for a true church), he seems to have taken a different line.  However, his successor in Geneva, Theodore Beza, did believe that this fourform Church polity was jure divino, and in the arguments among French Huguenots over church polity in the 1560s (which anticipates the 17th-century English arguments between presbyterians and congregationalists) his view triumphed.  Beza supported those English “Puritans” who from 1570 onwards wanted to abolish both episcopacy and the Prayer Book and replace them by the Geneva “Discipline” and the Geneva “Form of Prayers” as openly as he dared, and after John Knox’s death in 1573 the leading Scottish Calvinists (such as Andrew Melville) embraced the same views, and were able to implement them for a time in the 1590s (despite the survival of powerless “bishops” who survived only because of their key role as supporters of the Crown in the Scottish Parliament), before James VI and I began to restore the authority of bishops beginning in 1602.  But in other Reformed churches, as in Hungary, Poland, the Palatinate, Transylvania, the Netherlands and all th rest of Protestant Switzerland the earlier view of Church Order as a “thing indifferent” prevailed, just as Bullinger’s views on the Eucharist predominated over Calvin’s (except in the Netherlands).  In Hungary, the “moderators” or “presidents” of local assemblies of ministers adopted the title of “bishop,” which they preserve (along with the Transylvanian Unitarians) to the present day.  So it was in England: Elizabeth’s first generation of bishops looked to Zurich rather than to Geneva as their beau ideal, and the Zurich clergy consistently supported the Elizabethan bishops in their defense of the Church Order of the Elizabethan Church against the Geneva-orientated presbyterians (although the Zurichers did not like the “excessive ceremonies” of the Prayer Book nor the retention of the surplice and episcopal habit in England, and suggested privately more than once that they be abolished).

So, to conclude, within the broader spectrum of European “magisterial Protestantism” (Lutheran and Reformed, and Anglican, if one wants to differentiate the Anglicans from the Reformed [which I would prefer not to do before 1610 or 1620]) and even within the spectrum of “Reformed Protestantism” on the subject of Church Order (not necessarily on other issues), it is indeed Hooker (and the rest) who are the “garden variety Protestants” while it is the Genevans under Beza, the French Huguenots and the more zealous among the Scots who were the “hothouse plants.”  It may also be noted that with the exception of Andrewes (whose views in his youth were sui generis) and Hooker (perhaps), most of those early 17th-Century English divines (like Laud), who end up as strong asserters of divine right episcopacy, went through a Calvinist phase as young divines, and so it may be suggested that they imbibed their concern and even preoccupation with Church Polity as part of their transient Calvinism, and that it was their conclusions on that subject wrt episcopacy that led them away from Calvinism or, in some cases, anything much resembling traditional Reformed Christianity.

Chip+ (Father Chip?), God Bless… thank you.  I love So. Dakota and the bad lands (if you’re near there), in fact both Dakota’s spent a year in both - truly some of God’s good earth. Spent some longer time in Mitchell, good people. And yeah, thanks for your encouragement, you and eclipse are right… I can start… maybe with others we can do this. I’ll put out the word and try to connect/contact others. Thnx.

There is something that I don’t understand.  Sarah says that the orthodox Episcopalians have three options:  1. Go to Rome or Orthodoxy.  This is a no brainer if you are a real protestant.  2. Go to some Protestant church.  There is usually a variety available so except in isolated areas surely some church could be found that would be OK, even if not with all the smells and bells.  3. The Anglicanish continuing CANA, altenrative Provence, etc group.  I have not seen any discussion as to why everyone doesn’t go there.  If you like liturgy, hierarchy, robes, good music, etc.  then what is the problem.  Surely it is not to wait on the ABC or have a big old building.  All that can be worked out later.  So what am I missing or does anone know?  Or is it just an off limits subject?

There is something that I don’t understand.  Sarah says that the orthodox Episcopalians have three options:  ... 3. The Anglicanish continuing CANA, altenrative Provence, etc group.  I have not seen any discussion as to why everyone doesn’t go there.  So what am I missing or does anone know?

A larger question is raised:  how did it happen that a large denomination (with a longer history than many) abandoned some key Christian teachings in favor of the the current wisdom of the world?  That calls into question the whole doctrine of “decide and divide” (so to speak)—and even the legitimacy of division (in light of the three fold prayer of Christ for unity in John 17, and the observable damage that Christian disunity has caused over the centuries).  Is further division really the answer?  And yet, if not, on what basis do we have unity?

Although the Bible is clear that we must have a profound unity, it is also clear that we must not compromise on doctrine:  so how is that possible?  Is it still possible for it to be accomplished in the same way that is illustrated in the Bible in Acts and the Epistles?  (Through submission of individual judgement to a unified authority.) 

This tragic situation poses this basic question:  WHO is it that the Holy Spirit guides in all truth?  Only us as INDIVIDUALS?  Is there any church that the Holy Spirit guides—or does the Holy Spirit guid all churches? Since all individuals, and all churches, don’t agree, it is obvious that Satan has influence—and twists the Scriptures.  But is there any person or church that is protected from false teaching?

The scandal in the Catholic Church caused similar soul searching.  It was not quite the same—priests/bishops betrayed the flock by betraying clear Catholic teachings and defying the Pope…not essentially changing them.  Still, many Catholic felt the need to re-examine their understanding of legitimate authority—and what that does, and doesn’t, mean.

Moreover, the Catholic scandal makes the Episcopalian one more incomprehesible:  it, along with public health statistics about STD’s, illustrated that homosexuality does indeed appear to be an objective disordered.  It is most puzzling.

My theory is that God and Satan actually do agree on something:  it is personal (good and evil) and they both want us to knowingly choose between them.  Usually, Satan can’t get people to actually admit that they are choosing evil because they prefer it:  but a rush to approve of and celebrate homosexuality at an extraordinarily inopportune time is pretty darn close.

After becoming a Christian, and reading about the glorious history of struggle for Christ, I started developing romantic notions about how it would have been great to live during those times.  Only to realize that we live in such a time, and there is nothing romantic about it when you are actually in the battle.  It is uggly and even sickening.  Yet, He so loved the world…so we must so love Him…

Dear Prophet:  Happy Thanksgiving.  The reason our present day dissenters have gone all over the globe scrounging for sympathizers rather than aligning with the Continuing Church movement which is already established is not easy to figure out.  Maybe the reason is that the Continuing Church has a reputation for doctrinal strictness and our neo-orthodox brethren of the 21st century still have a deep down affinity for the smorgasbord approach to theology.  That’s what I believe about it, any way.  They used to say that the Continuing Church was made up of too many splinter groups (which is true), but now they are also subdivided in many ways.  When all is said and done, we may all find ourselves in one Anglican Church in North America.  Who’s to say it can’t happen?

William Tighe,

Yes, I am aware that Hooker, Luther, and a good many other Reforming Protestants said that church order is adiaphora, and that both Roman Catholics and Puritans (and Congregationalists and Baptists!) said that it is essential.  I am also aware that Zwingli had a different eucharistic theology than Calvin.  And that Cranmer, Jewel, and Hooker also had a different eucharistic theology than Zwingli.

Of course, I am also not offended by such labels as “garden-variety Protestant.” Non sermoni res, sed rei sermo subiectus est.

This long thread has produced lots of interesting rabbit trails we could pursue elsewhere.  I’ll just add two personal anecdotes here that relate to the two-way street between Anglicanism and Roman Catholicism.

When I was a seminarian at Yale back in the early 1980s I was privileged to act as the chauffeur and general assistant to the great Anglican missionary and scholar Stephen Neill (who was in his 80s and unable to drive).  I have many fond memories of time spent at the feet of this Gamaliel, soaking up his wisdom.  One day, commenting on some Episcopal priest who had gone over to the papal allegiance around that time, he made a wry and witty comment.  Neill remarked, “When I was in seminary (back in the 1920s), when an RC priest be an Anglican, he was called a ‘convert.’  When a C of E priest became an RC, he was called ‘a pervert.’”  Bp. Neill said it with a smile, as if glad that those pre-Vatican II days of bitter animosity, rivalry and suspicion were over.

Second, I was likewise privileged to serve as former Bishop Dan Herzog’s assistant for two years after I first got out of seminary.  At that time, Dan was still a parish priest, leading a vibrant, growing charismatic Anglo-Catholic parish in Morristown, NY, while keeping his demanding “tentmaker” position as the Personnel Director for a large state mental hospital with over 1,000 employees (in nearby Ogdensburg, NY).  I mention this because Dan had a remarkable talent for assessing people’s potential and getting an intuitive sense about them that was simply uncanny.  He excelled at developing lay leadership in part because he often seemed to sense the kind of ministries people would thrive at better than they did themselves.

Anyway, after two years as his fulltime assistant, at our last staff meeting, he stunned me by declaring, as if in a prophecy, “You know, David, it’s only a matter of time until you follow your hero Newman into the Catholic Church.”  Now oddly, at that time, I was a much louder advocate for women’s ordination than he was, when that was still very much a minority opinion within the Diocese of Albany.

Ironically, over 20 years after Dan Herzog’s prophecy about my future spiritual pilgrimage, he has gone back to Rome himself, and I still remain, technically, a TEC priest, canoncially resident in the Diocese of Albany, even though I’ve lived in Virginia since 1987.  But at the moment I serve an AMiA church in Newport News, and otherwise worship at a brand new Ugandan church plant in Richmond, Eternity Anglican.  If I had ever switched my canonical residence to VA or Southern VA (and I’ve done lots of interim and supply work in both dioceses), I would have been one of the first to flee TEC for another Anglican province.

But although I’ll admit that I’ve been tempted more than once to leave Anglicanism to become a Roman Catholic, like my beloved and esteemed mentor Dan Herzog, and Bishops Steenson and now Lipscomb, the strange thing is that I’m in fact LESS likely to swim the Tiber now than at any point in the last 10 years.  And that is because I finally see a real possibility emerging of the kind of radical “New Reformation” taking place within Anglicanism that I’ve been hoping and praying for for many years.

But for all of us, no matter what our Plan B might be, the best contribution that we can make to genuine ecumenical advance, is to work faithfully for the renewal and strengthening of orthodox Christianity in whatever our denominational home might be.  Whether our sympathies lie with Rome or Geneva, or with Wittenberg or Wheaton, or maybe even with Antioch (as in the Syrian Orthodox Church) or Springfield (as in Springfield, Missouri, the Vatican of the Assemblies of God), the best thing we can do to help fulfill our Master’s prayer that we all might be one (John 17) is to work long and hard to “clean up” our own messes and set our own houses in order.  Now with TEC that is a Herculean task.

Personally, I am thrilled by the prospects of the Common Cause Partnership.  I intend to give my all to making it succeed, just as Sarah for example is giving her all to the inside strategy.  But, if in the end, the CCB does fragment, and the Anglican Communion does in fact split because there is no real disciplining of TEC or Canada, then even though I call myself “New Reformation Advocate,” I will eventually follow the lead of Bishops Herzog, Steenson, and now Lipscomb and submit to the papal allegiance at last.  And Dan will have been proven right all along, as he usually was.

Sorry for the typo above, that choice quote from Bishop Neill should go, “...when a Roman Catholic priest became an Anglican, he was called “a CONVERT.’  But when a Co of E priest became a Roman Catholic, he was called “a PERVERT!’”  And that was in the heyday of Anglo-Catholicism in England, the 1920s.  Perhaps I should add that Bp. Neill always identified himself with the (broad) Evangelical wing of Anglicanism, though not in the narrower John Stott, James Packer way.
David Handy+

Bp. Lipscomb refused to “Stand Firm in Faith” when he had the power to lead and make a difference.  By doing so, he betrayed the faithful in the Diocese of SW Florida.  While he occasionally criticized some of the heretical advances within the Church, he did nothing tangible to help the faithful within his Diocese.  He usually sat on the fence and refused to say and do what was needed to protect the Church and his flock aganist the heretics.  He actively opposed parishes from leaving TEC, and planted liberal clergy throughout the Diocese.  He often adopted the liberal party line, and criticized those who tried to defend the faith.  At every opportunity to make a real difference, he backed down and supported 415.  By leaving now for Rome, he shows that he knew all along what was happening was wrong, but refused to act.  His words and actions now are very hypocritical, and make his prior positions appear to be disingenuous.  Try as he might, like Pilate, he cannot wash his hands of what he has done.  Again, as previously asked, if Bp. Lipscomb believes that matters in the Anglican Communion have deteriorated to the point that he must leave for Rome, why didn’t he do and say more while he had the power, pulpit, and duty to do so?

LHTC,

I have wondered the same, now about Lipscomb and previously about Herzog.  Of course, as a Catholic myself I welcome and applaud both men’s decisions, to “convert” in Lipscomb’s case and to “revert” in Herzog’s.  But I do gather that both men as bishops were forces more for liberalism in their respective dioceses, than for traditional Anglican orthodoxy.  Both dioceses, for example, were in the 70s and early 80s, quite conservative and centers of opposition to WO.  In both dioceses, it was their immediate predecessors who represented the “swing” from being anti-WO to being pro-WO, but in both dioceses it was they themselves that “pushed” WO in a big way (both in terms of strongly supporting it and of ordaining or importing a lot of “ordained women” into their dioceses)—and Herzog, as I have been informed, was an opponent of WO for quite some time as a priest in ECUSA.  How does one square this with their decisions for Rome?  If both men had been strongly “Protestant Episcopalians” but ones who favored WO (the example of the former Bishop Kelshaw of the Rio Grande comes to mind), and then experienced a real conversion to Catholicism, that would be understandable—but in these cases both men seem to have regarded themselves as distinctly “Catholic Anglicans.”

William,

I can’t speak about former Bp. Lipscomb, but I knew Bp. Herzog well, not only as my bishop in Albany but as my direct supervisor for two years when I was fresh out of seminary and he was still a parish priest (and one of the two or three finest parish priests I’ve ever known).  At that time, Dan was still wrestling with the propriety of WO, tending to favor it but with signficant doubts.  We had a few conversations about it, and if you are looking for a scapegoat, you can in part blame me for helping to persuade him that women’s ordination is not only compatible with the thrust of the Scriptures as a whole, but a case of a clear and legitmate “development of doctrine” that would pass the seven tests of John Henry Newman.

I know that WO is not the real topic of this thread, but I strenuously object to all those who claim that support of WO is incompatible with being truly “catholic minded.”  I know some fine priests in the SSC order, and alas, they tend to make the same mistake. 

In any case, getting back to the defense of my beloved and esteemed mentor, Dan Herzog, I can testify that he was and is a fully dedicated opponent of theological liberalism.  And unlike Bp. Lipscomb, he never wavered in being outspoken in his words, and he was faithfuly consistent in his deeds in upholding the cause of orthodoxy.  To me, he has always been, and always will be, a HERO.

[comment deleted—off topic]

Folks—despite the compulsive hopes of some, this thread won’t be about WO.

I’ve deleted GB’s comment and am allowing the Tighe and NRA comments to stand.

This is a warning.

[comment deleted—off topic]

[comment deleted—off topic]

[comment deleted—off topic]

Sorry, Sarah.  I’ll try another tack. 

As a priest of the Diocese of Albany (although I haven’t lived or ministered in its geographical boundaries for many years), I’m proud to note that the current bishop, Bill Love, is one of the few sitting TEC bishops to have attended the CCCB meeting in Pittsburgh (Common Cause Council of Bishops).  He has attended the Windsor Bishops Camp Allen meetings and he at least attempted to speak up in New Orleans in protest against the deplorable HoB statement responding to the Primates, although since he is a freshman bishop, in his first year, he could do little. 

My mentor, +Dan Herzog, has told me in private conversation that he thinks Bill Love is even more conservative and uncompromising than he is.  Dan even said, that if he has a backbone of steel, then Bill Love has “a backbone of titanium.”  At the same time, Bp. Love has been able to hold the diocese together so well that not a single parish (on either side) has left, or even threatened to leave.  Although there is a pesky Via Media chapter in the diocese that has spread lots of false information and caused him trouble, Bp. Love is living up to his name and responding with loving patience and forbearance in his pastoral relations, as well as an admirable firmness in upholding orthodox teaching.  To his credit, +Dan didn’t retire and resign from TEC until an orthodox successor was chosen to take his place.

My guess, however, is that Albany will eventually join Pittsburgh, San Joachin, Ft. Worth, and Quincy, in leaving TEC.  Then a minor diocesan split will doubtless finally happen.

I, too, apologize Sarah, and appreciate your keeping me on the straight and narrow path.  Actually, Mr. Tighe, above, expressed my exact thoughts—nothing more needed to be added.

“We have lots of trouble with cradle Catholics who don’t accept it (infallibility), after all; we don’t need to import converts who think that way. “

Very funny, Ed the Roman.  I wonder what happens to those Catholics?  Do they just muddle along like their counterparts in other churches?  Even if so, it appears from the outside that RC muddling along might be quite different than other muddlings along.  So I just wonder what your take on it, with more explanation to those on the outside, might be?

William Witt, I think your earlier exchange on this thread with IRNS answered this, but I was going to ask, about the “infallible successor to Peter,”  I’d assumed you believe that apostolic succession could pass from community to community even if it could not be traced (or documented) through individuals.  But this seems like an opportune moment to ask you if you do in fact believe this?

And this is probably a way-too-big can of worms, but is that infallibility across time, at any one time?  What is infallibility in time?  I’ve always thought the RC meaning is absolute, that its meaning of (the possession of) infallibility is as complete now as it ever would be.  Since I am reading Knight’s eschatology book now, it would seem that infallibility, whether ecclesial or papal, also, as part of the present, is redeemed from God’s future; that it is called out as the church is called out from the world.  Since Knight draws extensively on Zizioulas, I also wonder what Z. and Kasper might say about it to one another right now, if that conversation has much of a future? (sorry….couldn’t resist…)

Seen-Too-Much

has it right. 

This is a big discussion about infallibility—of text, Scripture as a whole, of a council, of the Pope..    how to sort that out.

That it needs to be “sorted out” ought to clue us in that much of our angry denunciation of the others’ errors is unwise. Truth is not “possessed” by anyone

Let us in the words of the Anaphora of st. John Chrysotom’s liturgy, give thanks for “what we know, and what we know not.”

I think a lot more reading of people like Ziziolas, and Yannaras would be helpful.

We are approching all this with all too much of a western, dare I “latin” mind.

No, you don’t have to go orthordox in jursidiction, but the gap of West and East is the primordial wound in the unviersal church, and had wounded the whole course of western theology. 

MJM

The trouble shows up in Catechists who carefully explain which doctrines don’t matter (whether Humanae Vitae the or Virgin Birth), students who write for the youth group newsletter to the effect that it doesn’t matter what religion you are, activists who are CONVINCED that the Church of Vatican III will make the doctrinal changes that they want and are furious when they don’t arrive, the people who spat on the ground when Benedict was elected, those who wondered why Benedict was elected, and those who wondered why it mattered that Benedict was elected.  It shows up in Jesuit universities (who have a Jesuit identity distinct from, and opposed to, a Catholic identity (other orders have this too).

Is also shows up in people who become (insert denomination here) because the social life or schedule of the local (insert denomination here) is so much nicer that that of their own parish.

One work that Ratzinger wrote on eschatology that I read seemed incredibly rich in his use of the church’s history.  It was a long time ago and I couldn’t read enough of it.  But the “wound” of East/West assumes a different dimension, perspective or appearance when issues such as infallibility are seen from the standpoint of (secular) history, church history, what might be an ahistorical/pre-historical passage of time, or, perhaps, even otherwise troublesome metaphysical views of time.  Many Western theologians have long considered the problem of history/time and the church.  So there seems to be ample sympathy and attunement for reception of someone like Zizoulas already in the West.  I guess that’s why Knight (and others) find(s) him so excellent.  So it might be said that many Western/Latin theologians would agree with Zizioulas even from within their particular cast of mind, far from having to shed it, to agree with him.

Gee, Ed the Roman, are you saying that your church has as many perturbations as others might?  Even all that Latin rigidity can’t hold them in?  It has been a strange (“seltsam”) wonder to me to observe where people have had to take shelter these days, as I never thought I would have to flee TEC as I did, in fact, need to.  I loved the liturgy and prayer book and thought ACI made so much sense and was writing such great theology.  I just didn’t realize how inimical local TEC leaders were to its theology, even supposedly orthodox ones.  I don’t mean to whine….but it is all truly strange and yet, sometimes, now that I am safe from full exposure to that enmity, beautiful.