« Village Voice Virginity | Main | »
October 22, 2006
Anglican Taxonomy
Dr. William J. Tighe of Muhlenberg College, a Touchstone contributing editor, received requests from the Vatican and from Archbishop Myers of Newark (Dr. Tighe is a Catholic) to prepare, as an aid to ecumenical work, summary descriptions of Anglican organizations currently active in the United States. Having read the report and found it an extremely informative sorting-out of a complex subject, I asked his permission to publish it here, which he kindly granted.
_____________________
ANGLICAN BODIES AND ORGANIZATIONS
by William J. Tighe, Ph.D.
I will describe some of these bodies and organizations
briefly, confining myself, so far as possible, to the American scene.
The Episcopal Church: The only member of the Anglican Communion in the United States. It received its Episcopal orders from the Episcopal Church of Scotland in 1784 after the Archbishop of Canterbury and other English bishops refused to consecrate Samuel Seabury of Connecticut to the episcopate on the grounds that they had not the legal authority to consecrate anyone who could not take the oath of allegiance to the English Crown. The Episcopal Church today consists of 111 dioceses, nine of them (Colombia, Convocation of American Churches in Europe, Central Ecuador, Litoral Ecuador, Haiti, Honduras, the Dominican Republic, Taiwan and Venezuela) outside the United States. In 2000 it claimed some 2,365,000 members in some 7,390 congregations (parishes).
Forward in Faith: The current title of an organization that
originated in 1977 in reaction to the Episcopal Church’s decision the previous
year to ordain women to the priesthood. Originally entitled “The Evangelical
and Catholic Mission” it sought to bring together Anglo-Catholic and
Evangelical Protestant Episcopalians opposed to the ordination of women to the
priesthood. After the election of the first women bishop in the Episcopal Church
(in 1989) the organization altered its name in 1991 to “The Episcopal Synod of
America” as a token of its resolve to be a “church within the church”
(ecclesiola in ecclesia). In 1998 it affiliated with the much more considerable
— “considerable” in both individual and parochial membership; FIF/UK counts has
450 parishes of the Church of England formally members of it and another 450 as
“sympathizers”; 950+ clergy as members and some 350 more as “sympathizers” —
“Forward-in-Faith/United Kingdom” which originated in 1994, in the aftermath of
the Church of England’s 1992 decision to ordain women to the priesthood. (There
is also a “Forward in Faith/Australia” which was organized in the aftermath of
the Anglican Church of Australia’s 1992 decision to authorize the ordination of
women to the priesthood; this is a small, exclusively Anglo-Catholic,
organization of some 60 clergy and three parishes — although another 15
parishes are served by FIF clergy.) The
American organization consists of about 53 “affiliated parishes” which are
parishes of the Episcopal Church, and another 8 “associated parishes” which are
Continuing Anglican, Reformed Episcopalian or “Independent Anglican” parishes;
three ECUSA dioceses — Fort Worth, Quincy and San Joaquin — with their bishops
are also members (as also is the Bishop of the Rio Grande Diocese, Jeffrey
Steenson, although not the diocese). The American organization is also largely
Anglo-Catholic in its membership, but it has never had a clear or unified
outlook about its “ecumenical vision” or, in particular, its attitude towards
the papacy and the Catholic Church. (In this respect it differs from both its
Australian counterpart [which is exclusively Anglo-Catholic and with a
leadership that aspires to an “honorable reconciliation” with Rome] and its
English parent [which is dominated by Anglo-Papalists — Anglo-Catholics who
affirm all of the defined dogmas of the Catholic Church and who likewise seek
an “honorable (corporate) reconciliation” with Rome — but which includes some
“anti-papal Anglo-Catholics” (about 20% of the whole) and which attempts to
cooperate with the strongly Evangelical English Anglican organization opposed
to women’s ordination, “Reform.”])
Anglican Communion Network: An organization of conservative,
mostly Evangelical, Episcopalians organized in November 2003 to oppose
theological heterodoxy and moral revisionism, and particularly the acceptance
of active homosexuality and the blessing of “homosexual partnerships” in the
Episcopal Church. Its membership consists of about 10 dioceses and their
bishops (Albany [NY], Central Florida, Dallas, Fort Worth, Pittsburgh, Quincy,
Rio Grande, San Joaquin, South Carolina and Springfield [IL]) — plus the Bishop
of the Diocese of Western Kansas (although not the diocese), and some 98 and
parishes (about 34 of them also members of Forward-in-Faith/North America) and
170 clergy in member and non-member dioceses. Its leaders largely support the
ordination of women as deacons, priests and bishops, although three of the four
remaining dioceses in the Episcopal Church whose bishops remain opposed to the
ordination of women to the priesthood (Fort Worth, Quincy and San Joaquin) are
also members, as also is the Forward in Faith organization, whose member
parishes and clergy constitute a “non-geographical Convocation” within the
Network. The organization emerged from the American Anglican Council, an organization
of Evangelical Episcopalian clergy and laity dating from the “Briarwood
Consultations” of 1995 and 1996 which wished to oppose liberalization of
doctrinal and moral teaching in the Episcopal Church, but which was unwilling
to break with the Episcopal Church or its bishops.
Anglican Mission in America: This was an organization that
arose out of the “Briarwood Consultations” of 1995 and 1996 in the same milieu
and to a large extent among the same constituency as was to produce the
American Anglican Council and the Anglican Communion Network, although it was
more directly linked with a movement entitled “Concerned Clergy and Laity of
the Episcopal Church” — or, more popularly, as the “First Promise Movement.” It
differed from these other bodies in that it was more willing to take action to
break with and defy those bishops of the Episcopal Church whom it viewed as
heterodox or apostate. In January 2000 two of the leading figures in this milieu,
John Rodgers, formerly Dean of Trinity Episcopal School for Ministry (one of
the two remaining relatively conservative theological schools/seminaries in the
Episcopal Church) and Charles (Chuck) Murphy, were consecrated bishops in
Singapore by the then Archbishop of the Anglican Province of SE Asia, Moses Tay
and the then (and current) Archbishop of Rwanda, Emmanuel Kolini. Subsequently
that date the AMiA was for a time under the supervision of the archbishops of
both SE Asia and Rwanda, and is currently under that of Archbishop Kolini of
Rwanda. At the present time it consists of six bishops, 102 congregations,
approximately 120 clergy and approximately 13,500 lay members.. After it was
organized it undertook a study of the issue of the ordination of women and in
October 2003 resolved upon a “moratorium” upon the ordination of women to the
priesthood (although it continues to ordain women to the diaconate). However,
female clergy from the Episcopal Church who join the AMiA (as some two or three
have done) were allowed until recently to exercise a priestly ministry in
congregations with which they are affiliated or which wish to call them to such
a ministry, but that policy has now been discontinued. The AMiA is largely an
Evangelical organization (with some Anglo-Catholic congregations), and many of
its congregations have been marked strongly by the “Charismatic Movement.”
Although the AMiA was originally conceived as a mission to and within the
Episcopal Church, it is now effectively separate from it and draws most of its
new membership and congregations from non-Episcopalian sources.
Reformed Episcopal Church: This body was organized in 1873
by Evangelical Anglican Episcopalian clergy and laymen who objected to the
spread of Anglo-Catholic ideas and practices in the Episcopal Church and the
refusal of the generality of Episcopalian bishops (and of the triennial General
Convention of the Episcopal Church) to take measures to suppress these
practices. The REC adopted as its foundational principles in 1873 a repudiation
of jure divino episcopacy, of ordained ministers being in any sense “priests,”
of the “Lord’s Table” as an “altar” on which an oblation of Christ’s Body and
Blood is “offered anew,” of any “Presence of Christ” in the elements of bread
and wine, and of Baptismal Regeneration. In 1874 the REC went on to produce a
more clearly Protestant version of the Book of Common Prayer, and in 1875 a
more clearly Protestant version of the 39 Articles of the Church of England
(and of the Episcopal Church, as adopted by the latter in 1789) entitled the 35
Articles. The REC initially spread widely in the United States and Canada (as
well as acquiring a “sister-church” in England, the Free Church of England
[FCE]) but after 1900 it entered a slow decline which by the 1960s had reduced
it to some 5,000 members in some 100 congregations in the United States and
some 300 in some three or four congregations in Canada. From the 1970s onwards,
the REC has experienced a modest revival and increase in numbers in both Canada
and the United States (it now claims some 1,000 members in two dioceses and 10 congregations
in Canada and some 8,500 members in 140 congregations in the United States,
with 175 clergy and three dioceses), as it has attracted both firmly Protestant
and “middle-of-the-road” refugees from the Anglican Church of Canada and the
Episcopal Church in the United States, but this has also led to strife within
the REC between those who wish to maintain its clearly and prescriptively
Evangelical identity and those who want to find a via media position in which
they might recover elements of their Anglican identity. For example, while the
REC retained episcopacy as “an ancient and desirable form of church polity” it
accepted clergy from other Protestant denominations who wished to join it and
minister in it without any form of reordination, and its bishops routinely
licensed its own ordained deacons who had not yet been ordained to the
presbyter ate to celebrate the Lord’s Supper. More recently, however, its has
ceased to license deacons to celebrate the Eucharist and it has received some
Protestant clergy from other denominations as deacons, subsequently ordaining
them to the presbyterate (although it appears that the RE bishops do not
consistently follow this new practice). It has also produced a revision of its
Prayer Book that omits some of the more prescriptively Protestant additions of
1874 and had declared the original 39 Articles to be its doctrinal basis, while
relegating the 35 Articles of 1875 to the status of “an interpretation” of the
39 Articles. (It is legally unable to alter its foundational principles of
1873, however, without leaving itself liable to legal challenge to its assets
by dissenting groups within it.) This has caused contention within the REC and,
in addition, has caused its English sister-church, the FCE (a body consisting
of some 28 congregations and about 1,100 adherents) to undergo a schism in
2003-04 between proponents of a more visa media stance and those who uphold an
uncompromising Evangelical identity. The REC itself, in 2006, is in the midst
of a ten-year merger process with the Anglican Province of America (APA), a
more “centrist” Continuing Anglican body that originated in 1995. Depending
upon the persons with whom one engages in conversation, different answers will
be given to the question of whether the REC regards itself as part of the
“Continuing Anglican” movement (sometimes known also as the “Anglican
Continuum”).
Continuing Anglican Churches: Most “Continuing Anglican
Churches” emerged as a result of the 1976 decision of the General Convention of
the Episcopal Church to authorize the ordination of women to the priesthood and
episcopate. In September 1977 the “St. Louis Congress,” which gathered some
2000 Episcopalian clergy and laity (as well as a few bishops) to take stock of
the situation in the Episcopal Church, pledged to oppose the ordination of
women and, at the appropriate moment, to erect a “Continuing Anglican Church”
which would maintain “the Catholic Tradition” of Anglicanism. It also issued
the “St. Louis Declaration” which pledged adhesion to traditional Anglican
doctrinal formulae and practices, but went on to situate them in a broadly
“historically Catholic” context, by (for example) indicating unconditional
adhesion to the definitions of the Seven Ecumenical Councils (whereas
previously Anglican formulae had limited such explicit adhesion to the first
four councils only: while the fifth and sixth councils
were in practice without opposition in historic Anglicanism,
the Seventh Council and the iconodulia that it both endorsed and prescribed has
been rejected by the more Protestant figures and constituencies in many
Anglican churches). By 1978 an Anglican Church of North America (ACNA) was in
the process of formation, and four bishops were consecrated on January 28 of
that year in Denver, Colorado. The retired ECUSA bishop of Springfield,
Illinois, Albert A. Chambers (Bishop of Springfield from 1962 to1972) and a
bishop of the Philippine Independent Church (a body that obtained its
episcopate from the Episcopal Church in 1947), Francisco Pagtakhan, together
consecrated to the episcopate a priest of the Episcopal Church, C. David Dale
Doren (b. 1915), and Doren than joined with the two other bishops to consecrate
Robert Sherwood Morse (b. 1924), James O. Mote (1922-2006) and Peter Francis
Watterson (1927-1996) to the episcopate. In addition, a letter from the Korean
Anglican bishop of Taejon, Mark Pae, was read at the consecration ceremonies,
in which the bishop both regretted his inability to be present and to
participate in the acts of consecration and endorsed the consecrations.
However, a “constituent assembly” for the ACNA, which met in Dallas in October
1978, ended in deadlock over issues of church government, and in particular the
authority of its bishops (the assembly also voted to change the name of the new
church body to the Anglican Catholic Church [ACC]). Bishops Morse and Watterson
refused to adhere to the decisions of the Dallas assembly, thus effectively
separating themselves from the ACC, and formed a body then, as now, entitled
the Anglican Province of Christ the King (APCK), of which Archbishop Morse
remains the Archbishop and Primate (the APCK currently has five dioceses, 57 congregations,
110 clergy and 8,000 to 9,000 members). Bishop Watterson, however, subsequently
became a Roman Catholic , was ordained a Catholic priest under the later
“Pastoral Provision” and died some years later, in 1996. A short time
afterwards, in early 1980, Bishop Doren withdrew from the ACNA and formed a
more “low church” body entitled the United Episcopal Church, which still
exists, although it is rather small in numbers (one diocese, 26 congregations,
45 clergy and about 600 members). In 1983 Louis Falk, who was consecrated a
bishop in 1981, became Archbishop and (first) Primate of the ACC. In the late
1980s, under Falk’s leadership, the ACC entered into discussions with the
American Episcopal Church (AEC) to effect a union between the two bodies. The
AEC had originated in 1968 as a protest of some Episcopalian clergy and laity
against the growing theological and social liberalism of the Episcopal Church,
and it was generally less Anglo-Catholic than the ACNA. The two bodies united
in October 1991, and after the mutual reconsecrations of the bishops of both
bodies, the Primate of the AEC, Anthony Clavier, yielded the primacy to
Archbishop Falk (Clavier subsequently resigned his office of bishop and entered
the Episcopal Church, where he is currently Rector of an Episcopal Church
parish in Arkansas), and the newly united body adopted the name of the Anglican
Church of America (ACA), which it retains to this day (the ACA membership
statistics that I have been able to obtain record four dioceses, 84 congregations
and 138 clergy; for lay membership the record that I have is both incomplete
and records only communicant members, which it numbers at 5,240). However, a
considerable portion of the bishops, clergy and laity of the former Anglican Catholic
Church rejected the union with the AEC and repudiated Archbishop Falk as their
primate, and these subsequently took the name of the Anglican Catholic Church
(Original Province) (ACC - OP) which it retains to this day (the ACC-OP claims
six dioceses, 88 congregations, approximately 110 clergy and approximately
4,000 to 5,000 members). In 1997, personality disputes among the bishops of the
ACC-OP resulted in a split in that body; the minority formed a small body which
terms itself the Holy Catholic Church — Anglican Rite (and that body, in turn,
split in 1999, when strongly Orthodoxophile elements within it, who wished to
repudiate Anglicanismaltogether, formed the Holy Catholic Church - Western
Rite). Meanwhile, upon the retirement of Anthony Clavier as Bishop of the
Diocese of the Eastern United States (DEUS) of the ACA, a dispute over the
election of a successor resulted in 1995 in the secession of a considerable
portion of that diocese from the ACA. These were lead by a bishop of the ACA,
Walter Grundorf, and the body formed by this secession adopted the name of the
Anglican Province of America (three dioceses, 69 congregations, 126 clergy and
roughly 6,000 members): it has Archbishop Grundorf as its primate and is, as
noted above, currently in the midst of a gradual merger with the Reformed
Episcopal Church. There are, of course, numerous other “Continuing Anglican”
bodies in the United States and elsewhere that originated either from splits
within some of the bodies mentioned above, or from subsequent departures from
the Episcopal Church. (An example of the latter might be the Episcopal
Missionary Church which was formed by the retired bishop of the Diocese of
Dallas of the Episcopal Church, A. Donald Davies, in 1991, and which, after
Davies’ subsequent retirement, is now headed by William Millsaps [himself
formerly a bishop of the ACA]; Davies later emerged from retirement and created
another Continuing Anglican body, the Christian Episcopal Church.) I might note
here that, by contrast with the situation in the United States, Continuing
Anglicans in Canada and Australia have managed to remain for the most part
united. In Canada, the Anglican Catholic Church of Canada was originally a part
of ACNA/ACC in 1978, but became an independent body as the bishops of ACNA
began to go their separate ways in 1979 It remains the only significant
Continuing Anglican church in Canada, although, as noted above, the Reformed
Episcopal Church has a presence in Canada as well. In Australia, the decision of the Anglican Church of Australia
to accept the ordination of women to the priesthood in 1992 resulted in the
formation of a Continuing Anglican church, the Anglican Catholic Church of
Australia, which remains the only organized Continuing Anglican presence in
that continent. Archbishop John Hepworth is its current bishop, as well as
Primate of the Traditional Anglican Communion. Statistical information on the
various Continuing Anglican bodies, especially concerning lay members, is of variable
reliability. Still, it seems reasonable to postulate a total lay membership of
the three most considerable Continuing Anglican bodies in the United States,
the ACC-OP, the ACA and the APCK of 25,000 to 30,000 members (of whom perhaps
5,000 live without ready access to the pastoral ministrations of Continuing
Anglican clergy or congregations), and perhaps 250,000 to 500,000 worldwide. In
the United States alone, there are probably between 40 and 45 Continuing
Anglican bodies, many of them tiny in size and some of them perhaps containing more
clergy than lay members.
The Traditional Anglican Communion (TAC) was formed in 1990
by Archbishop Louis Falk of the ACA. It brought together various Continuing
Anglican church bodies throughout the world. In 2006 the TAC consists of 14
bodies: the Anglican Church of America, the Anglican Catholic Church of Canada
(one diocese, 45 congregations), the Missionary Diocese of Central America, the
Missionary Diocese of Puerto Rico, the Anglican Church in Southern Africa -
Traditional Rite, the Church of Umze Wase Tiyopia (South Africa), the
Continuing Anglican Church in Zambia, the Anglican Church of India, the
Orthodox Church of Pakistan, the Nippon Kirisuto Sei Ko Kai (Japan), the Anglican
Catholic Church of Australia. The Church of Torres Strait (Australia), the
Traditional Anglican Church (England) (12 congregations), and the Church of
Ireland - Traditional Rite (three congregations). Archbishop Falk of the ACA
was the first primate of the TAC. In 2002 he was succeeded in this position by
Archbishop John Hepworth of the Anglican Catholic Church of Australia, but Falk
remains archbishop of the ACA, although he has recently announced his
forthcoming retirement, and in October 2006 its bishops chose the Rt. Rev’d
George D. Langberg, Bishop of the Northeast, as Falk’s successor.
The International Communion of the Charismatic Episcopal
Church (ICCEC or CEC) is not an Anglican body, either in its origins or its
current stance, but as it has had an attraction for conservative Episcopalian
clergy and laity sympathetic to the “charismatic movement” and yet with a
liturgical and sacramental orientation it is worth mentioning in this paper.
The CEC formed out of for the most part independent churches with roots in the
Charismatic, Pentecostalist and Wesleyan traditions which, influenced by the
so-called Convergence Movement, between 1976 and 1990 began to blend
charismatic worship with liturgical and sacramental elements drawn largely from
Anglican sources. As time went on, those individuals and churches involved in
this milieu began, through contacts with Evangelicals who had found a home in
Anglican churches and with Catholics with whom they shared in anti-abortion
activism, to have an increasing sense of the traditional
(Catholic and Orthodox) view of the Church’s sacramental
nature and apostolic structure. In June 1992 one of the leaders of this
movement, Austin Randolph Adler, was consecrated a bishop by Bishop Timothy
Barker of the International Free Catholic Communion — a body of decidedly
heterodox and theosophical views — and went on to found The Charismatic
Episcopal Church of North America, of which he became and remains Primate (and,
later, Patriarch); subsequently Bishop Adler consecrated Randolph Sly to the
episcopate. In 1993 Bishop William Millsaps of the Episcopal Missionary Church
(formerly a bishop in the ACA) consecrated Dale Howard as a bishop of the CEC
and reconsecrated Bishops Adler and Sly. The church grew rapidly from 1995
onwards, but by 1996 its bishops had become concerned at the problematic
sources of their Holy Orders and episcopate. In that year they made contact
with the Catholic Apostolic Church of Brazil (Igreja Catolica Apostolica
Brasiliera [ICAB]), a church which had been founded in 1945 by the
excommunicated Roman Catholic bishop Carlos Duarte Costa (1888-1961), who
became first Patriarch of the ICAB (he had been Bishop of Botucatu from 1924 to
1937 and after his resignation in that year was made Bishop of Maura in
partibus, remaining such until his excommunication in July 1945). Duarte Costa’s
successor as patriarch, Luiz Fernando Castillo Mendez, agreed to an
intercommunion agreement between the ICAB and the ICCEC, and on November 5,
Muhlenberg College
Allentown, Pennsylvania
October 14, 2006
Posted by S. M. Hutchens at 09:33 PM | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c5ee953ef00d834be990753ef
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Anglican Taxonomy:
Comments
Superb, Prof. Tighe -- but then, I would have expected no less and no other from you. And many thanks to Dr. Hutchens for posting this. I now have something to share widely with non-Anglican friends to explain accurately, in as brief a compass as possible, the current eecclesiastical (dis-)organization of Anglicanism in the USA.
Posted by: James A. Altena | Oct 23, 2006 6:18:09 AM
For me, I have the same comment I have always held about the continuing bodies. Namely, I consider it utterly shameful that there are so many . I cannot, just cannot, understand why we must have United Anglicans, Anglican Catholics, etc., etc. I think the major drive of all our little bits of the puzzle should be to put that puzzle together into one unified body. Beyond that, should such a move actually be accomplised, to seek jursidiction under the Holy Father as an approved Rite of the Catholic Church. Enough division, time to heal the wounds. These are my comments, such as they are:-)
Chris+
Posted by: Fr. C. G. Vaillancourt | Oct 23, 2006 7:54:07 AM
From my blog: "One wonders about the significance of these requests. Is the Vatican being proactive about receiving into communion an Anglican body, or (and I think this is more likely) are Catholic officials looking for a little help upon finding themselves inundated with letters and emails from a zillion different "Anglican" prelates with impressive titles (Archbishop of Lodi & Metropolitan of All the Americas!) seeking formal ecumenical dialogue?"
It would be interesting to know, Prof. Tighe!
Posted by: Patrick S. Allen+ | Oct 23, 2006 8:26:27 AM
And I thought keeping track of the Orthodox was complicated!
Posted by: Stuart Koehl | Oct 23, 2006 9:48:51 AM
Stuart,
The Orthodox Church may be complicated juristictionally, but at least its major groups (under SCOBA) are in communion with each other and see themselves as all part of one church. During the Episcopal General Convention of 2003, my husband and I (who were Episcopalians at the time) were on a trip to Denver. That Sunday,dismayed at the GCs actions, we visited a "continuing Anglican" parish (Anglican Province of Christ the King.) We realized that we could not join a splinter of a splinter and decided that we had to seriouly look at becoming Orthodox. (We had been "flirting" with Orthodoxy for several years.) We were chrismated the following spring and our only regret is that we didn't do it sooner.
Thank you Prof. Tighe for objectively explaining all the various splinters.
Posted by: Kathy Hanneman | Oct 23, 2006 10:36:18 AM
Kathy,
I am far from having explained "all" the various splinters. There are at least 40-45 Continuing Anglican bodies in the USA alone; and I have passed over in silence some of the more bizarre and/or inconsiderable ones. I regret to some extent having passed over as well the granddaddy of these bodies, the "Anglican Orthodox Church" founded in 1963 by the late (Arch)bishop Jemes Parker Dees (d. 1990) of Statesville, N.C. as a lowchurch body which "morphed" a decade ago into the "Episcopal Orthodox Church/Orthodox Anglican Communion" -- a body on the other end of the "Anglican Spectrum."
Posted by: William Tighe | Oct 23, 2006 10:51:31 AM
Boy, you definitely can't tell the players without a program. I sure the Archbishop and the Vatican also received accompanying flow charts, maps, and a handy acronym reference sheet. This would also make a good reference for anyone wondering about the reasons for the popularity of the non-denominational movement.
Posted by: Ethan Cordray | Oct 23, 2006 1:42:22 PM
"I sure the" should be "I sure hope the"
Posted by: Ethan Cordray | Oct 23, 2006 1:43:12 PM
For the inordinately curious (or those who like alphabet soup), here is a list of 36 Anglican "Continung Church" jurisdictions (taken from the 2005-2006 edition of the "Directory of Traditional Anglican & Episcopal Parishes", available from the Fellowship of Concerned Churchmen, andthe web site listed below.) This does not imply endorsement of any of them. (Full disclosure: I am canonically a member of the EMC under Bp. Millsaps.) Many have their own web sites (marked * before the acronym, as of early 2005). The list does not include the REC, AMiA, or CEC mentioned by Prof. Tighe, as those are strictly speaking not "Continuing Churches" but have separate origins. Most of these groups are Anglo-Catholic to militantly Anglo-Papalist in orientation; a few (mostly in the South) are as militantly Protestant. Some apparently consist of exactly one parish.
A comprehensive site with links to many of these groups (one-stop shopping!) is:
http://anglicansonline.org/communion/nic.html
(Note: This site also contains links to some self-described "inclusive churches" that support the lesbigay agenda, etc., which also call themselves "Anglican." I have not listed those.)
*AAC American Anglican Church (= APGS - Anglican Province of the Good Shepherd)
*ACA Anglican Church in America
*ACC Anglican Catholic Church
*ACI Anglican Church, Inc.
*ACIC Anglican Church International Communion (= ADGS - Anglican Diocese of the Good Shepherd)
ACNA Anglican Church in North America
*AEC Anglican Episcopal Church
*AFCC Anglican Fathers Corpus Christi
*AFDV Anglican Fellowhsip of the Delaware Valley
*AICA Anglican Independent Communion in the Americas
*AMDOT Anglican Missionary Diocese of Texas
AnCC Anglo-Catholic Church
*AOC Anglican Orthodox Church
AOCCI Anglican Old Catholic Church International
*APA Anglican Province of America
*ApAC Apostolic Anglican Church
*APCK Anglican Province of Christ the King
*ARCC Anglican Rite Catholic Church
*AROCC Anglican Rite Old Catholic Church
*CAC Catholic Anglican Church
*CEEC Communion of Evangelical Episcopal Churches
*DHC Diocese of the Holy Cross
*EACC Ecumenical Anglican Catholic Church
*EMC Episcopal Missionary Church
*EACiA Evangelical Anglican Church in America
*EACoA Evangelical Anglican Church of America
HCC-AR Holy Catholic Church - Anglican Rite
*HCC-WR Holy Catholic Church - Western Rite
MEC Missionary Episcopal Church
*OAC Orthodox Anglican Church
*RACC Reformed Anglican Catholic Church
*SEC Southern Episcopal Church
*TPEC Traditional Protestant Episcopal Church
*UAC United Anglican Church
*UECNA United Episcopal Church of North America
*XnEC Christian Epsiscopal Church
Since his is a summary report, Prof. Tighe of course does not go into minutae about various figures, such as the amazingly chequered career of former "Bp." Anthony Clavier, or the Continuing Church jurisdiction whose entire hierarchy of bishops and virtually all of its priests are divorced and remarried men with previous spouses still living. As Prof. Tighe indicated, many of these groups have repeatedly merged with and split from one another, and renamed or otherwise reinvented themselves. Rome is of course entirely right to approach all of this with great circumspection, alas. All in all, a scandal rather than a witness to Christ, as are all the unhappy divisions of Christendom.
Posted by: James A. Altena | Oct 23, 2006 6:58:03 PM
James,
One little correction. The CEEC is no more Anglican in orientation or "formal profession" than the CEC. Rather, is was formed by those elements in the "Convergence Movement" who could not accept the CEC's absolute prohibition of ordination of women to the episcopate, priesthood or diaconate, and it leaves such "ordinations" to the discretion of each of its bishops.
I note the absence from your list of the "Anglican Rite Synod of America." I know nothing about this body -- perhaps it no longer exists -- but when I stumbled across its website some years ago I was startled to see that it consisted almost entirely of invective against and abuse of various personalities of the "Anglican Continuum" -- some of it couched in the most vulgar and "frank" terms imaginable, and more than a little suggestive of derangement on the part of the owner or owners of ther site. (But I must immediately go on to warn that this body mentioned above has to be distinguished from the estimable Anglican Rite Synod in the Americas, which, with the exception of one of its bishops and his clergy, merged with the Anglican Province of America in 2002.)
Posted by: William Tighe | Oct 23, 2006 8:20:49 PM
What do you do when a couple of guys show up at your door dressed as bishops, claiming valid orders and jurisdiction over a functioning body of laity and clergy and requesting to be received corporately into the Catholic Church on their own terms?
I suppose you offer them a cup of coffee, chat with them for a while and if you think they might be credible people you ask someone who knows something about them to write up a memo.
It is hard to see how the Vatican could possibly take any of these groups seriously.
Most of these groups are smaller than a large urban parish. As for the credibility of their leadership....
Posted by: charles R. Williams | Oct 24, 2006 5:32:34 AM
>>>What do you do when a couple of guys show up at your door dressed as bishops, claiming valid orders and jurisdiction over a functioning body of laity and clergy and requesting to be received corporately into the Catholic Church on their own terms?<<<
Isn't that how the Evangelical Orthodox Mission became the better half of the Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of America?
By the way, I see that another parish in Northern Virginia has bolted after being unable to reach an agreement with Bishop Lee for alternative jurisdiction. Rather than fight the bishop over parish property, they simply disbanded themselves and turned the property back to the bishop--complete with a $432,000 mortgage. Tuition will be going uo at Episcopal Day Schools across Northern Virginia next year.
Posted by: Stuart Koehl | Oct 24, 2006 5:50:34 AM
As a part of a "splinter", as Kathy Hanneman mentioned, I can say that it is sad about our "unhappy divisions". However, here in Canada, the Anglican Catholic Church of Canada (not mentioned in the above list) is a very vibrant yet small entity. There is something like 50 congregations all under Bp Peter Wilkinson OSG. The decaying Anglican Church of Canada, from whence most of them have fled, has really forced our hand as to where we can turn for shelter...with their endorsement of women in Orders, gays and lesbians at the altar, and the whole New Age agenda.
The godliness and sanctity of our bishops is an inspiration to me personally.
Posted by: Dominic Glisinski | Oct 24, 2006 5:54:59 AM
Dear Prof. Tighe,
Many thanks for your corrections and further comments. There was no listing for the "Anglican Rite Synod of America", hence its absence. But (to fill its place perversely, perhaps?), there is a web site attacking the ongoing merger of the REC and APA, with shrill denunciations of "popery" and "Marianism" and what-not.
Dear Charles Williams,
Yes, some of the groups fit your description and should be so treated. But others, though small, are composed of faithful and serious Christians pursuing a very noble endeavor -- what my own rector recently referred to as the classical Anglican way's "peculiar genius for making saints of sinners" [peculiar in the sense of distinctive, not in the sense of odd] -- and deserve better and more seious consideration. It is too easy to be dismissive or contemptuous of apparently eccentric small groups -- such as one composed of twelve fishermen and tax collectors following an itinerant preacher. . . .
It is possible that in God's providnece, the time for the Anglican way as a distinctive expression of the Christian faith has come and gone. But as one for whom that way has (in the Psalmist's image) entered like oil into my bones, I pray not. An expression of the Christian faith that has produced such works of genius as the classical Book of Common Prayer (BCP) and the King James Bible, or saints such as Lancelot Andrewes, Jeremy Taylor, William Law, Edward Pusey, and Eric Mascall, is not to be dismissed or discarded lightly. God willing, the initiatives taken by both Rome and Orthodoxy to find a place for that inheritance within their own ranks will develop further and contribute toward the visible reunion of Christendom.
(Unfortunately Rome so far has botched this in its Anglican Use Service Book by turning to the fraudulent and heretical so-called 1979 BCP instead of the classical and orthodox 1549-1928 BCP. If Pope Benedict XVI and Cardinal Arinze, both much better informed about matters Anglican than many of their fellow RC prelates, were to intervene directly on this score, much better could be expected. The AOC was smart enough both to adopt the classical BCP rite and then to make about as few emendations to it as were necessary to make it conform to Orthodox theology.)
My point in saying this is that liturgy (even in certain far less structured Protestant forms, which are in fact liturgical whether their adherents realize it or not) is one of the most powerful means for shaping souls spiritually. Given the diversity of human natures and souls, each classical liturgical form (Roman, Orthodox, Anglican, etc.) has arisen and flourished because it has a distinctive spiritual genius for sustaining and nourishing souls. So long as the basic form and content of the liturgy is orthodox, the church should do its utmost to preserve and encourage each as a means toward salvation for those to whom it is peculiarly fitted. Whether one looks at the Catholic recusants in 16th c. Europe, the Old Believers in 17th c. Russia, or classical Anglicans and Tridentine RCs today, untold misery and injury to the faith is wrought when self-styled professional liturgists take it in hand to force their particular theories and forms of liturgy down other peoples' throats.
I often chuckle over a classic definition:
"Liturgist (n.): An affliction sent by the special providence of God, such that, in a time of no overt persecution, no catholic need be denied the privilege of suffering for the faith."
Posted by: James A. Altena | Oct 24, 2006 6:51:31 AM
Well said, James. I am in one of those small groups, the ACC. I am sorry that it is small, but that doesn't detract from the greatness of the liturgy, the beauty of the Book of Common Prayer, or the wisdom and holiness of the bishops and priests. I just pray that there will be unity among Anglicans in the future.
Posted by: Judy Warner | Oct 24, 2006 9:03:15 AM
>>>Whether one looks at the Catholic recusants in 16th c. Europe, the Old Believers in 17th c. Russia, or classical Anglicans and Tridentine RCs today, untold misery and injury to the faith is wrought when self-styled professional liturgists take it in hand to force their particular theories and forms of liturgy down other peoples' throats.<<<
Leaving aside the Catholic recusants, who it seems to me belong in a different category from the Old Believers, classic Anglicans and the Tridentine Catholics, these liturgical controversies are in fact not about liturgy at all, and the liturgists in question are not really focused on arcane points of ritual or in recovery of the authentic Tradition. Rather, recognizing the essential truth of lex orandi lex credendi, they make liturgy the "privileged space" in which they pursue a broader agenda. In the case of the Nikonian reforms, that agenda was overtly political: Tsar Alexei and Patriarch Nikon wished to displace Constantinople as the center of the Orthodox world, and so sought to bring Russian usage into line with the Greek so as to avoid divergences in an era when ritual uniformity was seen as a mark of orthodoxy.
With the Anglicans and the Tridentine, the agendas are more social than political. In both cases, liturgical elites reflecting the values of the academic world in which they flourish, are attempting to reconcile the Church to the modern world, to make the Church "of" as well as "in" the world. To the extent that they are able to interject the contemporary worldview into the liturgy, which is supposed to transcend time, they can slowly redirect the Church into the secular stream of consciousness. This is accomplished in many different ways, from dumbing down the language of the liturgy, eliminating ambiguities in favor of didactic statements of the liturgist's own belief, suppression of traditional modes of expression and piety, and an overall effort to "de-mystify" something which is above all else a mystical experience. The modern world has great difficulties with Christian mysticism, though it wholeheartedly accepts all sorts of illogical supersition that goes under the rubric of "spirituality" and "mysticism".
Posted by: Stuart Koehl | Oct 24, 2006 9:33:35 AM
Dear Stuart,
Your comments are correct, but I was addressing a different point -- not the motives behind liturgical revision, but simply the forcible imposition of a single uniform liturgy as "one size fits all" upon all the faithful without regard to pastoral considerations, which is a common element to all the instances I cited. (Cf. also the efforts by the RC hierarchy in the USA a century ago to quash the Byzantine Rite, which led to mass defections of ethnically Slavic congregations back to Orthodoxy.)
Despite publication of the Anglican Rite Service book, the attitude of almost all of the Roman hierarchy toward an "Anglican" rite within the RC church in the USA has been one of utter indifference or overt hostility, similar to that encountered by some RCs desiring availability of the Tridentine Mass. (It didn't help recently that the bishop originally appointed to oversee it was Cardinal Law.) Indeed, the book reflects this, in that the putative RC Anglican Rite is a mish-mash of Rite I and Rite II from the (fraudulently titled) 1979 "Book of Common Prayer" with the Novus Ordo. It has no integrity as a rite whatsoever, and lends new dimensions to the concept of "cafeteria catholic." The general (patronizing) attitude (shared by some laity as well) among the RC hierarchy in the USA toward the Anglican Rite is that it should only be a temporary sop until such pathetic pseudo-catholic Anglican converts can grow up enough to become REAL RCs and attend a real RC liturgy (i.e., the Novus Ordo, which is of course a decidedly unreal liturgy, as too many longsuffering orthodox RC faithful can testify).
The Anglican Rite Service book was also a terrible botch because, by drawing on the 1979 book instead of the authentic classical 1928 BCP (as set in the Anglican and American Missals), Rome lost its best chance at attracting stalwartly orthodox Anglican Catholics to its fold. (Of course, some of the Roman hierarchy doesn't want more of such Catholics, alas....) But then, the folks who produced the Novus Ordo and the 1979 BCP are peas from the same liturgical pod.
I don't know of a single Anglican who would fall on a sword for the 1979 liturgies, but I know plenty (including myself) for whom one major reason they stay within some form of Anglicanism, rather than going to Rome or Orthodoxy, is to keep the beloved classical BCP for daily worship. (Though for some of the clergy the main issue instead is reordination and clerical celibacy. The few married Anglican priests who are re-ordained by Rome are either rectors of "Anglican Use" parishes that came over en bloc, or are relegated to chaplaincies at universities, hospitals, etc. They can't be assigend to mainstream RC parishes lest it increase agitation among the laity for the general discipline of clerical celibacy to be dropped alotgether.)
In the realm of "this would be amusing if it wasn't so viciously stupid" there is a British eccentric -- a Tridentine Latin Mass advocate of the "all Protestants will burn in Hell" stripe -- who writes books and articles claiming that Vatican II was inspired by and modelled upon Thomas Cranmer and the classical BCP!
The fate of the AOC Western Rite is less clear. The AOC hierarchy firmly supports it, but the number of WR parishes is still very small, and those EO laity who retain a reflexive hostility to all things Western (a considerable number, alas) refuse to regard anyone who uses a Western Rite as Orthodox. (And some Western RCs repay the compliment in kind to their Byzantine Rite brethren.) It is one of the issues on the table in talks between the various canonical Orthodox bodies in this country aimed at visible reunion.
Posted by: James A. Altena | Oct 24, 2006 5:18:14 PM
Just a point of clarification:
In my own limited experience (in Fort Worth, TX) I have seen some former episcopal priests with very successful ministries in mainstream RC parishes. They are serving novus ordo, but (to steal a line from one of them) they sing Ave Maria instead of Kum Ba Ya. People like it, and their churches are thriving. One of them has even taken a leadership role in the diocese.
As for the Western Rite in the Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese, we're getting stronger all the time!
Posted by: David Lewis | Oct 24, 2006 7:31:42 PM
If they are in regular Novus Ordo RC parishes, I assume that all of those reordained former Anglican priests are celibates. I would be interested in hearing of any exceptions to that rule -- particularly if one is a rector instead of a curate. I wish them well.
Posted by: James A. Altena | Oct 24, 2006 8:05:58 PM
They're married. I've heard it said that the two best catholic priests in Fort Worth are married. One, as I mentioned has a diocesan level leadership position (I don't know if he still serves as parish), but both of them are (or were) rectors. Maybe North Texas is a good place for former anglicans- WR orthodox do well there, too.
It may just be about supply and demand. How picky can the RC hierarchy be if they need priests?
Posted by: David Lewis | Oct 24, 2006 11:25:37 PM
Dear Mr. Altena:
I believe the "eccentric" to whom you refer was the late Michael Davies. I do not think he maintained that "all Protestants will burn in Hell", though he was an opponent of Vatican II's declaration on religious liberty who believed that in a Catholic state Protestants should live under the same restrictions imposed on them in Franco Spain - a view with which I disagree.
His argument was not that the NOVUS ORDO was modelled on the old Book of Common Prayer but that many of the ritual elements of the Tridentine Rite omitted from the NO were the same ones which the BCP omitted for the purpose of making it a more "Protestant" ritual. BTW I presume that Evanglelical Anglicans throughout that Church's history do and always have agreed with this view. (He believed that the BCP could certainly produce a valid Mass if said by a validly ordained priest with the correct intentions; he held that Anglican Orders were invalid not because of the BCP communion service but because of defects in the Anglican Ordination Rite.)
A much better example of the sort of thing you criticise is the recent article in LATIN MASS magazine (can't remember date or author's name) which denounced the idea of a permanent Anglican Use Uniate rite purely on the grounds of its historical associations - a view which IMHO is right down there with Archbishop Ireland's mistreatment of Eastern Rite Catholics.
Posted by: hibernicus | Oct 25, 2006 9:22:17 AM
Michael Davies was indeed who I had in mind. While you know about him than I do, Hibernicus, his book and articles were larded with all sorts of bigoted invective not substantially different from the recent Latin Mass article you cite.
"His argument was not that the NOVUS ORDO was modelled on the old Book of Common Prayer but that many of the ritual elements of the Tridentine Rite omitted from the NO were the same ones which the BCP omitted for the purpose of making it a more "Protestant" ritual. BTW I presume that Evangelical Anglicans throughout that Church's history do and always have agreed with this view."
I find this a bit oddly stated. Evangelical Anglicans desire not just the omission of "many of the ritual elements of the Tridentine Rite" from the BCP but rejection of the Mass altogether. Just omitting certain ritual would not be enough (it could signify such rejection, but does not do so necessarily), which is part of what makes Davies' argument so absurd.
Another issue is that while Cranmer was the primary author/compiler of the original 1549 & 1552 BCPs, unlike with the major Continental Reformers it was not left to him as such to determine the meaning and signification of those rites. That instead was the result of a long historical process, and within historical mainstream Anglicanism even the majoritarian Low Church party seldom inclined to the extreme of Cranmer's later views on the Eucharist. (Though I would dispute Diarmaid McCulloch's assertions that Cranmer in effect became a Zwinglian on this point.) Of course, one of the peculiarities of Anglicanism is that, lacking a single magisterial Reformer as a systematic theologian in doctrine as opposed to liturgy, it never attained a single authoritative consensus in the interpretation of the eucharistic doctrine of the BCP, but (in the general spirit of the 39 Articles) left room for a wide but not unbounded diversity of views.
Posted by: James A. Altena | Oct 26, 2006 7:40:24 AM
This is a helpful summary...but it needs to be updated regarding the AMiA. They don't directly (via the AMerican bihsops) ordain women to the priesthood...but they will provide for it. Kolini, from the Rwanda, has asked them to alter their structures so that they are able to provide for the ordination of women. They are doing it...and women can be ordained to the priesthood via Rwanda.
http://www.anglicanmissioninamerica.org/index.cfm?id=827787CA-FCF5-4180-A5A226170E4840B9
Posted by: David | Oct 26, 2006 8:02:23 AM
In the news this morning, two of the largest conservative parishes in the Episcopal Diocese of Virginia, the Falls Church and Truro parishes, have completed a 40-day period of reflection on the state of their relationship with the ECUSA. At this point, the vestries of both parishes will now draw up a series of options for the members of the parishes, which some time in December will decide whether to sever their connection with the diocese, and if so, what their future relationship will be with the rest of the Anglican communion.
These are not only conservative parishes, they are among the largest and richest in Virginia. If they cede from the diocese, or worse, from the ECUSA altogether, it would be a serious blow to the prestige and finances of the diocese and the ECUSA generally.
Posted by: Stuart Koehl | Oct 26, 2006 9:14:04 AM
>>>They're married. I've heard it said that the two best catholic priests in Fort Worth are married. One, as I mentioned has a diocesan level leadership position (I don't know if he still serves as parish), but both of them are (or were) rectors. Maybe North Texas is a good place for former anglicans- WR orthodox do well there, too.<<<
It is with a deep sense of irony that I note there are presently more married priests of the Latin rite in the United States (I think the number is around 80) than there are married Eastern Catholic priests in all our jurisdictions combined. To think that in 1896, Bishop John Ireland's refusal to grant faculties to Fr. Alexis Toth resulted in a schism in the Ruthenian Church that caused more than 250,000 of its members to enter the Russian Orthodox Orthodox Mission in North America (now the OCA). Not content with one attempt at ecclesiacide, the Latin bishops in the U.S. did it again in 1930 by getting Rome to suppress the married priesthood. This time, more than 80,000 Ruthenian Catholics left to form the Carpatho-Rusyn Greek Catholic Orthodox Diocese of Johnstown.
And now, the best priests in the Latin Church are. . . married! Who'da thunk it? In the meanwhile, we still can't get the Latin bishops in this country to emulate their Australian peers by issuing a statement saying that the married priesthood is integral to the Eastern Churches, and that they have no objection to our ordaining married men to that office. Sheesh!
Posted by: Stuart Koehl | Oct 27, 2006 6:14:31 PM
David,
What is your basis for making the claim that, ABp Kolini "has asked them to alter their structures so that they are able to provide for the ordination of women. They are doing it. . ."?
There is nothing in the press release you referenced to indicate this is the case. Kathy King was one of two female priests who affiliated with AMiA from the beginning. As such, her call to Canada really is nothing new, it's something that was provided for in the AMiA since the beginning. The other woman has left active ministry to pursue graduate studies (at least that is my understanding). In addition, as Bp Murphy indicates in the press release, ACiC is a separate body from AMiA.
The subject of women's ordination to the priesthood came up at this past winter conference and I was told in no uncertain terms by one of our bishops that there are no plans to change our current policy.
So, if you've got a source that says otherwise, I'd like to see it.
Kamilla
Posted by: Kamilla | Oct 27, 2006 8:20:28 PM
I have been away for some time, and am only now reading these comments. In undertaking research on the AMiA, I was informed about the provision that Abp. Kolini wished to be made for congregations that wished to have women ordained for them, or that wished to be able to call priestesses leaving ECUSA to serve them. I was assured that whatever "structure" is being set up under Abp. Kolini to effect this result, it will be a separate entity from the AMiA, and I was told that at the present time no more than one priestess/congregation has availed itself of this "opportunity" with perhaps one more in prospect. In then light of these facts, I decided simply to pass over the matter -- as, for example, I did with regard to the fascinating, if somewhat strange, history of the small but "venerable" (at least in terms of age) "Anglican Orthodox Church" whichb James Parker Dees founded in 1963 as a very "low church" body, but which in 1998 split when its bishop and the majority of its few parishes went "high church" and changed their name to the "Episcopal Orthodox Church."
Posted by: William Tighe | Oct 31, 2006 7:50:52 PM
The AOC has experienced a couple of such splits. Clavier was orginally a priest in the AOC, before becoming founding bishop of the AEC. However, the AOC as such still exists, although it primarily seems to be a non-American Church at this time:
http://www.anglicanorthodoxchurch.org/
Posted by: Fr. Greg | Feb 21, 2007 5:32:25 PM
The convergence movement with the CEC and the CEEC also now facing divisions by divisions and may loosing their faith and practices of the original catholic anglican tradition.
Posted by: Bishop JOHN SD Raju | Jul 5, 2007 1:44:59 PM
The comments on the Falk schism are somewhat inaccurate. He and a minority of the college of bishops of the ACC desperately wanted to come into communion with Klavier and his church. The college of bishops voted not to enter into communion with this group. Falk and two other bishops then acted unilaterally to effect the communion and they were then self excommunicated when they allowed themselves to be conditionally reconsecrated knowing full well that the orders bestowed on the Anglican Catholic Church by Bishop Albert Chambers are without doubt valid by anyone's standards.
They lost all title to provincial property of the ACC and had to forfeit any claim to the name and trade marks of the Anglican Catholic Church.
Posted by: Fr. John | Aug 4, 2007 3:04:21 PM
I must give you guys credit: you make Orthodox jurisdictional disputes look positively straightforward.
Posted by: Stuart Koehl | Aug 4, 2007 4:26:03 PM
"Fr. John's" remarks, while technically correct in certain (not all) facets, represent the official ACC party line and should be taken with a shaker of salt. (And of course, he doesn't bother to talk about the further schisms that have beset his own tiny body since the break-up with Archbp. Falk.)
I have absolutely no brief for Archbp. Falk, and have never been a member of either the ACA or the ACC. But the ACC attempt to "depose" him was a Stalinist show trial that degenerated into pure farce (for which the Marx brothers could have written the script), as related in detail in "The Christian Challenge". Full disclosure: Auburn Traycik, editor and sole full-time employee of the "Challenge", is an ally of Falk, so I'm sure that it's not an unbiased account either. But is even half of the factual details in the article are true, it's pretty damning. It began with the ACC not being able to get a quorum of bishops together to hold a legal trial, and ended when the stenographer hired for half a day left, leaving no one authorized to make a legal record of the proceedings and forcing their cancellation!
And the ACC resort to litigation against the ACA in the face of I Cor. 6 speaks volumes as well.
Stuart's observation is, alas, all too often justified.
Posted by: James A. Altena | Aug 4, 2007 6:55:36 PM
>>>Stuart's observation is, alas, all too often justified.<<<
Like trying to differentiate among the different Jewish resistance groups in Monty Python's "Life of Bryan":
BRIAN:
Are you the Judean People's Front?
REG:
F--- off!
BRIAN:
What?
REG:
Judean People's Front. We're the People's Front of Judea! Judean People's Front. Cawk.
FRANCIS:
Wankers.
BRIAN:
Can I... join your group?
REG:
No. Piss off.
BRIAN:
I didn't want to sell this stuff. It's only a job. I hate the Romans as much as anybody.
PEOPLE'S FRONT OF JUDEA:
Shhhh. Shhhh. Shhh. Shh. Shhhh.
REG:
Schtum.
JUDITH:
Are you sure?
BRIAN:
Oh, dead sure. I hate the Romans already.
REG:
Listen. If you really wanted to join the P.F.J., you'd have to really hate the Romans.
BRIAN:
I do!
REG:
Oh, yeah? How much?
BRIAN:
A lot!
REG:
Right. You're in. Listen. The only people we hate more than the Romans are the f---ing Judean People's Front.
P.F.J.:
Yeah...
JUDITH:
Splitters.
P.F.J.:
Splitters...
FRANCIS:
And the Judean Popular People's Front.
P.F.J.:
Yeah. Oh, yeah. Splitters. Splitters...
LORETTA:
And the People's Front of Judea.
P.F.J.:
Yeah. Splitters. Splitters...
REG:
What?
LORETTA:
The People's Front of Judea. Splitters.
REG:
We're the People's Front of Judea!
LORETTA:
Oh. I thought we were the Popular Front.
REG:
People's Front! C-huh.
FRANCIS:
Whatever happened to the Popular Front, Reg?
REG:
He's over there.
P.F.J.:
Splitter!
Posted by: Stuart Koehl | Aug 4, 2007 7:25:32 PM
This site seems to have a few "fifth columnists" and "agent provocateurs" as well as people who like to use exclamation points and quotation marks to cast aspersions. I mistakenly thought this was a site that was sponsored by "Touchstone" magazine. My apologies.
Play nice children.
Posted by: Fr. John | Aug 4, 2007 8:42:07 PM
In reference to the ICCEC article, it is clear that the ICCEC is on it's way out. I was deeply involved in it with a family member who was a priest in the ICCEC. Even he became corrupt. We still pray for him. My whole family has been affected by the corruption and greed of the ICCEC. I personally lost thousands of dollars. Now, I don't want anything to do with denominations. I still have a close walk with God, but I can't get close to people in churches.
Posted by: Ex - ICCEC member | Nov 5, 2007 4:13:24 PM
We need reconciliation even at this juncture. Otherwise we will face tremendous divisions and even unhealthy competition between the church groups which may confuse the gentiles to join the Church. The so called Primates of the Churches must set their minds for real ecumenism and somebody must have to initiate to bell the cat.
Posted by: Bishop John Sd Raju | Mar 10, 2008 3:23:27 PM
Given the current news on possible ties between Rome and Traditional Anglican Communion, I think we need to be clear about ACA. Tighe writes "Anglican Church of America", but I believe the US subsidiary of TAC is "Anglican Church in America" -- the name used by a commenter above.
Posted by: John B. Chilton | Jan 30, 2009 9:41:20 AM
Recent Comments
Bloggers
Popular Threads
Archives
OLD ARCHIVES 2002-2004
From May 2002–December 2004, Mere Comments was published via Blogger.com. Every post is still available at the link above.
Member since 12/2004