Monday, June 16, 2014

Looking Backward

A Nicene Prohibition forbade a Bishop to exercise his authoritative episcopal functions within the limits of the Diocese of another Bishop . . . [but intervention may be justified] by the Historic Episcopate, wherever existing, unscriptural terms of communion doctrine are exacted, departures from primitive catholic doctrine which are unauthorized and unsound are inculcated, unhistoric domination of an alien episcopal authority is imposed, and unwholesome and immoral practices in the discipline of daily life are permitted and encouraged. If believing souls call aloud for relief from such encompassing error and wrong, then the entering-in for help would seem to be rather a rightful catholic protection of oppressed orthodoxy, than an uncatholic intrusion into a prohibited cure.   

Another polemical outburst from a representative of schismatic Anglican conservatism?

Well, no, it's actually the pronouncement of the Joint Committee on the Increased Responsibilities of the Church of the General Convention of The Episcopal Church in 1898, regarding the extension of episcopal oversight to the new American jurisdictions of Cuba and Puerto Rico. How times change!          


Philip Wainwright said...

Very interesting. Did the Episcopal Church act on the basis of the report?

Jeremy Bonner said...

To be honest, this was a little tongue-in-cheek because the report was of course talking about Rome, not about about other varieties of Anglicanism.

Did they act? Well Puerto Rico got a bishop, so I suppose you could consider that a response.

Out in the Pacific, interestingly enough, Charles Brent adopted a deliberate policy of confining Episcopal missionary efforts to the pagan highlands and not interfering with Roman Catholics in the Philippines. He also refused to have anything to do with the comity agreement under which the remaining Protestant missionary groups divided up the islands into geographic denominational jurisdictions.

Philip Wainwright said...

I consider it the same response, made for the same reason, as was made by all those African bishops consecrating bishops for the USA a few years ago, about which the Episcopal Church was so critical. Wish I'd known about it then!