Woodbridge VA Church & Uganda

[MrJim]

Article (http://aacblog.classicalanglican.net/archives/002372.html)

This is probably old news to y'all but I didn't see a thread....

I read about this in the newspaper a couple of days ago. I was surprised and wondered about the "Anglican Province of Uganda". I never thought of Uganda as a hotbed of conservative Anglicanism...

I get into this area in my work, and was reading the article while I was traveling through Northern VA, just thought I'd ask about it.

[Fairbairn]

We have a missionary Bishop from the Uganda Diocese in the UK. The very weighty Bishop Sandy Millar, no less - all with the blessing of the Bishop of London and the Archbishop of Canterbury. They recognise that Sandy reaches the parts that other bishops do not reach.

[erin74]

We have a diocese of Uganda who are now linked with our diocese. Previously they were linked with one in the US, from who they received substantial financial support. They chose to forgo this in favour of a link with our diocese, despite the loss of the money (we cannot offer anywhere near the same kind of financial support). They did this because of the actions of the diocese they were previously aligned with - they saw the theological divide as being too great.

[MrJim]

So what sort of issues come up when a congregation wants to go from being under one diocese to another?

[higgs2]

So what sort of issues come up when a congregation wants to go from being under one diocese to another?

The congregation has to find a new building.

[Fairbairn]

The congregation has to find a new building.

That's the biggie

[gtsecc]

So what sort of issues come up when a congregation wants to go from being under one diocese to another?
Lots.
Ideally, there is one bishop per area, but now we have a Roman Catholic Bishop, 2 or 3 Orthodox Bishops, an Anglican Bishop and now possibly a flying Bishop.
The Diocese owns the property, so if you leave, then you leave the building. All in all, it is more than irregular, it is simply not what churches do - in that leaving a diocese hurts the diocese.

[longhair75]

friend gtsecc,
Lots.
Ideally, there is one bishop per area, but now we have a Roman Catholic Bishop, 2 or 3 Orthodox Bishops, an Anglican Bishop and now possibly a flying Bishop.
The Diocese owns the property, so if you leave, then you leave the building. All in all, it is more than irregular, it is simply not what churches do - in that leaving a diocese hurts the diocese.

i know i keep asking you this question, and i am really trying to understand this, but just why would the roman bishop and the two or three orthodox bishops have anything at all to do with a shift in anglican diocese control and authority?

[MrJim]

Lots.
Ideally, there is one bishop per area, but now we have a Roman Catholic Bishop, 2 or 3 Orthodox Bishops, an Anglican Bishop and now possibly a flying Bishop.
The Diocese owns the property, so if you leave, then you leave the building. All in all, it is more than irregular, it is simply not what churches do - in that leaving a diocese hurts the diocese.

:scratch:But they are still anglican right? I mean, even if of a different diocese they are still of the same main body? Sort of how whether you are Greek or Antiochian you're still Eastern Orthodox.

Whether part of American or Ugandan diocese, you're still part of the larger anglican body?

[gtsecc]

But they are still anglican right? I mean, even if of a different diocese they are still of the same main body? Sort of how whether you are Greek or Antiochian you're still Eastern Orthodox.

Whether part of American or Ugandan diocese, you're still part of the larger anglican body?

Yes, but the church set up by the disciples did not have overlapping Bishops. We must all strive to remedy this situation. Even in unified parts of the Orthodox Church, they will tell you they are not supposed to have this situation. I believe all of them were originally going to reunite under the OCA, but they have not. For us Anglicans, we may need flying Bishops for pastoral concerns, but it is not ideal, and we should use it as a last resort.

[john23237]

in that leaving a diocese hurts the diocese.

I honestly do not wish to sound harsh, but in this case perhaps not. I know Bishops Lee and Jones and can tell you that each has bend over backward in attempting to settle the differences between this diocese and a handful of extreme conservative parishes in the Northern Virginia area. The parishes in question will have no part of it. It is a very sad state of affairs, but, to be blunt about it, this diocese has suffered enough from their actions. Their going in peace is all that is left.:sigh:

[gtsecc]

I honestly do not wish to sound harsh, but in this case perhaps not. I know Bishops Lee and Jones and can tell you that each has bend over backward in attempting to settle the differences between this diocese and a handful of extreme conservative parishes in the Northern Virginia area. The parishes in question will have no part of it. It is a very sad state of affairs, but, to be blunt about it, this diocese has suffered enough from their actions. Their going in peace is all that is left.:sigh:
Like I said:

...we may need flying Bishops for pastoral concerns, but it is not ideal, and we should use it as a last resort.

[john23237]

Like I said:

Perhaps you are right my friend. At this point, given the state of affairs in this diocese, I no longer think I have any idea of the proper course of action in this matter. All I can do is pray God will help us as we seem unable or unwilling to find an answer on our own.

[MrJim]

Two questions:

1. What is a "flying bishop"?

2. Would a parish like that be considered "schismatic"? And would the receiving diocese, by accepting a parish part of another diocese, be considered same, or at least part of a problem?

[gtsecc]

1. A Bishop in one geographical location with juristiction in another geographical location. For example, a Church in diocese X is under an African Bishop, not the normal Bishop of Diocese X.

2. complicated answer

[Fairbairn]

It's not true that there should only be one bishop in a diocese. Dioceses traditionally operate with more than one bishop - The Bishop and assistant bishops.

It is perfectly reasonable for The Bishop to invite retired bishops to serve in his diocese.

One of the great growth points of Anglicanism was through the church planting work of missionary bishops in Victorian times. We sent missionary bishops to Africa, and now the are in a position to send missionary bishops to us to plant churches.

A missionary bishop is not the same as a 'flying bishop' (or rather a Provincial Episcopal Visitor), although they are similar in that they both serve at the invitation of the Diocesan Bishop.

This is a much better way to operate than removing yourself from the Anglican Province, as this Virginia church has done. It would have been easier and less painful for the Diocesan bishop to invite a missionary bishop into his territory to assist him in his ministry.

[gtsecc]

It's not true that there should only be one bishop in a diocese. Dioceses traditionally operate with more than one bishop - The Bishop and assistant bishops.
This is simply factually incorrect.

Sure there are assistant and sufferigan Bishops, but they are not from a different geographic area.

Bishops of different geographic areas with parishes in an area overseen by a different bishop is highly irregular. It is the basis for us Anglicans rejecting the Bishop of Rome's jurisdiction in England for one thing.

[Fairbairn]

This is simply factually incorrect.

Sure there are assistant and sufferigan Bishops, but they are not from a different geographic area.

Bishops of different geographic areas with parishes in an area overseen by a different bishop is highly irregular. It is the basis for us Anglicans rejecting the Bishop of Rome's jurisdiction in England for one thing.


When a Bishop retires, it is quite common for him to continue to work in an assistant role at the invitation of the Diocesan bishop. There is nothing to say that he cannot do this work in a diocese other than the one he last served in, or in which he was consecrated.

[gtsecc]

When a Bishop retires, it is quite common for him to continue to work in an assistant role at the invitation of the Diocesan bishop. There is nothing to say that he cannot do this work in a diocese other than the one he last served in, or in which he was consecrated.
um, you are right, we don't shoot Bishops when they retire, but their retirement does mean they no longer have ecclesial authority.

[Aymn27]

The congregation has to find a new building.
That's going to depend on state law's and on a case by case basis.

[Aymn27]

:scratch:But they are still anglican right? I mean, even if of a different diocese they are still of the same main body? Sort of how whether you are Greek or Antiochian you're still Eastern Orthodox.

Whether part of American or Ugandan diocese, you're still part of the larger anglican body?
Yes, they are still Anglican and under irregular circumstances are under a non-geographical bishop. This will all be remedied once a decision is made in accordance to the actions of TEC - if they remain in the Anglican Communion - I seriously doubt Uganda will. If TEC is excused from the AC, then the rightful "Anglican" parish will be the Ugandan one.

I would be willing to bet that traditionally, during heresies and other highly contensious periods - more than one bishop was located in one geograpical location or a bishop had jurisdiction where he was not geograpically located. Desperate times call for desperate measures.

[MrJim]

Yes, they are still Anglican and under irregular circumstances are under a non-geographical bishop. This will all be remedied once a decision is made in accordance to the actions of TEC - if they remain in the Anglican Communion - I seriously doubt Uganda will. If TEC is excused from the AC, then the rightful "Anglican" parish will be the Ugandan one.

I would be willing to bet that traditionally, during heresies and other highly contensious periods - more than one bishop was located in one geograpical location or a bishop had jurisdiction where he was not geograpically located. Desperate times call for desperate measures.

Sounds like the anglican church has some particularly trying times ahead...:crossrc:

[Simon_Templar]

virginia is one of the areas that has a number of exceptions to the rule that the diocese owns the property. Many of the Parishes in virginia were founded prior to the formation of the country and thus they predate the formation of the Episcopal Church.

So those parishes owned their own property before the TEC even existed.

[higgs2]

Sounds like the anglican church has some particularly trying times ahead...:crossrc:

We can handle it. With God's help.