Introduction

Since the publication of my article about a month ago, a number of responses have been published here on North American Anglican and throughout the web. My hope is to respond to everything I can, succinctly and in good faith.

My Stance

First, many have pointed out that in my original article, I provided multiple standards as options for the justification of a positive separation, but never explicitly affirmed one or the other. The reason I did this was to demonstrate that the many different standards could be applied to the current situation, and under all of them, the current split between the Episcopal Church and her separatists is not justified. The standard for Athanasius and Ambrose was more restrictive than the standard given by Davenant. But even in the more “permissive” models, such as Davenant’s, in my opinion, no justification could be found.^[1] In reality, as an Anglican/Episcopalian, there are a variety of perspectives, such as certain Anglo-Catholics who would have never seen a positive separation from the Church of Rome as being justified (since even the independence of the Church of England was not a positive separation). Under this understanding, no point in church history actually warranted a positive separation, from which to derive an example.

Still, what is my view? I actually do believe there have been instances in history that did warrant a positive separation, namely the Council of Trent. This is because I do believe the Council of Trent imposed automatic excommunication against people attempting to hold the orthodox position on justification, which was a fundamental pertaining to the doctrine of salvation.

Yet, as already discussed, one need not agree with my precise belief to agree with the conclusion of my argument, which is that no precedent for the positive separations from the Episcopal Church can be found to ground and justify them.

However, even in my original article, I provided a logically coherent position, called the “Lutheran Position,” which hypothetically could be used to justify a split with the Episcopal Church. If the errors of the Episcopal Church are so bad as to necessitate a split (no splits are justified but not also necessary), why are those same errors not enough to warrant an examination of communicants to protect the spiritual reality of communion? Being merely in the same 501(c)(3) as someone else has little to no spiritual effect upon the average Christian, whereas we know the spiritual reality of communion is such that we are told by St. Paul that those who take improperly could die from doing so. All of the proposed alternatives to the Episcopal Church are open communion, and if they have any exhortation at all, it is unlikely to mention any of the errors which caused separations from the Episcopal Church. How could such errors necessitate an institutional break (a positive separation) without also requiring a negative separation? If they do require a negative separation, then no such alternative Anglican jurisdiction yet exists which fulfills such a standard.

Athanasius

The best examples against my argument have been those demonstrations from Theodoret that St. Athanasius did go into other dioceses and ordain presbyters and deacons. This demonstrates a violation of jurisdiction. Still, in all of the quoted sections, Theodoret acknowledges the rules of jurisdiction and that Athanasius was in violation of those rules of jurisdiction. And yet, even in these best examples, no demonstration of a positive separation has been made. Not only did St. Athanasius not pretend to create a whole new diocesan structure parallel to the existing ones, he also never pretended even to ordain new bishops or ordain any “replacement” clergy for already occupied seats. Theodoret is also clear in the quoted sections to explain that all such placements officiated by Athanasius were to “empty churches.”

This exact method of alternative episcopal oversight literally exists in both TEC and the CofE, whereby orthodox bishops provide the services and functions of a bishop to a parish which does not trust the orthodoxy of their diocesan bishop. It is much more developed in the CofE with the bishops of Oswestry providing widespread alternative episcopal oversight across all of England, while most of such alternative oversight within TEC that is offered is on a case-by-case basis, such as the alternative episcopal oversight provided for St. John’s in Savannah.

Even still, if it were hypothetically granted or in some section of their writings discovered that during the Arian Crisis, an ACNA-style replacement map of dioceses had been created, this would still be within the prescriptions actually defined by Davenant since Arianism was a violation of the fundamental doctrines in its official teaching and even pretended to have councils stating such as the doctrine of the church.

The example of the conduct in these early controversies is not for the establishment of a strict program but as a demonstration of principle. Can it be said in any way that the makers of the ACNA or the Continuum displayed as much caution in these cases as did the Orthodox camp in the Arian Crisis, which, as a matter of fact, never did create a parallel system of jurisdiction to the original church structures?

Why Appeal to Church History

However, it is hopefully obvious that I cannot, in a succinct manner, address with the requisite thoroughness, every article’s historical points in detail. I also cannot parse through every event or quotation in the particulars of Church History, and never intended to do this. In my original article, I used the language “often” rather than “absolutely always,” such as in my opening, where I said, “there have often been two Christian bodies which do not commune with each other, that nonetheless recognize the legality or validity of the excommunicated jurisdiction.” This tacitly acknowledges exceptions. In fact, in my article, I provide an explicit counter-example of my position in the Waldensians. I also explain an alternate view I called the “Lutheran view,” which is not my view and which I accept as perfectly as reasonable as my own position, but which is clearly also not the position of the ACNA and Continuum, which do not practice closed communion.

Only a naive class of petty theologians believes there is any issue on which the entire corpus of Church History unanimously speaks with a single view. Even when some forceful consensus on an issue can be demonstrated, there are often specific instances where such principles were ignored. For instance, I think most of my Anglican interlocutors would agree that the preferable status of episcopal ordination has the vast majority of church history behind it, and yet there are examples of presbyteral ordinations throughout history in contravention of this general consensus.

The function of my appeals to specific Fathers and Reformers was to demonstrate that my conclusion was held by a number of these influential authors, and has precedent.

I could have included more quotes or compiled a longer list of instances, but I don’t think I want to rest my argument simply upon blindly following the procedure of prior eras, nor do I expect the ACNA or Continuum to do so. I acknowledge that our present circumstances are not identical to the circumstances of these Fathers and Reformers. Instead, I would like to establish a logic of argument, resting upon the basic teachings of the Bible, from which to enact a program of coherent praxis into our current circumstances. My major criticism of the splits enacted by the ACNA is not simply that its program is wrong, but simply that no program exists whatsoever to explain or justify its split. At the very least no single program or logic can be agreed upon. The most sensible arguments I have heard are derived from the prohibition on female bishops in the ACNA, and yet this is not the argument that the ACNA (or GAFCON) makes for itself in any single place, and certainly would be objected to by those who split from the Episcopal Church but who hope to retain the ordination of women and even aspire to ordain female bishops.

Nobody Argues From Nowhere

Secondly, I acknowledge that there are different arguments to be made by those in the Continuum that feel more coherent. I find it odd when ACNA and Continuum folks seem to lock arms on this issue as if they are a single jurisdiction or even have an identical point of origin. They do not. In fact, the Continuum (in the official organs of their government) usually is explicit in rejecting the jurisdiction of the ACNA as well, and does not usually recognize the ACNA’s holy orders, even in the instances where male bishops have ordained male priests in dioceses where the ordination of women to the priesthood is prohibited.

Every opponent of my view can argue from a hypothetical alternate church that does not actually exist, but in order to have any force, one must acknowledge the reality of the church options before us.

If one could argue that the ordination of women does rupture any jurisdiction whatsoever possessed by the Episcopal Church, it would then be incumbent upon the Continuing churches to articulate either how the specific Continuing church in which they have come to is the valid jurisdiction, and why, since they have a diverse set of overlapping jurisdictions. Instead, I don’t generally find apologists making such an argument, and usually a kind of acceptability of attending any Continuing church (whether they were created by an unlawful schism from another Continuing church or not), or even Old Catholic, Roman, and Eastern churches. This amounts to a total rejection of any forceful understanding of jurisdiction whatsoever.

Even further still, I am confused by those who argue that so few options practically present themselves to those who remain in the Episcopal Church because of the prevalent ordination of women and women bishops, and then in the same breath it is suggested that someone find a Continuing church of which most of these jurisdictions have only a couple dozen churches, and to my calculations, only have 257 churches in the whole country, averaging 5.14 parishes per state.

For those who reject the exclusive jurisdictional view I am proposing, from a jurisdiction-neutral perspective, if I had simply asked “where is the closest orthodox Anglican parish?” and attended that church, it would be an Episcopal Church, and due to the sheer size of the denomination, this would also be the case for many. Is this a legitimate option?

The Positive/Negative Separation Distinction

Many have objected to my use of these terms; positive and negative separation, or objected that this distinction is a-historical. Firstly, in my article, I never rested the legitimacy of this distinction upon the historical origins of the terminology, but upon the distinction existing in practice. My introduction of the distinct terminology is only meant to provide precision to the arguments. However, incidentally, I did not invent the terminology, but did in fact borrow the terms from a Presbyterian author, Samuel Rutherford’s treatise “Against Separatism.”

Nevertheless, I will hope to continue to defend the existence of the two separate concepts, by whatever names they are given, so long as they are properly understood.

In Alex Wilgus’s article responding to my own he summarizes the distinction by saying: “I have not heard of the two points that frame Coletti’s [sic] argument: that there is a distinction between a ‘positive’ or ‘negative’ separation, in which (to borrow the Methodist terminology) the ‘leaver’ departing from a given ‘jurisdiction’ is always the schismatic while the ‘remainer’ is the compromised, heretical, apostate, abusive, but nevertheless rightful and juridical retainer of the substance of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church in a given area.” He goes on to say that I only believe a positive separation is legitimate when salvation is impossible in the original jurisdiction.

This is not my position. John Davenant provides a list of coherent fundamentals which a jurisdiction must profess publicly, and then goes on to say that if these fundamentals are not publicly held, then salvation is impossible. I also provide his explanation for how the Roman church has lost its jurisdiction through the doctrine of the papacy. Whatever coherent definition of apostasy can be proffered, one need not agree with Davenant in the specifics, but it ought to be defined and justified. His justification for the criteria of doctrines that amount to apostasy is their relationship with the possibility of salvation. I generally agree that the fundamentals are determined in this way, but I would personally open up the possibility of salvation in apostate denominations. Richard Field (whom I will quote momentarily) does the same. The question then becomes, when has such an apostasy, which justifies this rejection of jurisdiction, occurred? My contention is that this kind of apostasy has not occurred within the Episcopal Church.

I can provide examples of such a scenario in which a church would have lost its jurisdiction. If one hypothetically acknowledged the jurisdiction of the New England Congregationalist churches as legitimate, the bodies which in the 19th century began to outwardly profess Unitarian Universalism would lose their jurisdiction. Unitarian Universalists explicitly reject the Trinity and claim to have “no sacred scripture” on their website. If the Episcopal Church made such a transformation in her public doctrine, then she would lose her jurisdiction. Any bishop or priest who converted to Islam or Mormonism and replaced the public teaching documents within a jurisdiction with the teaching documents of Islam or Mormonism (all of the Bibles are replaced with Qurans and the Prayerbooks now begin to deny Jesus’s divinity and begin to affirm Muhammed as the penultimate prophet of God, etc.) would cease to have a church at all and therefore would not have jurisdiction in the eyes of God.^[2] This is why the original Reconquista was not actually affected in the way suggested by modern Reconquistadors for the retaking of the Mainline churches, such as the Episcopal Church. Spain was conquered, not by liberal Christian heretics, but by Muslims who belonged to an entirely different religion, which denied the fundamentals of Christianity.

But does TEC hold the Fundamentals?

In the article, I provided Davenant’s list of Fundamentals and summarized them as the Creeds + the Law + the Gospel. I agree with Davenant’s list of the fundamentals. This is because those fundamentals are the doctrines necessary to be affirmed for salvation. Many important doctrines are not in that list, but they are not categorically essential to salvation.

The use of his clear articulation is a method of checks and balances. It demonstrates a standard which pre-existed the modern controversy, which can easily be applied to our current situation.

The Constitution and Canons of the Episcopal Church define the doctrine of the Episcopal Church as: “Doctrine: the Church’s teaching as set forth in the Creeds and in An Outline of the Faith, commonly called the Catechism.” (Title III Canon 10 Sec 3(c)(2) and elsewhere) You can examine the 1979 Catechism for yourself. It includes the 10 Commandments and how we are all condemned in our sin, and then also includes an accurate description of our redemption.

After listing the 10 Commandments it says:

Q. Since we do not fully obey them, are they useful at all?

A. Since we do not fully obey them, we see more clearly our

sin and our need for redemption.

Then, in the section on sin and redemption, it says:

Q. What is the great importance of Jesus’ suffering and

death?

A. By his obedience, even to suffering and death, Jesus

made the offering which we could not make; in him we

are freed from the power of sin and reconciled to God.

For the purposes of Ecclesiastical Discipline, the Episcopal Church defines its own doctrine thus: “Doctrine shall mean the basic and essential teachings of the Church and is to be found in the Canon of Holy Scripture as understood in the Apostles and Nicene Creeds and in the sacramental rites, the Ordinal and Catechism of the Book of Common Prayer.” (Title IV Canon 2)

All of the aforementioned documents exist, unchanged, since 1979, prior to the split with the ACNA. Even if opposition to same sex marriage was a fundamental doctrine, the official doctrine of the Episcopal Church, by its own definition, does not have a rite for same sex marriage, and the marital rite that is referenced explicitly defines marriage as being between one man and one woman.

But why should we take TEC’s word for it? Many have suggested that the actions of the current bishops and disciplinary boards should be considered as representing the public position of the church. After all, clergy in the Episcopal Church swear to uphold, not only the doctrine of the church, but also her discipline and worship. Bishop Love made the exact same argument I am making in an ecclesiastical court—that the Episcopal Church’s official position was marriage between one man and one woman—and the court (without explicitly agreeing or disagreeing) still found him guilty of violating a canon that clearly contradicted this teaching.

Can such courts define the doctrine of the Episcopal Church?

In order to discern the relevance of this question, we have to get a grip of the function of the original question, that being: What are the fundamentals and why?

Why Only the Public Official Doctrine?

I do not think any Protestant that I know would argue that some ordinary teaching magisterium exists in the Episcopal Church which demands our intellectual submission of conscience equivalent to say, the Bible. I do not argue for that, and I do not think any of my detractors have argued that such an idea is required by my participation in the Episcopal Church. So why would the teachings or other decisions of the bishops of the Episcopal Church matter? Well, firstly because in an ideal situation, they would only be teaching the truth, or some close approximation of the truth in all of their public teaching. In the history of the Episcopal Church, this has (for the most part) been the case.^[3] This is the very function of having bishops who teach publicly. Unfortunately, in recent history this has not been the case. The Episcopal Church as an institution has largely replaced the ordinary teaching function of the church with idol after idol. In many parts of the Episcopal Church, the idol of left wing politics has sat upon the seat which good teaching is meant to rest upon.

The attraction felt by so many of my generation to the Eastern church has been because it does not have this same obvious and widespread idolatry. Yet, other idolatries can and do exist, in that communion and in every communion.

But I remain convinced that idols can be prominently placed, and that the responsibility of bishops to teach good teaching can be horribly squandered without abolishing the church under those bishops. I have already argued that this is the explicit position of the Articles, but perhaps a further elaboration is necessary.

In the age before the Reformation, grievous and idolatrous error was widely taught by the ordinary teaching offices of the visible church. In reference to this period in which the Reformation sprung even the Roman Cardinal Contarini was known to have remarked that “if any man did debase the nature of man, deject the pride of sinful flesh, magnify the riches of the grace of God, and urge the necessity of it, he was judged a Lutheran, and pronounced a heretic; though they that gloried in the name of Catholics were themselves Pelagian heretics, if not worse than Pelagians.” (Richard Field “On the Church” Book III Ch. VIII)

Yet, no positive separation was effected merely because of this popular confusion on the teaching of the church, by any parties. In fact, in order for the Church of England to have inherited some legitimacy or jurisdiction from the Pre-Reformation Church of England, it must be maintained that at least until the Reformation, no positive separation was required.

I believe this is why John Davenant attaches the severance of the entirety of the Roman Church’s jurisdiction whatever to the doctrine of the Papacy, which he sees as being tied with the Council of Trent. Yet, a diversity of views can be held on this subject, and the conclusion of my argument can still be reached.

I think an examination of Richard Field’s treatment of this question will be illuminating. In Book I, Ch. 14 he states, “But for that they hold not an entire and full profession of all such saving truths, as to know and believe is necessary unto salvation; for that their pastors and priests, though they have power of order, yet have no power of jurisdiction, neither can perform any act thereof; for that they retain not the unity of the spirit in the bond of peace, they are rightly denied to be of the Church: not for that they are not in any sort of it, but for that they are not fully and absolutely of it, nor of that more special number of them which communicate in all things wherein Christians should.”^[4]

In this quote we find a repetition of Davenant’s criteria that the saving truths be professed in order to have jurisdiction.

I have seen some attempt to leverage Field against my position, but this is quite literally the exact same standard articulated in my original essay.

The logic, articulated in my original article by John Davenant, is that the Church is the place where salvation happens. However, neither Davenant nor Field denies the validity of sacraments or that there is salvation outside of the legitimate jurisdiction of the church. Field says clearly: “As, therefore, all they that outwardly profess the truth, and hold the faith of Christ without schism or heresy^[5], are of the Church, and are within, as the Scripture speaketh, yet are not all of that more special number of them that are intrinsecus et in occulto intus, but in more general sort: so likewise heretics and schismatics, though they be not of that special number of them that in unity hold the entire profession of divine truth, are of the Church generally considered, and of the number of them that profess the truth of God revealed in Christ. And this surely Augustine most clearly delivereth.”^[6]

So, while the idea of salvation is not coterminous with the valid jurisdiction (many inside the valid jurisdiction will indeed perish and many outside it may be saved), it pertains to the valid jurisdiction and that there be some in it who do hold that faith.

Those who do hold that faith, rightly in a jurisdiction of the church which in her profession also affirms that faith, are the fullness of the visible Catholic Church. Richard Field puts it this way:

“This more special number of right-believing Christians is, for distinction sake, rightly named the Catholic Church; because it consisteth of them only, that without addition, diminution, alteration, or innovation, in matter of doctrine, hold the common faith once delivered to the saints; and without all particular or private division or faction, retain the unity of the spirit in the bond of peace.”^[7]

The doctrinally orthodox who separate themselves possess some of the church, while the heretical members of the church possess some of the church, and only those who hold both the faith and have not made any “particular or private division or faction” are in the fullness of the church.

In the 17th Century, Unitarian ministers like Samuel Clarke and Theophilus Lindsey died in good standing with the Church of England.^[8] They had even modified sections of the BCP to explicitly reject Trinitarianism. In the early Episcopal Church, it was believed by many that Samuel Provoost, one of the first bishops, was a Unitarian. At the very least, he cared little for theological orthodoxy, and many intended at that time to remove all of the theological standards of the Episcopal Church just as it was forming.

All of this was bad and should not have been tolerated. The same Article 26, which clearly articulates that wicked leadership does not abolish the whole church, also clearly states that it is the responsibility of the orthodox leadership in the church to condemn and discipline heretics. Still, these lapses in discipline have never been considered a legitimate cause for a positive separation.

At the end of the day, the only way to discern between a right believing church which lapses in judgment and an apostate church is to search its official declarations of its own doctrine.

The Question of Same Sex Marriage and Salvation

Some have articulated an understanding that my view is that a positive separation is only valid when salvation becomes impossible in the original jurisdiction. Again, this was simply my articulation of Davenant’s explanation for an arrival at the fundamentals. To put his position aside for a moment, I think it is very reasonable to articulate that the fundamentals (whatever you believe they are) are those doctrines which are necessary to be believed for salvation, and that the jurisdiction of churches is dependent upon their subscription to these fundamentals.

I also think it is telling that most of those who have responded to me publicly have tied the justification for separation to women’s ordination, and not to the teaching surrounding same sex marriage which was the de facto catalyst for the formation of the ACNA.^[9]

Put simply, if one were to argue from the same sex marriage issue alone, and that such an issue was fundamental, I would expect one to come to the conclusion that anyone who merely believes same sex marriage is legitimate is therefore in denial of a saving truth, comparable to the errors of Christology which damned the Arians. Yet, no list I have ever found created prior to the current controversy lists same sex marriage (particularly or categorically) as such a denial of the fundamentals. Even if it is argued that such a doctrine had never been considered, surely the issue of polygamy or other offenses against marriage, such as invalid remarriages after divorces (which Jesus specifically condemns), have been tolerated in Church history, and even Martin Luther infamously permitted a bigamous marriage under much pressure from the civil authorities. Did this action warrant a split within the Lutheran camp? Charlemagne and many early Frankish kings were polygamists. Many priests lived in open concubinage throughout Western Europe for centuries. Did these actions warrant splits? Did anyone think it did then? Do they today?

The more preposterous position, in my opinion, is that while the traditional definition of marriage is touted by many conservatives, the traditional Anglican understanding of divorce and Remarriage is not enforced in the ACNA, or in Continuing denominations.^[10] From those who agree with me, that we should return to the traditional position, it is often said that polygamy (which is what an unlawful remarriage after a divorce is) and same sex marriage are simply different.

Polygamy was tolerated in the Old Testament (although always portrayed as wrong or foolish). Yet no examples of same sex marriage are ever even contemplated. Homosexuality is universally condemned throughout the Old and New Testaments, but the idea that two men could be married is simply not discussed. I find it difficult to extrapolate from this silence, a placement of this doctrine into the category of fundamentals, without also placing a rejection of Jesus’s doctrine of divorce in the same category of fundamental doctrine.

Put simply, if the doctrine that marriage is between one man and one woman should be counted among these fundamentals, I would expect some precedent for that view.

Instead, the practice (like all of the other mentioned offenses against God’s institution of marriage) is “simply” a grave sin. I have no doubt that many who fight for, advocate for, and practice this grave sin do so to the jeopardy of their souls. The same, I would say, was true of those who advocated for American Chattel slavery or Pecuniary Indulgences, for example. Yet, it seems to me, and apparently my interlocutors would agree from their acceptance of the jurisdiction of the 18th-century Episcopal Church, which tolerated slavery and their defense of salvation in the Roman Church, that all of those issues were not ipso-facto damnable heresies merely by their being held.

If anything, the practice of Indulgences, which touches upon the very mechanism of our salvation and impinges upon the sufficiency of Christ’s atonement, is more severe, and yet there seems to be no problem, among many of my critics, with respecting the jurisdiction of Roman churches which accept this doctrine. Still, even Davenant did not find in this doctrine the apostasy and loss of jurisdiction of the Roman church.

Frankly, I do not think my critics believe that the toleration of either the doctrines of same sex marriage or indulgences makes salvation impossible.

Instead, it seems to me that the tactic from my critics is that an issue need not obliterate the faith to warrant a positive separation. This is certainly a position that can be assumed, but if it is going to be assumed, I would require an alternative explanation for arriving at some set of doctrines which are “fundamental” to jurisdiction in a way that is not rooted in their relationship to those things necessary to be believed for salvation. What are these doctrines? Why is Same Sex Marriage specifically a rupture with this definition?

But like I already mentioned, it does not seem to be a popular tactic to argue from that issue, at least among the more traditional circles in which my interlocutors and I circulate.

Women’s Ordination

I do not support the ordination of women to any office in the church. However, on this doctrine, we again run into the same problem of discerning the fundamentals.

The issue has been settled by the Roman magisterium (to the extent that any issue can ever be finally settled without the looming threat of an eventual reversal from the pontiff of Rome) that women cannot be ordained ontologically. I am sure that this view is appealing and even convincing to many in the Anglican communion. Yet the Bible (and to my knowledge no Church Father) explicitly states that such an ordination would be ontologically impossible, but simply that it is wrong and even evil. Many ordinations, other than the ordinations of women are wrong and warned against by the Bible and the Fathers. If one hastily lays hands upon an ordinand without a proper period of investigation (1 Tim 3:6 & 5:22) is the ordination simply inadvisable, or did no ordination take place at all? What if a bigamist bishop were ordained? (Titus 1:6) What if a bishop is ordained but his children are unruly? (Also Titus 1:6) What if he is a drunkard? Or given to filthy lucre? (Titus 1:7)

Even still, you could theoretically hold the view that all of those aforementioned ordinations (including the ordinations of women, which contradicts 1 Tim 2:12) are null and void as contrary to the institution of God, but would performing a null and void ordination be a contradiction of the fundamentals of jurisdiction? How would we know?

If only the ordination of women is null and void, because it is a distinction of kind and not character or magnitude, the question plainly remains: would performing a null and void ordination be a contradiction of the fundamentals of jurisdiction? How would we know?

People will object that many episcopates in the Episcopal Church would therefore be vacant. And yet, many dioceses in church history have been vacant, and this has never abolished their jurisdiction.

Evan Patterson addresses this topic in his article. He admits that in many places there are sede vacante jurisdictions that retain their place in the Catholic Church, because they aspire to have the form of the church. In his treatment, despite pushing back against my conclusion, on that issue, he agrees with me, as far as I can tell.

After a similar analysis of what is the core doctrine of Christianity he writes:

Does theological feminism constitute a pertinacious denial of this incarnational-Trinitarian core? Let us be completely fair here. It is hard to argue such. Perhaps one might say that the incarnate maleness of Christ (Lk. 2:21), the incarnate maleness of His priesthood (Rom. 1:3; Heb. 7:17), and the incarnate maleness of those called to this office (the Pastorals), make theological feminism a form of Gnosticism, a “spiritual transvestism” as it is worded by Paul Facey. Maybe, but I think the bar is set very high by the Fathers, by this definition just provided, and I am not entirely confident that the error of the feminists clears that. It would seem like a second-order complication of the dogmatic core, rather than a first-order denial of the same, as can be seen in comparing it to what St. John lays out: the denial is of Christ, of His nature, of His incarnation, not so much what the Incarnation means for the Church, or for the sacraments, or for ecology, whatever and so on. Such second-order errors may certainly be harshly impugned on such grounds, but so long as someone with such an error is saying ‘Jesus Christ is the Son of God come in the flesh to bear our sins,’ and such confessional definitions of the same (e.g., the Nicene and Chalcedonian), but appends something like ‘God would never let Himself be cannibalized in the Eucharist!’ then they would be complicating the second-order effects of the core, but not denying the core.

He then goes on to argue that perhaps an automatic excommunication would be effected by the attempt to invalidly ordain women, but admits this is only one possible view and not a necessary view.

After defending the split of Bishop Love as having only been with those dioceses that performed same sex marriage (i.e. a negative separation), he goes on to admit that this careful attitude towards schism (i.e. only splitting with dioceses and bishops that had definitively lost their jurisdiction) was not always followed:

However, the Diocese of San Joaquin under Bishop John-David Schofield simply broke off from the entire mainline province, not just those with invalid and illicit bishops (particularly the women pretenders). The Diocese of San Joaquin, then, under this stricter rule would have engaged in voluntary schism, a serious offense per Palmer (and the Church). Yikes. The only rescuing device would be to argue whether the errancy of the PECUSA’s presiding bishop at the time, the woman pretender Katharine Schori, would be enough, because as clarified above such extra-canonical inventions depend on the (proper) bishops for their authority, and bishops would be under no obligation to affirm or be in communion with a pretender.

But this admission, follows without a break to the following conclusion:

With all of this laid out now, we can see that, in varying respects, the ACNA and Continuum were completely in the right to ‘continue’ in being the orthodox and proper ecclesiastical authorities representing the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church in the province(s) of North America.

I completely reject the idea that by that point in his article he had established that the ACNA and Continuum were “completely in the right to continue.” Especially when he just admitted that the Diocese of San Joaquin (and all of the Continuing churches which broke with the entirety of the PECUSA which contained a number of licit jurisdictions) failed the very test he introduced from Palmer!

He continues by saying that when some bishops have lost their jurisdiction by heresy it is the duty of the remaining bishops to excommunicate them, and he sees this as what the formation of the splinters did: “Even if they were, though, they would be subject to the canonical investigation of the ‘surviving’ bishops, which is exactly that those men did, by judging the vast majority of the Episcopalian hierarchy to have excommunicated itself via abject canonical disobedience, and in recognition of that proceeded to reorganize the ecclesiastical structure of the Catholic Church in (North) America around the surviving remnant.”

Yet, no canonical process was followed in the formation of any of the splinter bodies. They were just a bunch of rogue parishes and bishops who made everything up as they went along. All the while, when I was in the ACNA, anytime something went wrong, it was excused by the idea that mistakes or errors were to be expected because, after all, “we are building the plane while flying it.”

Even worse, many of these bishops continued to do the thing which allegedly threatens their jurisdiction, that being ordaining women. Furthermore, nowhere in the article does he specifically articulate how the ordination of women to the episcopate actually does obliterate the jurisdiction of every bishop. Even if it did for local dioceses with female bishops, or in some portion or even in the whole, I completely reject the idea that these orthodox separatist bishops did “reorganize the ecclesiastical structure of the Catholic Church in (North) America around the surviving remnant.” In reality, they created a patchwork of absolutist fiefdoms where most bishops do whatever they want with little consequence or any serious limit to their jurisdiction. Continuing bishops have continued to split at every disagreement, and have entirely failed to establish a single coherent jurisdiction in the wake of the Episcopal Church to replace it. The ACNA, rather than being this coherent jurisdiction, is made up of dioceses that lack boundaries, and instead feed into the personal pet theology of whoever so happens to be the bishop ordinary. If Bishop A believes in the ordination of female deacons, but not priests, so be it. If the other thinks it is abject misogyny to reject the episcopate for women, so be it. Neither of those bishops ever has to recognize or respect any decision ever made by the other bishop anyway, and local parishes that agree with one bishop can just hop over to that bishop’s oversight when they get a new bishop that they don’t like. Even when one diocese had one position on the issue of women’s ordination, the promotion of a new bishop is liable to cause an internal power struggle over the issue when the new king of the castle has a different view, as is happening in my former Diocese of Christ our Hope.

The same is functionally true in the Continuum since each bishop is liable to make a full separation whenever there is even a conflict in personalities. No binding canon law exists above the bishop that has any chance of being enforced contrary to their will.

Even more so, the functional congregationalism in both of these denominations means that any priest or parish can completely relocate or separate and not even be in violation of the standing canon law of their denomination for doing so. Any discipline is accepted completely voluntarily, and if it is rejected, nothing is stopping the parish from separating and keeping all of the property and even any financial and functional contributions they gained from the denomination as a whole.

In summary, much is assumed and taken for granted in the arguments that the ordination of women invalidates the Episcopal Church, and nothing is even proffered to demonstrate the practical advantage of the Continuum over the Episcopal Church if it is granted that the ordination of women means some lines of Episcopal holy orders have died out because of it. As already mentioned, these denominations are very small. According to the Anglican Renaissance Map I made, which includes not only the G2 parishes, but also the OAC, the EMC, and the APCK, there are only 257 Continuing Parishes in the entire country. In my home state of Pennsylvania, there are only six Continuing congregations. On a similar map I am making to sort Episcopal Churches in PA, there are at least 90 congregations that have male clergy and no apparent liberalism on their website or any other public presence I could discern. Coupled with close to 100 Episcopal Churches, which simply had no online presence from which I could gather any data at all, the Continuum is simply a poor option practically.

Specific Comments on Response Articles

There were many responses to my article. I attempted in the above sections to answer all of the general points of argumentation, but three articles inspired specific responses I thought relevant to include in my article.

James Clark’s Article

I think Clark’s article was well-reasoned to refute the idea that the Church of Rome has lost her jurisdiction. Many Anglicans have accepted the jurisdiction of national churches which remained in the Roman communion and have expressed a branch theory view. I would even count Archbishop Wake among such persons in his endeavors to reach out to the Gallican church.

When I described the Reformed view that the Church of Rome lost her jurisdiction, I did so by means of an elaboration on the position of individual authors. Davenant and many of the cited confessions seemed to hold this view, and therefore, those authors tolerated positive separations from the Church of Rome.

It is perfectly plausible to accept that Rome still has jurisdiction and to hold with the conclusion of my argument. The Reformation in England was not a positive separation. No parallel jurisdiction was established, and the offices, structures, and laws of the Church in England were continuously maintained from before the Reformation, through it, and afterwards. The question remains, then, for Americans who accept Branch Theory, what is the proper branch in the United States?

I think many, even in the ACNA today who accept this theory, would acknowledge that if they were asked such a question in 1820, they would have said the Episcopal Church. People who take such a position would then have to provide a moment in time when the Episcopal Church lost her jurisdiction, why, and who succeeded her in this jurisdiction and why.

The irony of arguing for the validity of the jurisdiction of some Roman and Eastern churches is that now there are no examples in Church history whatsoever for a valid positive separation. The current positive separations now sit upon a curious throne of novelty and lack precedent, entirely. At least if one accepts Davenant’s logic, there is now some precedent or criteria that can be appealed to at all.

Evan Patterson’s Article

Evan Patterson’s article, which is also well articulated, grants that Davenant has a possibly coherent position, but argues (like Clark) that this is not the view of the Church of England. Along with accepting the jurisdiction of the Roman Church, Patterson argues that the Protestant churches that do not have episcopal ordination, do lack jurisdiction. “Full communion cannot be had with the non-catholic Christians because they do not have a ministry, they therefore also do not minister the sacraments to their congregation, do not minister the Word because they have no one lawfully sent, and do not belong to churches that can be assigned to a lawful jurisdiction of religious communion (but merely voluntary associations of lay Christians).”

This position, as well, is perfectly compatible with my conclusion.

In fact, I think one could take a mix and match of the two positions and still come to my conclusion.

In practice, the Canterbury Communion has acted in the last few centuries with a narrow view of validity, accepting Protestant Episcopal jurisdictions in Spain, Mexico, Brazil, Jerusalem, etc., despite the Roman church’s presence there, while not planting parallel jurisdictions in episcopal Lutheran countries (hence the Porvoo Communion) along with Moravians and others.

Patterson’s primary objection, to my lights, is the rejection of a jurisdiction once it begins to ordain female bishops. Firstly, this is not the inciting cause of the formation of the ACNA. The ACNA continues to be in Communion with GAFCON provinces, which do ordain female bishops. Here again, we find an argument which is coherent in isolation, but which is not assumed by the ACNA as a body, and which was not the justifying logic behind the split itself.

The fundamental problem at the heart of the ACNA as a parallel jurisdiction is that it does not warrant itself upon any single coherent justification or philosophy, but allows completely contradictory views of jurisdiction within itself to satisfy the conscience of individual clergy and laity, without even the slightest indication that the theology precedes action. Does anyone believe that a single articulatable view, akin to the one expressed by Patterson, could have been the agreed-upon justification by the instigators of the separation, when the first Archbishop and chief actor in the creation of the ACNA, Archbishop Duncan, himself had no problem with the ordination of women to any office? In the case of the ACNA, I am afraid that the tail is wagging the dog, and not the other way around.

Jeremy Counts’ Article

Jeremy also has a precise and well-worded argument. He begins by clearly defining my position, in my own words. He then accurately describes that I have not given my own list of the fundamentals (although I did provide Davenant’s list). This is because I think, as I have already articulated, a variety of views on what the fundamentals are could be taken, while still coming to the conclusion that I have drawn. I think Anglo-Catholics and Tractarians may have a different view than I would on the question of the importance of the doctrine of Justification by Faith Alone, or the importance of Episcopal Apostolic Succession, for instance, but could still come to the conclusion that the Episcopal Church has not abrogated that list.

That being said, I do think he makes a common leap in logic, common to many of the arguments against me coming from the Continuum, from “the ordination of women is wrong” to “it is therefore ontologically impossible and therefore all of the eucharists in TEC are in jeopardy.” There are many Anglicans, like Cranmer and E.A. Litton, who have specifically rejected the idea that Apostolic Succession is required for a valid eucharist, appealing to receptionism. He then argues that because of this error in the matter of a sacrament which is necessary for salvation (i.e., the host is not consecrated), this constitutes a teaching which is an abandonment of the fundamentals. Ignoring the fact that even if this were hypothetically true, the Continuum has entirely failed to establish a consistent and coherent jurisdiction to replace TEC, even if it is ontologically impossible for a woman to be ordained (which is not established upon Scripture or even a citation to a church father or church council) it is not established that the faithful who receive the bread according to the sacred liturgy with faith do not receive the thing signified in the consecrated host by faith.^[11] No consecrated host was present in the wilderness with the Israelites under Moses, but we are told by St. Paul that they ate the same spiritual food and drank the same spiritual drink, which was Christ. (1 Cor. 10)

Additionally, he references the gnostic anthropology implied by the TEC canons, which protect the ordination of candidates based on sex, sexual orientation, and gender identity. I agree that this is a horrible canon and is based on terrible theology, but believing this canon is a good thing is not required of anyone in the Episcopal Church, and agreeing with the theology of that canon is not required of any ordinand, and clergy in the Episcopal Church also have other canons which specifically protect their conscience to disagree with the theology of that canon. (Canon III.1.3-4)

Then he draws two quotes from Field and Bramhall, which I just entirely agree with, but dispute the fact that being in the TEC is analogous to the situation they were describing in the Roman Church, where heretical beliefs were being required of all the faithful members of that communion.

Then he discusses the Non-Jurors and says that by my standards, the Non-Jurors were in schism. I don’t see how that is a defeater of my position, since I could just grant that the Non-Jurors were in schism (which many people at the time believed) and move on. Even many in America did not trust the holy orders of Samuel Seabury because his episcopal succession came through Non-Jurors, which many did consider schismatic, and for this reason, the succession of bishops in the Episcopal Church never relied upon him and always had bishops consecrated with three other bishops whose succession came through the Church of England if he was a consecrator because of his dubious succession.

I also think it is disanalogous because the schism was caused not by an internal theological dispute with rebellious bishops, but because of a political intervention into the affairs of the church, which made the entire affair incredibly political, and significantly less theological.

Unlike the situation in the Episcopal Church today, the Non-Jurors were explicitly asked to contradict a vow they had sworn before God. The Episcopal Church USA is not asking anyone to renounce any vows.

What is stopping a priest in the Episcopal Church, who was ordained in 1965, who was entirely orthodox, from believing everything he believed in 1965?

He finishes up by claiming that if Davenant believed the Roman Church had abandoned the fundamentals, then surely the modern Episcopal Church is farther from the faith than the Tridentine Church, which at least believed the Apostles’ and Nicene Creed. He asks if the average pulpit in the Episcopal Church is likely to hear the doctrine of those creeds preached.

Well, since the Apostles and Nicene Creeds are in the liturgy, every parishioner will at least hear the creeds themselves. Additionally, most of the clergy I know in the Episcopal Church do actually preach the contents of those creeds to be true. But, even if it were granted that the majority of TEC clergy do not preach the orthodox beliefs in those creeds in their sermons, and that the Roman clergy do, Counts himself has already articulated my belief correctly that this would not invalidate the Episcopal Church because it would not undermine the fact that the publicly stated doctrine of the Episcopal Church is that those Creeds are the doctrine of the church.

Additionally, I do not concede that the current errors of the Episcopal Church, such as the toleration of same sex marriage and other anthropological errors, are of the same kind of fundamental error as the idea that the Pope is the Vicar of Christ on earth and that all jurisdiction and efficaciousness of sacraments is derived from him. That is the belief that Davenant locates as the core error which invalidates the Roman communion. I think the doctrine of the Treasury of Merit and indulgences, alongside this centrality of the Papacy, wrongly inserts alien requirements into the teachings pertaining to how sinners are saved. To me, those issues are flatly more important.

Conclusion

I understand that many Anglo-Catholics who have a very positive view of the Church of Rome, or who see Vatican II as having cleaned these issues up, do not personally take those issues as seriously, and also tend to see the relentless assault in our culture and within the church against Biblical Anthropology as the central theological battleground of our time. To some extent, I agree that these questions of Biblical Anthropology are actually the central battleground of our time. But on the other hand, I would urge those in the Continuum and the ACNA to take a step out of the mire of this present struggle to genuinely compare these issues to the issues at the heart of the Reformation or the Arian Crisis or any other major controversy in Church history, and to assemble a list of the fundamentals from this “bird’s eye view”, rather than from the trenches.

My Questions to my Critics

Who is in schism? Almost every author who can be summoned speaks of heretics and schismatics as two categories, and it is clear that some who are not heretics are indeed schismatics. Additionally, as I have pointed out many times in this article, there is no coherent jurisdiction in the United States that even positively establishes itself as an alternative jurisdiction to the Episcopal Church. If you are in the ACC, aren’t the OAC and the EMC in schism? Why does no one write long articles here on North American Anglican condemning the schisms of such bishops? Why do all of the alternatives to the Episcopal Church practice functional congregationalism, where a local congregation can just leave entirely of their own volition, at the direction of their priest and vestry alone?

Additionally, I would ask those who see the hierarchical and structural separation from the Episcopal Church as absolutely necessary, why none of the alternative jurisdictions practice closed communion? If the Episcopal Church is indeed not a church and the anthropological heresies believed by many of her leadership justify a separation, why are communicants not actually screened for these beliefs? Communion is a spiritual reality that actually binds us together in Christ. Whether you like it or not, if you are an Open Communion denomination, and an Episcopalian can take communion at your church uninhibited, you are not in separation from the Episcopal Church in the eyes of God. You are just a disobedient mission society violating the canons of the Episcopal Church within her jurisdiction, while remaining in a state of spiritual communion, comparable perhaps with the SSPX in the Roman Communion.

Certainly, even if you remain unconvinced by my arguments, it can be said that the alternatives to the Episcopal Church come with many, many problems of their own.

An Open Hand

At the end of the day, I do not want to say that the Episcopal Church is perfect, or good, or that there is not theological or spiritual danger within the structure of the church. In fact, most of my critics are people that I greatly admire, and probably have massive amounts of theological agreement with. Faithful Christians, saved by the precious blood of Jesus Christ, fill the ACNA and the Continuum, and wonderful and amazing things are being done for the kingdom of God by clergy and laity in those denominations. St. Dunstan’s Academy, for instance, is a project that I think is unparalleled for its vision and admirability. Wonderful efforts for theological education are taking place, such as those with Prolego Press.

All of these things are good, fruits of the Spirit, and I hope they continue forevermore. The ACNA, and many theologically sound churches within her, are growing precisely because they are choosing to remain faithful to the preaching and teachings of Jesus Christ, and the Episcopal Church and many churches within her are dying because they refuse to do so.

I just think all of that can entirely be conceded, while recognizing that the splits were wrong, and only make those efforts at renewal more marginal.

Despite our disagreements, many people “wish me luck” but refuse to rejoin the Episcopal Church. I understand. Please continue to pray for me and for the Reformation of the Episcopal Church. I know I will.

Notes

1. Calling some models more permissive is misleading, because they usually entailed a harsher view of the errors they were attacking, but not always. Every model also has its trade offs. ↑
2. In fact, in the Episcopal Church, a priest has been defrocked for openly converting to Islam: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ann_Holmes_Redding ↑
3. Although heretical bishops have been with us since the beginning, with one of the original Episcopal Bishops, Samuel Provoost being a not-so-closeted Unitarian. ↑
4. Book I, Ch. 14 *Emphasis added ↑
5. “Schism or heresy” here being dichotomous implies that one can do one without the other contrary to some of my critics arguments. ↑
6. Id. *Emphasis added ↑
7. Id. *Emphasis added ↑
8. Lindsey eventually resigned to join the Unitarian church but for the time that he was a public advocate of Unitarianism and even led a proposed Bill in Parliament to change the standards of doctrine of the CofE multiple times. During this entire scandal he was never disciplined or defrocked. ↑
9. Although Same Sex Marriage was not approved until after the departure of ACNA bishops. ↑
10. Except, I believe, the ACC which on paper does not allow remarriage after divorce unless there is an annulment similar to the Roman church, yet the standards for annulments, both in the ACC and the Roman Church have seriously deteriorated in comparison to the historic standards. ↑
11. “To make the sacrament was. as far as appears, not the prerogative of a priestly caste, but of Him from whom all ordinances derive their virtue ; the true consecration was the living faith of the partakers.” -E.A. Litton in Introduction to Dogmatic Theology, section 82 ↑