Indians in the USA and Greeks in Armenia – a similarity


In Armenia in ancient times the Greek Christians living in that area did not
attend the local, Armenian, churches, but instead had their own
congregations and their own, separate, bishops to oversee them! At the same
time, each Church was in full communion with the other and each retained its
awareness of belonging to the family of the wider Church. (F. Dvornik,
National Churches and the Church Universal [London: Dacre Press, 1944],
p.14.)

Today, we know from reports in the press, from their own web-site, and by
personal observations that members of the Church of S. India (a member
church of the Anglican Family) who live in the USA, the area that is claimed
as the territory of the Episcopal Church USA (a member of the Anglican
Family), actually have their own congregations and are visited by their
bishop(s) from India.

Both these examples raise questions as to the finality or exclusive nature
of what is called the territorial bishopric. In each case an exception
was/is being made for what we may call the cultural episcopate – in one case
Greek and in the other South Indian (Tamil?).

To these examples of cultural bishoprics can be added from the Anglican
world, the two overlapping Anglican dioceses in Europe (American & English),
bishoprics for the armed forces of various countries, bishoprics for Native
Peoples in New Zealand, the USA and elsewhere, and bishoprics in England for
those who do not accept the ordination of women. Then, from the Roman
Catholic Church there are examples of overlapping cultural
bishoprics/dioceses in abundance in the big cities of USA & Canada because
of varied immigration of Catholics of various Rites from old Europe. And
the same is true of the national or ethnic Orthodox Churches which, while
being wholly separate from each other in most of Europe, also often overlap
each other in the USA & Canada.

We may suggest that the territorial bishopric speaks most eloquently of the
unity of the Church on earth and that the Bishop of each territory is the
sign of that unity. In contrast the cultural bishopric speaks eloquently of
the diversity of the Church, that it is made up of people of different
races and tribes and nations. In the modern world the one, holy, catholic
and apostolic Church needs and thus rightly has both forms of jurisdiction.
They complement one another!

There seems to be no absolute reason why these two forms of bishoprics
cannot exist alongside each other especially in places such as the USA where
there is such a great variety of people whose origins are in many parts of
the earth.

So far so good.

But in the context of American Anglicanism the question arises as to whether
the principle of complementarity specifically applies when a cultural
bishopric has been created by some clergy and laity seceding from a
territorial bishopric(s) because they believe that the territorial bishopric
is in some basic way in error or in heresy or in immorality. In other
words, within the Anglican Communion is it possible for a cultural
bishopric to exist alongside a territorial bishopric if there is impaired or
broken eucharistic communion between the parent bishopric and the dioceses
created by the seceders ?

And this situation becomes the more complicated if other territorial
Churches or individual dioceses within the Anglican Family declare
themselves in communion with the seceders and not with the original
territorial jurisdiction.

What exists in the USA in modern Anglicanism is that there is the original
territorial bishopric/province (PECUSA/ECUSA) and from this there have
seceded clergy and laity who have formed jurisdictions outside the original
bishoprics/province. Now the question is whether if the uniting of these
jurisdictions with a view to being an accredited Province of the Anglican
Communion is possible, while they remain in impaired or broken communion
with the ECUSA, which remains a Province of good standing in the Anglican
Communion?

The Rev’d Dr Peter Toon July 13 2001 ptoon@ont.com