Comments: ECUSA: the claims about hierarchy

This is actually an important legal issue because precedent in the US treats "hierarchical" churches differently from "congregational" churches. Hierarchical churches can enforce canons on member churches -- removing clergy, restraining uses of property -- which congregational churches can not enforce rules on member congregations.

But Mr. McCall's article is quite misplaced because this is a settled legal question. TEC *is* a hierarchical church for this legal purpose. The Presbyterian Church, USA is also a hierarchical church under this standard. There is ample precedent for this and no court will seriously entertain a legal position that TEC is not hierarchical.

Posted by ruidh at Thursday, 18 September 2008 at 9:16pm BST

We're called the *EPISCOPAL* Church, for heaven's sake! How is it even a question whether we're hierarchical or not?

Posted by JCF at Friday, 19 September 2008 at 12:58am BST

This is the stupidest thing imaginable. The Episcopal Church has never been congregational. Even the name denies it.

Posted by Phylmom at Friday, 19 September 2008 at 3:42am BST

Wow, I'm glad Gunderson didn't mark any of my church history papers. It makes you really wonder about the ACI, though. It's one thing to publish articles and opinions for open discussion, another to agree so sympathetically and uncritically with what is published. A bit embarrassing, I should have thought. Though, if this isn't the last word, the tables may then turn on me....

Posted by Joe at Friday, 19 September 2008 at 8:26am BST

Hi Simon,

Mr McCall has now responded to Dr Gunderson's errant response... He isn't very impressed with her arguments!

Posted by davidwh at Sunday, 21 September 2008 at 11:36pm BST

"Throughout the constitution and canons, the phrase “the Church” or “this Church” consistently refers to the whole Episcopal Church. There was no Anglican Communion for the constitution to reference when the Episcopal Church constitution was first written." - Dr. Joan Gunderson.

If Doctor Gunderson's comment, above-quoted, is correct, then McCall's argument in favour of diocesan independence of TEC is scuttled. It seems reasonable that, as the 'Anglican Communion' was not a formally structured entity at the time TEC was founded, the individual dioceses that have seen fit to become part of TEC are legally bound by the Convention.

What will be McCall's next argument, I wonder?

Posted by Father Ron Smith at Tuesday, 23 September 2008 at 6:04am BST
Post a comment









Remember personal info?






Please note that comments are limited to 400 words. Comments that are longer than 400 words will not be approved.

Cookies are used to remember your personal information between visits to the site. This information is stored on your computer and used to refill the text boxes on your next visit. Any cookie is deleted if you select 'No'. By ticking 'Yes' you agree to this use of a cookie by this site. No third-party cookies are used, and cookies are not used for analytical, advertising, or other purposes.