An all-male episcopate (Article 4) but a careful limitation of the qualities necessary for a presbyter to purely confessional ones (Article 9). Most interesting. Also noteworthy that there’s no role for standing committees in certifying episcopal elections.   

Congregational ownership of property (Article 5). Evidently a case of once-bitten, twice shy.

Wonder what reliance on the 1662 BCP (Article 6) means for those parishes that now use the 1979 book. 

Catholic and Reformed

No role for the laity or presbytery in the selection of bishops, eh?

The second half of proposed Canon 7 is ironic:

No person shall be ordained a Deacon or Presbyter in the Church until such person shall have subscribed without reservation the following declaration:

“I do believe the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments to be the Word of God and to contain all things necessary to salvation, and I consequently hold myself bound to conform my life and ministry thereto, and I do solemnly engage to conform to the Doctrine, Discipline and Worship of the Anglican Church in North America.”  [Emphasis added]

That’s remarkable chutzpah, coming as it does from men who chose to disregard the identical vow they previously made concerning TEC’s doctrine, discipline, and worship. A classic example of ‘do as I say, not as I do,’ eh?

(And the most egregious sin, at least for us language purists: The drafters omitted the final serial comma in “Doctrine, Discipline and Worship”.)

DC,

Where do you get the idea of no role for the laity or presbyterate? As I read it, the laity and presbyters of the jurisdiction affected will still choose their bishop. It’s merely that at the provincial level the decision will be made by the bishop-elect’s peers.

You’re right, Jeremy [#3], I misspoke; I meant, no role for the laity and presbytery at the provincial level.

Damn!  There they go getting all ANGLICAN rather than the beyond-blessed ECUSA/TEC/GCC/EO-PAC polity.  Funny how the uniqueness of the polity excuses all manner of evil but its rejection in favor of the ANGLICAN norm around the world is badgered as inadequate.  Just can’t please everyone…....especially when one insists on its way.

D. C. ,
Although I am with you on the comma, the lack of one is now considered optional and is taught as the preferred method in many schools.  Personally, I prefer the old way.

I see some parallels between the present situation of the Anglican Church in North America and the early days of the Episcopal Church. The best book I know on those early days is Frederick Mills’
_Bishops by Ballot_ (NY, OUP 1978). 

Representatives of the Church of England congregations and clergy
met in state conventions after the 1783 treaty of peace created a new political and ecclesiastical situation. A variety of proposals were made by William White in Pennsylvania, his former teacher William Smith in Maryland, by Samuel Seabury from Connecticut. A revised Prayer Book was proposed and as Marion Hatchett of Sewanee has noted was adopted with some conservative revisions required by the English bishops. Bishop White was able to bring Bishop Seabury into the fellowship but it took a while - 5 years for a common Prayer Book, 9 years for all four bishops to join in consecrating the fifth.

The new situation in moral theology created when the General
Convention 2003 decided to disregard the good advice given by the Lambeth bishops of 1998 has taken 5 years to result in the formation of the ANCA.
I expect the ACNA will make some changes over the next six months
in response to the comments made by some of the primates of the other Anglican provinces, particularly those who have had responsibility for American congregations. The ACNA will have some growing pains.

After the initial energy of 1784-92 the Episcopal Church did not
do much until 1811 when the consecration of Bishops Hobart and Griswold brought new vigor.

I expect we will see some consolidation in the Episcopal Church
and in the ACNA over the next few years. If the General Convention 2009 repeals B033 and more gay bishops in same-sex relationships are consecrated the consolidation may be greater and the ACNA may gain some additional members. If B033 remains and no more gay bishops in same-sex relationships are consecrated I think more conservative Episcopalians will remain under the authority of General Convention.

D.C. Toedt in comment 2 above presents one side of the issue raised when the standards change - that a promise of conformity once made is permanent despite changes in doctrine or diiscipline or worship.  A different view is that when changes are made by the General Convention clergy are similarly free to change and if led by conscience may withdraw from the spiritual authority of the church in which the promise is made “for reasons not affecting moral character.” 

Some believed that the ordination of women as priests and the adoption of the revised Prayer Book of 1979 were changes of doctrine and worship they could not in good conscience accept. Others believed that approval of the consecration of Bishop Robinson was a change in discipline - at least - they could not in good conscience accept.

The Anglican churches accept as ordained those who have had Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic bishops lay hands on them.  We say that we ordain into the one sacramental ministry of Christ. Those who have withdrawn from the authority of General Convention have not abandoned that one sacramenta ministry; they have given up the right to exercise that ministry in the Episcopal Church.

Tom,

I think your reminder in #7 of the “dead” season of the 1790s and 1800s that preceded the vigor instituted by Hobart and Griswold is a very salutary warning for the present season. Even the mother church of colonial Anglicanism - Virginia - languished for some years without a bishop.

So many people today are expecting great things and are disregarding the warnings of “growing pains” of which even people like Bob Duncan are warning.

It’s a relatively minor point, but I note that there’s no provision for “Christmas effect” years in the canons that refer to ASA.  Thus, for instance, a “diocese, cluster, or network” that in a normal year hovers just under (say) 5,000 ASA could suddenly be entitled to an additional clergy and lay representative in a Christmas effect year—and lose them again the next year.

Or a “diocese, network, or cluster” could get admitted to the Provincial Assembly by just barely topping 1,000 ASA in a CE year, and then drop below that the following year.

That much, however, I’m sure they can sort out as the situation arises.  As regards bishops, I do notice that in addition to establishing a male-only episcopate, they say:

...who possesses those qualities for a bishop which are in accordance with Scriptural principles…

Does that mean that no remarried candidates need apply?

I would predict that the greatest flaw in these Canons is in the section granting parishes unrestricted ownership of property. While one fully understand the reactive reasoning here, a similar provision in the Canons of continuing church jurisdictions has enabled a musical chairs practice, as congregations have followed clergy from one jurisdiction to another, as has just happened as the REC has taken congregations from the APA although it is in full communion with the APA. If theologically the diocese is the essential expression of the Church Catholic, material congregationalism would seem to counter such an Anglican ecclesiology.

Ok, I read it that it would allow one bishops for every 1000 ASA. 

Seems overboard

-The press on this has reported 100,000 members of this province…are we going to have 100 bishops in this province? Makes the TEC look like an optimized organization. I remember people unhappy about the presiding bishop of TEC heading up 4,000 people in Nevada and that being looked down upon by reasserters. Seems like we are making the same mistake.

We don’t need more priests trying to become bishops….we need more priests building churches.

The greatest flaw in these Canons is in the section granting parishes unrestricted ownership of property —-WVParson [#11]

On the contrary, unrestricted parish ownership is a great virtue. It provides an additional safeguard against heresy and bureaucratic self-aggrandizement.

The safeguard will be important even though rarely used. Its existence will deter the sort of top-down drift towards revisionism that occurred in mainline churches over the past century.

The “musical chairs” of which WVParson complains [#11] reflects a transition problem that will fade as ties strengthen within the new province.

Jackson [#12]: I agree that “we need more priests building churches.”

The 1000-ASA-per-bishop figure looks like a minimum (evidently designed to avoid an ECUSA-style proliferation of micro-dioceses) rather than a norm.

PS: By way of comparison, the U.S. Constitution specifies that “the Number of [U.S.] Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand.” If we used that as a norm rather than a minimum, the U.S. House of Representative would have 10,200 members instead of just 435.

So looking at the Canons and Constitution, does each constituent group (e.g. FIFNA, REC, AMiA, etc) keep its own identity? The wording of “diocese, cluster, or network” seems to suggest that each entity would elect its own bishops and keep its own councils, so that they may at any time withdraw? This seems to me to be a confederation of separate entities and not some cohesive new whole Province.

15-Archer.

I have read the canons and constitution over several times.  As far as I can tell, EACH diocese under a Bishop which has a ASA of at least 1000 is a Diocese of the new Province.  Also, groupings of dioceses can band together in “sub-provincial” bodies (i.e. the dioceses of the REC will “band together” as the REC which is a “sub provincial body”).  So, from the REC, you would have three dioceses which qualify (North East and Midatlantic, Mid America, and Southeast-each under a bishop and each has an ASA of over 1000) and three (Missionary Diocese of the Central States, Diocese of Eastern Canada, and Diocese of Western Canada and Alaska (and Cuba-each under a bishop but with ASA under 1000 although MDCS could get close soon!!).  From the FACA grouping, I think that the Missionary Episcopal Church, the APA and the ACA would have enough for at least one “diocese.”