Why doesn't the Episcopal Church (USA) use the title ‘Archbishop’?

Upvote:3

The Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church of the USA is a peculiar primate in that he or she is not a diocesan bishop. This has been the case since the Convention of 1943.

The Archbishop of Canterbury, as well as being Primate of all England, and Metropolitan of the southern province of England, is the diocesan bishop for the Canterbury diocese, comprising part of the county of Kent. The Pope is the diocesan bishop of Rome and the Russian Orthodox leader is Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia.

In the Anglican Communion the Archbishop of Armagh is the diocesan bishop of Armagh diocese as well as being Primate of All Ireland. The traditional norm is for the diocesan bishop of a particular see to hold, ex officio, the role of primate of a wider area. In the case of the Church of Ireland it is Armagh because St Patrick was the first Archbishop of Armagh.

In the United States of America, prior to the Declaration of Independence in 1776, the Church of England had no bishops in America but America was all, very loosely, under the Bishop of London. Its position varied from state to state, being Established in Virginia, for example and largely governed by the civil authorities there, to being independent of civil authorities in some other states.

The War between the US and Britain was a particular crisis for the Church of England in America. One aspect was that the Oath of Loyalty to the King became an impediment to Ordination of priests by the Bishop of London. This was eventually resolved.

By the time of the first Convention of the Protestant Episcopal Church of the United States of America, in 1789, there were two bishops in America, the Bishop of Connecticut and Bishop of the Protestant Episcopal Church of Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania was chosen as Presiding Bishop of the first Convention, with Connecticut for the next. Starting in 1795, it was agreed that the Presiding Bishop in future would be the most senior (longest serving) diocesan bishop.

The role of Presiding Bishop was simply to chair the Convention. The Churches in each of the states considered themselves largely separate from each other and there was no wish that one bishop have any supervisory or leadership role over any other.

This arrangement continued until the twentieth century. In the 1920s it was decided that, in future, the Presiding Bishop would be elected by the Convention. This reflected, and also consolidated, the growing idea that the Episcopal Church needed a leader rather than a chairman.

The Presiding Bishop remained however the bishop of a diocese.

Then, in the 1940s, it was decided that being Presiding Bishop should become a full time job and since then the Presiding Bishop, on election, is required to resign from being a diocesan bishop.

The position of Presiding Bishop went from being chairman of a convention to being a dedicated full time leader.

Parallels can be drawn with the position of President of the United States and the role of the United States government versus states rights. The first half of the twentieth century, arguably, saw a strengthening of the role of US President, particularly under Roosevelt.

So, originally the PECUSA had no desire for an archbishop becaue it did not want a leader with national responsibilities at all. Now the Presiding Bishop has no local responsibilities at all, it would be inappropriate to call him archbishop, because archbishops do have diocesan duties.

More post

Search Posts

Related post