Minutes and Business Arising: b. Committee on Coadjutor, Suffragan and Assistant Bishops
https://archives.anglican.ca/link/official8678
- Date
- 1963 October 4-6
- Source
- House of Bishops. Minutes
- Type
- Resolution
- Seconder
- Bishop of Calgary
- Prologue
- The report of the Committee on Coadjutor, Suffragan and Assistant Bishops (Toronto Minutes, Page 6) was presented by the Archbishop of Algoma, who moved, seconded by the Bishop of Ontario, that the report be received. CARRIED
- Text of motion
- "That this House receives with thanks the Report on Coadjutor, Suffragan and Assistant Bishops and request the Committee to continue its Studies -- also that the question of a Coadjutor being provided (at least two years prior to the date of a Diocesan Bishop) be considered, particularly in the case of a Bishop of a Missionary Diocese. CARRIED.
- Notes
- Copy of the report is printed below:
- COADJUTOR, SUFFRAGAN AND ASSISTANT BISHOPS
- The resolution which the committee comprising the Bishop of Ottawa, the Bishop of Ontario and the archbishop of Algoma (appointed by the Primate) was asked to consider was:
- "That the Primate be requested to appoint a small committee of this House to consider the episcopate in Canada with particular relation to suffragan, coadjutor and assistant bishops."
- The context in which this resolution came before the House of Bishops appeared to have special relationship to the election of coadjutor, suffragan and assistant bishops in those dioceses which would need the financial support of the Church in Canada through the M.S.C.C. Although it is within the prerogative of each diocese to elect such bishops, with the concurrence of Provincial authority, your committee would go on record in emphasizing a subsequent motion of the House --"that Metropolitans be requested to consult with the M.S.C.C. if financial arrangements are required, before Synodical action is taken, in appointing bishops in missionary dioceses." The emphasis is on the word "consult" as it is felt that where episcopal and provincial action is taken to justify such appointments, the M.S.C.C. accordingly would present before the Church any increase in budget necessary for such purpose.
- There is another aspect to such appointments which will need the guidance of the House of Bishops. Should there be additional dioceses established in which one diocesan bishop might be sufficient, or should the emphasis be placed upon an increase in the number of assistant bishops ? Your committee feels that the answer to this question will depend largely on the local circumstances of each individual diocese. This may call forth discussion and subsequent action from the House of Bishops, but your committee desires to draw attention to this situation. With the increased growth of population in some dioceses and the vast distances to be covered in others, the subject is one which deserves the closest scrutiny at this time in our Church development.
- Again, there are some questions which may appear to possess technical, but nevertheless real implications: to what extent does an "assistant Bishop" (including coadjutor, suffragan or assistant) receive his directions from the Diocesan Bishop and/or to what extent is his position defined (following his consecration) by the Province or General Synod ?
- If the Province elects such assistant Bishop, has the Province the authority to define his territorial jurisdiction ? If the national Church subscribes a large amount of money annually for increased episcopal assistance, has General Synod any authority in the function or territorial jurisdiction of the assistant bishop ?
- It appears that diocesan bishops may request additional episcopal assistance after consultation with their respective Synods. How many dioceses have diocesan canons in which the initiative rests with Synod itself in petitioning for additional episcopal assistance ?
- Should assistant bishops have territorial jurisdiction ? If so, do they not have the prerogative (or should they ?) to officiate at all confirmations, dedications and consecrations in such jurisdiction ?
- Should an assistant bishop send in his resignation to the Executive Committee of a diocese or to his Metropolitan ? Such a question might rightly be asked in the event a coadjutor or a suffragan bishop assumes the function of the diocesan or in the event he is translated.
- What regulations should govern assistant bishops in regard to residence ? Is this an internal diocesan matter to be decided between bishop and diocesan synod ? Should the place of residence be decided upon either before or at the time of election by the Provincial House of Bishops or Provincial electoral college ? Should the diocesan bishop be the final authority in making the decision ?
- As the above statements and questions will provoke further debate, your committee would recommend that this be a progress report and that continued study be given to the resolution before us as submitted at the May meeting 1962.
- Subjects
- Episcopacy - Anglican Church of Canada
- Coadjutor Bishops - Anglican Church of Canada
- Assistant Bishops - Anglican Church of Canada
- Suffragan Bishops - Anglican Church of Canada
- Anglican Church of Canada. House of Bishops. Committee on Coadjutor, Suffragan and Assistant Bishops