Robinson appointment 'invalid'

Church of England Newspaper ^ | 17 June 2004 | staff writer

[ahadams2]

Robinson appointment 'invalid'

Number: 5722 Date: June 17,

The consecration of the Anglican Church’s first openly gay bishop could be annulled in a bid to save the Communion from splitting over the homosexuality issue.

A paper has been presented to the Eames Commission, charged with solving the crisis, which argues that the consecration was invalid and that Gene Robinson cannot be regarded as a bishop.

At this week’s critical meeting of the Eames Commission in South Carolina, one of its members, Archbishop Drexel Gomez, presented the document as a possible solution to the row that has engulfed the Communion. It gives extensive theological reasons for why the see of New Hampshire should be regarded as vacant.

They argue that because Bishop Robinson, who lives with his male lover, could not be a “focus for unity” within the Church the consecration should be deemed invalid and he should not be regarded as a bishop.

The paper admits that the gay canon’s consecration was canonical, but says that those “consecrating could not have been acting with the reasonable expectation that they were consecrating someone who could act as a bishop of the Catholic Church”.

It continues: “Recognition that Canon Robinson was never properly consecrated suggests a possible way forward out of the crisis currently facing the Anglican Communion because of the actions of the Episcopal Church.”

Primates from the Global South called for the expulsion of ECUSA last month, and the paper reaffirms this tough stance if the American Church refuses to replace Robinson with a bishop acceptable to the whole Communion.

“Failure to take this action within an agreed time frame could then be regarded as a sign that the ECUSA no longer regarded itself as part of the Anglican Communion. The reasons would be that the Episcopal Church had taken action that it knew would lead to a breaking of communion with other churches of the Communion and had refused to rectify the situation when given the opportunity to do so.”

Canon Jeffrey John was forced to stand down from becoming Bishop of Reading, but for Bishop Robinson to resign having been consecrated would be a remarkable twist in the Anglican Church’s civil war over homosexuality.

The diocese of New Hampshire remains defiant. Its Standing Committee responded to the demand by issuing a statement, saying: “This is an issue that the Church has been dealing with for many years and we believe that the Holy Spirit has lead us in the election process and we trust in the Spirit’s leadership as we move to a more authentic communion."

The Rev Hayes Junkin, President of the Standing Committee, said: “We believe the intention underlying the consecration of Gene Robinson was fully in keeping with the sacramental role of a bishop. We believe that his presence as a bishop provides a fuller sign of unity in the Church. We are aware of the pain this is causing and stand ready to speak to anyone about how we can continue to work through this.”

[ahadams2]

Ping.

[Grampa Dave]

This is an interesting approach.

[GOPrincess]

Cracks me up (in a sad way) -- "work through this" only means "how we can win and get you Biblically orthodox to go along with it."

[ahadams2]

True enough, but the good thing about statements like this is that the heretics are continuing to demonstrate that they will not accept any calls to repent of their actions - and I have no doubt that the Eames Commission notices this as well.

[PetroniusMaximus]

***could be annulled in a bid to save the Communion from splitting over the homosexuality issue***


They'll just do it again with different people.

[ken5050]

ain't gonna work...this is a "bandaid" approach, and there isn't a big enough BandAid in the world to save ECUSA...the dyke ( no pun intended) is cracked, leaking badly....

[VRWC_minion]

If it came to this, the libs would read it as an urgent message to marry Robinson and his lover, not a message that they need to retreat.

[r9etb]

“...We believe that his presence as a bishop provides a fuller sign of unity in the Church. We are aware of the pain this is causing ....”

At which point the poor man began spewing green vomit from his spinning head....

[Sloth]

argues that the consecration was invalid and that Gene Robinson cannot be regarded as a bishop.

"A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife..." I Timothy 3:2.

Oh well, there goes that.

[lightman]

While this is an intriguing solution there would be the unintended consequence of overturning 1500+ years of catholic tradition that began with the Donatist controversy. The decision reached centuries ago is that the validity of orders and Sacraments does not hinge on the worthiness or holiness of the celebrant, but on the Word of God through Whose authority the Sacrament is administered.

The right course of action would have been for Mr. Robinson to step down as did his British counterpart, but one can hardly expect an individualistic, egocentric American to see more than his own narrow self interest, much less the good of the church catholic.

[dangus]

>>The paper admits that the gay canon’s consecration was canonical, but says that those “consecrating could not have been acting with the reasonable expectation that they were consecrating someone who could act as a bishop of the Catholic Church”. <<

Is this a misprint, or have I been gravely misunderstanding the Anglican Church's understanding of their relation to the Apostolic Church?

[dangus]

No, actually, this would work perfectly. It would not only state that Robinson is NOT a bishop, but humiliate those bishops who said he is, and establish that they have no legal right to appoint homos as bishops.

[dangus]

>>The paper admits that the gay canon’s consecration was canonical, but says that those “consecrating could not have been acting with the reasonable expectation that they were consecrating someone who could act as a bishop of the Catholic Church”. <<

Lousy gnostics. The Holy Spirit gave the scripture, tradition, exortations and saints.

[ahadams2]

Unlike most of the Anglican Communion, ecusa allows each diocese to modify it's own canon laws. There have also been concerted efforts by the heretics, over the last 30 years, to theologically neuter overall ecusa canon law to the point where, believe it or not, under current ecusa canon law vicki gene's 'consecration' was allowable. This, in fact, will be one of the final reasons given by the heretics for refusing to repent, no matter what the Eames Commission comes up with - in fact we've already seen frank the heretic playing this card repeatedly...without seeming to realize that it is totally meaningless to the rest of us.

[ahadams2]

You wrote "It would not only state that Robinson is NOT a bishop, but humiliate those bishops who said he is, and establish that they have no legal right to appoint homos as bishops."

That would be true, if the bishops in question actually cared what anyone else thought. Truth is that most of them could care less. Remember these bozos have bought into the whole 'we're progressive' mythology which they believe gives them the right to ignore anyone who disagrees with them. Further, they also truly believe that anyone who disagrees with them is ignorant, barbaric, or corrupted by money. They actually tell each other that the various conservative groups have somehow bribed the poor ignorant folks in Global South to go along with us. Oh, and they recognize neither the racism nor the financial impossibility of that statement.

If you want to understand how the heretical leadership thinks, imagine John Kerry as an ecusa bishop, only with half of his brain removed.

[mel]

Gee, I think the homosexual is just one small part of the problem. With people such as Bishop Spong spewing forth his atheist beliefs, it would take a fool to pretend this is a Christian denomination. The homosexual issue simply forced people to stop ignoring the heretics that are leading the Episcopal church in the United States.

[dangus]

That information is very interesting. But what had me aking questions is their use of the phrase, and I point out the capitalization, "Catholic church." Now, I know you guys haven't suddenly turned Papists on me (drats!), but what does the Anglican church mean by its use of Catholic as a proper noun (or actually, wouldn't that be a proper adjective? Is there such a thing?) Or is it simply a profound misprint?

[dangus]

As to the legal issue you raise, isn't there something in the way of overriding problemmatic law? For instance, in government, a superior jurisdiction (say, the federal government) can override a ruling from an inferior jurisdiction when the inferior jurisdiction's otherwise acceptable law creates a circumstamce which is unacceptable to the superior jurisdiction.

For instance, a city bans loud noise on Sundays. That's a good, reasonable law in the public interest. However, a church finds it cannot summon worshippers according to millennial-old tradition of a noon chime. So the federal government rules that in that one instance, the ban prevents first-amendment rights, but otherwise permits the city to ban barking dogs, construction equipment, public concerts, etc.

Liewise, couldn't the Anglican Church find that the ECUSA's canon law is generally acceptable, but that the standard application of it caused a legally intolerable outcome?

[ahadams2]

oh boy! the $10,000 question! Quite frankly, what it means depends on who you ask - no really! In all cases from an Anglican perspective 'catholic' means 'what has always been understood to be true everywhere' less the various errors attributed to Roman and Eastern Orthodox sources; or in the case of some Anglo-Catholics less the errors attributed to Eastern Orthodox, Protestant, and later Roman sources. Indeed exactly what does and does not constitute catholicity is the subject of regular (and not unheated) debate between the various portions of the Anglican theological spectrum...which is why the term is only rarely used in public debate. When it *is* used, as in the present case, it is done to indicate such an egregious violation of catholicity that everyone except the heretics would agree that is the case.

Now just to add even more confusion (and yes, I realize that this does cause confusion among our Roman brethren - er, even more than it does among us, I mean...) Anglicans, some Methodists, and some Lutherans all use the original form of the "Apostles" and Nicene Creeds (latter with the western filique), not the forms you may see elsewhere among Protestants which replace the word 'catholic' with 'Christian'....even though none of us entirely agree with each other (much less with all y'all) about exactly what is or is not 'catholic'!

Oh, and if you *do* run into someone who is accustomed to saying 'Christian' in place of 'catholic' in the creeds do NOT respond as I did to a relative by saying "but that's not what it means - that's not what the Creed originally said!" At which point said relative got down an old service book and hymnal (circa 1930 something) and showed me that (as far as she was concerned) the Creed certainly had always said 'Christian'!:-)