Posted on 02/14/2006 1:16:21 PM PST by sionnsar
How many married Anglican bishops are there?
Quite the majority of them are married, I believe. Per the order for consecrating a bishop:
A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach; not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous; one that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity; (for if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?) not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil.
That doesn't say that Bishops HAVE to be married, only that if they ARE married they can only be married to one woman (no polygamy), and not divorced.
I presume that Gene Robinson would not be among those who decided to reunite with Rome...
Robinson would be smart to not even try...
Dear Vicomte13,
"Neither is going to change anything fundamental to come into full communion with the other."
I agree, but what you think, or what I think really isn't very important. I'm pretty sure that Pope Benedict thinks that reunion with Orthodoxy is of a very high priority, and that unilaterally permitting married bishops would set back that priority considerably.
As well, you might note that on this thread, Hermann the Cherusker has made a brief that married men who have been consecrated to the episcopacy have never had use of marriage.
I think that's a tough case to make, but again, it doesn't matter what I think, or you think. I suspect that Hermann's way of thinking about the question is probably closer to Pope Benedict's than yours.
I would be utterly shocked if Pope Benedict accommodated the TAC by permitting married bishops.
sitetest
Well, you never know.
Robinson could suddenly see the light, be knocked from his horse (Brokeback Mountain references come to mind...), realize his errors, repent, confess, seek absolution, and be absolved.
Of course, he'd need to quit his lover.
And he'd need to leave the episcopacy too.
But he could be a Catholic.
I don't think it will happen either.
Nor do I think that there will be reunification with Orthodoxy.
Those horses are out of the barn.
If Catholicism wishes to grow, it has to do so the old fashioned way: through breeding and evangelism.
Mergers, while fine in theory, and satisfying, are not really likely. The Church split over theology - real, hard, fundamental differences in theology.
Of all of the Churches, the one that I think has the best chance of reunification is Anglicanism because it's the only exception to that rule. Anglicanism split because of a purely political, cynical decision by an English King. Theological differences have grown, but as we see with gay bishops, Anglican theological argumentation is capable of great flexibility, even fluidity, when it needs to be.
I don't think that there's any real prospect of ever reuniting with Orthodoxy, and that Rome should evangelize using the Uniate Churches in the East. In the West, the only real reunification likely to be possible is with the orthodox, catholic Anglicans.
From an American perspective, having the Episcopalian Church revert to Catholicism would be a godsend, because Anglican Catholicism is the natural form of Catholicism for most of the English-speaking world. I myself, though a Latin Catholic (literally: I'm French) and an Irish Catholic, find the Episcopalian High Service, and the matins, to be considerably more beautiful, and yes, meaningful, than the comparable Novus Ordo mass OR the Latin Mass. I do not speak Latin. I do speak English.
Of course, that the wafer is just a wafer makes it unreal, but I would like to see it made real. And I would very happily go to the Anglican Rite Church...if it came back into the fold.
The Chaldeans/Assyrians (Church of the East) allowed Married Bishops for hundreds of years, but that practice fell into disuse, even as the Episcopate became a hereditary office (handed from Uncle to Nephew). That is the only historical example of the practice.
Dear Vicomte13,
The split between Orthodoxy and Catholicism was more political than theological, as far as I can see. The continued disunion seems less theological to me, as well.
Reunion with Anglicanism, as in, the Anglican Communion, probably is less likely than reunion with Orthodoxy. That's because in the century or so after Henry, Anglicanism really did embrace Protestantism, and really did change its theology, the Anglo-Catholic party within the Church of England notwithstanding.
The TAC is a small part of the Anglican tradition, and doesn't even fully represent the entirety of Continuing Anglicanism.
Most of Anglicanism, including the American Episcopal church, isn't coming back to Catholicism, with or without married bishops.
sitetest
The Orthodox think that the split with Rome is theological.
They think that Rome has lapsed into theological heresies, the first being that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father AND THE SON.
The Orthodox say this is false. The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, not the Son. The Orthodox consider this to be a fundamental theological issue concerning the very nature of the Trinity.
Of course, were Catholics to drop the "and the Son" from the Creed, a very large theological difference with Orthodoxy would be removed.
Certain Greek theologians have struggled to adopt a philosophical framework in which the Catholic concept of the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Father "and the Son" is not a serious error (because it is not to be taken literally but figuratively). However, the Orthodox laity are not persuaded by this at all. They think that the Catholics lapsed into heresy by adding the term "and the Son" to the Creed, and that this is a dramatic theological error, because the Holy Spirit does NOT, in fact, proceed from the Son at all, and it is stubborn error: heresy, to insist that he does.
I think that's a little thing, because all of that high theology is really very abstract and not very important to my own relationship with God. But the Orthodox all know this distinction, and they think it's a big thing, a great theological gulf, a Roman HERESY, even though their bishops are now trying to tamp down that word.
The next great theological gulf erupts over the authority of the Pope. The Orthodox believe that the Pope is First Among Equals, he who presides at Councils of the Church, etc. But the Pope himself is subject to the Councils of the Church. He cannot change anything that the Seven Ecumenical Councils have decided upon. To Catholics, the infallibility of the Pope, when speaking ex cathedra on matters of faith and morals, is a THEOLOGICAL matter, itself an infallible doctrine. The Orthodox consider that doctrine to be in error. Just as Peter presided over, but did not have the authority to singularly direct the outcome of the Council of Jerusalem in Acts, so to the Pope is the Senior in Dignity, First Among Equals, but in the end just a patriarch, with an equal vote in Councils of the Church and no power to bind another patriarch of the Church. To the Orthodox, this is a disciplinary matter. But to Catholics, it is a theological matter, based on the concept of the power of the keys.
For the Orthodox to be willing to reunite with the Catholic Church, the Catholic Church must remove the heretical words (in the opinion of the Orthodox) "and from the Son" which they added, without authority, to the Nicene Creed, and the Catholics must abandon the heretical (in the opinion of the Orthodox) doctrine of Papal Supremacy.
These really are theological matters, not political ones.
The original split occurred over those words "and from the Son", which was a Western use but never an Eastern one. That's really theological, and not merely political. The Pope ordered that the "filioque" be used in the East. The Patriarch of Constantinople refused. The Pope excommunicated the Patriarch for heresy, and the Patriarch excommunicated the Pope for heresy in return. The East doesn't believe in the filioque. The West does.
Now, a compromise, from the Catholic position, might be to allow the Orthodox to practice their liturgy without saying the filioque. After all, the Eastern Rites and most ancient liturgies of the Catholic Church don't use it. Pope John Paul II and the Ecumenical Patriarch jointly presided at a mass/liturgy, and they did NOT say the words "And from the Son" when the recited the Creed - there are old Catholic liturgies that predate the adoption of the filioque, and the Pope used that.
Probably the Ecumenical Patriarch would be willing to go with that difference. But the Patriarch of Moscow will not tolerate that. Why? Because the words "and from the Son" will continue to be used in the Latin Church, and those words are heretical error, just like referring to Mary as co-redemptrix is a serious heretical error, bordering on blasphemy in the minds of conservative Eastern Orthodox. Of course, Catholicism did not embrace the co-redemptrix movement, but it also did not excommunicate it or fiercely condemn it as heretical either. The East doesn't like these strange new doctrines, like the filioque, or papal supremacy.
Even if the bishops of the East get around the problem intellectually, there is still the problem of the Orthodox laity. The organization of the Orthodox Church is radically different from the organization of the Roman Catholic. The Catholic clergy and episcopacy are monarchic: priests are made by bishops, bishops are made by other bishops, and bishops can be removed by the Pope. The laity doesn't vote for bishops, and can't remove clergy.
But in the East, the laity DO have a say in who becomes their bishop, and they can remove a bishop in certain circumstances.
So, for example, Cardinal Law, the former Bishop of Boston implicated in the pedophile priest-shuffling scandal: had he been an Orthodox bishop, the laity may have removed him from his episcopacy. The Eastern Church is not exactly democratic, but the laity DO retain a power of selection and removal. Now, is this a merely DISCIPLINARY matter, or is it a fundamentally THEOLOGICAL matter, about the proper ordering of the Church?
I would say that it is a theological matter.
I would also say that the Greeks and Russians are about as willing to accept a monarchical papacy and episcopacy as Americans are to accept a King. Thus, one of the prices that Rome will have to be willing to pay to reunite with the Orthodox East will be to allow the Eastern laity to remove from office those bishops, patriarchs and priests sent by Rome, which the laity find odious.
These are two profoundly different Churches at heart, and I think that the similarity in some appearances is glossed over by wishful thinking, almost entirely on the Roman Catholic side, about reunification.
The Orthodox agree that the Church should be unified. And they think that it will be when Rome abandons the heresies into which it has lapsed and readopts the Orthodox faith that Christ founded, which it believes Rome abandoned when it added strange doctrines like the filioque and the monarchic papacy.
All my life, ever since I understood the difference, like many Catholics I have dreamt of reunification of the Church, East and West. Pope John Paul II spoke of bringing the two "lungs" of the Church back together.
He, and many Catholics, are deeply sincere in their desire for reunion.
I have never met any Orthodox who were so eager. They do agree that Christ preached unity, but they think that the Roman Catholics are really just the first Protestants, and their view of reunification with Rome on any terms other than Rome simply abandoning all of the new doctrines adopted since the Seventh (and in their view, last) Ecumenical Council would be precisely the same thing as Roman Catholics would view the prospect of reuniting with Lutheranism by adopting Lutheran theology and practices.
Roman Catholics could not consider such a thing, because they believe it would be abandoning the truth for a sham of unity. That's how the Orthodox look at the various forms of Protestantism in the West, including Roman Catholicism. Again, this is from their eyes.
The theological problems are, I think, quite large. And given the full participation of the Orthodox laity in decisions in the Orthodox Church, it is a matter of somehow convincing millions of Orthodox to embrace Rome again.
This is altogether less likely, I think, than Rome and Canterbury coming back into union.
Dear Vicomte13,
Whatever may be the case now, the original split was more political than theological.
Even now, continued disunion is less theological than many might suppose. That many Orthodox laity may have inaccurate views of Catholic doctrine doesn't mean that there is actually as much of a theological issue as they suppose.
That being said, I don't think that reunion with Orthodoxy is in the cards.
"This is altogether less likely, I think, than Rome and Canterbury coming back into union."
The differences intra-Anglican are greater than the differences between Catholicism and Orthodoxy. Thus, there is no "Canterbury" to come back into union, except, perhaps, if the Church of England selects a particularly Anglo-Catholic Archbishop of Canterbury, and he converts on his own, or with a few stragglers.
sitetest
Stranger things than that have happened... (though I don't catch the references, as I know very little about the gay sheepherder movie...)
On this I daresay I would concur, certainly not anytime soon.
The American Episcopal church isn't going anywhere, except perhaps into the history books.
The rest of North American Anglicanism is going to divide (going to? it is dividing already); the Protestants to go with the Global South and the Anglo-Catholics to... uncertain. There is talk of Rome, and the TAC has gone much further in that direction than other groups, but as noted here it will not be a simple process.
There is also talk of reunification of the splinters; once in a while there is something to point to in this regard, and I am assured that there is more going on quietly. And it may yet happen as those who triggered the splintering soon after the Affirmation of St. Louis leave the scene. There are agreements and elements of cooperation in place, generally observed. But the difficulties of reunification with each other are sometimes almost as difficult as with Rome.
All this by way of saying I am guessing an awful lot based on a few tiny facts...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.