Posted on 08/03/2007 12:46:45 PM PDT by rabscuttle385
Virginia Episcopal Bishop Peter J. Lee has ejected 20 of his former clergy from the priesthood after they quit the denomination in December over the 2003 consecration of New Hampshire Bishop V. Gene Robinson, who is openly homosexual.
In a document signed Aug. 1, the bishop defrocked 18 men and two women, saying they had "abandoned the communion of the Episcopal Church."
The widely anticipated document came seven months after 11 churches — along with their clergy — voted to leave the diocese and the denomination. Bishop Lee retaliated Jan. 22 by issuing an "inhibition" order forbidding 21 clergy affiliated with these churches to function in his diocese as Episcopal priests and giving them six months to change their minds.
Although their health benefits were terminated Jan. 31, they were allowed to retain their pension benefits, although as of this week they may no longer contribute to them.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
ADV Responds to the Bishop of Virginia's Announcement to Depose Former Clergy (VirtueOnline)
Anglican ping
Maybe there is something to Art Bell’s whole “quickening” thing....hmmmm.
Is Robinson out of rehab yet?
A question to nobody in particular.
What do Anglicans/Episcopalians believe about Holy Orders?
The way this article sounds to me is that the bishop is able to make non-priests out of priests.
In the Catholic Church, we loosely use terms “de-frock,” “former priest,” etc., but what we really mean to say is this: once a man is validly ordained, he is a priest forever. When a man is validly ordained, if he is licitly ordained, he’s also incardinated and elevated to the clerical state from the lay state. But the clerical state is a hierarchical office of the Church. It’s different from “becoming a priest,” which is an ontological change to the person, a “mark on the soul” that is indelible and eternal.
Thus, when a priest is severely disciplined in the Catholic Church, he may be laicized, that is reduced from the clerical to the lay state. He loses his status as a member of the hierarchy of the Church. He may no longer publicly represent himself as a Catholic priest. He may not LAWFULLY say Mass, and he may not generally validly perform marriages or give absolution.
Yet, that mark on the soul remains. He is still a priest forever, in the order of Melchizedek.
Even if he is excommunicated, and thus may not even receive the sacraments, he is still a priest forever. Should he celebrate Mass, it will be unlawful, it will heap ever more harm onto him, but the confection of the Blessed Sacrament, all things being equal, will occur.
At the most fundamental ontological level, you can’t make a non-priest from a priest in the Catholic Church.
How does that compare to what Anglicans/Episcopalians believe?
Traditional Anglican ping, continued in memory of its founder Arlin Adams.
FReepmail Huber or sionnsar if you want on or off this moderately high-volume ping list (sometimes 3-9 pings/day).
This list is pinged by Huber and sionnsar.
Resource for Traditional Anglicans: http://trad-anglican.faithweb.com
Humor: The Anglican Blue
Speak the truth in love. Eph 4:15
The Weight of Glory vs. the Weight of Organization...
True Anglicans believe. Episcopalians “feel”.
The Anglican position on Holy Orders is identical. (Without trying to be snarky, I can't speak for anything Episcopal any more. though I know there are those still who would say the same -- Bishop John-David Schofield, for example).
Interestingly, a discussion of the same issue came up quite recently on a closed Anglican list with a number of clergy on it.
Anglicans hold that the Sacrament of Holy Orders is validated by the Holy Spirit (it is the Lord that does the consecrating, not the bishop). The role of the bishop is to oversee a discernment process for those who feel a call to ordained ministry. When the bishop determines through prayer and couselling, etc. that the individual indeed is called and didn’t just have a bad night with tequilla, he then assigns the postulate to rigorous education and training. The end of the Process is Ordination, which the bishop himself celebrates.
I am not aware of a developed theology regarding ex-clerics. Priests who misbehave may be deprived of their right to function as a priest. When they are healed, they are not re-ordained. What’s happening to the priests in Virginia is that they are being charged with abandonment of Communion with the Church. In another words, they are being charged with quitting the Episcopal Church. I don;t think they would deny that they are leaving ECUSA. By “defrocking”, the Bishop of Virginia is staing that they are not to be received by another ECUSA diocese (like Archbishop Akinola cares).
Can a person the Holy Spirit consecrated as priest be “un-consecrated”? I don’t know. The Holy Spirit annointed Saul King of Israel, then later left him. This is almost like the “Once saved always saved” debate.
I was wondering what happened to the other one. From your link:
“one has made a good faith retraction and has had his inhibition lifted. The Rev. Nicholas Lubelfeld “has declared his loyalty to the doctrine, discipline and worship of The Episcopal Church” wrote Bishop Lee in the notice lifting Mr. Lubelfeld’s inhibition. Mr. Lubelfeld has accepted a call to serve as priest associate of Church of Our Redeemer in Aldie, Va., serving under the supervision of the Rev. John Sheehan, rector of that church.”
Any more info on old Nick?
LOL!
What is the "quickening thing"???
This just seemed to me to be incompatible with the very notion of Church. Neither One, NOR holy, NOR catholic, NOR apostolic. So I headed for the tall grass, uh, I mean, Tiber.
When I left I "renounced my orders" which basically means I wrote him a letter citing the relevant canon and saying I was renouncing and could I please have the official letter to which the canon entitles me which says I didn't renounce because I was "immoral".
He was pretty nice about it, and called me up to make sure and everything. Then I lost the letter ....
But the point is, it's kind of crossing the 't' and dotting the 'i'. Once you have a priest, you have to account for him, if you're a bishop. So if one quits, you have to officially (split your infinitives and) say, "Yep, he sho' 'nuff did quit." So if they don't renounce (which I took to mean that I no longer believed my ordination to be valid, since I thought TEC was incapable of forming any intention at all, much less the correct and necessary one) then at some point he (or she, or whatever) has got to be able to "terminate" them.
The paper is making a bigger ddeal of it than it is, counting on people's ignorance of and thoughtlessness about and eagerness to engage in a tut-tut-fest over church matters.
Gotcha. Thanks.
Thanks! You’re right about the paper’s take, or maybe it’s just bad writing!
Sorry I didn’t clarify. He has a sort of “unified” theory of the merging/confluence and acceleration of apocalyptic events. War/extreme weather/plagues/faith/loss of faith, etc, etc.
Thank you for the clarification. I was never able to stay awake long enough to listen to Art Bell.
If that is what he means by the quickening...I agree with him. As the Bible puts it, the birth pangs are growing closer and closer.
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.