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 ...
The big difference here, is imagine instead of John Paul II, and Benedict, you had some popes to the (far) left of Vatican II. So much so that they were saying homosexual behavior was just fine, belief in Jesus isn’t necessary, a Muslim can also simultaneously be a Christian, etc. etc....
So a seriously sizable group stays faithful to tradition-—AND has apostolic sucession, and starts to consecrate more faithful bishops contrary to (the heretical) pope’s authority. Many faithful priests flee to those bishops, putting themselves under their authority. When the heretical bishops defrock them, do such decisions really have any weight?
By being disobedient to the bible, ancient tradition and mere common sense, all at the same time, has not the heresy of these bishops actually, in the sight of God, made them lose their divine authority, even while they still hold it in a temporal organization? Just as there were in the 1400s some false popes claiming authority in the Roman Catholic Church, are there not now, in the Episcopal Church some false bishops?
My point is, when a heretic defrocks you, other than technical difficulties, what difference to your ministry does it make?
In the days of the early Church, the priests in the Temple had God-given authority—seen directly in the bible. They threw the disciples out of the Temple, and local synagogue- leaders (”priests” if you will) excommunicated them from their Churches (synagogues). And of course the religious leadership also colluded with the Romans to have Christ Himself killed.
However the Church was established by God, in the Person of Jesus Christ Himself. The gates of Hell did not prevail against it—no matter what the official religious leadership, false as they were, did.
My first problem with your analogy is that there is nothing analogous to popes in the Anglican Communion or the Episcopal Church. I don’t see any analogous magisterial authority to that which exists in the Catholic Church.
“So a seriously sizable group stays faithful to tradition-—AND has apostolic sucession, and starts to consecrate more faithful bishops contrary to (the heretical) pope’s authority.”
My problem here is that, in the Catholic Church, bishops who consecrate bishops against the expressed will of the Roman Pontiff are automatically excommunicated from the Catholic Church. Of course, it also begs the question that the popes would teach heresy in the first place. That wouldn’t square with clearly enunciated doctrines of the Church.
“By being disobedient to the bible, ancient tradition and mere common sense, all at the same time, has not the heresy of these bishops actually, in the sight of God, made them lose their divine authority, even while they still hold it in a temporal organization?”
In Catholic ecclesiology, that gets a bit tricky. Even if a Catholic bishop were formally declared a formal heretic, he would still have the episcopal character on his soul. If he were to ordain other men as priests and bishops, as long as he did what the Church intends to do, the ordinations would be valid.
As long as he was not formally deposed from his episcopal seat, and as long as he followed the norms of Canon Law, his actions as bishop in his diocese would have the full force of Church and divine law.
Otherwise, we would wander back into Donatism, assuming that the worthiness of the minister affects the validity of the sacraments and actions taken.
Thus, the actions a bad bishop, not deposed, who followed Canon Law to discipline one of his priests, would be valid in all ways.
“My point is, when a heretic defrocks you, other than technical difficulties, what difference to your ministry does it make?”
In the Catholic Church, the question is based partly on a false premise, that priests are “defrocked.” In the Catholic Church, a priest could be disciplined, silenced, suspended, even removed from the lay state, but 1) if he objected, he would have automatic right of appeal to Rome and 2) even so, he would still, after all these actions were taken, be a Catholic priest, ontologically.
My question was whether or not that is the theology of the Anglican Communion or the Episcopal Church.
The answers here seem to range from “identical” to something along the lines of “who knows, who cares”.
Which suggests to me that Mad Dawg’s summary in post 15 is probably on the mark.
sitetest
Well he has to throw in some aliens and some other wierdness while he’s at it, of course.
That's the reason I wanted to stay up to listen to him, but couldn't make it. I believe in a lot of that "wierdness". I think it all has to do with the "quickening" as you called it.
Very good point. If the Lord makes someone a priest, and that person accepts and chooses to obey the Lord rather than the local screwball with a pointy hat, can the local screwball cite the authority of his pointy hat and unmake what the Lord has made? I think not.
I have no idea on the details of present day Roman ecclesiology...and I defer to Mad Dawg about the details of Anglicanism’s mess in this area.
I was trying to get at principle—and especially, since the Anglican Communion catholic is not a Roman Catholic one, and Rome only fully recognizes communions under their care, and even for Anglican conservatives—be they Anglo-Catholic or Evangelical, in practice, Anglican polity is not the same (even if in official-policy they claim to be) as that of Rome. (Being separated for 450 years from Rome may have something to do with that...) I know on other (Church-law) legal matters, as with any legal system, exceptions and inconsistencies remain, in actual practice, even if not in theory. This is why ultimately, while we’re called to do our best now, we all agree, our Lord will sort it all out at the Last Judgment.
None-the-less, when one bishop of the Anglican communion claims authority over a priest, and another bishop claims authority to inhibit his practice as a priest—the dispute is at the bishops’ level, not that of the priest.
The whole worldwide Anglican Communion, third largest church in the world (even if not acknowledged as a Church by this Roman pope) is in the midst of a worldwide, not just North American, split; revisionists have had their way. As in any conflict—as with Rome in the 1400s, in the schism and the “Babylonian Captivity,” (a time when there were up to 3 pope claiments) murkiness in particular cases remains. This is why loyalty to the supreme authority of scripture, as hard as that is in practice, I believe is the best answer, even at the institutional level.
“I have no idea on the details of present day Roman ecclesiology...and I defer to Mad Dawg about the details of Anglicanism’s mess in this area.”
My question was about Anglican theology of Holy Orders, and how it compares to Catholic theology. If you know nothing of the latter, and defer to others on the former, then why try to answer the question with an analogy that totally gets it wrong?
“I was trying to get at principle—and especially, since the Anglican Communion catholic is not a Roman Catholic one, and Rome only fully recognizes communions under their care, and even for Anglican conservatives—be they Anglo-Catholic or Evangelical, in practice, Anglican polity is not the same (even if in official-policy they claim to be) as that of Rome.”
This sentence/paragraph is rather convoluted. I think you’re saying that Anglican polity is different from the polity of the Catholic Church.
Gee, I’d have never guessed. ;-)
But I wasn’t asking about polity; I was asking about theology.
As to what “Rome” recognizes or not, certainly, Anglicans are neither Catholic, nor have Apostolic Succession, nor have valid sacraments (apart from baptism), nor, properly speaking, are a particular church.
However, the Catholic Church recognizes most all of this in the Orthodox, even though the Orthodox aren’t currently in communion with her. Thus, the judgment of the Church varies and differentiates between those not currently in communion with her.
“The whole worldwide Anglican Communion, third largest church in the world (even if not acknowledged as a Church by this Roman pope)...”
NO pope, not just the current one, has ever recognized the Anglican Communion as a church, the Catholic Church has never recognized the Anglican Communion as a church. It’s not just Pope Benedict (and Pope John Paul II, who caused to be issued the original document, Dominus Iesus, on which the recent clarifying comments by the CDF were made).
As to the rest of your post, it also has nothing to do with my original question, which seems to have been answered adequately, otherwise.
But thanks anyway.
sitetest
So much for ecumenical dialog. But hey, Benedict is leading the way in your attitude toward it, isn’t he?
Thanks be to God, Christ is head of His Church, and the Chief Shepherd knows His sheep—even as they know His voice.
I wasn’t making an attempt to engage in ecumenical dialogue, just trying to learn the theology of the Anglican Communion regarding Holy Orders.
However, ecumenical dialogue isn’t the same thing as making kumbaya together. Ecumenical dialogue can’t rely on watering down what folks believe. If we Catholics must give up, abandon, or dilute what we believe to be “ecumenical,” then “ecumenism” is just another politically-correct, diabolical plot to rob us of our Catholic faith and inheritance.
sitetest
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.