Cardinal Sean O'Malley
Posted on 07/30/2008 6:17:22 AM PDT by NYer
.- Just over a week ago, the dissident group Womenpriests claimed to “ordain” three women as priests at a Boston-area Church of Christ location. The move was condemned by the Archdiocese of Boston and now the Rev. David Runnion-Bareford, a Church of Christ minister, is apologizing to the archdiocese for his fellow minister’s sanctioning of the event.
On Sunday, July 20, Roman Catholic Womenpriests held an alleged ordination ceremony of three women at the Church of the Covenant, which is affiliated with both the Presbyterian Church and the United Church of Christ (UCC).
The former president of the UCC in Massachusetts, Rev. Nancy Taylor attended the ceremony to show her support for the women and told the Boston Globe that she saw the women as being discriminated against by the Catholic Church. “Prejudice in liturgical clothing is still prejudice,” she said.
The Archdiocese of Boston responded to event by saying, “the ordination of men to the priesthood is not merely a matter of practice or discipline within the Catholic Church, but rather, it is part of the unalterable Deposit of Faith handed down by Christ through his apostles.”
Reiterating that Womenpriests is not an entity of the Catholic Church, the archdiocese said “Catholics who attempt to confer a sacred order on a woman, and the women who attempt to receive a sacred order, are by their own actions separating themselves from the Church.”
Rev. David Runnion-Bareford, Executive Director of the Confessing Movement in the United Church of Christ, responded to the situation by sending an open letter to Boston area Catholics via Cardinal Sean O'Malley. In his letter, he apologized for the "division and confusion" caused by Rev. Nancy Taylor and the Church of the Covenant—the church were the ceremony was held.
"Please accept our deepest and sincere apology for the behavior of Rev. Nancy Taylor of Old South Church, UCC and the UCC related Church of the Covenant. They do not reflect the heart and mind of our United Church of Christ whose premise is 'that all may be one.' Those of us who truly value the unity of all Christians and treasure our ecumenical relationships with you as Catholic brothers and sisters in Christ are grieved,” Runnion-Bareford wrote.
The Confessing Movement UCC pastor also said that his movement is also “fully aware that this event was not motivated by a sincere desire to honor the call of God and the anointing of the Holy Spirit on the ministry of committed Christian women.”
Rev. Runnion-Bradford further criticized the women for refusing to take a vow of chastity and for promoting a self-centered gospel, citing the “Body, Sex and Gender” section of the group’s web page.
“We know that 'Womenpriests' openly include candidates who are engaged in the practice of sexual license. It is significant that the participants would not take the vow of obedience or chastity. We are aware of the statements on their website proclaiming a false gospel of self and mutual affirmation, denying the fall of humanity and our need for repentance from sin and personal transformation through the atoning crucifixion and resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ.”
"We note that it is not incidental that this event was hosted in Boston by a church that is prideful about its aggressive religious sanction of homosexual, bi-sexual and transgender relationships and same gender 'marriage.' We also note that the pansexual activist group Integrity participated and assisted with hospitality," Runnion-Bradford observed in his letter.
Rev. Nancy Taylor also received a letter from Rev. Runnion-Bradford according to a press release from the Confessing Movement pastor. In his letter he took Taylor to task for her “divisive statements and behavior” saying that they “appear to violate the Minister's Code of the United Church of Christ, which says, 'I will be a responsible representative of the Church Universal and participate in those activities that strengthen its unity, witness, and mission'."
Rev. Taylor’s appearance and words of support for the women who attempted ordination could have implications for UCC practices as well, said Rev. Runnion-Bradford. He asked Taylor, “Can we infer from your actions of this last week that you would approve of groups who have justice issues with the United Church of Christ carrying out their own ordinations of individuals they believe valid regardless of our church's standards and protocols?"
This story was on New England Cable News last week. The reporter said these women were to be “ordained” rather matter of factly, though the official Catholic church would not recognize the ceremony. No kidding. I was waiting for the reporter to tell viewers *who* exactly would be doing this ordaining. There was no mention of that, which I found puzzling.
They talked to women who already claimed to be priests. I thought it was unusual that both were in lay clothing.
I fully understand and support the Catholic Church’s position on this issue. The concern I have is that they toss these women out, but don’t toss out the rich Dem politicians who publically support abortion.
The Catholic Church tosses no one out! Both the women and the politicos incur latae sentiae excommunication, by their own, willful actions. They are still welcome in the church but may not receive the Sacraments until they have repented for their sins.
If these women were to show up at a Catholic church, would they be allowed to participate in the Eucharist? If they would, then yes, I would say your assessment is correct.
But I would ask, if the Catholic Church tosses out no one, aren't they violating the instructions in scripture regarding church discipline?
Keyword = claim. They are not priest, regardless of what they say or believe. It's unfortunate the media doesn't wise up to these matters and ignore their press releases. Women Priests — No Chance
No
But I would ask, if the Catholic Church tosses out no one, aren't they violating the instructions in scripture regarding church discipline?
You will find the answer on this thread St. Louis Archbishop Burke warns women of excommunication if ordination proceeds
The links I placed in the posts above are about previous ordinations. This link is from Boston.com (i.e., the Globe) about the more recent ordinations.
“Highlights of the Ordination via GoogleVideo”
OMG!!! Did anyone else watch this video?!? HA HA HA!!!!! That is really hillarious! I LOVE the dance line at the end. And tie-dyed stoles?!? PRICELESS!
These yahoos couldn’t look any more idiotic if they tried. I mean, this LOOKS like a parody - a Saturday Night Live skit or something. And how about that great music? Gotta love it!
Apology accepted. It is NOW time for reparations!....oops wrong group.
The Protestant minister in question here is obviously a rather clear thinking person.
You would think if they wanted to be taken seriously as priests they would at least wear black only. I see that some of the “ordained” ones are wives and moms. I guess they don’t care much for the celibacy rule either.
If so, why would this be done to women who inappropriately ordain women as priests, but it is not done to politicians who publically support abortion?
If excommunication doesn't mean removal of said membership, what does it mean?
“but may not receive the Sacraments until they have repented for their sins.”
But they do receive the Sacraments...most visibly Communion, and it is time a Bishop or two told them to stop. It is a scandal as evidenced by the questioning of non-catholics (and many Catholics) who are confused by the American Church’s reluctance to discipline the excommmunicants.
And by a bishop or two I mean the Bishops who have the unrepentant under their jurisdiction, such as DC, Boston, SF.
http://benedictinamerica.blogspot.com/2008/04/no-hard-line-on-giving-communion-to-pro.html
That is a common misunderstanding.
Excommunication (Latin ex, out of, and communio or communicatio, communion -- exclusion from the communion), the principal and severest censure, is a medicinal, spiritual penalty that deprives the guilty Christian of all participation in the common blessings of ecclesiastical society. Being a penalty, it supposes guilt; and being the most serious penalty that the Church can inflict, it naturally supposes a very grave offence. It is also a medicinal rather than a vindictive penalty, being intended, not so much to punish the culprit, as to correct him and bring him back to the path of righteousness.
FULL TEXT
There are different kinds of excommunication. For the women who proclaim themselves to be priests and the politicians who support abortion, the following applies:
Excommunication, especially a jure, is either latæ or ferendæ sententiæ. The first is incurred as soon as the offence is committed and by reason of the offence itself (eo ipso) without intervention of any ecclesiastical judge; it is recognized in the terms used by the legislator, for instance: "the culprit will be excommunicated at once, by the fact itself [statim, ipso facto]".
A good example of catholic politicians and their unrelenting support of abortion, is described here: Catholic Politicians and Excommunication
As for the women, this article provides fairly clear explanation: Roman Catholic Womenpriests declared excommunicated by Burke
So, the way I am reading this, the individual being excommunicated might be denied access to the Eucharist, but they still can attend services, participate in other activities of the church, and fellowship with other members?
That is absolutely correct. If anything, the bishop often attempts to meet privately with these miscreants to charitably discuss their misunderstandings, to repent through the Sacrament of Reconciliation and restore themselves to full communion with the Church.
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.