Ousted Clergy

[GreekGrl]

Hi all,
I just read this brief article in the paper
this morning. But I don't understand it. Are the clergy being ousted for accepting homosexuals or for not accepting homosexuals? I am not that familiar with anglican teachings other then you use the book of common prayer.
thanks

 

[PaladinValer]

Quote the paper please, or link to the article online if it exists there.

Without being able to see it myself, I cannot answer your question.

 

[0-2Continuum]

Quote the paper please, or link to the article online if it exists there.

Without being able to see it myself, I cannot answer your question.

Ditto.

 

[0-2Continuum]

If you are referring to the 61 clergy deposed by +Lamb of San Joaquin that was because they were found to have abandoned their charges.
I am trying to avoid the politics involved, but essentially it was a very conservative diocese whose bishop and many of the clergy left the Episcopal Church over homosexuality and other issues. Bishop Lamb, the new bishop of the diocese then took the procedural steps necessary to allow the clergy time to recant, renounce their vows, or return to the Episcopal Church. The steps having been done in order, the 61 priests and deacons who left the Episcopal Church have been deposed and are no longer recognized as clergy by the Episcopal Church.
Does that clear things up?

 

[IowaLutheran]

Hi all,
I just read this brief article in the paper
this morning. But I don't understand it. Are the clergy being ousted for accepting homosexuals or for not accepting homosexuals? I am not that familiar with anglican teachings other then you use the book of common prayer.
thanks

I assume you are talking about this story:

Episcopal Diocese drops 61 priests in theological rift - Local - The Modesto Bee

While homosexuality is one of the underlying reasons for the rift, the clergy are not being ousted for not accepting homosexuals. They were ousted because they declared, about 1 1/2 years ago that they were no longer a part of the US Episcopal Church but a part of the Anglican Church of the Southern Cone, a different church within the Anglican Communion.

This declaration by the remaining members of the diocese that those who left are no longer Episcopal clergy seems somewhat superfluous. Its like an employee who says "I quit" and then 1 1/2 year later the boss responds by saying "you're fired."

 

[GreekGrl]

sorry guys, I forgot to post the link to the article.here it is...

Episcopal Church leaders oust 61 clergy who sided with bishop who broke with church -- Newsday.com

 

[GreekGrl]

If you are referring to the 61 clergy deposed by +Lamb of San Joaquin that was because they were found to have abandoned their charges.
I am trying to avoid the politics involved, but essentially it was a very conservative diocese whose bishop and many of the clergy left the Episcopal Church over homosexuality and other issues. Bishop Lamb, the new bishop of the diocese then took the procedural steps necessary to allow the clergy time to recant, renounce their vows, or return to the Episcopal Church. The steps having been done in order, the 61 priests and deacons who left the Episcopal Church have been deposed and are no longer recognized as clergy by the Episcopal Church.
Does that clear things up?

HUH?

I assume you are talking about this story:

Episcopal Diocese drops 61 priests in theological rift - Local - The Modesto Bee

While homosexuality is one of the underlying reasons for the rift, the clergy are not being ousted for not accepting homosexuals. They were ousted because they declared, about 1 1/2 years ago that they were no longer a part of the US Episcopal Church but a part of the Anglican Church of the Southern Cone, a different church within the Anglican Communion.

This declaration by the remaining members of the diocese that those who left are no longer Episcopal clergy seems somewhat superfluous. Its like an employee who says "I quit" and then 1 1/2 year later the boss responds by saying "you're fired."

Now I think I am even more confused?

Are the Anglican Communion and the Episcopalians the same thing? Maybe this is why I am so confused, I thought they were the same denomination.

 

[PaladinValer]

They were defrocked because they abandoned the church, not because of any position on homosexuality.

The Episcopal Church is a province within the Anglican Communion, as is the Anglican Church of the Southern Cone. However, just like in your Eastern Orthodox church, a priest cannot simply switch allegiance to a different bishop without the consent of his or her current bishop. Likewise, a bishop cannot switch to a different metropolitan's jurisdiction without the blessing of his or her current one.

That is the case here. These priests and the bishop in question did not seek permission. It is a breach of ecclesiological protocol, one that is shared I believe in both our Apostolic churches, and thus, they have been defrocked and are unable to licitly perform as clergy in any land that is under the jurisdiction of The Episcopal Church.

 

[0-2Continuum]

They were defrocked because they abandoned the church, not because of any position on homosexuality.

The Episcopal Church is a province within the Anglican Communion, as is the Anglican Church of the Southern Cone. However, just like in your Eastern Orthodox church, a priest cannot simply switch allegiance to a different bishop without the consent of his or her current bishop. Likewise, a bishop cannot switch to a different metropolitan's jurisdiction without the blessing of his or her current one.

That is the case here. These priests and the bishop in question did not seek permission. It is a breach of ecclesiological protocol, one that is shared I believe in both our Apostolic churches, and thus, they have been defrocked and are unable to licitly perform as clergy in any land that is under the jurisdiction of The Episcopal Church.

great way of putting it

 

[GreekGrl]

Thanks PaladinValer that was helpful.

 

[ContraMundum]

TIt is a breach of ecclesiological protocol, one that is shared I believe in both our Apostolic churches, and thus, they have been defrocked and are unable to licitly perform as clergy in any land that is under the jurisdiction of The Episcopal Church.

That should read "on any land.." etc., as the Episcopal church is not an established one.

 

[Albion]

Iowa Lutheran had it about right.

The Diocese of San Joacquin voted to leave one province of the Anglican Communion (The Episcopal Church in the USA) and affiliate instead with another. The Episcopal Church appointed a new bishop to lead that diocese which no longer was part of the Episcopal Church, but of course that meant nothing since this diocese was no longer under the jurisdiction of the Episcopal Church.

IOW it was merely a PR stunt to pretend to fire those clergy over whom he had no jurisdiction. But you see, you were fooled by it at first, so it had some success.

On the other hand, some parishes within the diocese abandoned their diocese after losing the vote in which San Joachim decided to affiliate with the Anglican Province of the Southern Cone (i.e. mosf of the rest of the Western Hemisphere not including the USA, Canada, or the Caribbean island nations). This appointed bishop is the head of those parishes in a newly-created diocese staying with the Episcopal Church. The story about him firing clergy belonging to a church that he isn't a member of himself certainly is misleading...but that was the intent of his action.

The Episcopal Church made changes in its rules a few years ago to prohibit parishes from leaving (at least with their property, which was the Episcopal Church's primary concern). At that time it was argued that the diocese, not the parish, is the essential part of the church, that the church is an assembly of self-governing dioceses. Of course, at that time no diocese had exercised its rights to self-determination by voting to leave the Episcopal Church.

Now that such a thing has happened, the Episcopal Church has to have a new theory. It is that a diocese does not have that right, after all, but that the national church actually controls the diocese. As a result, we have the charade involving Bishop Lamb "firing" employees of a church that he does not belong to, personnel and members of another province of the Anglican Communion. It is an illicit interference in the affairs of a fellow province of the Anglican Communion that the Episcopal Church would not condone for a moment if it were some other province claiming the right to dismiss TEC's clergy. Moreover, if the Episcopal Church adhered to her own rules, ones which were enacted to prohibit conservative parishes from leaving for other church bodies, they could not now be admitted as a part of a [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] diocese as is being done with them under this new appointed bishop.

 

[ebia]

That should read "on any land.." etc., as the Episcopal church is not an established one.

What?

 

[ContraMundum]

What?

Don't worry about it.

 

[Joseph 651]

Albion;
Thank you for your response, you have covered all the points. We are about to become our own Anglican Provence in the USA. I pray for the souls of those being lead by a false profit.

 

[Colabomb]

Hehe, I'm not as conservative as I used to be, but I'm very defensive of the Continuers/New Continuers whatever you want to call them.

It seems to me that the highest authority in the Church is Christ, and below him, the Bishop. The Bishop is the shepherd of the Church, and if (s)he decides to shepherd his flock to other fields, it is his perogative. They shouldn't steal buildings/properties from the denomination, but that is a different issue.

This idea of denominational loyalty is as modern as denominations.... which is fairly modern in the first place.

(oh no, i've stepped into a debate haven't I? What is this, day three back?)

 

[TomUK]

They were defrocked because they abandoned the church, not because of any position on homosexuality.

The Episcopal Church is a province within the Anglican Communion, as is the Anglican Church of the Southern Cone. However, just like in your Eastern Orthodox church, a priest cannot simply switch allegiance to a different bishop without the consent of his or her current bishop. Likewise, a bishop cannot switch to a different metropolitan's jurisdiction without the blessing of his or her current one.

That is the case here. These priests and the bishop in question did not seek permission. It is a breach of ecclesiological protocol, one that is shared I believe in both our Apostolic churches, and thus, they have been defrocked and are unable to licitly perform as clergy in any land that is under the jurisdiction of The Episcopal Church.

Were they the first ones to break church authority though? I look to the church of england as an example. Here all trainee priests are expected to abide by a document called 'issues in human sexuality' and all bishops naturally are only expected to ordain those who abide by the document. In both cases that is not happening here. I can forsee a similar situation happening here as is happening in America - people leaving the established Anglican congregation because of the churches approach to sexuality and then being told that because they broke church ecclesiology they have forfeited their pensions etc.

As far as i can see this is potential situation facing my church - is it the same in the US? If so then your assertion PV that they abandoned the church must surely take a rather chicken and egg turn; who abandoned the church first? Of course i'm making a mountain or presumptions about the ECUSA and my analogy may not be at all applicable.

 

[JasonV]

It is an illicit interference in the affairs of a fellow province of the Anglican Communion that the Episcopal Church would not condone for a moment if it were some other province claiming the right to dismiss TEC's clergy.

Isn't any province besides TEC operating in the United States an "illicit interference"?

 

[FrTommy]

Iowa Lutheran had it about right.

The Diocese of San Joacquin voted to leave one province of the Anglican Communion (The Episcopal Church in the USA) and affiliate instead with another. The Episcopal Church appointed a new bishop to lead that diocese which no longer was part of the Episcopal Church, but of course that meant nothing since this diocese was no longer under the jurisdiction of the Episcopal Church.

You are incorrect. A bishop cannot take a diocese out of the jurisdiction of the Episcopal Church. A diocese is created by an act of our General Convention and is the property of our GC not the property of the Bishop in charge of the diocese. The Diocese of San Joaquin will and always will be TEC. The bishop and clergy who left created a new diocese which then joined the Southern Cone. They violated their ordination vows which states they will remain true to the Doctrine and Worship as this church (TEC) as received them. There are procedures for which a bishop or clergy may leave a jurisdiction and join a new one. The clergy of the diocese did not utilize those procedures, instead they just said oh we are not part of you anymore. That left the See of the Diocese of San Joaquin vacant and a new Bishop was elected to fill that vacancy. The new Bishop was well within his/her right to give the clergy who left a chance to recant and follow their ordination vows or to be defrocked as having abandoned their positions within TEC.

The Episcopal Church made changes in its rules a few years ago to prohibit parishes from leaving (at least with their property, which was the Episcopal Church's primary concern). At that time it was argued that the diocese, not the parish, is the essential part of the church, that the church is an assembly of self-governing dioceses. Of course, at that time no diocese had exercised its rights to self-determination by voting to leave the Episcopal Church.

A diocese within TEC has never been able to vote to leave the church. The clergy can leave either appropriately or inappropriately. The diocese will always be a TEC diocese because the See is created by General Convention not by the people of the diocese.

Now that such a thing has happened, the Episcopal Church has to have a new theory. It is that a diocese does not have that right, after all, but that the national church actually controls the diocese. As a result, we have the charade involving Bishop Lamb "firing" employees of a church that he does not belong to, personnel and members of another province of the Anglican Communion. It is an illicit interference in the affairs of a fellow province of the Anglican Communion that the Episcopal Church would not condone for a moment if it were some other province claiming the right to dismiss TEC's clergy. Moreover, if the Episcopal Church adhered to her own rules, ones which were enacted to prohibit conservative parishes from leaving for other church bodies, they could not now be admitted as a part of a [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] diocese as is being done with them under this new appointed bishop.

You are incorrect. TEC has always held that the Diocese was a construct of our General Convention and therefore under the control of the national church. no person or bishop or clergy within the diocese may vote to take the diocese outside the control of the national church because they do not have the authority to do that.

 

[Albion]

You are incorrect. A bishop cannot take a diocese out of the jurisdiction of the Episcopal Church.

No bishop did take a diocese out of the the jurisdiction of the Episcopal Church. The DIOCESE made the decision to leave the province, fully in accord with its Constitition and Canons.

The Diocese of San Joaquin will and always will be TEC.

...In the mind of TEC, that is. This is like the Roman Catholic Church believing that we are all members of the RCC--which she does. But do you think that there is a TEC anyway, that particular theory of the Roman Church nothwithstanding?

The bishop and clergy who left created a new diocese which then joined the Southern Cone. They violated their ordination vows which states they will remain true to the Doctrine and Worship as this church (TEC) as received them.

They may have violated their ordination vows, but that in itself doesn't validate your contention about who has jurisdiction or ownership over the Anglican Diocese of San Joaquim. The most you can say is that these folks were morally wrong, in your opinion, to do what they chose to do.

There are procedures for which a bishop or clergy may leave a jurisdiction and join a new one.

...Which apply only to members of the church in question. The bishop, clergy, and people of San J. no longer do.

The clergy of the diocese did not utilize those procedures, instead they just said oh we are not part of you anymore. That left the See of the Diocese of San Joaquin vacant and a new Bishop was elected to fill that vacancy.

So there is a TEC Diocese of San Joaquin and an Anglican Diocese of San Joaquin.

That's not unusual in the religious world. You'll find instances where the RCC and TEC or some other Anglican province have each dioceses with the same name.

The new Bishop was well within his/her right to give the clergy who left a chance to recant and follow their ordination vows or to be defrocked as having abandoned their positions within TEC.

That's fine, but it's also the case, as said, that to defrock clergy who don't belong to your church is a stunt. It doesn't accomplish anything in the real world, nor did that bishop think it would.

A diocese within TEC has never been able to vote to leave the church.

I suppose that Henry VIII was told much the same thing. But when a diocese DOES leave its province, it has done so. And you already admitted that this one has joined the Anglican Province of the Southern Cone, so it can't merely have evaporated, now can it?

You are incorrect. TEC has always held that the Diocese was a construct of our General Convention

I think you missed the point on that one.