Ousted Clergy

[longhair75]

In retrospect, I considered the content of this post were deemed too inflammatory and have removed it.

 

[FrTommy]

Albion,

No a Diocese cannot leave the jurisdiction of the Episcopal Church. The clergy and members and Bishop of the diocese can vote to say they no longer wish to be a member of TEC which would in effect cause them to be in violation of their ordination vows and subject to being defrocked should they not recant or go through the official ways of leaving the church. They did not take the Diocese of SJ away from TEC. They created a new diocese and aligned that diocese with the southern cone.

In other words they resigned their positions.....but they did not follow canon law in doing so which makes them subject to whatever the appropriate punishment is. TEC in this case chose to defrock the clergy which means that TEC does not acknowledge them as priests within TEC.

So yes now there are two diocese in SJ Anglican and Episcopal.

 

[Albion]

TEC in this case chose to defrock the clergy which means that TEC does not acknowledge them as priests within TEC.

I know. It's just infuriating when some of one's members quit...and there's nothing you can do about it. It makes you want to say, "You can't quit, I fire you!"

In this case, the "defrocking" amounts to making effigies of these clergy, putting them on trial and then executing them. It makes the old church feel better about itself while doing nothing to the former members, who BTW remain clergy in good standing in a province of the Anglican Communion.

Have a nice day, Fr

 

[ContraMundum]

I know. It's just infuriating when some of one's members quit...and there's nothing you can do about it. It makes you want to say, "You can't quit, I fire you!"

In this case, the "defrocking" amounts to making effigies of these clergy, putting them on trial and then executing them. It makes the old church feel better about itself while doing nothing to the former members, who BTW remain clergy in good standing in a province of the Anglican Communion.

Have a nice day, Fr

Well, I can empathise with your frustration.

If I may interject my two cents:

The term "defrocked" is too strong a term to throw around. Changing denominations does not normally evoke a defrocking (in normal, civilised Christianity anyway- not sure about the over-reactive Americans of course) but usually is a revocation of license on one side and the transfer of credentials on the other side. Defrocking tends to send the message that immorality is involved and that the person being defrocked is unfit for ministerial service.

This should be very carefully looked at in the cases we've seen in the Anglican communions of late. A priest who keeps to the faith in which he was ordained is a faithful one to that faith. If he resists changes he cannot be called immoral, just perhaps at worst stubborn or at best loyal to the doctrine which he embraced at the start of his ministry. He cannot, morally or theologically, be defrocked as unfit for the ministry. He can have his license revoked by his superiors, of course- but he is still a priest. He's out of fellowship with his (former) bishop(s), but he's still a man being faithful to the faith to which he was called.

Oddly enough, the opposite seems to be the status quo in some places. The new doctrines come to remove the old, and those holding to the old are removed and labelled as somehow unfit for service on the basis of their loyalty to the old. In fact, historically speaking, it has always been the innovators and not the preservers of doctrine who were labelled heretics or heterodox and it was them who were removed. In some places, the opposite is now the norm.

Funny world.

 

[ContraMundum]

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.

Hello my old friend!

I know this post is pretty late after you made yours, but I would wonder what you would think of the idea that the highest authority in the church is Christ, then the laity, then the local lergy, then the bishop in particular. It seems to me that this is the most Biblical and Christian. I realise there have been many positions on this within the Church, but I think if the Bishops remembered this a lot of problems would dissolve. Just a thought.

 

[MKJ]

Well, I can empathise with your frustration.

If I may interject my two cents:

The term "defrocked" is too strong a term to throw around. Changing denominations does not normally evoke a defrocking (in normal, civilised Christianity anyway- not sure about the over-reactive Americans of course) but usually is a revocation of license on one side and the transfer of credentials on the other side. Defrocking tends to send the message that immorality is involved and that the person being defrocked is unfit for ministerial service.

This should be very carefully looked at in the cases we've seen in the Anglican communions of late. A priest who keeps to the faith in which he was ordained is a faithful one to that faith. If he resists changes he cannot be called immoral, just perhaps at worst stubborn or at best loyal to the doctrine which he embraced at the start of his ministry. He cannot, morally or theologically, be defrocked as unfit for the ministry. He can have his license revoked by his superiors, of course- but he is still a priest. He's out of fellowship with his (former) bishop(s), but he's still a man being faithful to the faith to which he was called.

Oddly enough, the opposite seems to be the status quo in some places. The new doctrines come to remove the old, and those holding to the old are removed and labelled as somehow unfit for service on the basis of their loyalty to the old. In fact, historically speaking, it has always been the innovators and not the preservers of doctrine who were labelled heretics or heterodox and it was them who were removed. In some places, the opposite is now the norm.

Funny world.

I think you are quite right. It is strange to me that loyalty to a Bishop is considered more important than actual doctrine and belief. Not that there are no moral/ethical obligations in relation to one's Bishop, but do we really think those are the highest loyalties a priest is called to? I am not sure about the newer TEC prayer book, but looking at the ordination service in the BAS compared to the Canadian BCP is interesting. The BAS has much more emphasis on loyalty to the bishop, which seems to give correspondingly less to the parts about being loyal to Truth or Christ. I wonder - having in many ways lost the idea of Tradition as a leg of the Anglican stool, have they tried to replace it with a kind of authority? Sort of like a thousand little Popes?

And I think it is very frustrating for many people that those who remain in the older belief are shut out, and essentially put in a position of having to leave their own church. I have know of a bishop with a specific "mission" to isolate such priests and force them to leave his diocese - what kind of person thinks that is what it means to be a Bishop?

 

[JasonV]

The Bishop has, from earliest times, been considered the man who stood in the place of Christ. The ECF's stated this, and this is the tradition.

Interestingly enough, this scenario reminds me of the Proto-orthodox/Arian controversy where one group was in favor, then another, being outcast and exiled, then brought back, back and forth, back and forth.

Funny how there is nothing new under the sun.

 

[ContraMundum]

I think you are quite right. It is strange to me that loyalty to a Bishop is considered more important than actual doctrine and belief. Not that there are no moral/ethical obligations in relation to one's Bishop, but do we really think those are the highest loyalties a priest is called to? I am not sure about the newer TEC prayer book, but looking at the ordination service in the BAS compared to the Canadian BCP is interesting. The BAS has much more emphasis on loyalty to the bishop, which seems to give correspondingly less to the parts about being loyal to Truth or Christ. I wonder - having in many ways lost the idea of Tradition as a leg of the Anglican stool, have they tried to replace it with a kind of authority? Sort of like a thousand little Popes?

Good question!

And I think it is very frustrating for many people that those who remain in the older belief are shut out, and essentially put in a position of having to leave their own church. I have know of a bishop with a specific "mission" to isolate such priests and force them to leave his diocese - what kind of person thinks that is what it means to be a Bishop?

That's pretty woeful- very spiritually ill (moribund, actually) and abusive too. God will judge.

 

[ContraMundum]

The Bishop has, from earliest times, been considered the man who stood in the place of Christ. The ECF's stated this, and this is the tradition.

I don't think that's a 100% absolute fact. Sure, people like Ignatius overstated their authority, but the scriptures are earlier than him and they state that the priesthood of all believers was vital, not to mention that it is noble-minded for the laity to check the claims of even the Apostles. Some of the ECFs fell into Ignatius' way of thinking and we've had to deal with this imbalance on and off ever since.

Sure, the bishop has a role- but it has changed quite a bit over the years. I think it is easy to misunderstand the ECFs because we tend to approach them with a kind of faith that says "they were exactly like us, because we're loyal to them", when in fact a thorough study of church history tells us all that while their contribution was valuable and astounding, they were miles from perfect and each one of them made errors.

I do not trust bishops that claim the kind of authority that says "I stand in Christ's place, the laity don't"- I don't think anyone should.

 

[MKJ]

The Bishop has, from earliest times, been considered the man who stood in the place of Christ. The ECF's stated this, and this is the tradition.

Interestingly enough, this scenario reminds me of the Proto-orthodox/Arian controversy where one group was in favor, then another, being outcast and exiled, then brought back, back and forth, back and forth.

Funny how there is nothing new under the sun.

Well, yes and no.

It's not that I disagree that the Bishop was in many ways a central or pivotal figure. But in many ways the Bishop was also at the mercy of his flock. There are a few historical instances of Bishops being run out of town or being removed against their will. Not always nicely.

One can still see this to some extent in the Orthodox Church. Several times Bishops have tried to come to some agreement with the Catholic Church, and gone home with an agreement in hand. Although there were no violent removals as a result (that I know of) the people simply refused to have anything to do with the agreements, and they died of neglect. The Church is about something more than just the rule of the local Bishop, or even the agreement of many Bishops.

 

[JasonV]

I don't think that's a 100% absolute fact. Sure, people like Ignatius overstated their authority, but the scriptures are earlier than him and they state that the priesthood of all believers was vital, not to mention that it is noble-minded for the laity to check the claims of even the Apostles. Some of the ECFs fell into Ignatius' way of thinking and we've had to deal with this imbalance on and off ever since.

I am not certain that St Ignatius was the first to offer this position for the Bishopric. At any rate, the priesthood of all believers is not the episcopate of all believers.

I agree that the ECF's are not the end all and be all of the Church. Far from it in fact. But I am uncomfortable relegating them to a secondary place as well.

 

[ContraMundum]

I am not certain that St Ignatius was the first to offer this position for the Bishopric.

I'm almost sure he is, but it would be worth looking into it. I may be wrong, because I'm doing all this from memory alone- I'm pretty sure I've got the right guy though.

At any rate, the priesthood of all believers is not the episcopate of all believers.

In effect, the priesthood of all believers must equate to the oversight of the laity, simply because no man can become an overseer without the people's consent, and the laity are encouraged to judge them. It's a different form of oversight than that of the office of the episcopate, but it is more important than that of a single man.

One thing I like about the Lutheran Confessions is that they have very balancing things to say about the true role of bishops.

I agree that the ECF's are not the end all and be all of the Church. Far from it in fact. But I am uncomfortable relegating them to a secondary place as well.

I don't think you can have any other position in theology for the ECF other than secondary to the scriptures. You certainly can't have them as equal to scripture, because they so often contradict each other and are prone to errors. I do, however, put them as primary witnesses to scripture, which is not equal in authority, but vitally important to the usage and interpretation of scripture. However, it is worthy of note that no ECF regarded his authority as equal to scripture.

 

[JasonV]

I'm almost sure he is, but it would be worth looking into it. I may be wrong, because I'm doing all this from memory alone- I'm pretty sure I've got the right guy though.

If I find time, I'll look into it.

You certainly can't have them (ECF's) as equal to scripture, because they so often contradict each other and are prone to errors.

I am confident that scripture is contradictory and prone to error as well.

 

[Inside Edge]

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.

I don't think so, in most cases. It makes sense (outside of being a stunt) that if clergy resign from the church by which they were ordained, said Church would want to remove their right and/or privilege to minister within their church. It's not truly analagous to the 'I quit/you're fired' example. The church is making a valid statement in essentially barring the 'resigned' clergy from practicing under their umbrella. That isn't to say the process couldn't or wouldn't be used or portrayed as a stunt, but there is a valid point to it.

...what you think of the idea that the highest authority in the church is Christ, then the laity, then the local lergy, then the bishop in particular.

Isn't that (almost) the way the Baptists do it (minus the titles and apostolic succession, etc)? I think it sounds good in theory, but one must be mindful of populist (mob?) leadership, I think. Not that the current system is perfect. We're sort of screwed either way.

 

[JasonV]

I don't think that's a 100% absolute fact. Sure, people like Ignatius overstated their authority, but the scriptures are earlier than him...

Depending on which scholar you look to, St. Ignatius is contemporary with and even earlier than much of our New Testament.

Here's what I found from Ignatius:

“Being subject to the bishop and the presbyters, you may in all respects be sanctified.” (Ante-Nicene Fathers 1:50)

“If the prayer of one or two persons possesses such power, how much more will that of the bishop and the whole church! ....Therefore, in order that we may be subject to God, let us be careful not to set ourselves in opposition to the bishop. . . . It is clear, therefore, that we should look upon the bishop even as we would upon the Lord Himself.” (1:51,52)

“It is well to reverence both God and the bishop. He who honors the bishop has been honored by God.” (1:89-90)

 

[Labayu]

I love the way you guys always say that they can't switch bishops without permission. And they certianlt can't take the buildings and property with them.

You do know how the Anglican community started?

At the very least you can see that they genuinly believe the American church's stance on homosexuality is wrong at best and at worst heretical. All Henry thought was that he wanted a divorce.

In no branch of Christianity have any group been looked down on for rejecting a heretical bishop's authority... it just depends who history ends up seeing as in the wrong/heretical!

 

[Polycarp1]

I love the way you guys always say that they can't switch bishops without permission. And they certianlt can't take the buildings and property with them.

You do know how the Anglican community started?

At the very least you can see that they genuinly believe the American church's stance on homosexuality is wrong at best and at worst heretical. All Henry thought was that he wanted a divorce.

In no branch of Christianity have any group been looked down on for rejecting a heretical bishop's authority... it just depends who history ends up seeing as in the wrong/heretical!

Well, oddly enough, though I can grasp exactly why the traditionalists believe as they do on the underlying issue, I'm convinced that, if one must choose between Christ's will and church tradition, one must choose Christ's will, and that in consequence we liberals are in the right, and the traditionalists not merely schismatic but disobedient to God's commandment as well. I don't say this often -- it's insulting with no real hope of changing minds. But it is honestly how I feel about the issue.

 

[ContraMundum]

Well, oddly enough, though I can grasp exactly why the traditionalists believe as they do on the underlying issue, I'm convinced that, if one must choose between Christ's will and church tradition, one must choose Christ's will, and that in consequence we liberals are in the right, and the traditionalists not merely schismatic but disobedient to God's commandment as well. I don't say this often -- it's insulting with no real hope of changing minds. But it is honestly how I feel about the issue.

It does beg the question- how do the "liberals" know they have it right concerning "Christ's will"? Isn't it more likely that Christ has always kept the Church in faith for thousands of years and new ideas which are decided locally (and via the cultural filters of the deciders) could in fact just be religious sentiments based on human thought? After all...men have a history of getting "Christ's will" wrong with even murderous results...yet there is no doubt that there is a constant and consistant thread of doctrine and practice held by the vast majority of Christians in all times and places that defines what we call orthodoxy- isn't this more indicative of the will of God?

While I respect your right to speak freely, and don't really wish to prove a point to you or anyone here, your line of reasoning I felt begged the question, that's all.

 

[ContraMundum]

Depending on which scholar you look to, St. Ignatius is contemporary with and even earlier than much of our New Testament.

Here's what I found from Ignatius:

“Being subject to the bishop and the presbyters, you may in all respects be sanctified.” (Ante-Nicene Fathers 1:50)

“If the prayer of one or two persons possesses such power, how much more will that of the bishop and the whole church! ....Therefore, in order that we may be subject to God, let us be careful not to set ourselves in opposition to the bishop. . . . It is clear, therefore, that we should look upon the bishop even as we would upon the Lord Himself.” (1:51,52)

“It is well to reverence both God and the bishop. He who honors the bishop has been honored by God.” (1:89-90)

That's pretty much what I was recalling- also: wasn't there a quote that went something like "where the Bishop is, there is the church"?

I find his words somewhat disturbing- to hear such haughty sentiments about the mighty authority of a bishop coming from a bishop smacks of despotism. If the same kind of thought came out of the mouth of a politician about his own authority we would call him a dictator!

 

[JasonV]

...yet there is no doubt that there is a constant and consistant thread of doctrine and practice held by the vast majority of Christians in all times and places that defines what we call orthodoxy- isn't this more indicative of the will of God?

This also begs the question if "orthodoxy" is maintained by reason of spiritual terrorism (ie. you will burn in hell forever if you don't listen to me!), or by the iron will of the State, is that indicative of God's will?