Church of England lifts ban on gay bishops

  • Thread starter Thread starter Holly3278
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
rfournier103 said:
I’m confused… The Archbishop of Canterbury is the Successor of Peter? :confused: Man… I have been TOTALLY barking up the wrong tree!
Click to expand...
Cantaur would not need to be the successor of Peter, to possess valid orders, in apostolic succession.

GKC
 
GKC said:
That would not be necessary. Any validly consecrated bishop, even if schismatic, heretical or excommunicated, conveys valid orders, assuming other issues are equally valid (form, intent, etc). See Ott, FUNDAMENTALS OF CATHOLIC DOGMA, p. 458.

What would be lacking, in the RC view, would be licitity.

GKC
Click to expand...
Thanks GKC. Could I ask you to explain how licitity is interpreted in this context - I only ask because I have no idea what it means in practice. Many thanks!
 
liturgyluver said:
Thanks GKC. Could I ask you to explain how licitity is interpreted in this context - I only ask because I have no idea what it means in practice. Many thanks!
Click to expand...
Briefly (I’ll let an RC do detail), valid orders are those that arise from apostolic succession. Valid and licit orders (in the eyes of the RCC) are those that do so, and at the same time are in communion with Rome. Eastern Orthodox=valid and licit. Greek Orthodox=valid.

That’s very brief, and ignores the concept of valid, but illicit (meaning illegal) within the RCC itself (restrictions on actions of bishops, across dioceses, for example). But the broader definition is the one that is pertinent in the discussion of Anglican orders. Even if the co-consecrations of the OC/Utrecht/Anglican bishops, starting in 1932, after the Agreement of Bonn, have infused valid orders in apostolic succession into Anglicanism generally, such orders would not, in Rome’s eyes, be licit. And Rome, AFAIK, has never formally commented on that general subject.

I got no problem with RCs affirming what RCs should affirm. Anglicans might have a different view of the matter (so to speak).

GKC
 
GKC said:
Briefly (I’ll let an RC do detail), valid orders are those that arise from apostolic succession. Valid and licit orders (in the eyes of the RCC) are those that do so, and at the same time are in communion with Rome. Eastern Orthodox=valid and licit. Greek Orthodox=valid.

That’s very brief, and ignores the concept of valid, but illicit (meaning illegal) within the RCC itself (restrictions on actions of bishops, across dioceses, for example). But the broader definition is the one that is pertinent in the discussion of Anglican orders. Even if the co-consecrations of the OC/Utrecht/Anglican bishops, starting in 1932, after the Agreement of Bonn, have infused valid orders in apostolic succession into Anglicanism generally, such orders would not, in Rome’s eyes, be licit. And Rome, AFAIK, has never formally commented on that general subject.

I got no problem with RCs affirming what RCs should affirm. Anglicans might have a different view of the matter (so to speak).

GKC
Click to expand...
Thanks so much. As ever you have explained a complex issue with beauty and clarity.
 
GKC said:
That would not be necessary. Any validly consecrated bishop, even if schismatic, heretical or excommunicated, conveys valid orders, assuming other issues are equally valid (form, intent, etc). See Ott, FUNDAMENTALS OF CATHOLIC DOGMA, p. 458.

What would be lacking, in the RC view, would be licitity.

GKC
Click to expand...
Thanks…GKC.

Other thoughts/questions:

If the Utrecht did this on their own…without an ok from the Pope…then would not their actions just furthered division and gotten away farther from unity of Christianity?

I am just reminded of this passage:

1 Samuel 15:22-23
22 But Samuel replied:
“Does the Lord delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices
as much as in obeying the Lord?
To obey is better than sacrifice,
and to heed is better than the fat of rams.
23 For rebellion is like the sin of divination,
and arrogance like the evil of idolatry.
Because you have rejected the word of the Lord,
he has rejected you as king.”

Of what benefit is the claim of AS, through Utrecht…is it was borne of disobedience?
 
pablope said:
Thanks…GKC.

Other thoughts/questions:

If the Utrecht did this on their own…without an ok from the Pope…then would not their actions just furthered division and gotten away farther from unity of Christianity?

I am just reminded of this passage:

1 Samuel 15:22-23
22 But Samuel replied:
“Does the Lord delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices
as much as in obeying the Lord?
To obey is better than sacrifice,
and to heed is better than the fat of rams.
23 For rebellion is like the sin of divination,
and arrogance like the evil of idolatry.
Because you have rejected the word of the Lord,
he has rejected you as king.”

Of what benefit is the claim of AS, through Utrecht…is it was borne of disobedience?
Click to expand...
It is possible to look at it like that, I would think. But that merely is to say that what Rome defines as necessary, others do not. Do you ask, similarly, why the Orthodox do not make their submission to the Pope, and if so, what do they reply?

GKC
 
GKC said:
It is possible to look at it like that, I would think. But that merely is to say that what Rome defines as necessary, others do not.

Okay…when others do not say it is necessary…are they above Rome? Are they the authority to say what is necessary and what is not?
Do you ask, similarly, why the Orthodox do not make their submission to the Pope, and if so, what do they reply?
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Indifferently said:
Then why is Apostolicae Curae not ex cathedra?
Click to expand...
Indiff - I read all your posts in this thread. I’ll pray for your Church that God’s will be done. I am American with a Swiss heritage but my wife is huge into Royal stuff. England has unfortunately changed as well as America. Each Friday we pray for our Nation because it’s going down really fast.
 

Understood.
As to others being above Rome, certainly for some people, Rome is not above them.
Click to expand...
Okay…if they say Rome is not above them…then who they accept as above them (aside from God)?

Which authority will they accept that is not Rome? And if that authority is God…how will they know it is from God and how do they expect God will convey that?
You ask your questions from a RC perspective. Which is logical and proper for you. Other people have a differ perspective. This cannot surprise you.
Click to expand...
No one expects you to agree with the others, but to phrase the question as if everyone would necessarily agree with the RCC is naive.
GKC
Click to expand...
That is why I ask.
Click to expand...
 
rfournier103 said:
I’m confused… The Archbishop of Canterbury is the Successor of Peter? :confused: Man… I have been TOTALLY barking up the wrong tree!
Click to expand...
All the Apostles left valid lines of Bishops. To be valid members of the Apostolic succession, Holy Orders can come through any of them. If there were valid Bishops of the Utrecht succession that ordained Anglicans, then they dont’ need to have come from the See of Peter.
 
rfournier103 said:
I’m confused… The Archbishop of Canterbury is the Successor of Peter? :confused: Man… I have been TOTALLY barking up the wrong tree!
Click to expand...
No. He is the successor of St Augustine. The RC archbishop of Westminster also claims to be such.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top