The ordination of female Episcopal Bishop in a Catholic Church

  • Thread starter Thread starter IanM
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
IanM said:
I imagine that should the SSPX now come calling for use of the same premises, he would continue in his “charitable” manner!
Click to expand...
I know of a (former) parish church which is used by the SSPX with permission from the diocesan bishop, Catholic mass in the next town over from my parish is celebrated in an Anglican church and when our diocesan Cathedral was closed for refurbishment our Easter ceremonies were held in the Anglican cathedral.

That said, the issue here isn’t so much that it’s being used for an Episcopalian service, but rather the nature of that service. The Ecumenical Directory doesn’t restrict the use of a Catholic church for such services but, as I found myself on a much smaller scale, ecumencial issues are tricky beasts at the best of times so all I can say is I’m glad I’m not bishop of anywhere and don’t have to deal with problems like this; as the old joke goes, anyone who wants to be a bishop has automatically ruled themselves out on the grounds of insanity!
 
I know that when the National Cathedral in DC, which is Episcopal, was damaged by an earthquake, the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception, which was undamaged, invited the National Cathedral to make use of its space. That’s the kind of courtesy I would expect and am fine with.

It’s pretty clear, however, that the Episcopalians are going to be ordaining all sorts of bishops going forward who might be female, openly gay, openly gay and married, openly gay and married and having just blessed the local abortion clinic (this actually happened in my hometown), etc., and offering space for ordaining one of these candidates when it’s not an emergency and you have no idea who the bishop is going to be is a disaster waiting to happen.
 
I have to wonder about Bp. Knestout’s motivation for going out on such a limb. Or did he think that he wasn’t going out on a limb, and he really just underestimated how many feathers would be ruffled by this.

I don’t think that it’s wise to put ecumenism in such a spotlight, front and center, that it would appear to an outsider that the Catholic Church is ordaining women. Simply taking the Tabernacle out of the sanctuary as a hedge against…what??? isn’t going to accomplish squat.

The Episcopal bishop-elect has shown some wisdom in canceling the contract, aside from that, her use of the scripture from Corinthians was a little condescending. I hope the scripture verse wasn’t aimed at the people who signed the petition. The ordination service was probably not going to be any kind of stumbling block for their faith. The problem I would see with the service is the confusion it would cause people who aren’t very familiar with Catholicism. For example, Catholic children are often confused about Protestantism and the things that they hear Protestants say about Christ, religion, morals, etc.
 
Last edited:
InThePew said:
I’m glad I’m not bishop of anywhere and don’t have to deal with problems like this; as the old joke goes, anyone who wants to be a bishop has automatically ruled themselves out on the grounds of insanity!
Click to expand...
True! I am simply glad that we have the good and faithful shepherds that we do. May they see God. As for the bad and unfaithful ones they (and we) should ponder Luke 12:48 “From everyone to whom much has been given, much will be required; and from the one to whom much has been entrusted, even more will be demanded.”
 
Like Henry, but, as I have said before, the Church teaches, today, that non-Catholics of TODAY are not to be treated as heretics, but as seperated brothers & sisters, who have lived their lives in good faith.
The SSPX of today CHOSE to do what they did.
If you can’t understand the difference, it is because you are choosing not to. :roll_eyes:
 
Last edited:
It’s funny that you say that, as that was exactly what I was thinking with regards to the SSPX.:roll_eyes:
 
What does this have to do with anything we are talking about?
Unless you are now just trying to make this Bishop guilty by association.
Which is just wrong.
 
Hearsay. And again, what exactly does this have to do with the topic at hand?
It sounds more like you just want to smear the name of a Bishop who did something you don’t agree with.
Otherwise why the deflection?
 
Last edited:
The real scandal is that Catholics are coming across as petty.

This was a good opportunity to show simple kindness to this community.

The Catholic Church does not support female ordinations but the Episcopalians believe differently and we can certainly respect their faith and allow them to use one of our Churches.
 
So its been over 40 years sense the schism with SSPX began. How many years/generations have to pass before this difference no longer exists? I suspect many of the SSPX did not choose to go into schism in 1988. But they choose the SSPX over Rome today. The Episcopal Church members choose their churn over Rome today. Yes there are Catholics who have left more recently and gone to the SSPX, but there are Catholics who have left and gone to the Episcopal Church. In absolute numbers, the former group might very likely be larger than the latter group. Is the difference as significant as you think?
 
I have to wonder if the Episcopalian bishop-elect has been a man, would we have seen the same reaction and outcome? The space had evidently been reserved for over a year and prior to her election.

I am relieved that a new venue is sought, only because it is the consecration of an Episcopalian bishop in a Catholic Church, with whom we do not share full communion and whose orders (and any apostolic succession) are considered invalid. It does not matter if the bishop-elect is a he or a she.
 
ChemicalBean said:
I have to wonder if the Episcopalian bishop-elect has been a man, would we have seen the same reaction and outcome? The space had evidently been reserved for over a year and prior to her election.

I am relieved that a new venue is sought, only because it is the consecration of an Episcopalian bishop in a Catholic Church, with whom we do not share full communion and whose orders (and any apostolic succession) are considered invalid. It does not matter if the bishop-elect is a he or a she.
Click to expand...
I think it does matter, though I agree that it was not a good idea either way. I will freely admit that I would have had less of a problem if it had been a man. I still wouldn’t think it would be a good idea, but it would be less problematic if it were a man for obvious reasons. If this had happened, I can see the headlines now. “Woman Ordained as Bishop in Catholic Church”. It was only going to cause division, not do much good other than being “nice” the the Episcopal denomination.

In general, I think it’s a bad idea for a Catholic diocese to get too deep into a relationship like this with a Protestant Christian denomination, where facilities are being shared on a non-emergency basis. The potential for scandal like this is too high. Maybe 20 or 30 years ago it would have been safer. But not today, when the gap has widened between many Protestants and Catholics on matters of doctrine. I wonder if the (Catholic) bishop would have allowed an Episcopal marriage ceremony at at Catholic church, or a shared building between the two denominations. Would he allow it if it was a marriage between a man and a woman where at least one of them was divorced? Would he allow it if it was a marriage between two men or two women? What’s the limit on how “nice” we’re required to be to another Christian denomination?

This event was being defended by the bishop and others as an act of “ecumenicalism”. Well, ecumenicalism is supposed to be outreach that ultimately strives towards Christian unity. I fail to see how this event was promoting such an end, especially since the consecration of a woman is actually creating an even larger barrier towards Christian unity between Catholics and Episcopalians. Would have hosting this event been “nice” of the Catholic Church to do for the Episcopalians? Yes, but I would argue that it didn’t truly serve an ecumenical purpose and was upsetting a significant number of Catholics. And I think the Catholic bishop’s first responsibility is to look after his own flock, even if it must come at the expense of doing another Christian denomination a favor.
 
Last edited:
If the Bishop were a man I would still be against it. But because it is a woman it throws the idea of ecumenism out the window, because in no way ever in any sort of reconciliation or reunion with Rome could the female bishop ever be ordained in God’s Church. Letting someone hold a faux ordination of a Bishop in a biologically impossible way in a Catholic Church is beyond charity or ecumenism borders on sacrilege.
 
Bishop Knestout should realize that Faithful Catholics have already been praying for protestants. For their salvation and conversion to the One True Faith and the Church that Jesus founded, the Catholic Church.
 

Stay vigilant, brothers and sisters. Charity without truth is not love, it is a perversion of love. Are we to endorse a schizophrenic’s delusions by letting him go on believing that he really is communicating with aliens, via the filling in his tooth!? There would be nothing loving or kind about that. That would be cowardly at best, diabolical at worst.

Yes… this is heresy. If we are to insist on referring to them as merely “separated,” let us at least acknowledge that they are separated by heresy.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top