Two Anglicans disagreeing about validity of priesthood . . . . for women, gay men

[flameburns623]

Hi folks1

Was speaking to a friend this AM regarding the ‘validity’ of orders in two specific circumstances. This issue centers around my understanding–or lack thereof–of the doctrine of ‘ex opere operato’. Hopefully I spelled it properly. As I understand the term, it means something along the lines of ‘it works because it works’. (You can tell which language I did NOT study in college ).

ORDINATION OF WOMEN: My friend, ‘Steve’ indicates that he believes that once a Bishop ‘ordains’ a woman, not only is this particular ‘ordination’ invalid, but the bishop himself loses the faculty to ordain or to act in any capacity as a priest. He could only regain such a faculty by a full repentance and confession followed by a re-ordination to the priesthood and a re-consecration as a bishop.

I indicated my understanding that while the ‘ordination’ of the woman would be invalid, and the bishop would be guilty of grave sin, he would NOT lose the faculty of ordaining men in the future. This is different in the Eastern Orthodox tradition, which does not have a doctrine of ‘ex opere operato’ Who is mistaken…‘Steve’ or myself?

ORDINATION OF HOMOSEXUAL MEN: On the same line–my friend ‘Steve’ indicates that the ordination of a homosexual by a bishop with full knowledge that the candidate is an active and unrepentant homosexual would not only be an invalid ordination but, again, would cause the bishop to permanently forfeit his faculty to operate in any capacity as a priest or bishop. He would lose ALL priestly faculties. Moreover, the homosexual ordinand would NOT be ordained himself.

In this case I argued that the ordination of homosexual men has NEVER been barred because they are incapable of receiving the faculties of a priest. It was forbidden as a matter of practice and of canon law, but a practicing homosexual male who was ordained would be a fully-functioning priest with full faculties. It would be personally sinful for him to excercise his faculties so long as he were an unrepentant sinner but he would be fully capable of dispensing the sacraments.

Moreover–while it would be gravely sinful for a bishop to knowingly ordain a practicing and unrepentant homosexual, his faculties would NOT be forfeited by this or any other willful sinful act. Again this is different as I understand it in the Eastern Orthodox tradition because they have no teaching of ‘ex opere operato’.

Thanks for the responses. Please do cite any reference works you are aware of. And if you happen to know if the TEACHING (not the policies but the official teaching) of the Catholic Church has altered over time? ‘Steve’ and I are traditionalist Anglicans and nearly as skeptical of the revisions of Catholic practices and teachings since Vatican II as your own conservatives and traditionalists.

 

[davidc2]

From the Catholic perspective the answer is easy - he can’t lose his faculties because he never had them in the first place.

To the best of my knowledge, Anglicans don’t have a sufficiently developed Canon Law and precedents to provide an answer from their own perspective in a definitive manner.

If the ordaining bishop was Catholic (with faculties), then (arguably) the ordaining bishop might incur an automatic loss of faculties for the first case (a woman). I don’t see how one could argue that for the second case however (an active homosexual).
Nor would the ordaining bishop automatically lose his faculties for ordaining an active hetrosexual male.

However, obviously, doing any of those would be a really bad idea.

 

[flameburns623]

davidc2:

From the Catholic perspective the answer is easy - he can’t lose his faculties because he never had them in the first place.

To the best of my knowledge, Anglicans don’t have a sufficiently developed Canon Law and precedents to provide an answer from their own perspective in a definitive manner.

If the ordaining bishop was Catholic (with faculties), then (arguably) the ordaining bishop might incur an automatic loss of faculties for the first case (a woman). I don’t see how one could argue that for the second case however (an active homosexual).
Nor would the ordaining bishop automatically lose his faculties for ordaining an active hetrosexual male.

However, obviously, doing any of those would be a really bad idea.

This isn’t an Anglican versus Roman Catholic quarrel. I didn’t specify ‘Anglican bishop’ or ‘Catholic bishop’. The way you’re phrasing things sounds as if you might be hazarding a guess, which isn’t any better than mine or ‘Steve’s’. Thanks anyway for the attempt at an answer.

 

[davidc2]

flameburns623:

I didn’t specify ‘Anglican bishop’ or ‘Catholic bishop’.

The reason I brought that up is that the answer is different depending on whether the bishop is Catholic or Anglican and by whose (Catholic or Anglican) canon law or equivalent one is using.

(Simply put, Catholics and Anglicans understand such things in fairly different ways.)

 

[flameburns623]

davidc2:

The reason I brought that up is that the answer is different depending on whether the bishop is Catholic or Anglican and by whose (Catholic or Anglican) canon law or equivalent one is using.

(Simply put, Catholics and Anglicans understand such things in fairly different ways.)

I still think this is a distraction from the question being asked, sorry. Obviously ‘canon law’ for ECUSA no longer disbars homosexuals or women from the priesthood, but neither I nor my friend belong to ECUSA. It was in the context of the garbage happening at ECUSA that this whole disagreement came up and we were debating the historical understanding of the church on the matter. The question as I asked it is fairly straightforward. Distinctions between ‘Anglican’ and ‘Roman Catholic’ don’t issue into the topic at all. ‘Canon law’ would be irrelevant since this is a theological matter (whether the faculties of a bishop either can or cannot be lost would not be something which could be legislated), and not one of discipline or practice. Sorry I even mentioned being Anglican.