[Magdalen] Christ the King Anglican

[Joseph Cirou]

In the medieval Rite of Degradation, that was still in printed in the old
Pontificale (1908) but not in use; the offender was gradually divested of
all clerical vesture, an ordained priest had glass rubbed into his hands. I
don't know what happened to a degraded bishop's consecretion, something to
do with his head, but I don't know what. There have been various theologies
of the sacraments and majority and minority opinions of validity and the
moral principle; in rebus sacramentalibus nil est probablismus.

The Eastern church would include the dogma/concept of Economia. I am not
sure whether there is unamity among the Christian east on the ontological
state of an ordained priest, or bishop, or deacon who has become barred
from celebrating. (not merely excommunicated or temporarily impeded)
In the current Western Rite one is "barred from orders" but there are
circumstances where a priest who has been "reduced" to the lay state can
and should function as a priest especially in the danger of death of any
Christian.

Joe

Joe

On Fri, Feb 20, 2015 at 1:58 AM, Allan Carr <allanc25 at gmail.com> wrote:

> If my church, the Episcopal Church, does not consider certain ordinations
> as valid, how does it become incumbent on me to consider them valid? In the
> same way, Roman Catholics have no obligation to accept Episcopal
> ordinations as valid.
> Clearly, there is no universal rule on the validity of ordinations or their
> indelibility.
> We can, of course, decide that we are universalists or nice guys when it
> comes to ordinations, but there 's no requirement to do so.
>
>
> On Wednesday, February 18, 2015, Cantor03--- via Magdalen <
> magdalen at herberthouse.org> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > In a message dated 2/18/2015 8:28:23 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,
> > gracecan at gmail.com <javascript:;> writes:
> >
> > Allen,
> > It's been my understanding that if someone renounces  their orders,
> they're
> > no longer considered ordained. Is that not the case? I  realize that's
> > different from being enjoined by a bishop from functioning as a  priest;
> > in that
> > case, you're still a priest.>>>
> >
> > I thought we discussed this here recently (?)
> >
> > In any case ordination to any of the three Orders is considered
> > indelible,.
> > at least in the Western Tradition.  The East may have other  ideas.  I
> > think
> > the same holds true as for Baptism.  One cannot be un-baptized.   So
> > renouncing the Order doesn't cancel ordination.
> >
> > Of course functioning can be inhibited.
> >
> >
> >
> > David Strang.
> >
> >
>
> --
> Allan Carr
>