Theos-Talk Archives (May 1996 Message tl00139)

In message <2.2.32.19960503065839.0069cee4@mail.slip.net>, alexis
dolgorukii <alexei@slip.net> writes
>
>>I have no evidence to support this claim, though it is an old one.  It
>>is possible that Wedgwood *resigned* but so far as I know CWL left of
>>his own accord.
>
>As to Wedgewood, was he part of the famous "china" family?

No idea!

> Wasn't it
>relatively customary in those days to permit someone to resign rather than
>face charges? As to CWL, did he not "leave of his own accord" right after a
>scandal (of the usual sort) with a youth group he led?

Yes, and people still occasionally resign in this way.  As I said, I
have no evidence concerning the resignation of CWL.  Maybe someone else
has.
>>
>>> As "defrocked Priests'
>>>wouldn't their consecration as Bishops have been irregular to say the least?

They were not "defrocked".
>>
>>Note the title of my book!  The view of the Church of England was and is
>>that their later consecration was invalid and irregular.  The view of
>>the Church of Rome was that they were valid but irregular. But the view
>>of Rome is that the orders of the Church of England (at all levels) are
>>totally invalid.  On this argument, CWL's (and mine) holy orders are
>>more valid than those of the Achbishop of Canterbury! :-)
>
>Alan: Why do you think I chose those exact words? I think I understand the
>Roman viewpoint, they are terrified of invalidating any Apolstolic
>Succession, though how they can do so with the various English Archbishops
>is beyond by comprehension. If anyone's apostolic succession is valid the
>Arch Bishop of Canterbury's is.

Deficient on grounds of form and intent [Doctrinal viewpoint].  The C of
E changed the nature of the ordination and consecration rites so that
they no longer purported to bestow the Holy Spirit upon the
ordinand/consecrand, substituting a prayer that God might see fit to
send the same. In terms of catholic theology they thus changed a
divinely ordered process into a humanly ordered and therefore secular
convenience. The view of the Eastern Orthodox Churches is different
again.  The whole theory of apostolic succession is dicussed by
Brandreth in his SPCK "Episcopi Vagantes" and the chapter on this was
reproduced verbatim in my own book courtesy of S.P.C.K. themselves.

> (Now I question the validity of the entire
>concept, but my questioning includes the Pope).

Question away. It rests upon the concept underlying the Aramaic/Hebrew
word *shaliach* - plenpotentiary, sort of like power of attorney. :-)
>>
>>I would personally like to see *more* information being broadcast, and a
>>great deal less combativeness.
>>>
>>alan b.
>>
>Oh alan, if you think I enjoy the combat, you are mistaken, I don't. But I
>also don't like having certain topics made Tabu. Like the one we discussed
>herein.
>
>fondly
>
>alexis d.>
>
I was not being personal, just entering a plea in general while I was on
the subject!

Alan
---------
THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL:
Ancient Wisdom for a New Age
TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk
http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html