“I do solemnly engage to conform to the Doctrine…”

This is something that has always struck me as strange, that no one mentions in these discussions. Priests and bishops don’t promise to conform. They promise to “engage to perform,” which has always sounded to me like “I’ll do my best, if I can” rather than a simple, “I swear”.  If one is actually promising unreservedly, then why not say so?  Why the addition of “engaging to”?  And if you actually mean, “I’m going to give it the old college try, but if I don’t like it I won’t,” then why bother to even promise?  It has always struck me as an incredibly wishy-washy, or slippery oath.

I suppose the loophole to this argument involves the larger church, which controls all the money and also now insists on the right to make final decisions without recourse to the secular courts.

Whoops, that should have been “engage to conform!”

How typical for the TEC to use half truths and “interpret” (twist) the canons to mean what they want them to mean.

Curious, and a quick google was inconclusive—does anyone know if priests in the RC vow doctrinal obedience to the bishop (re: diocesan clergy), or is it worded differently as to the Pope, Curia, and/or magisterium?

#5, I don’t remember the exact wording but in RCC ordination vows the ordinand vows to obey the Pope and his bishop.  There’s no wiggle room.

Yeah, I thought so.  This is the kind of stuff that reminds me I am, at heart, a Protestant.

In RCC ordination vows the ordinand vows to obey the Pope and his bishop.  There’s no wiggle room.{
Not quite. The article on “Obedience” in Sacramentum Mundi is clear: “[H]uman beings can and should be obeyed only to the extent that they share in the authority of God . . . Hence man may never subject himself to other human beings as such, but can submit to them only to the extent that they stand in the service of a divinely-willed goal.”  I’ll let others find the exact references, but Aquinas is clear that the vow of obedience to a superior is binding only insofar as the command is licit, both morally and theologically, and within the competence of the authority to give.

Historically, the same principle applies to Anglican obedience; no bishop, priest, or lay person is required to obey an order that is illegal, immoral, or contrary to the faith.  To the contrary, in such cases, one is required to disobey.

#8. The following is from the RCC rite for the ordination of a deacon- which is where the candidates make their first promises of obedience.

•Do you resolve to be consecrated for the Church’s ministry by the laying on of my hands and the gift of the Holy Spirit?
•Do you resolve to discharge the office of deacon with humble charity in order to assist the priestly Order and to benefit the Christian people?
•Do you resolve to hold fast to the mystery of faith with a clear conscience, as the Apostle urges, and to proclaim this faith in word and deed according to the Gospel and the Church’s tradition?
•Do you resolve to keep for ever this commitment as a sign of your dedication to Christ the Lord for the sake of the Kingdom of Heaven, in the service of God and man?
•Do you resolve to maintain and deepen the spirit of prayer that is proper to your way of life and, in keeping with this spirit and what is required of you, to celebrate faithfully the Liturgy of the Hours with and for the People of God and indeed for the whole world?
•Do you resolve to conform your way of life always to the example of Christ, of whose Body and Blood you are ministers at the altar?  (...) Then the candidate goes to the bishop and, kneeling before him, places his joined hands between those of the bishop.
The bishop says, “Do you promise respect and obedience to (me / your ordinary) and (my / his) successors?”
The elect respond, “I do”

I thought there was also a promise to obey the Pope but it seems that I was wrong.  I understand your point, which is that the promise of obedience is not absolute.  My reason for saying “no wiggle room” is that priests and deacons are not allowed to interpret the promise idiosyncratically, in their own way.  There are specific circumstances where they *must* not obey, and these circumstances are defined.

Now, *that* I could probably say with a clear conscience, including the seventh assertion in response to the bishop’s question, if it’s following the previous six.

Thanks for hunting this up for me—not that I’m going to become a RC deacon anytime soon!  But even in number seven, the phrase “respect and obedience” has a very different feel to it than TEC’s ordination vows.

Sorry for the inadvertent threadjack, since this is technically all about bishop’s vows.

In the end, this seems to be headed to what we call “justice not being about what is right or wrong but whose argument wins.” It is likely that Fr. Harris’ argument will find more receptive ears than Mark McCall’s argument, and judgement will be handed out by a P.B. and HoB that make up what is essentially a stacked jury.

“Off with their heads!” shouted the Queen.  “Sentence first, verdict after!”  (With apologies to Lewis Carroll)
Cheers,
NW Bob

Mr. McCall’s analysis is, as always, first rate, and should be heeded by all in TEC.
However, before any bishop acts on this, or any, analysis provided by ACI or other scholars, it should be remembered that TEC is not an organization ruled by law, but an organization under the tyranny of a PB who ruled, in the +Cox and subsequent deposition, that a bishop can be deposed by the majority vote of a quorum of the HoB.  A quorum (assuming no diocesan vacancies) is 73 diocesans, so a bishop can be deposed, theoretically, by any 37 diocesan bishops who agree with the PB (or by 50% of those present, as long as there are 73 diocesans present).  Said ruling has stood for the last 3 years, and been invoked in the subsequent depositions, notwithstanding the clear wording of the canons and constitution. So, in TEC, it takes 56 bishops to consent to make a new bishop, but only 37 bishops to depose a sitting bishop.
  With such logic being enforced by those in power, it is difficult to see how well reasoned legal arguments can be used as a defense.