GAFCON Primates have intervened in the USA and Canada to provide pastoral oversight to orthodox Anglican bishops, clergy and parishes whose faithful ministry is no longer recognised by the heretical leadership of the Episcopal Church or Anglican Church of Canada. The GAFCON Primates have been criticised for doing so by those who care more for church order than the proclamation of the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ.
Canon II of the First Council of Constantinople (A.D. 381) states,
"The bishops are not to go beyond their dioceses to churches lying outside of their bounds, nor bring confusion on the churches; but let the Bishop of Alexandria, according to the canons, alone administer the affairs of Egypt; and let the bishops of the East manage the East alone, the privileges of the Church in Antioch, which are mentioned in the canons of Nice, being preserved; and let the bishops of the Asian Diocese administer the Asian affairs only; and the Pontic bishops only Pontic matters; and the Thracian bishops only Thracian affairs. And let not bishops go beyond their dioceses for ordination or any other ecclesiastical ministrations, unless they be invited. And the aforesaid canon concerning dioceses being observed, it is evident that the synod of every province will administer the affairs of that particular province as was decreed at Nice."
However, Canon II goes on to state, "But the Churches of God in heathen nations must be governed according to the custom which has prevailed from the times of the Fathers."
see http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/const1.txt
What was that 'custom'? That custom was for them to have missionary bishops attached to the See of orthodox bishops until they were self-sustaining. Heretical bishops were removed and orthodox ones installed - even by Athanasius himself.
Canon IV states, "Concerning Maximus the Cynic and the disorder which has happened in Constantinople on his account, it is decreed that Maximus never was and is not now a Bishop; that those who have been ordained by him are in no order whatever of the clergy; since all which has been done concerning him or by him, is declared to be invalid... Let Maximus the Cynic be cast out from among the bishops, and anyone who was inscribed by him on the clergy list shall be held as profane."
See Greg Griffith's post for more on this issue. Thanks to Floridian for the quotes above.
With reference to the consecration of Gene Robinson, one senior clergyman has stated,
"The Holy and Great Councils declare that a bishop who falls into heresy loses the grace of ordination. It is a fact that Frank G. and his clique have departed from the teaching of the Church, because Lambeth and the Primates have made it clear. Canon 15 of the First-Second Synod (formerly called the 8th Ecumenical Council, but was derecognized by Rome a hundred or so year later for political reasons) states:
'But as for those persons, on the other hand, who, on account of some heresy condemned by holy Synods, or Fathers, withdrawing themselves from communion with their president, who, that is to say, is preaching the heresy publicly, and teaching it bareheaded in church, such persons not only are not subject to any canonical penalty on account of their having walled themselves off from any and all communion with the one called a Bishop before any conciliar or synodical verdict has been rendered, but, on the contrary, they shall be deemed worthy to enjoy the honor which befits them among orthodox Christians. For they have defied, not Bishops, but pseudo-bishops and pseudo-teachers; and they have not sundered the union of the Church with any schism, but, on the contrary, have been sedulous to rescue the Church from schisms and divisions.'
Indeed, the heresies in question - the denial of the uniqueness of the Lord Jesus Christ and of his atoning sacrifice, as well as the blessing of same-sex unions - have been synodically condemned (Lambeth 1998 Resolution 1:10, is just one example). So there can be no blame to those Bishops, clergy and parishes who transfer to an orthodox jurisdiction - or to Primates and Bishops providing pastoral support or undertaking missionary work in provinces with schismatic or heretical leadership. The call of the
Archbishop of Sudan for Gene Robinson to resign is therefore entirely consistent with the Councils of Nicea and Constantinople. The failure of the Archbishop of Canterbury to exert any discipline over the TEC Bishops who consecrated Gene Robinson is not.
GAFCON Primates have intervened in the USA and Canada to provide pastoral oversight to orthodox Anglican bishops, clergy and parishes whose faithful ministry is no longer recognised by the heretical leadership of the Episcopal Church or Anglican Church of Canada. The GAFCON Primates have been criticised for doing so by those who care more for church order than the proclamation of the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ.
Canon II of the First Council of Constantinople (A.D. 381) states,
"The bishops are not to go beyond their dioceses to churches lying outside of their bounds, nor bring confusion on the churches; but let the Bishop of Alexandria, according to the canons, alone administer the affairs of Egypt; and let the bishops of the East manage the East alone, the privileges of the Church in Antioch, which are mentioned in the canons of Nice, being preserved; and let the bishops of the Asian Diocese administer the Asian affairs only; and the Pontic bishops only Pontic matters; and the Thracian bishops only Thracian affairs. And let not bishops go beyond their dioceses for ordination or any other ecclesiastical ministrations, unless they be invited. And the aforesaid canon concerning dioceses being observed, it is evident that the synod of every province will administer the affairs of that particular province as was decreed at Nice."
However, Canon II goes on to state, "But the Churches of God in heathen nations must be governed according to the custom which has prevailed from the times of the Fathers."
see http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/const1.txt
What was that 'custom'? That custom was for them to have missionary bishops attached to the See of orthodox bishops until they were self-sustaining. Heretical bishops were removed and orthodox ones installed - even by Athanasius himself.
Canon IV states, "Concerning Maximus the Cynic and the disorder which has happened in Constantinople on his account, it is decreed that Maximus never was and is not now a Bishop; that those who have been ordained by him are in no order whatever of the clergy; since all which has been done concerning him or by him, is declared to be invalid... Let Maximus the Cynic be cast out from among the bishops, and anyone who was inscribed by him on the clergy list shall be held as profane."See Greg Griffith's post for more on this issue. Thanks to Floridian for the quotes above.
With reference to the consecration of Gene Robinson, one senior clergyman has stated,
"The Holy and Great Councils declare that a bishop who falls into heresy loses the grace of ordination. It is a fact that Frank G. and his clique have departed from the teaching of the Church, because Lambeth and the Primates have made it clear. Canon 15 of the First-Second Synod (formerly called the 8th Ecumenical Council, but was derecognized by Rome a hundred or so year later for political reasons) states:'But as for those persons, on the other hand, who, on account of some heresy condemned by holy Synods, or Fathers, withdrawing themselves from communion with their president, who, that is to say, is preaching the heresy publicly, and teaching it bareheaded in church, such persons not only are not subject to any canonical penalty on account of their having walled themselves off from any and all communion with the one called a Bishop before any conciliar or synodical verdict has been rendered, but, on the contrary, they shall be deemed worthy to enjoy the honor which befits them among orthodox Christians. For they have defied, not Bishops, but pseudo-bishops and pseudo-teachers; and they have not sundered the union of the Church with any schism, but, on the contrary, have been sedulous to rescue the Church from schisms and divisions.'
Indeed, the heresies in question - the denial of the uniqueness of the Lord Jesus Christ and of his atoning sacrifice, as well as the blessing of same-sex unions - have been synodically condemned (Lambeth 1998 Resolution 1:10, is just one example). So there can be no blame to those Bishops, clergy and parishes who transfer to an orthodox jurisdiction - or to Primates and Bishops providing pastoral support or undertaking missionary work in provinces with schismatic or heretical leadership. The call of the Archbishop of Sudan for Gene Robinson to resign is therefore entirely consistent with the Councils of Nicea and Constantinople. The failure of the Archbishop of Canterbury to exert any discipline over the TEC Bishops who consecrated Gene Robinson is not.