|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: CofE alternative provision ...
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by John Holding:
What Anne and Doc Tor said.Neither I nor the other liberals I know would, as he seems to allege with alarming frequently and inaccuracy, deny the incarnation, or the bodily resurrection or any of the other key tenets of the faith.
John
In fairness, I'm willing to put my hand up to being unsure of the bodily resurrection and saying that Jesus being alive today is more important than the exact mode of his being so. Sorry.
Actual denial would however be a dogmatic step too far for me.
[ 22. November 2012, 06:50: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Thurible
Shipmate
# 3206
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
they don't have a doctrine of taint
Forward in Faith does not have a doctrine of taint.
quote:
One or other of the proposals could have passed had they agreed to it, been willing to discuss it, and voted for it. But they stayed in their corner saying "we want it all".
ken, I'm afraid you're wrong. Here are the various amendments proposed at the July 2008 Synod. The Catholic Group on General Synod engaged, agreed, and voted for several of these amendments. It was horrible (I was in the gallery). Again and again, "traditionalists" stood up and called on Synod to pass the amendments that offer provision; again and again, "traditionalists" voted for things. Again and again, Synod told them to piss off.
Thurible
--------------------
"I've been baptised not lobotomised."
Posts: 8049 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ender's Shadow
Shipmate
# 2272
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by John Holding:
But as well as already having female priests/presbyters, they also already have female bishops. As has been pointed out, there are female bishops in several Anglican churches with whom the Church of England is in full communion . While they -- for the time being -- require a license to function as bishops in England, they are, nonetheless bishops: they participated fully at the last Lambeth, for example. As an aside, as that license is granted (or not) by the ABC, I wouldn't be surprised to see female bishops soon being granted such licenses -- yea, even wearing mitres instead of carrying them.
But more than that, many of the Lutheran churches in the Porvoo agreement have female bishops. And that state of full intercommunion isn't an historical accident -- it's a spcific, deliberate act of the CHurch of England.
(And, just to throw some fuel on the fire of a dead horse, some of those Porvoo partners already preside or bless same-sex marriages and ordain people in same-sex relationships.)
One of the problems is that people in the CofE like to look only inwards -- they really don't want to know and don't really care about what's happening elsewhere. I've observed on the Ship and elsewhere that CofE con-evo's really really hate to be told that what they are fighting in the CofE has already happened either in the CofE itself (that would, for example, be a certain bishop and the blessing of same-sex unions in churches in his episcopal area) or in its full partners.
THat is, they don't want to know or care unless it feeds an existing anti-US or anti-"liberal" bias. Liberal is in quotes because I don't know the liberalism that people like ES seem to be so familiar with and to fear/hate so vehemently. Neither I nor the other liberals I know would, as he seems to allege with alarming frequently and inaccuracy, deny the incarnation, or the bodily resurrection or any of the other key tenets of the faith.
John
The problem is that you're not getting the ConEvo world view. Based on our survival through the years when we were a disdained minority in the CofE who operated our network of parishes, theological colleges and para-church organisations with virtually no support from the CofE, we developed an indifference to the rest of the church's shenanigans, whilst making, because there was no need for it, no financial contribution to the wider church either. The CofE was thus a loose franchise, with a substantial and growing overseas presence. Bishops tended to keep a low profile, or conformed to the expectations of the host parish when present there.
During the past sixty years, 4 things have happened:
1) The value of the historic endowments of the church have been poleaxed by inflation / the cost of clergy has risen. This has meant that instead of benefiting from central funds or endowments, many parishes have moved to making a contribution. When you are merely receiving, you tend not to worry too much about the source. When you are being expected voluntarily to give to a fundamentally flawed institution, you get a bit more sniffy.
2) The institutional structures of the CofE were reactivated (I hesitate to say 'revivified' as that implies I might think something worthwhile has occurred). Dioceses started to play a massively larger role in the life of the church. Missioners / youth officers / training officers suddenly appeared. More bishops were appointed and archdeacons were made full time, giving the means for dioceses to be actively involved in parishes, rather than being there for little more than to pick up the pieces when things went wrong.
3) The collapse in attendances and the decline in the number of clergy made the unification of parishes inevitable. This brought churches of differing traditions into the same parish, usually resulting in a harmless middle way emerging to replace the aligned parties of the past
4) Evangelicals moved from being a small minority within the clergy to nominally being the majority of the flow of ordinands. However in practice most of those who went down this road tended to surrender on many of the most conservative shiboleths, such as remarriage of divorcees, let alone teetotalism and sabbatarianism. Then of course there are the 'dead horses' issues.
There is a strong theology in Evangelical circles that argues that since the bible isn't interested in any organisation of the church apart from the most local, the parish is the only unit that actually matters. Of course this is classical congregationalism - but since vast swathes of the church have no compunction in being 'Catholic', the suggestion that it is therefore illegitimate is somewhat incoherent. The Articles offer a justification for such 'congregationalism' - but I'll resist extending this post any further by offering that defence.
So what do ConEvos want? Really just to be left alone. They have grown some impressive churches over the past 50 years, and when permitted, have planted from those to bring new life to otherwise derelict buildings. This of course leaves the rest of the church either frustrated or guilty at their own failures and general experience of decline, however politely managed.
The game changer however is the finance issue. Once upon a time it wasn't an issue; the endowments meant that the bishops were self financing. Since that has ceased to be the case, and the need for perpetual subsidies has emerged, the Evangelical in general has to ask whether their giving of their people should be sent to a central institution in which they have minimal confidence. Because quota is 'voluntary', and Evangelicals take words seriously, it is a real question. Given the failure of the CofE to prefer any ConEvos to the hierarchy - Wallace Benn excepted - it's clear that it doesn't want anything from them except their money. This is not sustainable!
--------------------
Test everything. Hold on to the good.
Please don't refer to me as 'Ender' - the whole point of Ender's Shadow is that he isn't Ender.
Posts: 5018 | From: Manchester, England | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
@Ken - yes, of course I am aware of where all the Baptists, Independents, Presbyterians, Methodists - and Plymouth Brethren come to that - all came from.
I was restricting my comments to contemporary Anglican evangelicals.
Things have shifted a lot since 1966 and the evangelical constituency in the CofE has more clout than it did back then. I don't have an issue with Anglican evangelicalism in theory - in practice, though, as I've said many times before on these boards, I find the reality of it rather disappointing. I'm sure there are exceptions.
Welby strikes me as someone from that background with an immense amount to offer.
@EE - I've moved into the CofE from a Baptist setting and can see strong parallels. On balance, I think the Baptists 'do' evangelicalism somewhat 'better' than their Anglican counterparts - not because there is something intrinsically flawed in the Anglican evangelical model - it's just that they're trying too hard. Unfortunately, IMHO, I feel that many Anglican evangelicals are neglecting the riches of their own tradition (in its evangelical forms too) for a mess of dumbed-down revivalist pottage.
But don't get me started ...
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
deano
princess
# 12063
|
Posted
Please accept my apologies in advance if I have misunderstood someone’s post, or missed a joke in it, and the post should have been taken as humorous.
However, someone made a post above that said that the decision was wrong, and clearly so, so that the right to vote should be taken away from the House of Laity and it be replaced by a small committee of right-thinking people who could be relied upon to act in the right-way for the good of the whole.
This kind of thinking makes me nervous. Rolling back democracy – leaving aside the issue of 2/3rds majorities – is never a good thing. It leads to nepotism, suppression of opposing views, closed deal making, and in the extreme, countries with "Democratic" and "Peoples" in their names, which never or democratic or for the people.
I am sorry if I have misrepresented the posters position, and it may be a straw-man I’m setting up, and I acknowledge that, but as I say, I do get nervous when this kind of talk is bandied about.
Democracies and democratic institutions do throw up results people don’t like sometimes. I spent the 80’s and most of the 90’s on the winning side in UK General Election, and then spent thirteen years under a Government I personally despised. I had to tolerate it because I am an Englishman, who want to live in England, and the only alternative would have been to emigrate. I did consider it, but I couldn’t stomach not living in my homeland.
So I had to live with it, and work from the inside supporting my party and working towards getting it elected so we could implement our policies. In my opinion, that is the right way to go about things. Time goes too slowly when we are on the losing side, but it does keep rolling on.
Lest anyone should think I’m inherently evil – and I’m sure that some, realising I am a Tory, will instinctively take that position – I agree with David Cameron and the whole of the Conservative Party’s leadership, that the decision on Tuesday was simply wrong. Never mind the merits or otherwise of the actual policy, I support the ordination of women bishops, and the CofE missed an opportunity.
However, what I think we should be doing is working form the inside to ensure that next time the democratic system will return a decision that is more palatable. I’m sure there are things that could be done; from lobbying MP’s to bring forward a private member bill to force the issue, to replacing those members of the House of Laity that have voted down the proposal. This is the right way to do things.
The 2/3rds majority is annoying – I think democracy is 50% plus one in simple decisions like this – but when the Ordination Bill is finally passed, at least the mandate will be absolute. At the moment, those members of the laity who have resisted the change are in a minority without a mandate, and that is quite an uncomfortable position for them to be in. I’m sure when they take their seats in the pews on Sunday, they will look to their left and right and know that statistically both the people seated there are implacably opposed to them.
The OP needs to decide for herself whether she’s happier outside any church, in another church, or whether she is actually happiest inside a flawed Church of England. It’s like the emigration decision I faced. I made my decision to stay in the country of my birth because that is where I am happiest. I’m sure the OP will find out her decision given time, space and prayer.
--------------------
"The moral high ground is slowly being bombed to oblivion. " - Supermatelot
Posts: 2118 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
A couple of comments:
Firstly, I think my brother, a lecturer at Spurgeon's, would be very surprised to learn he's not an evangelical.
Secondly,
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
So what do ConEvos want? Really just to be left alone.
Pfft. No, no they don't. And I went to a ConEvo church for 20 years, so you don't get to pull the "he doesn't know what he's talking about" thing.
ConEvos want to run everything. And they expect to run everything. That they don't run everything is a source of constant frustration to them, but it doesn't stop them from telling the rest of us how to run everything, from Reform, to the infamous Statement, to FoCA, and the rest of it. The reason you don't have bishops is because you don't play well with the rest of the class.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ender's Shadow
Shipmate
# 2272
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
So what do ConEvos want? Really just to be left alone.
Pfft. No, no they don't. And I went to a ConEvo church for 20 years, so you don't get to pull the "he doesn't know what he's talking about" thing.
ConEvos want to run everything. And they expect to run everything. That they don't run everything is a source of constant frustration to them, but it doesn't stop them from telling the rest of us how to run everything, from Reform, to the infamous Statement, to FoCA, and the rest of it. The reason you don't have bishops is because you don't play well with the rest of the class.
Hmm - ok - like every out of power party, ConEvos are convinced they are right and if they were in charge everything would be infinitely better. But they'll more happily settle for being left alone than Catholics whose theology demands that they get heavily involved in the wider church.
--------------------
Test everything. Hold on to the good.
Please don't refer to me as 'Ender' - the whole point of Ender's Shadow is that he isn't Ender.
Posts: 5018 | From: Manchester, England | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
On balance, we're going to leave the thread here. The OP intention was not, primarily, about DH topics, but it would seem very difficult to discuss the prime focus without mentioning DH reasons for seeking other options for worship and membership.
Do remember the various DH threads on women bishops, inerrancy, homosexuality etc, should you wish to explore reasons for moving on (rather than where-to options) in depth.
The wider question of tolerance limits, which also factors in to this discussion, is also available in Purg.
Barnabas62
Purgatory Host
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
GreyFace
Shipmate
# 4682
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
The separate province/separate dioceses (which are really just the same idea) was also a complete non-starter. The idea makes no theologocial or ecclesial sense.
Apologies for rewinding the thread but I want to have a bit of a kick at this.
The fact is that the Church of England claims to be part of the One Holy Etc Church, yet is plainly not in communion with the vast majority of those we consider to be a part of said One Church. I fail completely to see then what particular remnant of sense in Anglican ecclesiology would be violated by having parallel provinces, since from the only possible Catholic Anglican point of view they exist already with the presence of (R) Catholic and Orthodox Bishops in England*. I'm not sure whether you had something else in mind theologically speaking.
* Actually there are two possible alternative Catholic Anglican points of view but I haven't met anyone who holds them. The first is that the Anglican Communion is the One Church and the (R) Catholics and Orthodox are heretics and outside the One Church. The second is that only Anglican Bishops have any legitimate authority here and Catholic and Orthodox Eucharists are thus illicit.
Posts: 5748 | From: North East England | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jonah the Whale
Ship's pet cetacean
# 1244
|
Posted
How far do you take this though? I consider myself to be evangelical, but our bishop is not. Can I pick one who is better suited to my needs? Or should I just ignore him where necessary, as evangelicals are not supposed to be very interested in church hierarchy?
Posts: 2799 | From: Nether Regions | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jonah the Whale:
How far do you take this though? I consider myself to be evangelical, but our bishop is not. Can I pick one who is better suited to my needs? Or should I just ignore him where necessary, as evangelicals are not supposed to be very interested in church hierarchy?
Well, that's exactly what my old shack does. They've ignored their diocesan for the better part of 20 years, and have their own imported non-Communion bishops from South Africa - who do the confirmations, and ordinations too.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ender's Shadow
Shipmate
# 2272
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:
quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
The separate province/separate dioceses (which are really just the same idea) was also a complete non-starter. The idea makes no theologocial or ecclesial sense.
Apologies for rewinding the thread but I want to have a bit of a kick at this.
The fact is that the Church of England claims to be part of the One Holy Etc Church, yet is plainly not in communion with the vast majority of those we consider to be a part of said One Church. I fail completely to see then what particular remnant of sense in Anglican ecclesiology would be violated by having parallel provinces, since from the only possible Catholic Anglican point of view they exist already with the presence of (R) Catholic and Orthodox Bishops in England*. I'm not sure whether you had something else in mind theologically speaking.
* Actually there are two possible alternative Catholic Anglican points of view but I haven't met anyone who holds them. The first is that the Anglican Communion is the One Church and the (R) Catholics and Orthodox are heretics and outside the One Church. The second is that only Anglican Bishops have any legitimate authority here and Catholic and Orthodox Eucharists are thus illicit.
In Iberia there are Diocese of Europe churches alongside the Spanish and Portuguese indigenous Anglican churches. And of course given the existence of parallel jurisdiction within the Roman hegemony, (Greek Catholic, Maronites and Melkites) that boat has long since sailed. So there is no FUNDAMENTAL objection to it.
--------------------
Test everything. Hold on to the good.
Please don't refer to me as 'Ender' - the whole point of Ender's Shadow is that he isn't Ender.
Posts: 5018 | From: Manchester, England | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Trisagion
Shipmate
# 5235
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:
quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
The separate province/separate dioceses (which are really just the same idea) was also a complete non-starter. The idea makes no theologocial or ecclesial sense.
Apologies for rewinding the thread but I want to have a bit of a kick at this.
The fact is that the Church of England claims to be part of the One Holy Etc Church, yet is plainly not in communion with the vast majority of those we consider to be a part of said One Church. I fail completely to see then what particular remnant of sense in Anglican ecclesiology would be violated by having parallel provinces, since from the only possible Catholic Anglican point of view they exist already with the presence of (R) Catholic and Orthodox Bishops in England*. I'm not sure whether you had something else in mind theologically speaking.
* Actually there are two possible alternative Catholic Anglican points of view but I haven't met anyone who holds them. The first is that the Anglican Communion is the One Church and the (R) Catholics and Orthodox are heretics and outside the One Church. The second is that only Anglican Bishops have any legitimate authority here and Catholic and Orthodox Eucharists are thus illicit.
In Iberia there are Diocese of Europe churches alongside the Spanish and Portuguese indigenous Anglican churches. And of course given the existence of parallel jurisdiction within the Roman hegemony, (Greek Catholic, Maronites and Melkites) that boat has long since sailed. So there is no FUNDAMENTAL objection to it.
It was a principled objection by many Tractarians to the notion of Catholic Bishops in England (and even to the presence of priests) until the Jerusalem Bishopric rather pulled the rug out from underneath their feet. It surfaced again with the re-establishment of a Catholic hierarchy but with less intellectual coherence and more bluster.
--------------------
ceterum autem censeo tabula delenda esse
Posts: 3923 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
[ConEvos will] more happily settle for being left alone than Catholics whose theology demands that they get heavily involved in the wider church.
That wouldn't be true about most generations of conservative Anglo-Catholics. They've been quite happy to 'settle for being left alone' to get along with living in their parallel universe. As recently as the 1950s some parishes were 'under a ban', and had to rely on rebel bishops from overseas. As Eric Mascall put it: 'the bishop will not visit me or take my confirmations/ Colonial prelates I employ from far-off mission stations.'
This, just as much as PEVs, conflicts with Catholic theology of course. But if Evangelicals see the local, parish church, as being the basic unit why are they so worried about the beliefs, sexuality or gender of the bishop?
PS: I replied to this before reading Doc Tor's post. So con-evos have taken the same stance as con-a-cs! Interesting.
[ 23. November 2012, 10:42: Message edited by: Angloid ]
--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ender's Shadow
Shipmate
# 2272
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
[ConEvos will] more happily settle for being left alone than Catholics whose theology demands that they get heavily involved in the wider church.
That wouldn't be true about most generations of conservative Anglo-Catholics. They've been quite happy to 'settle for being left alone' to get along with living in their parallel universe. As recently as the 1950s some parishes were 'under a ban', and had to rely on rebel bishops from overseas. As Eric Mascall put it: 'the bishop will not visit me or take my confirmations/ Colonial prelates I employ from far-off mission stations.'
This, just as much as PEVs, conflicts with Catholic theology of course. But if Evangelicals see the local, parish church, as being the basic unit why are they so worried about the beliefs, sexuality or gender of the bishop?
PS: I replied to this before reading Doc Tor's post. So con-evos have taken the same stance as con-a-cs! Interesting.
Thanks for an interesting insight into A-C history. Truly a crazy situation. I guess the answer as to why ConEvos make the effort to oppose the legislation is for the same reason that you tell an alcoholic not to have another drink: not in the expectation that it will actually achieve anything, but because it's the right thing to do, though of course the oath of obedience to a woman bishop might cause a problem for incoming incumbents, but probably not 'canonical obedience' does give silly amounts of wriggle room.
--------------------
Test everything. Hold on to the good.
Please don't refer to me as 'Ender' - the whole point of Ender's Shadow is that he isn't Ender.
Posts: 5018 | From: Manchester, England | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:
. I fail completely to see then what particular remnant of sense in Anglican ecclesiology would be violated by having parallel provinces...
The Third Province thing wasn't going to happen and the reason it wasn't is practical, not doctrinal. It involves transfer of property, and money, from the existing Church of England parishes and dioceses to new ones. It involves setting up new bishoprics. And unfortunately for the Church of England, we are an established church and that sort of thing needs legislation. And no imaginable Parliament is going to pass it.
First, because the government and most MPs don't care enough about the CofE to want to even talk about it. They'd rather we go and play by ourselves in the corner and don't bother the grown-ups.
Secondly because almost no MPs would be willing to vote in favour of what they and their constituents see as an excuse to preserve old-fashioned bigotry. The opponents of ordaining women claim (falsely) that the debate so far has been driven by a secular agenda for "modernisation", or "liberalism", or "feminism". That really hasn't been true within the CofE, whatever they say. But when it gets outside the Church it will be exactly that. And very few MPs, not even Tory ones, will vote to make a safe space for sexism.
Thirdly because most people in England don't really care one way or the other. But the small minority that do care, care very deeply indeed. So any politician who gets involved, on either side, will piss off some of their voters for no benefit. And no-one likes to do that.
Fourthly because the tiny number of MPs who do have some personal attachment to Protestant religion - and there still are a few and not all of them are from Scotland or Northern Ireland - are going to scream like mad at what looks to them like an Evil Plot to take the property of the Church of England away from the people pf England and hand it over to Rome. Yet another argument no-one wants to have.
If we were fully disestablished there might be a change of this. But that's not on the cards yet either. Sooner or later the CofE will be entirely disestablished. But probably later, and piece by piece, rather than sooner and all at once. Not because the government cares about Establishment, but precisely because they don't care - they don't care enough to waste Parliamentary time on it. So we repatriate a little bit of our autonomy every few years and one day we'll have most of it. But not yet. And until then the Forward in Faith party have to keep the argument in Synod and out of Parliament if they are to have any chance at all.
quote:
Originally posted by Thurible:
Forward in Faith does not have a doctrine of taint.
We've been through that about twenty times on here in the last few years. And what they describe as "not a doctrine of taint" is exactly what everyone else means by "doctrine of taint". Its blatant, its clear, and there is no use pretending.
Most of them refuse to accept as priests men ordained by a man who also ordains women. All of them would refuse to accept a man ordained by a man ordained by a woman. Even one women involved the process invalidates the whole in their eyes. That's the taint. QED.
Evangelical opponents of women's ordination on "headship" or "complementarian" grounds by and large do not have those problems. All they want is not to have a woman placed over them in their local church. Some of them are OK with ordained women in subordinate roles in their parish. Almost all of them will allow women to preach, and some have no objection to women presiding at Communion. Some would be OK with men ordained by women bishops. As ES just said probably most of them would in practice find ways to work with, work round, or ignore, women bishops in their own diocese. Just as they do now with women archdeacons. So for them the mere presence of ordained women in some parts of the Church of England doesn't spoil the whole of it, or at least no more than it is already spoiled, in their view. So no theory of taint. Also QED.
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
But if Evangelicals see the local, parish church, as being the basic unit why are they so worried about the beliefs, sexuality or gender of the bishop?
The vast majority aren't.
Just in case anyone's interested, here's Tom Wright's take on it
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Triple Tiara
Ship's Papabile
# 9556
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
First, because the government and most MPs don't care enough about the CofE to want to even talk about it. They'd rather we go and play by ourselves in the corner and don't bother the grown-ups.
Are you currently on another planet, or just not following the news? The day before your post there was all sorts of huffing and puffing in parliament about the CofE, the charge being led by the Tory freemason (men only) member of the (men-only) Garrick Club, Sir Tony Baldry. The CofE came up in PMQs on Wednesday. How is that not caring enough about the CofE? As an RC onlooker the issue that is most worrying about all this is just how much parliament is interested in deciding what should happen to the Church.
--------------------
I'm a Roman. You may call me Caligula.
Posts: 5905 | From: London, England | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
As an RC onlooker the issue that is most worrying about all this is just how much parliament is interested in deciding what should happen to the Church.
Well, someone's got to stand up for what's right. If the church won't do it then why not parliament?
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Thurible
Shipmate
# 3206
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Thurible:
Forward in Faith does not have a doctrine of taint.
We've been through that about twenty times on here in the last few years. And what they describe as "not a doctrine of taint" is exactly what everyone else means by "doctrine of taint". Its blatant, its clear, and there is no use pretending.
Most of them refuse to accept as priests men ordained by a man who also ordains women. All of them would refuse to accept a man ordained by a man ordained by a woman. Even one women involved the process invalidates the whole in their eyes. That's the taint. QED.
We have, indeed, been round the houses on this issue and you are still wrong.
It is true that they would have reservations about whether or not "a man ordained by a man ordained by a woman" was a priest. (I say 'reservations' because there are those within FiF who are not impossibilists.)
As for "Most of them refuse to accept as priests men ordained by a man who also ordains women," you are wronger than a wrong thing there. I have never met or spoken to a member of Forward in Faith who believes that. If they abide by the Forward in Faith Communion Statement (and there are some who do whereas, to be honest, I think most don't), they would not receive Holy Communion from such priests but they would certainly not deny the validity of his orders. In a similar way, they accept the validity of the orders of, say, Triple Tiara but wouldn't receive Holy Communion at his hands because of the lack of full communion between them.
Thurible
--------------------
"I've been baptised not lobotomised."
Posts: 8049 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
First, because the government and most MPs don't care enough about the CofE to want to even talk about it. They'd rather we go and play by ourselves in the corner and don't bother the grown-ups.
Are you currently on another planet, or just not following the news? The day before your post there was all sorts of huffing and puffing in parliament about the CofE....
Yes, but, really, would they ever have made FiF's 3rd province for them? Of course not. That was the question! Nor would they be likely to waste time passing disestablishment bills.
quote:
Originally posted by Thurible:
...If they abide by the Forward in Faith Communion Statement (and there are some who do whereas, to be honest, I think most don't), they would not receive Holy Communion from such priests ....
And that sounds pretty tainted to me.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Thurible
Shipmate
# 3206
|
Posted
Well, that's because you're hearing what you want to hear.
I'd appreciate it, though, if you would accept that you are wrong on the issue of whether or not we accept the orders of those ordained by women-ordaining bishops.
Thurible
--------------------
"I've been baptised not lobotomised."
Posts: 8049 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Thurible:
I'd appreciate it, though, if you would accept that you are wrong on the issue of whether or not we accept the orders of those ordained by women-ordaining bishops.
e
If you will not have those people as ministers in your churches and you will not accept communion when they preside what can it possibly mean to say that you do accept them as priests?
[ 23. November 2012, 15:32: Message edited by: ken ]
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Thurible
Shipmate
# 3206
|
Posted
That we believe them to offer the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass for the benefit of the living and the dead and that they can absolve in the name of Our Lord Jesus Christ?
Thurible
--------------------
"I've been baptised not lobotomised."
Posts: 8049 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
So what do you people mean by the word "taint" then? It might help some of us on the sidelines to follow if we understand what you mean. My OED has loads of potential meanings. And yes, I have seen the term used by a former FiF member of these boards, thanks for reminding me.
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
But if Evangelicals see the local, parish church, as being the basic unit why are they so worried about the beliefs, sexuality or gender of the bishop?
The vast majority aren't.
I know that of course Ken. Apologies for not qualifying Evangelicals with the word conservative. (or extremely conservative, if you prefer: I guess many who are con-evo in most other respects are happy enough with ordained women.
Though they might have more problems with gay bishops, or 'unbelieving' ones, as they might describe extreme liberalism.)
[ 23. November 2012, 17:36: Message edited by: Angloid ]
--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Basilica
Shipmate
# 16965
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Thurible:
That we believe them to offer the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass for the benefit of the living and the dead and that they can absolve in the name of Our Lord Jesus Christ?
So you essentially consider them priests in the Church of God with whom you are in impaired/disrupted communion as a result of their unrepented schismatic action?
I think you could argue "taint" either way, if this is the case.
Posts: 403 | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
As an RC onlooker the issue that is most worrying about all this is just how much parliament is interested in deciding what should happen to the Church.
Worrying to me too, as a C of E insider.
--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Thurible:
That we believe them to offer the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass for the benefit of the living and the dead and that they can absolve in the name of Our Lord Jesus Christ?
I've now completely lost the thread. FinF believe all these things but yet will not receive Communion from them? Can anyone explain this in a way I can find credible?
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
So what do you people mean by the word "taint" then? It might help some of us on the sidelines to follow if we understand what you mean. My OED has loads of potential meanings. And yes, I have seen the term used by a former FiF member of these boards, thanks for reminding me.
I used to be more or less where Thurible is now, I believe. And Thurible is correct, and ken wrong.
ken might be right about taint if it were true - and in no case I encountered as an anglo-catholic was it - that the involvement of a woman at any stage caused FiFers (for example) to refuse to accept the orders of a man. So if, in the case in which a man is ordained by male bishop which bishop himself had previously ordained women, a FiFer refused to accept those male priests as having been validly ordained precisely because the bishop had laid hands on a women to the same effect. That would indicate a theory of taint. But no-one I have ever met believed that, pace ken.
So I would consider proof that someone held a taint theory when that person thought that the sacramental validity of an ordination or a celebration of the Eucharist were affected merely because the minister in question had been involved in ordaining or concelebrating with a women.
Why is believing that there is doubt about the orders of man ordained by a female bishop or by a bishop himself ordained/consecrated by a female bishop not in itself evidence of a taint theory? Because it is possible to believe that a woman is not capable of being validly consecrated without believing that anyone who has anything to do with her ministry is thereby "tainted" to the extent that their own ministry much be rejected as invalid or irremediably impaired. That's not a theory of "taint" - it's a theory of sacramental economy/efficacy.
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
Thanks, CB. As I hope was clear, I was wondering whether people are actually talking about the same thing when mentioning "taint" as it does seem to crop up with some regularity.
I'm completely out of the loop on this one - I've never heard the concept advanced IRL except on certain internet sites (of which this is one), either as a proposition, or an accusation either. And yet we did have the idea mentioned by a former FiF shipmate not that long ago. Unfortunately I can't remember the context, and the ship's search facility (never it's strongest point) seems to go haywire if you search for "taint".
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Curiosity Killed, please don't. Your contention is with the House of Laity not with Jesus Christ. Walking out on him because you are disgusted with some of his servants is spiritually very dangerous indeed.
When I stopped believing a long time ago I found it gave me a complete wholeness in terms of spirituality, so I wonder how you feel it is a 'dangerous' move. And that's a genuinely interested question, which I ask because I don't know the answer.
I've felt very chary of replying to this question, because the standard answer is very uncomfortable. I am not quite sure how to respond without being either upsetting or dishonest, but I can't get away from the feeling that the way you have asked me, obliges me to try.
The classic Christian understanding is that 'walking out on Jesus Christ' is saying no to his invitation, declining all that he offers, that is to say, apostasy. It is more dangerous to have believed and given up doing, than never to have believed at all. One places oneself with those who have tasted the goodness of the word of God, and crucify the Son of God on their own account. (see Heb 6:5-6). If having received the truth, we decide to reject it, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins. All that is left is the fearful prospect of judgement (see Heb 10:27).
If we go off in a huff because we're fed up with the House of Laity, is our contention with the House of Laity or with Jesus himself? If the former, it's hardly fair and rather dangerous to blame Jesus because we think some of his followers aren't listening to him. If the latter, the risk is that rather than working through our contention with Christ and trying to repair the relationship, we will just remain stuck there, cut off until it is too late. Just as there are all too many examples of ordinary family rows which entrench themselves and are never repaired, this can happen with our relationship with Christ. But with him the consequences are not just for this life but for the age to come.
What I have tried to set out is what I understand to be the classic, traditional answer to your question. There are undoubtedly others with the pastoral training to have done this better. Some also may feel that discretion should have restrained me, that I should not have said this. Or there may be shipmates who have a more profound spiritual understanding than mine and can give a different answer.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
"Taint" is female ordination Dead-Horse territory and has always been. If you want to develop the tangent further, then please take it to Dead Horses.
[Sorry about this; it's the problem with "on balance" decisions on threads which nudge up on boundaries.)
Barnabas62
Purgatory Host
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
My apologies Barnabas62 - in fact I was thinking the concept stretched well beyond that, but given the context ISWYM.
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jemima the 9th
Shipmate
# 15106
|
Posted
I don't want to start yet another thread on the Synod's decision, and implications of it, and I hope this is a sufficiently similar thought to tack on to this one.
Being another person pondering leaving the CofE, I was wondering, is anyone else having discussions about the decision within their own parish?
I've asked our clergy team (there are faaaaaaaaaahsends of 'em, as we say in Essex) whether the issue of women in authority, ordination, the sacramental role and all the things discussed here & in DH could be addressed in a discussion type meeting at church if it's not appropriate to be looked at within a sermon. Like KLB's experience, we're one of those evangelical-ish places which has almost dispensed with the liturgy, so a question & answer type discussion within a service isn't entirely without the realms of possibility.
Just wondering if anyone else has done likewise, or thinks it's a good idea? I have a feeling the clergy might think I'm one of those awful people who spend too much time on the internet...
Posts: 801 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jemima the 9th:
... Being another person pondering leaving the CofE, I was wondering, is anyone else having discussions about the decision within their own parish? ...
Wouldn't it be rather odd to leave the CofE over an issue where apart from a freak majority in the House of Laity, the general impression is that most of the CofE's members agree with you?
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
Jemima the 9th asked quote:
Being another person pondering leaving the CofE, I was wondering, is anyone else having discussions about the decision within their own parish?
Yes, but only informally. Opinions vary but the majority view seems to be that it's another cockup by all concerned, whoever "they" are.
To be honest, that's close to my own POV right now, and I'm more keen to talk to people who think differently, so have been watching most threads here and intend to visit a couple of other parishes for other viewpoints.
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by Jemima the 9th:
... Being another person pondering leaving the CofE, I was wondering, is anyone else having discussions about the decision within their own parish? ...
Wouldn't it be rather odd to leave the CofE over an issue where apart from a freak majority in the House of Laity, the general impression is that most of the CofE's members agree with you?
Precisely what I've been thinking.
[ 26. November 2012, 17:11: Message edited by: Chesterbelloc ]
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jemima the 9th
Shipmate
# 15106
|
Posted
Apologies, I was typing in a hurry before I went out. Silly.
I should have explained that, similar to CK, I've been thinking of leaving for years. I've been having an ongoing reappraisal of whether I believe any of it & whether I want to carry on in church for about 5 years, none of which is sufficiently interesting or relevant to bore you all with. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Whilst I take the point that the majority of the CofE's members agree with me, or so it seems, I'm sufficiently grumpy with the "whoever they are" to want to go. One of the troubles for me is what I perceive to be a big disconnect between the local place and the powers that be in the House of Laity, I appreciate this is being discussed in the reforming synod thread.
Perhaps it's just an exercise in frustrated foot-stamping on my part, but it seemed odd that an issue of importance isn't being discussed at local level. And speaking of frustrated foot-stamping, it did feel like the last straw for me & church, last week. (I know, waaaaaah, grow up & get over it, etc).
Cheers for the link, CK.
Posts: 801 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Shire Dweller
Shipmate
# 16631
|
Posted
Our Vicar tackled the issue head on in the Sermon yesterday. He was very fair and explained the different objections and supporting views of women bishops. His own 'pro' view from an Open Evangelical stand point did come through but he left space for people to come to their own conclusions. I was most impressed.
One of my own sentiments is that this is my Church and just because there are minorities who disagree with me does not mean I walk out the door.
I don't intend this to be a harsh comment to anyone, but I feel strongly that 'walking out' just gives this thing called Church that we've spent much time, effort and prayer in building up to the very people who we disagree with.
I'm not leaving because some people have it wrong. A way forward can be found, even if the Church works in centuries. This is my Church.
--------------------
Right around the Wrekin
Posts: 77 | From: Shropshire | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jemima the 9th
Shipmate
# 15106
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Shire Dweller:
One of my own sentiments is that this is my Church and just because there are minorities who disagree with me does not mean I walk out the door.
Yes, it's a feeling I have too. Ultimately I doubt I will leave. Also, I feel that if I did leave I'd be somehow announcing that I am a better person than those who disagree with me, and wonderful as I am ![[Biased]](wink.gif) I doubt that that's the case.
Posts: 801 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768
|
Posted
What ken said - I heard on the radio a week back, can't find it.
Posts: 5833 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eigon
Shipmate
# 4917
|
Posted
I don't think I'm a better person than others who decide to remain with the C of E. I have the greatest respect for the women clergy, and the male clergy who support them, who belong to that particular organisation. Thing is, I don't have as much of my life invested in the organisation as they do - and I prefer to find a place of worship that isn't going to wind me up into fury.
In the end, I think it's God that matters, and not the specific human organisation you join in order to find out about God.
--------------------
Laugh hard. Run fast. Be kind.
Posts: 3710 | From: Hay-on-Wye, town of books | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
What ken said - I heard on the radio a week back, can't find it.
er - sorry, Penny S - which of ken's posts are you referring to? (trying to keep up)
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Higgs Bosun
Shipmate
# 16582
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Wouldn't it be rather odd to leave the CofE over an issue where apart from a freak majority in the House of Laity, the general impression is that most of the CofE's members agree with you?
Just to point out that the House of Laity did not have a majority against the measure. If six people had voted the other way, the required two-thirds majority in favour would have been reached. The actual numbers were 132 'For', 74 'Against', no abstentions, and 5 members not present.
Some of those voting against are in favour of women as bishops, but considered the protections for the dissenters insufficient.
Posts: 313 | From: Near the Tidal Thames | Registered: Aug 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
brackenrigg
Shipmate
# 9408
|
Posted
The Muslim faith has a possible workable solution that St Paul might have approved of.
They can have a woman Iman, so long as they only preach to women.
Posts: 196 | From: s yorks | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
So make them all wear veils and lock themselves away in women-only rooms and you will never risk having to set eyes on one again.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Vulpior
Foxier than Thou
# 12744
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by brackenrigg:
The Muslim faith has a possible workable solution that St Paul might have approved of.
They can have a woman Iman, so long as they only preach to women.
That is, as I understand it, the attitude among certain ConEvos as well, so not uncommon within the Diocese of Sydney.
--------------------
I've started blogging. I don't promise you'll find anything to interest you at uncleconrad
Posts: 946 | From: Mount Fairy, NSW | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
What ken said - I heard on the radio a week back, can't find it.
er - sorry, Penny S - which of ken's posts are you referring to? (trying to keep up)
Actually, it was one which has been criticised, so I was being deliberately obscure. Criticised not only for expressing something which no-one else had come across, but also for being an expired equine - so I was not as explicit as I might have been, while wanting to back him up. It was that people wishing to be kept away from any contact with ordained women would wish not only to be served by male priests, or male priests not ordained by a woman bishop, but also not by a male priest ordained by a male bishop who had ordained a woman.
Seemed weird to me, but then I was brought up in a tradition with a founding belief in not having bishops at all. (Moved to the CofE when said church took against my mother, moved out again when I realised how some people felt about women back before the women priests vote.) Not having grown up in the bubbles which the Anglo-Catholics or the other end inhabit, and having a scientific background, I don't really understand a style of thinking which seems a bit magical to me.
Posts: 5833 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
