Thread: Purgatory: The new Archbishop Board: Limbo / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=11;t=000944
Posted by Robert Armin (# 182) on
:
I may be completely wrong in this, but it seems to me that there has been very little discussion of the new ABofC, either on board Ship or in the media as a whole. There is a lot of interest in the new Pope (see the "White Smoke" thread) but even in "Anglicanism and the new Pope" there is a lot of discussion about Catholicism as a whole, some on Pope Francis, and hardly a mention of Archbishop Justin.
Does anyone have any thoughts about ++Justin? Hopes and fears based on his previous ministry or on what he has done since he took the helm? Or is he such a dull non-entity he's not worth talking about?
[ 18. June 2013, 13:36: Message edited by: Gwai ]
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
There was a fair bit of discussion here when his appointment was announced, but there hasn't been a great deal since he was enthroned, as it were.
It's early days.
Posted by Pilot Light (# 17549) on
:
The local press in Warwickshire have been printing lots of articles about Justin Welby since his parish ministry was round here (Nuneaton and Southam). There seems to be a lot of affection for him in Coventry and Warwickshire.
Here's a link to an article (page 5) written by someone who worked with him - you'll get a flavour of what he's like in his ministry...
Magazine article
Hope that helps a little!
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
What the new Archbishop needs is someone to discover an ancient prophecy in which he plays a key role. If that happens, everyone will be all over him, as they are with the new Pope!
Barring that, he needs to do something ultra-PR-friendly. The new Pope washed the feet of a female Muslim prisoner on Maundy Thursday, which some people thought was rather daring....
BTW, the news about Justin Welby engaged my interest, because I went out of my way to see him when he came to Coventry Cathedral a few weeks ago, and I'm not even an Anglican. He spent the day leading prayers there. His photos do him justice, and he's well-spoken, as one would expect. In the little I saw of him, he didn't seem to have any obvious quirks, but neither did he ooze charisma. ABsofC don't have the same job description as popes, so perhaps it's natural that they have a different aura.
Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on
:
Before anyone gets into the hype does anyone remember this event from early in the time of Rowan Williams tenure. It made positive press then.
Jengie
Posted by shamwari (# 15556) on
:
Re the OP. I hope that I am wrong but...
The new ABC strikes me as being a very capable manager as his background in business would suggest. ( Perhaps this is what the Anglican Church needs).
He did not come across as an inspiring preacher. One would have thought that a man of his capabilities would not have to be tied to his mss and he used the HTB "Jesus" mantra as expected given that background.
What the Christian Church needs is a prophet with passion and fire in his belly. Scholarly yes, but the two are not incompatible.
What is incompatible is the split in the world-wide Anglican communion which a prophet would only exacerbate. And that is a non-starter. So expect a blanc-mange tenure accompanied by all the right noises depending on the audience being addressed.
Hopeful but not expectant.
Posted by Huts (# 13017) on
:
It might be a bit early to judge him yet.
He's only 'Just In' ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on
:
I'm still in two minds about Abp. Justin, I probably always will be.
One concern I have is that he seems to be trying to force through women bishops, already having his own female chaplain (the first ever) and women clergy in the House of Bishops - I expect the C of E will eventually have women bishops, but it is not good to trample all over the consciences of those who don't see things his way. In any case, it will lead to more people leaving the Church of England, which will in turn lead to the church starting to become more protestant, more liberal, and less catholic. Some may think that's a good thing of course.
We all know his views on gay marriage and gay ordination, but just lately he seems to be squirming and walking on a tightrope when it comes to these things. Perhaps with the pressures of the (left wing) media that's inevitable, but it's a shame he feels he cannot give clear teaching in this matter, yet he is perfectly clear where he stands with women bishops.
Anyway, characterwise I like the man, and I don't envy his task of trying to keep the Anglican Communion together.
I've heard a couple of his sermons, and I can't say I'm very impressed. Something about the way he words things just doesn't exactly have people on the edge of their seats does it?
Anyway, I wish him all the best, and God's blessing - One thing I do like about him is his humility and openness which comes out when he is interviewed.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
... What the Christian Church needs is a prophet with passion and fire in his belly. Scholarly yes, but the two are not incompatible. ...
Provided one means 'prophet' in its true sense, and not just 'controversial and outspoken', true, but would Archbishop of Canterbury be the right job to tie a true prophet into?
Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on
:
Hmph. First we have a defense of legalism as superseding the Spirit on the Pope thread (re washing the feet of the wrong sort of people) and now we have a defense of the stiff-necked from someone who jumped ship.
Women as bishops hasn't been a noticeable issue in other parts of the Communion for quite some time now, and I don't see any evidence that more people left as a result, just as I don't see hetero marriages falling by the wayside in Canada now that SSMs are allowed (7 years now)
If you are discontented, you will find an excuse to flounce. The only thing the rest of us would ask is that you don't actually do damage on the way out (a cheap shot on my part at the ACNA)
[ 29. March 2013, 20:28: Message edited by: Horseman Bree ]
Posted by Yam-pk (# 12791) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
I've heard a couple of his sermons, and I can't say I'm very impressed. Something about the way he words things just doesn't exactly have people on the edge of their seats does it?
Well, doesn't make him much different from the previous bloke then... ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Posted by sososlowly (# 17592) on
:
So far the Holy Spirit has taken me pleasantly by surprise.
He may not be the most charismatic of men, but he seems to speak simply without dumbing down overly. +Rowan was a better and holier man than we deserved as our primate, but his very holy desire to do justice to every side of every facet of every argument made him easy pickings in the playground that passes for the media in the UK. Justin's ability to craft a sound bite may buy him the time and space to do some significant stuff relatively unmolested.
Justin's prayer pilgrimmage before his public ministry started does seem to me to be motivated genuinely by a desire to put prayer at the centre of everything. And if his archepiscopal ministry did nothing except to remind the church that, as Stephen Cottrell puts it, we should hit the gorund kneeling, it would be a mighty and propehetic contribution.
I wander what ecclesiology he will articulate. +Rowan's assumption that the church is already the perfected new humanity (I'm paraphrasing savagely but that's the gist of it) was wildly optimistic in the way that only true prophets can dare to be.
I suspect Justin will be more realistic. That might make him firmer and more managerial sometimes and, for me, that wouldn't be a bad thing. As someone who leads a team in business for a living but takes my faith seriously I'm pretty hacked off with "managerialism" being the whipping boy of ecclesiological discourse.
As others have said, it's early days. Let's keep praying for him. though.
[ 29. March 2013, 21:08: Message edited by: sososlowly ]
Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
...Women as bishops hasn't been a noticeable issue in other parts of the Communion for quite some time now, and I don't see any evidence that more people left as a result...
[TEMPORARY TANGENT INTO DEAD HORSE TERRITORY]You are missing the point. On another thread we are discussing the issues surrounding unity/unification of the Anglicans with the wider Church, and there is a problem when the C of E sees itself as having the Authority to make such changes unilaterally, as if it was THE Church, which it isn't.
Usually, when individuals depart from a church, they don't fill out a form to explain their reasons - so how can we conclusively prove whether people have left over this issue or for some other reason?
Certainly, in many of the countries where they have women bishops, membership of the Anglican church is declining quite drastically.[/TEMPORARY TANGENT INTO DEAD HORSE TERRITORY]
Posted by Deputy Verger (# 15876) on
:
Welcome aboard, sososlowly. Excellent first post. Couldn't say it better myself.
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
I'm still in two minds about Abp. Justin, I probably always will be.
One concern I have is that he seems to be trying to force through women bishops, already having his own female chaplain (the first ever) and women clergy in the House of Bishops - I expect the C of E will eventually have women bishops, but it is not good to trample all over the consciences of those who don't see things his way. In any case, it will lead to more people leaving the Church of England, which will in turn lead to the church starting to become more protestant, more liberal, and less catholic. Some may think that's a good thing of course.
We all know his views on gay marriage and gay ordination, but just lately he seems to be squirming and walking on a tightrope when it comes to these things. Perhaps with the pressures of the (left wing) media that's inevitable, but it's a shame he feels he cannot give clear teaching in this matter, yet he is perfectly clear where he stands with women bishops.
Anyway, characterwise I like the man, and I don't envy his task of trying to keep the Anglican Communion together.
I've heard a couple of his sermons, and I can't say I'm very impressed. Something about the way he words things just doesn't exactly have people on the edge of their seats does it?
Anyway, I wish him all the best, and God's blessing - One thing I do like about him is his humility and openness which comes out when he is interviewed.
I'm perplexed by the idea that things will be more Protestant but also more liberal. HTB isn't particularly liberal, and there are plenty of liberal Anglo-Catholics in the CoE.
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
I'm still in two minds about Abp. Justin, I probably always will be.
One concern I have is that he seems to be trying to force through women bishops, already having his own female chaplain (the first ever) and women clergy in the House of Bishops - I expect the C of E will eventually have women bishops, but it is not good to trample all over the consciences of those who don't see things his way. In any case, it will lead to more people leaving the Church of England, which will in turn lead to the church starting to become more protestant, more liberal, and less catholic. Some may think that's a good thing of course.
We all know his views on gay marriage and gay ordination, but just lately he seems to be squirming and walking on a tightrope when it comes to these things. Perhaps with the pressures of the (left wing) media that's inevitable, but it's a shame he feels he cannot give clear teaching in this matter, yet he is perfectly clear where he stands with women bishops.
Anyway, characterwise I like the man, and I don't envy his task of trying to keep the Anglican Communion together.
I've heard a couple of his sermons, and I can't say I'm very impressed. Something about the way he words things just doesn't exactly have people on the edge of their seats does it?
Anyway, I wish him all the best, and God's blessing - One thing I do like about him is his humility and openness which comes out when he is interviewed.
I'm perplexed by the idea that things will be more Protestant but also more liberal. HTB isn't particularly liberal, and there are plenty of liberal Anglo-Catholics in the CoE.
Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
I'm perplexed by the idea that things will be more Protestant but also more liberal. HTB isn't particularly liberal, and there are plenty of liberal Anglo-Catholics in the CoE.
It's just about proportion - if catholics leave, there will be higher proportions of liberals and catholics.
I know I am asking to have my head bitten off here, but by "catholics" I meant FiF type Anglo-Catholics. Affirming-catholics, I would classify as liberal (they won't be going anywhere) - but YMMV.
I wasn't suggesting HTB are particularly liberal, but they are protestant (ie. very un-catholic).
Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on
:
As you were:
...if catholics leave, there will be higher proportions of liberals and protestants...
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
Why are affirming catholics not counting as catholics? I'm not biting your head off, it's just that I've come across this point of view before and it just baffles me. Is conservatism an essential part of a catholic faith? If an AffCath priest and an FiF priest were to agree on all theological issues bar Dead Horses, why would the Dead Horses automatically make the AffCath priest not a 'real' catholic? It just seems like such an odd thing to define the term by - maybe it's just me, but I don't think the defining feature of even the RCC is their stance on Dead Horse issues.
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Why are affirming catholics not counting as catholics?
I think Mark's claim is that FiF types are likely to swim the Tiber, whereas Aff-Cath will stay put. Other things being equal, this makes the C of E less Catholic, because some of the Catholics have gone to Rome.
This doesn't discount the Catholicity of Aff-Caths, it's just a statement that Aff-Cath is a smaller group of people than (Aff-Cath + FiF), and so unless the C of E loses a matching number of low-church evangelicals on headship grounds, the centre of mass (or should that be centre of Mass?) moves away from Catholicism.
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
If that is the case, I understand, but I have come across others not counting affirming catholics as 'real' catholics (not on the Ship) so it is a view held by some.
Posted by Bostonman (# 17108) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
This doesn't discount the Catholicity of Aff-Caths, it's just a statement that Aff-Cath is a smaller group of people than (Aff-Cath + FiF), and so unless the C of E loses a matching number of low-church evangelicals on headship grounds, the centre of mass (or should that be centre of Mass?) moves away from Catholicism.
I mean, Mark came right out and said "Affirming-catholics, I would classify as liberal." So yes, it's discounting the Catholicity of Aff-Caths.
Most likely a few people will continue to drift away. My real question is whether, right now, the net flow is Canterbury -> Rome or vice versa (with all due respect, I think the anywhere -> Eastern Orthodox flow is pretty limited). In the United States at least, I know many many more ex-Catholics in the Episcopal Church than I do ex-Episcopalians in the Catholic Church.
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
Does anyone have any thoughts about ++Justin? Hopes and fears based on his previous ministry or on what he has done since he took the helm? Or is he such a dull non-entity he's not worth talking about?
I liked the theology of his Good Friday chat on radio.
He started with a bit of philosophy (always a good tick in my book):
quote:
As we all know well, where you stand determines what you see.
Then went on to describe his Easter theology as:
quote:
The rulers discovered that God is not held down by human failure and foolishness, even by human wickedness and injustice. They saw Jesus as a mere man, and loaded hatred and fear onto him.
They did not realise that the power of the love that God expressed in Him would swallow the hate and destroy it.
The women discovered that the love they knew was more than merely human. They saw Jesus as wonderful but defeated. The next few days would show that he was in fact utterly triumphant and far more than wonderful.
And a bit further down:
quote:
he death of Jesus is both a challenge and a promise of hope. The challenge is to show that same self-giving love for the sake of others. The promise is that nothing is beyond His reach and even despair can be healed.'
Seems like good Christus Victor theology. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Posted by Spike (# 36) on
:
There's a lot of talk about Anglicans swimming the Tiber, but we cannot ignore the fact that there is steady two way traffic here. At nearly every confirmation service there is invariably at least one Roman Catholic being received into the Anglican Church. In my deanery, we even have two priests who were originally ordained in the RCC.
Posted by Trisagion (# 5235) on
:
We hear this "two way traffic" remark around here quite a lot. There is undoubtedly some traffic away from Rome but what evidence there is suggests that it is heavily outnumbered. The traffic may be steady but it is also pretty lopsided.
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:
We hear this "two way traffic" remark around here quite a lot. There is undoubtedly some traffic away from Rome but what evidence there is suggests that it is heavily outnumbered. The traffic may be steady but it is also pretty lopsided.
At the level of priests, perhaps, but that will have a lot to do with there not being many young Catholic priests in the developed world anyway. At the lay level, I think the balance is the other way.
Posted by Trisagion (# 5235) on
:
On the basis of what evidence do you make that assertion?
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:
On the basis of what evidence do you make that assertion?
Anecdotal, mostly. I've never encountered, in person, an Anglican who has converted to the RCC or any who I knew were thinking of it. I have encountered a lot of former RC Anglicans. If you have data I'd be interested to see it. And it wasn't an assertion, it was an opinion. The word "I think" ought to have been a clue.
Posted by Trisagion (# 5235) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:
On the basis of what evidence do you make that assertion?
Anecdotal, mostly. I've never encountered, in person, an Anglican who has converted to the RCC or any who I knew were thinking of it. I have encountered a lot of former RC Anglicans. If you have data I'd be interested to see it. And it wasn't an assertion, it was an opinion. The word "I think" ought to have been a clue.
Last Easter in England and Wales just over 2000 ex-Anglicans were received into the Catholic Church, excluding those joining the Ordinariate. That figure has been pretty constant for the last ten years or so. I have no data for traffic in the opposite direction, in part because the data collected is different and in part because of the difficulty of collecting data when many ex-Catholics go through no formal process. Suffice it to say that our sister dioceses on Portsmouth and of Winchester estimate that the traffic is about 3 to 1 in our favour.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
An outsider's perspective. The less Anglo-Catholic the C of E appears to be, the bigger the jump for Catholics contemplating a move.
In the much more fidgety world of protestant nonconformism, folks who change churches are normally looking for a place which will feel familiar, but not so uncomfortably misfitting as where they are. That would seem to me to be a general preference.
Only the most naive expect to find perfection and are soon disappointed. There is some consumeristic shuffling, but IME that is not so in the majority of cases, and I certainly would not expect it to be so for a Catholic contemplating a "move out".
Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Why are affirming catholics not counting as catholics? I'm not biting your head off, it's just that I've come across this point of view before and it just baffles me. Is conservatism an essential part of a catholic faith?...
This little note sums it up from Paul Stead's blog - (note they are his words, not mine - so don't shoot the messenger):
quote:
What is Anglo-Catholicism?
P.S -A note about “High-Church” Anglicanism
There is an odd strand of Anglicanism which goes by the name of “Affirming Catholicism”, these Anglicans enjoy Catholic liturgy but cannot quite stomach Catholic doctrine. Unhappily and confusingly some Affirming Catholics call themselves “Anglo-Catholics”, and so there are women priests who will call themselves Anglo-Catholics. However Affirming Catholics are not Anglo-Catholics, they are liberals; Catholicity is more about doctrine than liturgy (though that is not to say that liturgy is unimportant); it is possible to still be Catholic whilst dancing along to a modern worship song in a big tent in the middle of the countryside. But no amount of incense can mask the stench of capitulation to liberal theology.
Posted by Edward Green (# 46) on
:
The old 'Liberal Catholics are not Catholics' line is rather like 'Evangelicals who believe X are not Evangelicals'.
There have always been differences in terms of what Catholic means to different Anglo-Catholics - Liturgy? Spirituality? Theology? Identity? Hierarchy? As my senior selector said to me 'One day you will have to decide if you are an Anglican first or a Catholic first'.
The world Liberal also means little these days: See Roger Olsen's rather long blog post:
What is Theological Liberalism
From my perspective the marker of the term Catholic in Anglican circles would be a more Sacrificial understanding and practice of the Eucharist. A few years back I might have gone for the Real Presence, but that is too vague and broad. The marker of Liberal is a rejection of the supernatural action of God in an area that has been in general accepted.
Now by these definitions a lot of Protestantism and Evangelicalism is Liberal in (Anglo)Catholic eyes, because we embrace a particular understanding of the supernatural action of God in the offering of bread and wine that the majority of Protestant's reject.
As for Archbishops, Rowan was nuanced in his view of Eucharistic Sacrifice (see:
Here ) and Justin's view is probably fairly practical.
Justin however has recently spoken at a Catholic Charismatic conference, has a Catholic Spiritual director and clearly respects the tradition. Such things would have been unthinkable for even a High Church Archbishop not so long ago. Justin may be more Charismatic than the average punter in the pew, but he is also more Catholic.
If those streams of his spirituality are integrated then I suspect that he will have a Charismatic experience of offering the Eucharist - an experience denied by a more memorialist understanding more common in Charismatic circles.
Posted by sososlowly (# 17592) on
:
We must be heading for some sort of Dead Horse with this stuff about whether Affirming Catholics are "real" catholics. But until the hosts step in, here goes:
I'm not sure the line that says, "Aff Cath is full of people who like insence but can't cope with Catholic doctrine" bears scrutiny, although like all good parody it has a grain of truth in it.
For me, and I suspect for a great many others who are comfortable with Affirming Catholocism's position on divisive topics like the ordination of women, I'm Catholic because catholicity is what God wills for his church.
Here I use catholic in the sense of broadly inclusive. For me, catholicity boils down to two things: First, a fidelity to the ecumenical creeds, so that differences over less primary doctrinal issues are interesting but not the end of the conversation. I would include among my list of non-primary issues complex scholastic debates about what happens at the eucharist; whether women can be ordained, and a great many others. Your list may be more restrictive.
Second, I take, as a bare minimum from the Gospel's accounts of Jesus' ministry the message that "there's a wideness in God's mercy". Jesus went out of his way to include, indeed to use most momentously, those on the outside of traditional structures.
I accept that, in lots of these debates, catolicity has become a barnacle-encrusted-rock of a concept about believing the right stuff about the length of a surplice, the shape of a chasuble and the necessity of having a penis in order to celebrate a valid mass. But it is a construct.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
I think that a lot of former Catholics who end up in Anglican or other Protestant churches often do so after a period in the wilderness or in a nominal position ... hence they'll slip under the radar.
I once belonged to a Baptist church where I reckon about a sixth of the congregation were former RCs ... mostly nominal or cradle-Catholics who had undergone an evangelical conversion whilst at university ... although there were some who'd crossed to evangelical-land from Catholicism at an older age.
Anglican or other Protestant converts to Roman Catholicism, I would submit, tend to be more visible as they have to apply for membership in a more formal way than is sometimes the case in Protestant churches and also because they are likely to be moving for reasons that catch the headlines as it were.
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:
Last Easter in England and Wales just over 2000 ex-Anglicans were received into the Catholic Church, excluding those joining the Ordinariate. That figure has been pretty constant for the last ten years or so. I have no data for traffic in the opposite direction, in part because the data collected is different and in part because of the difficulty of collecting data when many ex-Catholics go through no formal process. Suffice it to say that our sister dioceses on Portsmouth and of Winchester estimate that the traffic is about 3 to 1 in our favour.
The numbers could hardly help to be otherwise, considering there are 2 to 4 times as many Anglicans as there are Roman Catholic in the United Kingdom.
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
[QB] This little note sums it up from Paul Stead's blog - (note they are his words, not mine - so don't shoot the messenger):
When the messenger chooses the message they are going to convey, they are just as responsible for it as the original author. It's still wildly inaccurate, are you able to list those crucial areas of Catholic doctrine upon which Affirming Catholicism and Forward in Faith disagree, or does it just come back to gays and women again?
Posted by Trisagion (# 5235) on
:
I would suspect the ratio to be much higher than that - if you're talking about nominal Anglicans. If about practising ones then we're about equal.
There was a thread about this a couple of years ago but concentrating on things your side of the pond. I can't remember how it went.
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:
I would suspect the ratio to be much higher than that - if you're talking about nominal Anglicans. If about practising ones then we're about equal.
There was a thread about this a couple of years ago but concentrating on things your side of the pond. I can't remember how it went.
The 4 times number is baptized members, the 2 times number is self identifying. The upshot being that the ratio of conversions could favor the Roman Catholic three to one for centuries, but the portion of Anglicans overall could grow all the same.
As luck would have it, both sects are looking at a pretty catastrophic collapse in the United Kingdom, and should probably look more at reaching out to the 50 percent of Britons that have no idea at all of a Church rather than playing this game.
Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
When the messenger chooses the message they are going to convey, they are just as responsible for it as the original author. It's still wildly inaccurate, are you able to list those crucial areas of Catholic doctrine upon which Affirming Catholicism and Forward in Faith disagree, or does it just come back to gays and women again?
There are plenty - let's start with the virgin birth shall we? I'm sure you can think of plenty more if you put your mind to it.
Posted by malik3000 (# 11437) on
:
With all due respect, I'm so glad that my catholicity is not determined by how Paul Stead, Mark Betts and their soul mates have taken upon themselves to define it.
[ 30. March 2013, 14:37: Message edited by: malik3000 ]
Posted by maryjones (# 13523) on
:
One feature of Anglicanism that seems to me highly likely to put people off Church is the continuing tendency of Lord Carey (last archbishop but one) to shoot his mouth off .
According to the BBC News, BBC News he is concerned that Christians are being persecuted. quote:
WAs he not warned? Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake.
12 Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you.
Perhaps he hasn't read that bit!
Posted by sososlowly (# 17592) on
:
quote:
One feature of Anglicanism that seems to me highly likely to put people off Church is the continuing tendency of Lord Carey (last archbishop but one) to shoot his mouth off
I'm finding being charitable about Lord Carey a particularly trying Tridium discipline. I can think of plenty of stuff I'd challenge the UK government about: we are 24 hours from some huge benfits and legal aid cuts taking effect.
I can't help thinking it's a pure ego trip on Lord Carey's part. +Justin would do well to get a statement out disowning it.
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
When the messenger chooses the message they are going to convey, they are just as responsible for it as the original author. It's still wildly inaccurate, are you able to list those crucial areas of Catholic doctrine upon which Affirming Catholicism and Forward in Faith disagree, or does it just come back to gays and women again?
There are plenty - let's start with the virgin birth shall we? I'm sure you can think of plenty more if you put your mind to it.
I don't know any Affirming Catholics (myself included) who deny the virgin birth. Most I know also affirm the Immaculate Conception and Perpetual Virginity of Our Lady.
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
In my more cynically liberal moods I wonder about it. I don't think it is incompatible with belief in Christ's divinity to question the VB, but I affirm it as part of the Church's teaching. How does that disqualify me from being a Catholic?
I know that from an orthodox RC position no-one outside the Catholic Church can be a Catholic. I accept that. It's those Anglicans who decide for themselves which bits of RC teaching to accept and write off their fellow-believers as 'not Catholic' that I object to. It's like those fundamentalists who see themselves as the only true Christians.
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
It seems God is putting our faith that "the gates of hell shall not prevail against it" to the test. If Anglicans can't believe the virgin birth or the resurrection, then our Catholicity is indeed in dire peril. Let's hope this salt will not lose its savor.
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
Belief in the Incarnation and the Resurrection is indeed the cornerstone of our faith. I'm not sure that the Virgin Birth should be in the same category, as it is merely one attempt to illustrate the mystery of the former. In the same way, as Bishop David Jenkins put it, there is much more to the Resurrection than the resuscitation of a bag of bones.
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
In my experience, when someone says "The resurrection is more than mere resuscitation," they usually mean to say it was far less.
Posted by sososlowly (# 17592) on
:
quote:
If Anglicans can't believe the virgin birth or the resurrection, then our Catholicity is indeed in dire peril. Let's hope this salt will not lose its savor.
Two things:
(1) So far precisely no Anglicans have said that they don't believe in the virgin birth, so far as I can see in this thread. By resurrection I assume you imply bodily resurrection. Again, no deniers here so far. But I accept it's fun to construct straw men and throw stones at them.
(2) Be careful how you use the word "believe". Doubting stuff, still less questioning stuff, even Big Stuff (TM) like the resurrection, doesn't disqualify you from the status of a believer. I think we all doubt and question. It's just that some of us are more intellectually honest about it than others.
And in case it matters, I raise both those points from the perspective of someone who holds the traditional line on the virgin birth and Christ's bodily resurrection. Although only the second is a crucial plank of my faith.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
Angloid
I don't understand how the concept of the Trinity works without the virgin birth. Clergy who disbelieve in the virgin birth need to explain to their congregations how it's possible to believe in one but not the other. Maybe it's time to revise the whole idea.
Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on
:
The disbelief in the Resurrection and Virgin Birth are very strong in the more conservative of all Protestants. Its a bit like describing a cat as a quadruped to make that a hallmark of Catholicity.
Jengie
[ 30. March 2013, 16:40: Message edited by: Jengie Jon ]
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
In my experience, when someone says "The resurrection is more than mere resuscitation," they usually mean to say it was far less.
I'm sure that's not what David Jenkins meant.
Posted by Truman White (# 17290) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
Belief in the Incarnation and the Resurrection is indeed the cornerstone of our faith. I'm not sure that the Virgin Birth should be in the same category, as it is merely one attempt to illustrate the mystery of the former. In the same way, as Bishop David Jenkins put it, there is much more to the Resurrection than the resuscitation of a bag of bones.
If you reckon God can engineer the first two (incarnation and resurrection) can't see why you'd have a problem believing in the VB.
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
Who was it that said something along the lines of "Modern theologians, fearing that orthodox theology was working from Jesus' divinity down, decided it was much more sensible to work from Jesus' humanity down"?
Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on
:
THE MIND OF ANGLICANS (conclusions from the Cost of Conscience Survey)
Confidence in The virgin birth:
FiF 82% certainty; AffCaths 24% certainty
Confidence in the bodily resurrection of Christ:
FiF: 83% certainty; AffCaths 35% certainty
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
Mark, we've been through this before with that survey. Do you just not give a crap that it's insincere and unsubstantiated?
Or do you think you don't owe it to your fellow human beings to not slander them with propaganda?
[ 30. March 2013, 17:01: Message edited by: Zach82 ]
Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Mark, we've been through this before with that survey. Do you just not give a crap that it's insincere and unsubstantiated?
Or do you think you don't owe it to your fellow human beings to not slander them with propaganda?
You mean you don't like it?
Posted by sososlowly (# 17592) on
:
Mark,
Thank you, that's fascinating. Have you a link, or a reference? If not, do you know what was the sample size, both in absolute terms and as a proportion of the (then) membership of the two organisations?
Certainty's a very high benchmark. I can't remember the wording of the Anglican ordinal or declaration of assent but my memory is it doesn't require one to profess certainty?
And apologies to those who don't like Anglican infighting: I'm conscious we're a long way from the thread title!
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
No, I mean by every objective account it is unsubstantiated, unfair slander. And I am very sorry for you that you are so prejudiced that you can't see that.
Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
No, I mean by every objective account it is unsubstantiated, unfair slander. And I am very sorry for you that you are so prejudiced that you can't see that.
You seem to be very sure of your facts - how do you justify that?
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
You are making the slander, so it is up to you to either come up with credible evidence or to drop the slander.
If you care about truth and charity, that is.
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
At this point, I think I better stop bothering to engage with Mark. I've clearly crossed into hellishness and I apologize for that.
Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by sososlowly:
Mark,
Thank you, that's fascinating. Have you a link, or a reference? If not, do you know what was the sample size, both in absolute terms and as a proportion of the (then) membership of the two organisations?
Certainty's a very high benchmark. I can't remember the wording of the Anglican ordinal or declaration of assent but my memory is it doesn't require one to profess certainty?
And apologies to those who don't like Anglican infighting: I'm conscious we're a long way from the thread title!
The Mind of Anglicans
THE MIND OF ANGLICANS PART II
The Mind of Anglicans Part III
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
Don't take it too seriously, sososlowly. It only takes a casual glance to see that it's laughably spurious.
Posted by Edward Green (# 46) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
The Mind of Anglicans
THE MIND OF ANGLICANS PART II
The Mind of Anglicans Part III
Only 84% of FiF believe in the Virgin Birth. I am horrified!
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Why are affirming catholics not counting as catholics? I'm not biting your head off, it's just that I've come across this point of view before and it just baffles me. Is conservatism an essential part of a catholic faith?...
This little note sums it up from Paul Stead's blog - (note they are his words, not mine - so don't shoot the messenger):
Won't shot you but will point out thst this log seems to be written by a 20 year-old who's just started reading theology.
I too had lots of strong views based on little evidence then.
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
[QUOTE]There are plenty - let's start with the virgin birth shall we? I'm sure you can think of plenty more if you put your mind to it.
As far as I am aware Affirming Catholicism affirms the whole of the Nicene Creed. No doubt some of its supporters do not, as there is no doctrinal requirement for joining or supporting the organisation. What evidence do you have that Affirming Catholicism does not agree with any of these doctrines? Degrees of certainty don't tell you anything very much. Would you prefer that people pretend to have more certainty than they do? I believe that the virgin birth occurred. I'm not as certain of it as I am of the Resurrection. Demanding that people be certain about their faith is a very dangerous road to walk, and an excess of certainty about what is uncertain is precisely the conservative problem.
Can I have the rest of your list, then at least we won't have to do this via 20 questions?
[ 30. March 2013, 19:24: Message edited by: Arethosemyfeet ]
Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
...Can I have the rest of your list, then at least we won't have to do this via 20 questions?
You're very welcome to use the links I have posted above - they will give you some background as to how the figures came about.
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
...Can I have the rest of your list, then at least we won't have to do this via 20 questions?
You're very welcome to use the links I have posted above - they will give you some background as to how the figures came about.
Read them, thanks. A load of hugely biased analysis of a survey set up with the deliberate intent of supporting a position already held. They use statistics like a drunk uses a lamp post - for support rather than illumination. (with thanks to Andrew Lang)
It doesn't answer the question of what you consider to be core Catholic doctrine, or what basis you have for thinking that Affirming Catholicism does not agree with it (given that not being absolutely certain is a long way from disagreeing).
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
You're very welcome to use the links I have posted above - they will give you some background as to how the figures came about.
Unfortunately, the writeup you point to obscures the actual questions and scoring methodology so much that it is hard to determine what is actually meant by "a 70% confidence in the doctrine of the Trinity," for example. If you had a link to the survey questions and raw dataset, that would be interesting.
About the only thing that I can conclusively determine from the writeup you link to is that people who identify as FiF have more doctrinal certainty than anyone else, which given that FiF is explicitly defined by taking a stand on doctrinal certainty in opposition to the prevailing current of societal opinion, is not surprising.
Your link also points a few times to the "tiny lay membership of AffCath", which is also not surprising. The AffCath position is not under threat in the C of E. There is nobody trying to force a narrow reading of the 39 articles on everyone, nobody trying to ban reservation of the sacrament and so on, so there's no need for lay AffCath types to organize for anything.
By contrast, FiF has everything to defend. Once an honest FiF type loses sacramental assurance, he has to leave the C of E. So there's a big structural reason for FiF having a larger fraction of FiF-inclined lay people as members than AffCath. And as far as I can tell, the writeup you link to ignores that completely.
[ 30. March 2013, 20:11: Message edited by: Leorning Cniht ]
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
The disbelief in the Resurrection and Virgin Birth are very strong in the more conservative of all Protestants. Its a bit like describing a cat as a quadruped to make that a hallmark of Catholicity.
Is that so? It's not been my experience, and I would not have thought it has been since the mid-eighteenth century.
Meanwhile, as Shipmates will have picked up, I'd class myself as at the Proddy end of the CofE.
Nevertheless, I believe in the Virgin Birth, the Incarnation, the Resurrection, and the Trinity. I accept the Nicene Creed, the first Seven Councils and the 39 Articles. The only things in any of those I have some ambivalence over is part of Article 39 and whether the Florentine Compromise might be better than the Western alteration to the Nicene Creed. Should I therefore be joining FiF?
I don't, by the way, accept the Immaculate Conception, am ambivalent about the Perpetual Virginity, accept the ordained ministry of women and don't agree with any of the three resolutions. So I think the answer is probably no.
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
Catholicity is actually on a spectrum, with some denominations being more or less Catholic than others. Baptists, for example, are more Catholic than Unitarians because they affirm the Trinity. Lutherans are more Catholic yet, because they have some idea of the Real Presence in the Eucharist. The Roman Catholic Church, of course, sets itself as the only 100% Catholic sect, but if we let the pope define Catholicity, we'd all be Roman Catholics, now wouldn't we?
Though some use "Catholic" to refer to the existence of apostolic orders in a sect, but it seems to me we have been talking more about the set of beliefs defined as Catholic, rather than the charisms possessed by the Church.
[ 30. March 2013, 20:40: Message edited by: Zach82 ]
Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on
:
Yesterday night I stumbled onto a 1955 book on US religions. In the section on the Episcopal Church, the Episcopal writer stated that all Episcopalians accepted the theological implications of the Virgin Birth but some may doubt the biological literalism of the story. He concluded that the Church had room enough for both perspectives.
Even in 1955, before John Shelby Spong, American Anglicanism strove to be comprehensive and accepting of theological diversity.
Posted by sososlowly (# 17592) on
:
Zach,
I see, and I agree with, the point you're making. But once you start talking about whole denominations as if there were uniform levels of confidence, or certainty, within them the baby has already gone out with the bath water. And not just in the famously broad church of Anglicanism.
I could stand in the nave of my local Roman Catholic church and hit twenty people with a well aimed bread roll who have less certainty in the virgin birth than I do.
Denominations are coalitions.
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
I'm not making that point, sososlowly. That survey is such obviously nuance-blind tripe that even discussing it is a gigantic waste of time.
[ 30. March 2013, 20:53: Message edited by: Zach82 ]
Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
I'm not making that point, sososlowly. That survey is such obviously nuance-blind tripe that even discussing it is a gigantic waste of time.
Of course it is Zach82. I know that the Daily Telegraph and other national newspapers were very interested at the time, but we won't worry about that, will we? You know best, of course.
Posted by Amos (# 44) on
:
Which other national newspapers? Not the Daily Mail, by any chance?
Of course the Torygraph was interested: it's just the sort of thing that would appeal to Damian Thompson. But that doesn't mean that the survey has any meaning or value whatsoever.
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
I'm not making that point, sososlowly. That survey is such obviously nuance-blind tripe that even discussing it is a gigantic waste of time.
Of course it is Zach82. I know that the Daily Telegraph and other national newspapers were very interested at the time, but we won't worry about that, will we? You know best, of course.
The Torygraph would be interested, wouldn't they? Anything that supports their goal of portraying the mainstream of the CofE as a bunch of lefty tree huggers playing at religion. They hate that the Church was the only institution left that could challenge their beloved Thatcher in the 80s, and they hate that the church is starting to stand up for Gospel values against a government that has declared war on the poor and the disabled.
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
I humbly suggest that we've pointed out enough of that survey's glaring weaknesses by now, in more than one thread no less. So until Mark can move past simply repeating the unsubstantiated assertions, it might be best to move on.
Posted by sososlowly (# 17592) on
:
Sorry Zach.
Posted by Komensky (# 8675) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:
I would suspect the ratio to be much higher than that - if you're talking about nominal Anglicans. If about practising ones then we're about equal.
There was a thread about this a couple of years ago but concentrating on things your side of the pond. I can't remember how it went.
Roman Catholics, by some distance, have the biggest attendance figures every Sunday in the UK.
K.
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Komensky:
quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:
I would suspect the ratio to be much higher than that - if you're talking about nominal Anglicans. If about practising ones then we're about equal.
There was a thread about this a couple of years ago but concentrating on things your side of the pond. I can't remember how it went.
Roman Catholics, by some distance, have the biggest attendance figures every Sunday in the UK.
K.
The last numbers I saw showed the Catholics have only a slight lead in average Sunday attendance. Where are your numbers from?
Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
...Unfortunately, the writeup you point to obscures the actual questions and scoring methodology so much that it is hard to determine what is actually meant by "a 70% confidence in the doctrine of the Trinity," for example. If you had a link to the survey questions and raw dataset, that would be interesting.
If you want a better write up and analysis, you will have to buy them (2 16-page booklets, 50p each incl. p & p):
Buy the two 16-page Guides to The Mind of Anglicans' Survey 2002
Posted by Komensky (# 8675) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:
Originally posted by Komensky:
quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:
I would suspect the ratio to be much higher than that - if you're talking about nominal Anglicans. If about practising ones then we're about equal.
There was a thread about this a couple of years ago but concentrating on things your side of the pond. I can't remember how it went.
Roman Catholics, by some distance, have the biggest attendance figures every Sunday in the UK.
K.
The last numbers I saw showed the Catholics have only a slight lead in average Sunday attendance. Where are your numbers from?
Maybe I should retract 'by some distance'.
Thanks Zach.
K.
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
Heh, your numbers could be more credible than mine for all I know. One guess where I got mine. ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
Church attendance is a hard to find number. Gallup found that 41% of Americans reported that they attend church regularly, which can only mean that a LOT of American lie about going to church!
Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
I humbly suggest that we've pointed out enough of that survey's glaring weaknesses by now, in more than one thread no less. So until Mark can move past simply repeating the unsubstantiated assertions, it might be best to move on.
I humbly suggest that you (not "we") have said nothing at all to persuade me that your view has any substance whatsoever. Anyway, like you say let's move on.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
I don't know about American statistics, but lots of research has been conducted into the churchgoing habits and beliefs of different kinds of Anglicans and other Christians in England. It seems to be a growing area of academic interest. If you don't trust one survey there's probably another on a similar theme somewhere else.
However, as someone who's simply curious, I went to the Affirming Catholics website to see who they are, and I notice that as a formal movement they've only been around since 1990, so there might not be lots of focused research on them yet. The website talks about inclusivity, exploration and diversity, which suggests that being dogmatic about theology isn't on their agenda. There is reference to those AffCaths on the 'liberal wing', but the group enjoyed the encouragement and involvement of the last ABofC, so they clearly aren't an out and out bunch of iconoclasts.
http://www.affirmingcatholicism.org.uk/pages/default.asp?sID=0
Getting back to the topic, I don't suppose the new AB is a supporter, is he?
[ 30. March 2013, 23:00: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
I don't suppose he's a signed up member. But as an orthodox Christian from an evangelical background who's pro the ordination of women as priests and bishops, and is a Benedictine oblate, I assume he is sympathetic and supportive. When he was Dean of Liverpool he hosted a (nearly said 'mini'; in a building of that size, more like 'maxi') Walsingham pilgrimage for the day, with shrine prayers, blessings, exposition of the MBS and Solemn Evensong.
Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on
:
The Anglican Walsingham shrine isn't associated with Affirming Catholicism, it is more to do with the Flying Bishops (Ebbsfleet, Richborough and Beverley) and FiF - although all members of the Anglican Church are welcome to partake in the annual pilgrimage.
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
Mark, I'm going to try reasoning with you one more time, in the charitable assumption that there is a point in trying to speak reason to you. If you are going to make the claim, you have to defend it. I don't have to defend anything.
This is not my standard. That is a standard that any respectable journalist or academic would use. In both fields, intentionally using weak sources is tantamount to lying. The many weaknesses of your source have been pointed out, and your only defense thus far has been to repeat your slander. Unless you substantiate your pathetic source, you are a liar, and you have no excuse.
I am sure our Lord does not like Anglican heresy. But I am equally sure he does not like your slander or bigotry either.
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
quote:
Getting back to the topic, I don't suppose the new AB is a supporter, is he?
He's the patron of the Society of Catholic Priests, which is associated with Affirming Catholicism.
Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Mark, I'm going to try reasoning with you one more time, in the charitable assumption that there is a point in trying to speak reason to you. If you are going to make the claim, you have to defend it. I don't have to defend anything.
This is not my standard. That is a standard that any respectable journalist or academic would use. In both fields, intentionally using weak sources is tantamount to lying. The many weaknesses of your source have been pointed out, and your only defense thus far has been to repeat your slander. Unless you substantiate your pathetic source, you are a liar, and you have no excuse.
I am sure our Lord does not like Anglican heresy. But I am equally sure he does not like your slander or bigotry either.
Zach82 you haven't pointed out any "weaknesses" of my source. Why don't you just buy the 2 guides (50p each) then you might actually have something to throw at me. Angry, but empty accusations achieve nothing.
Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on
:
Zach82 & Mark Betts, if you are going to get into a personal argument - please do so in hell.
Doublethink
Purgatory Host
Posted by Robert Armin (# 182) on
:
Interesting, but sad, that even THIS thread isn't saying much about Welby. On the other hand, there is something to be said for a Primate who doesn't shout his mouth off continually, like his predecessor bar one.
Posted by Emendator Liturgia (# 17245) on
:
[WARNING: TANGENT ALERT]
Comment has been made above on the flow of people between the Anglican and RC franchises. From my experience (limited as it is) the flow has been largely one way.
When I was in theological college in the 1980s, two of my lecturers were former RC priests (with one having the name of Francis Xavier Damien, what else could he be!)who had left their former spiritual home and become Anglicans - both were exercising their priestly ministry as well as their academic expertise.
In our Community we have three members who are former Catholics and now consider themselves to be Anglican: we have not felt the need for them to be 'received into the Anglican Church).
Over the course of my ministry I have married quite a few former Catholics who were refused marriage in their own church own to, in the main, divorce of one or both of the partners. Many of them have remained within the Anglican Church, having felt excluded, ostracized, outcast from their former home: especially when they were the ones who had been divorced).
The new ABoC could/should attempt to use the personal contact that will develop between his office and that of the Bishop of Rome, to push for opportunity to maintain people such as this within the sanctity of Holy Mother Church, and made welcome at the altar of both franchises (or indeed of other franchise as well).
[END TANGENT ALERT]
Posted by Saul the Apostle (# 13808) on
:
A couple of thought about Justin Welby.
If we are shaped by adversity, losing a child in a car accident has to be pretty much a character forming experience oughtn't it? The Welby's lost a young child in a tragic car accident.
Secondly not knowing one's father almost not at all. Various journalists did some digging and found out his Dad was a Jewish bootlegger in the period of US prohibition and an alcoholic raconteur, bon viveur.
Again quite a ''shaping'' experience; or a making or breaking experience surely?
I am sure the ABC has much more about him, but these two aspects of his life sort of jumped out at me.
Family tragedy and secret family history. Not unique; but certainly worth a ponder on the new ABC.
Saul the Apostle
Posted by Alex Cockell (# 7487) on
:
As a Baptist looking on from outside, I had real hopes for Justin when he locked horns with IDS over the sadistic cuts being inflicted on the poorest in the UK at the mo...
But it sounds like he might have been "got at"... and he apparently backed off.
Leaving the Baptists, Methodists and the Kirk to fight the corner again.
I hope he'll get the initial balls back and really speak truth to power - as there seems to have been a political/financial coup in this country..
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
I do wonder if the Archbishop and the Pope could work out a sort of deal, wherein Roman Catholics who have joined up with the Anglicans could get a blanket dispensation to marry in Anglican Churches, assuming no other impediments.
There was a sort of deal like that before 2009 in a more generalized form, where a Roman Catholic that has "formally defected" from the Church could contract a valid marriage according to his or her own rites, assuming no other impediments. But Benedict XVI removed the clause for reasons I am not quite sure I understand.
[ 31. March 2013, 13:03: Message edited by: Zach82 ]
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Emendator Liturgia:
Over the course of my ministry I have married quite a few former Catholics who were refused marriage in their own church own to, in the main, divorce of one or both of the partners. Many of them have remained within the Anglican Church, having felt excluded, ostracized, outcast from their former home: especially when they were the ones who had been divorced).
The new ABoC could/should attempt to use the personal contact that will develop between his office and that of the Bishop of Rome, to push for opportunity to maintain people such as this within the sanctity of Holy Mother Church, and made welcome at the altar of both franchises (or indeed of other franchise as well).
I understand the compassion angle, but Catholics know the deal; if they disapprove of the RCC's teachings on marriage/divorce there are many other alternatives. The CofE's AffCath wing is tailor made for them, and it even has the support of the last two ABsofC! One church's loss is another church's gain. In fact, I wonder if there's a tacit understanding between Anglican and RCC leaders that this is a mutually beneficial situation? It makes sense to me that churches have differing levels of tolerance on these issues, because this means there's always somewhere else people can go if they're not happy.
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
I actually feel terribly sorry for Roman Catholic divorcees. As much as I love the Episcopal Church, it's not really their home. They usually aren't coming to us because they are convinced of the truth of our claims.
I would like to think I would have the fortitude to continue in the Church with a "second-rate" status, but I probably wouldn't be able to. On the other hand, I've met a lot of Catholic seminarians that don't seem to realize just what they are asking of such people when they expect them to remain in the Church.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
The trouble for the RCC is that by liberalising on these issues they'd probably drive away more people than they'd attract, especially in today's increasingly post-Christian environment. The RCC is an authoritarian body with top-down rules; if this were turned upside down would it still be the RCC, or just one morechurch that tries to keep everyone happy by pursuing a broad church policy? I see the value in such churches, but I don't know if that approach would benefit the RCC at the moment.
Justin Welby is doing well on the broad church front by being both evangelical (so the papers say) and AffCath. Does he cover all bases?
[ 31. March 2013, 13:48: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
There are more former RC clergy in the CofE than is widely recognised. Marriage is usually a key reason, but it isn't just 'I want to get married and remain a priest'.
Many good Catholics will be very shocked by this. Realising one is not cut out for celibacy and that the connection between priestly calling and this particular burden doesn't seem to be obvious any more, seems to set people off on a faith journey that takes them in a direction they might not have expected when they were 16.
Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on
:
I've opened up another thread in HELL, for the benefit of Zack82 and anyone else who's interested in our disagreement on here.
Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on
:
Anyway, enough of that crap. Here's something for all you guardianistas to get your teeth into:
Archbishop Justin Welby warns against trusting fallible leaders
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
The trouble for the RCC is that by liberalising on these issues they'd probably drive away more people than they'd attract, especially in today's increasingly post-Christian environment.
I find this a slightly odd point of view. The RCC holds the views it does because they understand that to be the will of God (as, I hope, do the other churches.) Asking the question "if we change our theology in this way, how many more bums would we get on seats" is, well, strange.
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
Maybe it would be time to ask certain wider questions: do some of those things 'we' have held sacred and seen as the will of God need scrutising and testing to see if they are actually the will of God?
Certain things found in Scripture are indeed to be 'ringfenced, as it were, but other things - celibacy of all priests, for example - cannot be supported from scrioture, and even Tradition says that celibacy has not always been the case.
If therefore celibacy were to be discarded it would be less a matter of theology and more a matter of changing an ecclesiastical practice.
The authorities would need to ask, what would happen to the Gospel if priests were able to marry? Would there be a provable, inevitable negative effect? If not, then just change the policy!
Posted by sebby (# 15147) on
:
I wonder if it connected to theology at all, as it were, in the slightest?
An argument for celibacy might be availabilty . A single person (male or female) can be on call pretty much all the time and theoretically only requires a bedroom and a study.
This does not only apply to the clergy. I was once told, being single at the time, 'ah good, we will all see so much more of you'. Perhaps it is a argument for doctors, soldiers etc.
Posted by Edward Green (# 46) on
:
Trying to eke out some ++Welby conclusions from the thread. It is clear the CofE is changing. The story that it is run by liberals has collapsed. Some who wish to believe that are in denial about it however.
The moving force in the CofE is creedal & missional. There seems to be an emphasis on shared practice before theological tradition.
This is difficult for a number of groups and individuals who have a strong unique identity, and for those who have security in traditions following a particular pattern of behaviour. It may be the Evangelical who finds themselves threatened by the more Catholic new growing congregation, or the Catholic who finds themselves threatened by the more Evangelical congregation exploring catholic spirituality.
There is also an amazing new generation of female Evangelical clergy. After the last 'Bishops' vote at Synod a number of Evangelical groups finally nailed colours to the mast.
There is also a slow swing in SCP/AffCath circles away from 'liberals dressing up' towards a more missional catholic position.
I would suggest that ++Justin represents this rather well.
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
Anyway, enough of that crap. Here's something for all you guardianistas to get your teeth into:
Archbishop Justin Welby warns against trusting fallible leaders
As a guardianista, can I ask what you are getting at? Do you expect us to disagree?
Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Edward Green:
Trying to eke out some ++Welby conclusions from the thread. It is clear the CofE is changing. The story that it is run by liberals has collapsed. Some who wish to believe that are in denial about it however.
How do you justify that? I wouldn't say I want to believe it, but IMO it seems to be an inescapable conclusion these days. I was hoping that a new archbishop springing out of HTB might change things, but I've yet to be convinced.
quote:
The moving force in the CofE is creedal & missional. There seems to be an emphasis on shared practice before theological tradition.
Yes, but what sort of mission? Indeed, what is the C of E's mission these days?
quote:
This is difficult for a number of groups and individuals who have a strong unique identity, and for those who have security in traditions following a particular pattern of behaviour. It may be the Evangelical who finds themselves threatened by the more Catholic new growing congregation, or the Catholic who finds themselves threatened by the more Evangelical congregation exploring catholic spirituality.
There is also an amazing new generation of female Evangelical clergy. After the last 'Bishops' vote at Synod a number of Evangelical groups finally nailed colours to the mast.
There is also a slow swing in SCP/AffCath circles away from 'liberals dressing up' towards a more missional catholic position.
So SCP/AffCath are becoming more conservative? Or should I say orthodox? Tell me more...
quote:
I would suggest that ++Justin represents this rather well.
Certainly, there is the odd statement in some of his sermons and interviews which sound surprisingly orthodox and positive, but then almost straight away he says something else which is anything but. Like I said at the beginning of the thread, I'm in two minds about Justin and probably always wil be.
Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
Anyway, enough of that crap. Here's something for all you guardianistas to get your teeth into:
Archbishop Justin Welby warns against trusting fallible leaders
As a guardianista, can I ask what you are getting at? Do you expect us to disagree?
My dear Angloid, stop being so paranoid - I'm not "getting at" anything, just trying to kick-start some discussion.
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
OK, point taken. But why then the reference (which is usually intended as a sneer) to 'guardianistas' when you could just say 'you' ?
Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
OK, point taken. But why then the reference (which is usually intended as a sneer) to 'guardianistas' when you could just say 'you' ?
Most of the people on here are of that persuasion aren't they? However, it wasn't intended to be a sneer, simply a reference to the fact that the article was from the Guardian newspaper.
Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on
:
NB. Having said that, I have just looked at the guidelines for Purgatory, and I realise my reference to "guardianistas" wasn't helpful to the discussion, so I apologise on this occasion.
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
OK, point taken. But why then the reference (which is usually intended as a sneer) to 'guardianistas' when you could just say 'you' ?
Most of the people on here are of that persuasion aren't they? However, it wasn't intended to be a sneer, simply a reference to the fact that the article was from the Guardian newspaper.
What persuasion would that be? Personally I find the Guardian a bit right wing and money-obsessed, and well as a bit overly secularist.
Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
What persuasion would that be? Personally I find the Guardian a bit right wing and money-obsessed, and well as a bit overly secularist.
I suppose it's the persuasion non-readers of The Guardian imagine it's readers to be, but fair point it may not necessarily be the case. "Socialist-Workeristas?" ...maybe not. ![[Devil]](graemlins/devil.gif)
Posted by Holy Smoke (# 14866) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Edward Green:
Trying to eke out some ++Welby conclusions from the thread. It is clear the CofE is changing. The story that it is run by liberals has collapsed. Some who wish to believe that are in denial about it however.
The moving force in the CofE is creedal & missional. There seems to be an emphasis on shared practice before theological tradition...
It would seem that the old 'Broad Church' liberalism is on the way out now. It would useful for those members of the generation brought up as Christians who had problems with the literal meaning of the creeds, but who didn't wish to, or indeed weren't able to give up on the church entirely, for whatever reason. These days it is much easier for someone to explore other expressions of spirituality (or none at all), and there really is no reason for them to sign up to something they really don't believe in, and which makes increasingly few concessions to people who wish to take a more theologically-liberal approach.
Where does that leave the CofE? (Or the RCC, for that matter, at least in more 'developed' countries) If I were to be blunt, then I would see it increasingly putting forward propositions which fewer and fewer people accept as true, therefore fewer and fewer people will attend church or support the church in other ways. I really don't see much future, beyond the next 10-15 years - there will be an even bigger collapse in numbers, as more and more people look for alternatives outside traditional religion.
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
but other things - celibacy of all priests, for example - cannot be supported from scrioture, and even Tradition says that celibacy has not always been the case.
Yes, celibacy is more policy than theology. Sorry - I was referring more to the RC position on divorce and remarriage. I wasn't clear.
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Holy Smoke:
and which makes increasingly few concessions to people who wish to take a more theologically-liberal approach.
There are two kinds of "theologically-liberal", I think. One kind is rooted in scripture and in Jesus Christ, and comes to a liberal theological position after some serious study of what we know about Jesus.
The second kind wants to believe in something bigger than them, but wants comfortable truthiness rather than truth - it only wants to be "Christian" if it isn't inconvenient.
Is not the role of teaching to move people from the second category to the first?
Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
There are two kinds of "theologically-liberal", I think. One kind is rooted in scripture and in Jesus Christ, and comes to a liberal theological position after some serious study of what we know about Jesus.
The second kind wants to believe in something bigger than them, but wants comfortable truthiness rather than truth - it only wants to be "Christian" if it isn't inconvenient.
Is not the role of teaching to move people from the second category to the first?
Your second category isn't liberalism at all IMO - it is what is known as "cafeteria christianity" - where you pick and choose what you like and what you don't like.
The first type isn't really rooted in scripture and Jesus Christ - it is more rooted in reason, which trumps every other type of Revelation. After you have decided what is so and what is not so, you then open your Bible and apply the bits which make sense to you, but always remembering that human intellect and reason have to take priority.
Can the second type be "educated" into the first? I don't know, but if so, what is that worth to anyone? I would think it all depends on whether the end result is a slightly liberal theology or an extremely liberal theology.
One thing I have thought about; it could be that someone with a cafeteria-style theology might have a bigger view of God than someone with a liberal theology, which, when taken to extremes, can be little more than humanism.
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
I think that what some people mistakenly see as 'liberal' is a theological approach which is uneasy with tight definitions and is willing to acknowledge the mystery. As Holy Smoke says, the old liberalism of the 19th and early 20th century rationalists has long been outmoded. Most of the 'radicals' in the 1960s and their successors in AffCath came from a catholic-liturgical-sacramental tradition.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by Holy Smoke:
and which makes increasingly few concessions to people who wish to take a more theologically-liberal approach.
There are two kinds of "theologically-liberal", I think. One kind is rooted in scripture and in Jesus Christ, and comes to a liberal theological position after some serious study of what we know about Jesus.
The second kind wants to believe in something bigger than them, but wants comfortable truthiness rather than truth - it only wants to be "Christian" if it isn't inconvenient.
Is not the role of teaching to move people from the second category to the first?
These are important but subtle differences. The problem is that religious 'communicators' find it very difficult to preach from a theologically liberal position without simply undermining (or being in fear of undermining) the faith of their religious listeners (or confirming non-believers in their lack of faith).
I've come across clergy and theologians who feel that expressing their liberal positions in a congregational environment is likely to damage laypeople's faith; haven't we all come across or read about clergy who find themselves in this position? One theologian I know who trains ordinands said that most ministers would just do it badly. This is a pretty dire situation for liberal theology, because it means that it will never be able to speak of itself clearly and openly. It seeps out in attitudes and silences, half-understood and vaguely suspected. This surely leaves the floor wide open for a more assertive evangelical takeover in church culture, which means that people of another persuasion will be left dissatisfied and unfed.
Posted by moonlitdoor (# 11707) on
:
One of the things that impresses me about the new pope is that he has managed to get himself quoted talking about God. The British media seem to regard Anglican bishops as spokespeople for a think tank and always quote them when they speak about social policy but rarely when they speak about God or Jesus Christ.
I hope Justin Welby can change this a bit, and that he speaks about God whenever he can, and about social policy only when he feels he must.
Posted by Holy Smoke (# 14866) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
There are two kinds of "theologically-liberal", I think...
I'm thinking of someone like John Macquarrie as an examplar of Type 1 liberalism - a dying breed, I fear. Your 'Type 2' - the 'fluffy' Christian , it would be nice to direct towards a 'Type 1' liberalism, but as I said, there doesn't seem to be all that much on offer these days, and what there is, is really just catering to an older generation. The future, as I see it, is theologically orthodox and conservative. What's the point in directing someone to something that won't be there in 10 years time?
[ 01. April 2013, 16:23: Message edited by: Holy Smoke ]
Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
...This is a pretty dire situation for liberal theology, because it means that it will never be able to speak of itself clearly and openly. It seeps out in attitudes and silences, half-understood and vaguely suspected. This surely leaves the floor wide open for a more assertive evangelical takeover in church culture...
...and so enters Justin Welby, as the AB of C with his charismatic-style HTB theology! ![[Yipee]](graemlins/spin.gif)
As FiF-style Anglo-Catholicism has (just about) had its day in the C of E, I'm coming to the conclusion that maybe this is the only christian tradition left which is in any sense authentic for the english church.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
"cafeteria christianity" - where you pick and choose what you like and what you don't like.
I think everyone does that, whether they acknowledge it or not.
The reason i claim to be orthodox is that, over my life, i sign up to everything on the menu but at any one time some 'dishes' suit my stage of life more than others.
Doctrines like the immaculate conception meant nothing to me until i was in my mid-fifties when it made perfect sense to me.
There are doctrines which don't mean much, if anything, to me now but which i don't deny because i believe there may come a time when they
will speak to my condition.
This is one of the reasons why I believe that 'liberals' should not preach about what they do NOT believe. There isd plenty which can be affirmed with integrity.
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
Your second category isn't liberalism at all IMO - it is what is known as "cafeteria christianity" - where you pick and choose what you like and what you don't like.
Yes, quite. But have you ever met such a person who described himself as a "cafeteria Christian"?
I suspect not. In my experience, most people with that set of opinions think of themselves as liberal Christians, and would so identify if asked.
quote:
The first type isn't really rooted in scripture and Jesus Christ - it is more rooted in reason, which trumps every other type of Revelation. After you have decided what is so and what is not so, you then open your Bible and apply the bits which make sense to you, but always remembering that human intellect and reason have to take priority.
And this is a serious misrepresentation, but it's just your Orthodox knee jerking, so I'll ignore it.
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by moonlitdoor:
I hope Justin Welby can change this a bit, and that he speaks about God whenever he can, and about social policy only when he feels he must.
A real prophet (and one would hope that an ABC would not be a false one) would surely speak about God and social justice in the same breath.
Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
The first type isn't really rooted in scripture and Jesus Christ - it is more rooted in reason, which trumps every other type of Revelation. After you have decided what is so and what is not so, you then open your Bible and apply the bits which make sense to you, but always remembering that human intellect and reason have to take priority.
And this is a serious misrepresentation, but it's just your Orthodox knee jerking, so I'll ignore it.
Perhaps it is - or maybe former FiF Anglo-Catholic knee-jerking - but it won't hurt to explain how I have misrepresented the position, or how it might be an over-reaction on my part.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
...This is a pretty dire situation for liberal theology, because it means that it will never be able to speak of itself clearly and openly. It seeps out in attitudes and silences, half-understood and vaguely suspected. This surely leaves the floor wide open for a more assertive evangelical takeover in church culture...
...and so enters Justin Welby, as the AB of C with his charismatic-style HTB theology! As FiF-style Anglo-Catholicism has (just about) had its day in the C of E, I'm coming to the conclusion that maybe this is the only christian tradition left which is in any sense authentic for the english church.
Well, we've already learnt from this thread that Justin Welby leans in a fairly Catholic direction, so it's probably not right to characterise him entirely as 'charismatic'. One blog describes him as a 'post-churchmanship Anglican'. And apparently, HTB currently ministers to an Anglo-Catholic congregation, among others. So things aren't as clear-cut as they might seem.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/damianthompson/100208411/the-new-archbishop-of-canterbury-enthroned-today-must-wish-the-gay -issue-would-go-away-but-it-wont/
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
Cafeteria Christianity has connotations of picking and choosing to suit oneself. It might, with a particularly uncharitable point of view, account for women who want to be priests or bishops and gay people who want to have sex. It doesn't account for straight men who think that women can be and are called to the priesthood and the episcopate or that there are gay relationships that are of the same value to God as straight ones. Those arise from a different understanding of what God intends and expects, and a different understanding of the nature of God's laws. If you believe that God's laws are fundamentally arbitrary and inexplicable, with no purpose other than to separate the sheep from the goats, then believing that women can't be priests and gay people have to be celibate makes sense. If you don't find that view to be compatible with scripture, tradition and reason then it does not.
Some of us arrive at a position of liberalism BECAUSE of what we read in the Gospels, not in spite of it. It's just that we resolve the dichotomy between the spirit of Jesus' teaching and the strict letter of Paul in favour of Jesus, as Jesus made it pretty clear that the spirit was far more important than the letter.
Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on
:
Please, Please, Please "Catholic" and "Charismatic" are not mutually exclusive terms. For starters you have to make sense of this website if they were and this one.
Actually there is quite a strong symbiosis with a number of Evangelical Charismatics developing strong Catholic tendencies as they mature as Christians quite often without denigrating their charismatic roots.
Jengie
[ 01. April 2013, 17:00: Message edited by: Jengie Jon ]
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
Please, Please, Please "Catholic" and "Charismatic" are not mutually exclusive terms. For starters you have to make sense of this website if they were and this one.
Actually there is quite a strong symbiosis with a number of Evangelical Charismatics developing strong Catholic tendencies as they mature as Christians quite often without denigrating their charismatic roots.
Jengie
The magazine in your link refers to RC charismatics, which is surely a different thing. It's their presence in the RCC that validates their Catholicism, even if their prefered worship style is very different from the typical RC kind. Anglo-Catholicism is another kettle of fish, because it's worship style not denomination that makes them so.
My impression from this website is that Anglican and free church charismatics are beginning to adopt certain Catholic practices, but not that Anglo-Catholics are somehow incorporating charismatic flavours into their worship. Justin Welby has become more Catholic having started off with a preference for more charismatic forms of worship, not vice versa.
Posted by moonlitdoor (# 11707) on
:
quote:
originally posted by Angloid
A real prophet (and one would hope that an ABC would not be a false one) would surely speak about God and social justice in the same breath.
I wouldn't expect most bishops or archbishops to be prophets at all. I think their views on social policies are likely to be their own, arrived at in the same way the rest of us form our opinions. Also like the rest of us, they vary a good deal in their opinions, and it does not seem coherent to me to say that those who agree with me should speak out while those who disagree with me should shut up.
In my opinion there are enough voices raised on all sides of most issues of public policy already without bishops adding such wisdom as they possess. On the other hand there are not many voices raised to speak about what happened on the first Easter day.
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
It doesn't account for straight men who think that women can be and are called to the priesthood and the episcopate or that there are gay relationships that are of the same value to God as straight ones.
I don't think that's necessarily true. Whilst as you say there are plenty of people who hold these positions because of scripture and Christ, there are other people who hold these opinions because they are supporters of secular equality, and hold that above whatever God might want. It can be self-serving to want to think of oneself as a modern, enlightened fellow who supports equality just as it can be self-serving for a woman to want to be a priest or a man to want to marry another man.
From the outside, it's hard to tell these apart, but on the inside they are fundamentally different. The type 1 - the person who is liberal because of Christ, is fundamentally, deeply Christian, although other Christians would claim that he was in error on some points.
Type 2 isn't doing so well. Type 2 is carefully not examining God's will on, for example, Dead Horse issues, because he doesn't want an answer he might not like.
There are, of course, type 1 and type 2 people with respect to all kinds of aspects of faith, not just liberalism, and you always want to try to get out of type 2.
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
I don't think that's necessarily true. Whilst as you say there are plenty of people who hold these positions because of scripture and Christ, there are other people who hold these opinions because they are supporters of secular equality, and hold that above whatever God might want. It can be self-serving to want to think of oneself as a modern, enlightened fellow who supports equality just as it can be self-serving for a woman to want to be a priest or a man to want to marry another man.
That's a fair point. I always get worried when I see Christians saying "in this day and age" or "move with the times". What the world does is irrelevant. This is where I agree with the conservatives - if something is true in this sort of situation then it was always true and will, in general, continue to be true. I just differ on whether the prior worldly opinion in western culture on the right attitude to women and gays is closer to what God wants than the present one (for the record I doubt either worldly opinion is very close to the mark).
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by moonlitdoor:
On the other hand there are not many voices raised to speak about what happened on the first Easter day.
And if what happened on the first Easter day doesn't have any bearing on how we treat the poor or establish a more equal society, then I don't want to be a Christian.
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
My impression from this website is that Anglican and free church charismatics are beginning to adopt certain Catholic practices, but not that Anglo-Catholics are somehow incorporating charismatic flavours into their worship.
There are Anglo-catholic charismatics , you know.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
Angloid
How exotic!
Posted by Edward Green (# 46) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
My impression from this website is that Anglican and free church charismatics are beginning to adopt certain Catholic practices, but not that Anglo-Catholics are somehow incorporating charismatic flavours into their worship.
There are Anglo-catholic charismatics , you know.
Not unusual at all in the circles I wander about in these days. There is a strong sense of spiritual renewal in the history of the catholic movement after all.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Edward Green:
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
My impression from this website is that Anglican and free church charismatics are beginning to adopt certain Catholic practices, but not that Anglo-Catholics are somehow incorporating charismatic flavours into their worship.
There are Anglo-catholic charismatics , you know.
Not unusual at all in the circles I wander about in these days. There is a strong sense of spiritual renewal in the history of the catholic movement after all.
The terminology is just so slippery these days! Are 'spiritual renewal' and charismatic spirituality considered to be one and the same thing?
Perhaps it's not just Justin Welby who's a post-churchmanship Anglican; is the concept of Anglican churchmanship practically out of date? It would be useful to know, for future reference!
Posted by Edward Green (# 46) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
The terminology is just so slippery these days! Are 'spiritual renewal' and charismatic spirituality considered to be one and the same thing?
Perhaps it's not just Justin Welby who's a post-churchmanship Anglican; is the concept of Anglican churchmanship practically out of date? It would be useful to know, for future reference!
Renewal and Charismatic are related terms. How would you define them? Perhaps the former is broader with a deeper history, whereas Charismatic refers to a particular post-pentecostal movement. I would tend to see the Charismata as essentially present in the Church - irrespective of a particular identification with the Charismatic movement.
Anglican Churchmanship is shifting as always. Within the Catholic movement there are academic and experiential streams, as there are in Evangelicalism. Sometimes those streams have more in common with others outside their tradition than within.
Posted by Edward Green (# 46) on
:
In reply to Mark Betts:
Hard to justify the swing other than by experience. There seem to be more Evangelical vocations than ever, and the so called liberal Catholics I meet seem to be creedal and have a significant belief in the supernatural action of God in the sacraments.
Mission primarily seems to be about bringing people into a fullness of faith in Christ. Discipleship seems to be a hot topic in very different circles.
AffCath expressed a desire to be more explicitly catholic in their annual review a couple of years back. That is when I rejoined.
The CofE does not offer the certainty of the Roman catechism - but it never did.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Edward Green:
Renewal and Charismatic are related terms. How would you define them? Perhaps the former is broader with a deeper history, whereas Charismatic refers to a particular post-pentecostal movement. I would tend to see the Charismata as essentially present in the Church - irrespective of a particular identification with the Charismatic movement.
So, when you talk about something being 'Anglo-Catholic' and also 'Charismatic' you're not really talking about a rapprochement between Anglo-Catholicism and the kind of spirituality that grew out of Pentecostalism. You're basically referring to a greater spiritual commitment and enthusiasm among Anglo-Catholics.
That's fair enough, but a little confusing!
quote:
Anglican Churchmanship is shifting as always. Within the Catholic movement there are academic and experiential streams, as there are in Evangelicalism. Sometimes those streams have more in common with others outside their tradition than within.
That's fair enough, but a little confusing!
It must be very difficult for outsiders to make their way through all of this shape-shifting variety if they just want to find a suitable church to attend!
Posted by Edward Green (# 46) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
So, when you talk about something being 'Anglo-Catholic' and also 'Charismatic' you're not really talking about a rapprochement between Anglo-Catholicism and the kind of spirituality that grew out of Pentecostalism. You're basically referring to a greater spiritual commitment and enthusiasm among Anglo-Catholics.
That's fair enough, but a little confusing!
No. There links between Charismatic Anglo-Catholicism and Charismatic Roman Catholicism, and the latter was one the largest parts of the Charismatic movement of late 60's and 70's. The Charismatic movement in Anglicanism, especially in the US was rooted in liturgical churches.
However the Charismatic movement has changed since that period. Even been embraced by Evangelicals! In the US at least this is known as '3rd wave' - although the US and UK have different histories.
If anything the term Renewal has been maintained in the CofE by those who have roots in the Charismatic movement of the 60s & 70s rather than the later influence of Vineyard and Wimberism.
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
That's fair enough, but a little confusing!
It must be very difficult for outsiders to make their way through all of this shape-shifting variety if they just want to find a suitable church to attend!
Anglicans attend their Parish Church?
Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Edward Green:
In reply to Mark Betts:
Hard to justify the swing other than by experience. There seem to be more Evangelical vocations than ever, and the so called liberal Catholics I meet seem to be creedal and have a significant belief in the supernatural action of God in the sacraments.
Mission primarily seems to be about bringing people into a fullness of faith in Christ. Discipleship seems to be a hot topic in very different circles.
AffCath expressed a desire to be more explicitly catholic in their annual review a couple of years back. That is when I rejoined.
The CofE does not offer the certainty of the Roman catechism - but it never did.
Thanks for that Edward. My fear is that, while these Affirming Catholics claim they are becoming more creedal (more orthodox?) - which is a good thing - is it in fact a sort of cafeteria anglo-catholicism, where they pick and choose the parts of catholicism they like and discard the bits they don't like. Note that these bits they don't like may not necessarily be the same as for theological liberals.
The situation still seems to be that some more orthodox, traditional anglo-catholics feel they are being pushed out, whilst others are leaving to join the Ordinariate.
I wonder if the C of E feels that these old-school anglo-catholics don't matter to the future of their church.
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
The situation still seems to be that some more orthodox, traditional anglo-catholics feel they are being pushed out, whilst others are leaving to join the Ordinariate.
Not being able to force others to conform to your beliefs is not being pushed out.
Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
The situation still seems to be that some more orthodox, traditional anglo-catholics feel they are being pushed out, whilst others are leaving to join the Ordinariate.
Not being able to force others to conform to your beliefs is not being pushed out.
I feel you are misrepresenting the whole problem Arethosemyfeet. The idea was never to force everyone else to conform to their beliefs - all they were asking for was a respected place within the Established Church, but that seems to be being denied them. Emotive dishonesty doesn't help things.
However, other un-catholic agendas are quite definitely being forced through, and anyone who disagrees is basically being told to put up or shut up. Will things change under Justin Welby? Unfortunately, I fear not.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
It doesn't account for straight men who think that women can be and are called to the priesthood and the episcopate or that there are gay relationships that are of the same value to God as straight ones.
I don't think that's necessarily true. Whilst as you say there are plenty of people who hold these positions because of scripture and Christ, there are other people who hold these opinions because they are supporters of secular equality, and hold that above whatever God might want. It can be self-serving to want to think of oneself as a modern, enlightened fellow who supports equality just as it can be self-serving for a woman to want to be a priest or a man to want to marry another man.
From the outside, it's hard to tell these apart, but on the inside they are fundamentally different. The type 1 - the person who is liberal because of Christ, is fundamentally, deeply Christian, although other Christians would claim that he was in error on some points.
Type 2 isn't doing so well. Type 2 is carefully not examining God's will on, for example, Dead Horse issues, because he doesn't want an answer he might not like.
There are, of course, type 1 and type 2 people with respect to all kinds of aspects of faith, not just liberalism, and you always want to try to get out of type 2.
Or there's people like me, who long ago gave up trying to force myself to believe things I don't believe, and are a sort of liberal by default because there are some things apparently required to not be one that I just don't and can't make myself believe any more than by sheer force of will I can persuade myself that grass is blue.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Edward Green:
Anglicans attend their Parish Church?
If Anglicans just attend their parish church, regardless of the churchmanship, then what's the point of all of this diversity? Surely diversity is about increasing choice?
I still don't quite understand what you're saying about Charismatic Anglo-Catholicism, but I see that it doesn't really matter anyway, because Anglican churchgoers are simply expected to attend their nearest church, disregarding what 'flavour' it happens to be.
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on
:
It would be a simple choice for me - if I had to attend my nearest church or nothing, I'd choose nothing. Thank God for variety and diversity.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
There are two kinds of "theologically-liberal", I think. One kind is rooted in scripture and in Jesus Christ, and comes to a liberal theological position after some serious study of what we know about Jesus.
The second kind wants to believe in something bigger than them, but wants comfortable truthiness rather than truth - it only wants to be "Christian" if it isn't inconvenient.
Is not the role of teaching to move people from the second category to the first?
Your second category isn't liberalism at all IMO - it is what is known as "cafeteria christianity" - where you pick and choose what you like and what you don't like.
I'm a cafeteria Christian and proud of it. When I look on the shelves, I see a lot of stuff that seems to be at best long past its sell-by date, and at worst was never fit for human consumption. I make no apologies for rejecting those items.
Posted by Robert Armin (# 182) on
:
LC: quote:
There are two kinds of "theologically-liberal", I think. One kind is rooted in scripture and in Jesus Christ, and comes to a liberal theological position after some serious study of what we know about Jesus.
I like that definition, and think it describes my present position. When I did a Theology degree, as part of my ordination training, I was forced to look at all sorts of issues that I thought were cut and dried, and discovered they were more complex than I had thought.
For example (and I've chosen this as I think you'll approve of it Betts), I had grown up thinking that Penal Substitution was the only way of understanding the Atonement. It was a shock to find it could be seen in different ways, ways just as deeply rooted in Christ, Scripture and Tradition as PS. (I really hope I haven't kickstarted yet another argument about PS by saying this!)
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
It would be a simple choice for me - if I had to attend my nearest church or nothing, I'd choose nothing. Thank God for variety and diversity.
Same.
Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
...For example (and I've chosen this as I think you'll approve of it Betts)...
Calling me "Mark" will do just fine thanks. Carry on...
quote:
...I had grown up thinking that Penal Substitution was the only way of understanding the Atonement. It was a shock to find it could be seen in different ways, ways just as deeply rooted in Christ, Scripture and Tradition as PS. (I really hope I haven't kickstarted yet another argument about PS by saying this!)
Yes, and it may also surprise people to know that it (most probably) wasn't the teaching of the Apostles at all, it was unheard of for the first 1000 years of christianity and only developed in the west after St Anselm.
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I'm a cafeteria Christian and proud of it. When I look on the shelves, I see a lot of stuff that seems to be at best long past its sell-by date, and at worst was never fit for human consumption. I make no apologies for rejecting those items.
You know, Karl, you may change your mind on some of these things later in life - many people do, not least of all one C. S. Lewis.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
Well, I might, but to be honest the general trend is in the opposite direction. I was an evangelical once, you know. Spent a whole week as a YEC when I was young and foolish.
Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
quote:
[QUOTE]...I had grown up thinking that Penal Substitution was the only way of understanding the Atonement. It was a shock to find it could be seen in different ways, ways just as deeply rooted in Christ, Scripture and Tradition as PS. (I really hope I haven't kickstarted yet another argument about PS by saying this!)
Yes, and it may also surprise people to know that it (most probably) wasn't the teaching of the Apostles at all, it was unheard of for the first 1000 years of christianity and only developed in the west after St Anselm.
I am sorry that is untrue
quote:
Where he in flesh, our flesh was made
Our sentence bore, our ransom paid
Venantius Fortunatus 530-609 AD
Very succinct statement of PSA, it goes through the whole hymn.
Jengie
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
Not wishing to prolong a tangent - but that hymn is more Christus Victor than anything else.
As for payment, that seems to prefigure Anselm, whose theory wasn't PSA but an analogy with feudal landlords wanting rent.
Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Not wishing to prolong a tangent - but that hymn is more Christus Victor than anything else.
As for payment, that seems to prefigure Anselm, whose theory wasn't PSA but an analogy with feudal landlords wanting rent.
Here we go!
Posted by Hairy Biker (# 12086) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
quote:
[QUOTE]
Where he in flesh, our flesh was made
Our sentence bore, our ransom paid
Venantius Fortunatus 530-609 AD
Very succinct statement of PSA, it goes through the whole hymn.
Jengie
I don't know the hymn, but those lines are a statement of ransom theory, not PSA.
Posted by Edward Green (# 46) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
quote:
Originally posted by Edward Green:
Anglicans attend their Parish Church?
If Anglicans just attend their parish church, regardless of the churchmanship, then what's the point of all of this diversity? Surely diversity is about increasing choice?
I still don't quite understand what you're saying about Charismatic Anglo-Catholicism, but I see that it doesn't really matter anyway, because Anglican churchgoers are simply expected to attend their nearest church, disregarding what 'flavour' it happens to be.
Many Anglicans do attend their parish church regardless of its tradition. This leads to diversity. Members of the more Charismatic congregation I serve also come to the more Catholic services I lead for example. Outside of larger towns and cities the diversity exists within the local church. I am somewhat short of ecumenical partners so I have Baptists, CofS, Methodists, etc. etc.
Charismatic Catholicism is different partially because the Catholic tradition has never denied the gifts of the Spirit. So the renewal is in broader engagement with the gifts. What do you mean by Charismatic?
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Edward Green:
Many Anglicans do attend their parish church regardless of its tradition. This leads to diversity.
I have a strong belief in church-as-community, in the community. I find it a good thing (TM) to worship at my local church, and have done so in all the places I have lived in recent years.
Some have been more comfortable than others, but none of them have been so bad that I've been driven elsewhere.
It could happen - I've visited one or two C of E places that I would be very unhappy trying to call home, but it hasn't yet.
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on
:
I think it depends on how aggressively you are discriminated against for being different from the dominant ethos of the church. If your differences can be tolerated, I suggest it might be mutually beneficial for both parties if you stay. But if who you are is unacceptable in that context then, for your own health and for the good of that church it is better to go.
What I find most admirable in the recent ABC appointment is that different traditions do appear to be held in creative tension and mutual respect. Bravo.
Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
What I find most admirable in the recent ABC appointment is that different traditions do appear to be held in creative tension and mutual respect. Bravo.
Not all traditions...
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
I think it depends on how aggressively you are discriminated against for being different from the dominant ethos of the church. If your differences can be tolerated, I suggest it might be mutually beneficial for both parties if you stay. But if who you are is unacceptable in that context then, for your own health and for the good of that church it is better to go.
Yes, I'd agree with that.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Edward Green:
Many Anglicans do attend their parish church regardless of its tradition. This leads to diversity.
So it's a question of personal preference, rather than of church culture? The concern I'd have in that case is that you'd get a lowest common denominator form of church. But I suppose people are expected to go to parachurch conferences, retreats and festivals if they want to give free expression to their worship and spiritual preferences.
quote:
Charismatic Catholicism is different partially because the Catholic tradition has never denied the gifts of the Spirit. So the renewal is in broader engagement with the gifts. What do you mean by Charismatic?
I'm not an Anglican or a Catholic, so to me 'charismatic' refers to the form of church expression and spirituality that grew out of the rise of Pentecostalism. I doubt that Pentecostalism and Catholicism have always had exactly the same understanding of what 'the gifts of the Spirit' are. However, you may well have more experience of comparing the two than I have. I'm more familiar with the Pentecostal side.
Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
...The concern I'd have in that case is that you'd get a lowest common denominator form of church...
...in other words, I'm afraid, it can lead to cafeteria christianity, or "christianity-lite".
Posted by Edward Green (# 46) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
So it's a question of personal preference, rather than of church culture? The concern I'd have in that case is that you'd get a lowest common denominator form of church. But I suppose people are expected to go to parachurch conferences, retreats and festivals if they want to give free expression to their worship and spiritual preferences.
.....
I'm not an Anglican or a Catholic, so to me 'charismatic' refers to the form of church expression and spirituality that grew out of the rise of Pentecostalism. I doubt that Pentecostalism and Catholicism have always had exactly the same understanding of what 'the gifts of the Spirit' are. However, you may well have more experience of comparing the two than I have. I'm more familiar with the Pentecostal side.
Anglicanism has its own identity, of which diversity is a part. Our common identity is expressed through shared liturgy and relationship with the apostolic ministry of our bishops. Many Anglicans may have personal preferences, but healthy Anglican spirituality is willing to move outside of comfort zones. My experience of being an in the CofE has been enriching rather than LCD!
As I can't get a definition of how you see Charismatic I am not sure how to explain how it works in a catholic context. Spiritual practice between pentecostals, charismatics, and third wave folks vary. A catholic charismatic approach would affirm the ongoing presence of the gifts, prayer ministry, use of contemporary worship, emotive and ecstatic response to God, but also the assured supernatural action of God in the sacraments.
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
I've regularly attended churches with everything from praise bands to sung choral matins, from hymn sandwich to solemn Eucharist, and a fair amount of slightly sloppy mishmash. In all of them there were Christians at varying stages of their journey of faith, and in none of them was there any sense that we were seeking anything less than full Christianity. Doing Christianity differently doesn't automatically mean doing it less, and a commitment that doesn't involve certainty about the right way to do things isn't "cafeteria Christianity", it's more like a really good church buffet - you try and squeeze a bit of everything on your plate because there are so many good cooks around. If you've discovered you really really like sausage rolls and salad then that's fine, but don't pretend that someone who likes a cheese and tomato sandwich and a pork pie is necessarily doing it wrong.
Posted by Edward Green (# 46) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
So it's a question of personal preference, rather than of church culture? The concern I'd have in that case is that you'd get a lowest common denominator form of church. But I suppose people are expected to go to parachurch conferences, retreats and festivals if they want to give free expression to their worship and spiritual preferences.
.....
I'm not an Anglican or a Catholic, so to me 'charismatic' refers to the form of church expression and spirituality that grew out of the rise of Pentecostalism. I doubt that Pentecostalism and Catholicism have always had exactly the same understanding of what 'the gifts of the Spirit' are. However, you may well have more experience of comparing the two than I have. I'm more familiar with the Pentecostal side.
Anglicanism has its own identity, of which diversity is a part. Our common identity is expressed through shared liturgy and relationship with the apostolic ministry of our bishops. Many Anglicans may have personal preferences, but healthy Anglican spirituality is willing to move outside of comfort zones. My experience of being an in the CofE has been enriching rather than LCD!
As I can't get a definition of how you see Charismatic I am not sure how to explain how it works in a catholic context. Spiritual practice between pentecostals, charismatics, and third wave folks vary. A catholic charismatic approach would affirm the ongoing presence of the gifts, prayer ministry, use of contemporary worship, emotive and ecstatic response to God, but also the assured supernatural action of God in the sacraments.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Edward Green:
As I can't get a definition of how you see Charismatic I am not sure how to explain how it works in a catholic context.
But as I've said, my understanding derives from Pentecostalism. The definition I've come across it that Pentecostal spirituality in a mainstream or new church context is referred to as charismatic. Pentecostalism, so the story goes, brought back to the universal church an emphasis on the gifts of the Spirit. If we follow this explanation it would be reasonable to accept that since the early 20th c. the churches have taken taken that Pentecostal influence in various directions. (E.g. not all 'charismatic' churches would valorise speaking in tongues.)
However, what I've learnt from our discussion is that such a definition was always inadequate if Catholics and Anglicans consider Pentecostalism to be a negligible influence upon their own ancient and self-sufficient perspective on the gifts of the Spirit. This was something I hadn't realised before, hence my confusion. It's clearer now.
[ 06. April 2013, 02:05: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posted by Edward Green (# 46) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
But as I've said, my understanding derives from Pentecostalism. The definition I've come across it that Pentecostal spirituality in a mainstream or new church context is referred to as charismatic. Pentecostalism, so the story goes, brought back to the universal church an emphasis on the gifts of the Spirit. If we follow this explanation it would be reasonable to accept that since the early 20th c. the churches have taken taken that Pentecostal influence in various directions. (E.g. not all 'charismatic' churches would valorise speaking in tongues.)
However, what I've learnt from our discussion is that such a definition was always inadequate if Catholics and Anglicans consider Pentecostalism to be a negligible influence upon their own ancient and self-sufficient perspective on the gifts of the Spirit. This was something I hadn't realised before, hence my confusion. It's clearer now.
I wouldn't say negligible, just one part of a larger picture. Pentecostalism's roots are traceable back to more catholic Anglicanism in any case - through Wesley.
Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on
:
Justin Welby v David Cameron: the Anglican Church is now the Labour Party at prayer
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
Justin Welby v David Cameron: the Anglican Church is now the Labour Party at prayer
That article is rubbish.
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Hairy Biker:
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
quote:
[QUOTE]
Where he in flesh, our flesh was made
Our sentence bore, our ransom paid
Venantius Fortunatus 530-609 AD
Very succinct statement of PSA, it goes through the whole hymn.
Jengie
I don't know the hymn, but those lines are a statement of ransom theory, not PSA.
It's both:
'our ransom paid' is, er, ransom.
'Our sentence bore' is PSA - he bore our sentence. In other words, he took the judgment, penalty, sentence - took it from us and bore it himself. there is no other way of explaining it. Penal Substitutionary Atonement. Ta da!
Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
Justin Welby v David Cameron: the Anglican Church is now the Labour Party at prayer
That article is rubbish.
I've read it through, and I wouldn't say it was rubbish, although I know plenty on here that would have a very different view of the things discussed.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
Justin Welby v David Cameron: the Anglican Church is now the Labour Party at prayer
That article is rubbish.
I've read it through, and I wouldn't say it was rubbish, although I know plenty on here that would have a very different view of the things discussed.
Tim Stanley clearly hasn't remembered much about Faith in the City and the way the c of E spoke truth to power when the Labour Party was useless.
Welby endorses capitalism, albeit he wants it tinkered with. A far cry from what Stanley thnks is the case.
[ 10. April 2013, 16:11: Message edited by: leo ]
Posted by GreyFace (# 4682) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
'Our sentence bore' is PSA - he bore our sentence. In other words, he took the judgment, penalty, sentence - took it from us and bore it himself. there is no other way of explaining it.
Nonsense. All that says is that our sentence is death, and that Jesus suffered it. It doesn't say anything about it being in our place, or happening in order to satisfy the pseudo-legal requirements of the divine law court.
If we're going to have another PSA thread can I just point out that Vicky Pryce must be feeling quite hard done by?
Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
<snip> quote:
Where he in flesh, our flesh was made
Our sentence bore, our ransom paid
Venantius Fortunatus 530-609 AD
Very succinct statement of PSA, it goes through the whole hymn.
Jengie
Unfortunately the statement owes much more, I think, to J M Neale than to Fortunatus whose original Latin quote:
quo carne carnis conditor
suspensus est patibulo
would be more accurately, but less poetically translated as quote:
Where he in flesh, who our flesh made
was hung upon the gallows
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0