|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Catholic and still Anglican?
|
Sola Scriptura
Shipmate
# 2229
|
Posted
A thought which has been troubling me for sometime is whether one can still be a catholic within the Church of England and the Anglican Communion?
While I am pro-women ordination I did feel the haste to which we have gone about this without the full mind of the catholic church is problematic. Can one still be a catholic in the CofE without necessarily joining FinF? Or is FinF the only chance of remaining a Catholic and true to the tradtional teachings of the church? Mind you, I do have doubts as to whether Flying Bishops out of Communion with their fellow bishops is atrue sign of catholicity. What will become of folk like me when women become bishops as well they will? When certain folk of the church don't recognise the bishop where then is the catholic church?
Do folk like me have a place in the CofE? Are we destained to struggle on or does one move on and when does that decision happen?
[ 13. March 2003, 22:28: Message edited by: Alan Cresswell ]
--------------------
Used to be Gunner.
Posts: 576 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Buttons
Shipmate
# 2108
|
Posted
I certainly consider myself to be a catholic Anglican, and am strongly in favour of the ordination of women.
I don't see why this issue should be a problem from a 'catholic' point of view. Ther are clearly differences between Anglican churches, and other churches which may or may not describe themselves as catholic. If this were not the case, then presumably the various churches would have united some time ago?
In my view it isn't so much differences in practice or theology which create the real divisons between Chrstians, as an unfortunate human tendancy to show hostility towards people or do things differently, and belong to a different tribe/gang to ourselves. Why can't we accept that Christians have different views and preferences, and recognise that that difference needn't be threatening, or prevent us from being united at a deeper level and sharing fundemental beliefs?
--------------------
It all depends what you mean by alright of course.
Posts: 137 | From: The bottom of a biscuit tin | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Buttons
Shipmate
# 2108
|
Posted
After thought. What I was trying to say above and didn't express clearly, was that probably there will be Anglicans/Christians who share you point of view and whom you feel comfortable worshipping with whatever changes occur. Different decisions made by other Anglicans/Christians need only drive you further apart if you both choose this.
--------------------
It all depends what you mean by alright of course.
Posts: 137 | From: The bottom of a biscuit tin | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hooker's Trick
Admin Emeritus and Guardian of the Gin
# 89
|
Posted
I think catholic-minded christians, particularly of the Anglican variety, need to ask themselves which is worse:
ladies in a chasuble,
or schism.
I always wonder whether being a "catholic" anglican means being a "frozen in time" anglican or is a theological position. Somehow people seem to think these two things are synonymous.
Are they?
Posts: 6735 | From: Gin Lane | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sola Scriptura
Shipmate
# 2229
|
Posted
It is not such a clear choice as Women priests and schism. There are the other alternatives too: RC Orthodoxy. Being card carying memeber of the CofE I'd find that choice rather difficult. But can one be catholic in FinF?
--------------------
Used to be Gunner.
Posts: 576 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sola Scriptura
Shipmate
# 2229
|
Posted
The problem I have tried to articulate might be expressed thus: does orthodoxy make the Church or does the Church make orthodoxy? If one poped it would be because one accepted his authority, and that might mean his power to reinterpret the tradition with regard to women and gays. I don't think it is right to pope simply because we do not like some of the things the CofE is doing, only because we believe Rome is the true Church.
Clifford Longley's article on p.2 the Tablet of this week I think he expresses the problem very well, combine it with Geoffrey Rowell's article in the Church Times on p. 18 and you have a pretty clear summary of what's wrong with the CofE at the moment.
On the other hand, Anglican converts to Rome (Newman included) have generally gone because of the lack of authority in the CofE, when they get to Rome they complain of too much authority!
--------------------
Used to be Gunner.
Posts: 576 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
Surely you're in schism with your previous church whether you set up an new church of your own or move to another existing church. Either way, you've still left with the choice: is this issue sufficiently important for you to break with your current church or not?
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Amanuensis
Idler
# 1555
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gunner:
A thought which has been troubling me for sometime is whether one can still be a catholic within the Church of England and the Anglican Communion?
In the words of a certain bowl of petunias:
"Oh no, not again."
quote:
While I am pro-women ordination I did feel the haste to which we have gone about this without the full mind of the catholic church is problematic. Can one still be a catholic in the CofE without necessarily joining FinF? Or is FinF the only chance of remaining a Catholic and true to the tradtional teachings of the church? Mind you, I do have doubts as to whether Flying Bishops out of Communion with their fellow bishops is atrue sign of catholicity.
Let's be clear about one thing: FiF (cuddly abbreviation, cuddly guys) do not give a toss about the Church Catholic. They simply hate the idea of women's ordination and are quite happy to wreck the Church in order to make their point.
quote:
What will become of folk like me when women become bishops as well they will? When certain folk of the church don't recognise the bishop where then is the catholic church?
Do you have a problem with women's ordination or don't you? If you don't know, how do you expect us to make any sense of your problem?
quote:
Do folk like me have a place in the CofE? Are we destained to struggle on or does one move on and when does that decision happen?
And who exactly are folk like you? On your other thread, someone pointed you in the direction of Affirming Catholicism as an alternative to FiF. Was that not acceptable?
--------------------
What's new?
Posts: 547 | From: Cornwall | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rossweisse
High Church Valkyrie
# 2349
|
Posted
I am an Anglican who certainly considers herself Catholic, and I see no reasonable ("We've never done it that way" does not qualify as reasonable in my book) impediment to women's ordination.
I respect those who DO have reasoned objections to it, and if everyone were truly concerned about our duty to "represent Christ and his Church wherever (we) may be," we wouldn't be facing schism.
This also goes for those on the other side who are so determined to force issues like gay marriage and the ordination of active homosexuals that they could wreck the Church, and don't seem to care any more than the conservatives do.
Rossweisse // who would like to see more genuine tolerance
--------------------
I'm not dead yet.
Posts: 15117 | From: Valhalla | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Newman's Own
Shipmate
# 420
|
Posted
Just a question from a very Catholic Anglican, Gunner - and one which I am asking only out of curiosity. Has this worry arisen because ++Rowan undoubtedly will consecrate women as bishops? I also was wondering if you were concerned that future attempts to (in whatever fashion) accept the primacy of Rome, while having Rome withdraw its official lack of acceptance of the validity of Anglican Orders, could be hampered by this. I know that what I shall say here is uncharacteristically cheeky of me, but some of the arguments which Rome has used were poorly set forth. For example, that women were not present (and therefore ordained) at the Last Supper, could be used (though it never has, of course) as an argument against women receiving Communion or attending the Eucharist... and the argument that Jesus did not ordain his own mother... well, since she bore him in the flesh, it nearly seems excessive. ![[Wink]](wink.gif)
Father Gregory (who may well take me apart later on this thread, which is fine, since we can use a little stimulating thought here!) can explain the theological objections to the ordination of women (which, I believe, are the same with the Orthodox as with Rome.) One may argue "either way" on either the basis of sacramental theology or ecclesiology, and, while I have no great familiarity with FinF, I believe the latter is their favoured mode.
It seems very Catholic to me to believe that, while God is perfect truth, our comprehension of His will comes about by the continuous inspiration of His Church by the Holy Spirit. As the simplest example, the very first Christians, already confronted with the astounding fact of the Incarnate Logos risen from the dead, hardly would have understood the Trinity as God's "true identity" at once. Hints of the recognition would come through in early worship - this or that scholar would argue on various grounds - and that early recognition would not be formally and stated for several centuries. It always was true - but the understanding came to us, by divine power, with allowance for that a rigidly monotheistic Jewish community in 1st century Palestine could not be greeted with, "Happy Easter - I'm the second person of the Trinity."
Conflict (as we see in Paul's epistles) is as old as the church, and schisms (not to mention heresies, but that's not the issue here) are little younger. It is sad, but true, that the unity of the Church would be torn through the centuries.
Now, following my line of presentation (and if you'll excuse my levity), it seems that God could reveal that to now ordain women to the priesthood is His will for the Church, without this being accepted by all sister churches concurrently. Granted - universal acceptance of important doctrines is a mark of catholicity, but, after all, the time since women's ordination became possible is a blink in the eye of history!
The Catholic view has always, I believe, been that the priesthood is an extension of Jesus' own High Priestly ministry. It therefore can be argued that the "iconic" dimensions of that extend to priests being of his gender (as is part of RC belief), or that humanity is sufficient.
Note that I am not saying "Canterbury's a trend setter - the others need to get with it," which would be a deplorably pompous and disrespectful statement! I am merely responding to your concern that accepting Canterbury's viewpoint rather than Rome's means being non-Catholic.
I would say you are quite correct that the consecration of women as bishops can cause further confusion and "splits." (Though, considering that the office of bishop "comes before" that of presbyter, if one accepts the ordination of women at all, naturally they can be bishops.) Indeed, if people do not accept the ordination of women as valid, they could be forced, in conscience, to find another sister church - all the more if, with a lady bishop, the validity of ordinations to the priesthood could be in question. One cannot compromise one's faith.
My concern is not anyone's expression of integrity or fidelity, but an ostensibly Catholic appeal for the sake of other agenda. It would not be without precedent in the history of schism...
--------------------
Cheers,
Elizabeth
“History as Revelation is seldom very revealing, and histories of holiness are full of holes.” - Dermot Quinn
Posts: 6740 | From: Library or pub | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
PaulTH*
Shipmate
# 320
|
Posted
I don't think there's much to add to Newman's Own's full and well expressed post. I don't think that the social customs of first century Palestine should be binding on us. One of the most radical things about Jesus was the equality with which He treated wmomen, unusual enough in His day to raise eyebrows. I can't believe that God has any objections to this.
It's only on ecclesiological grounds that a case can be made out against the ordination of women. Does the Church of England have the right or indeed the competance to ordain women ireespective of the views os sister churches? Even then it depends on who you call a sister church. The Methodists would insist on equality in any necociations on church unity.
From a personal point of view, I have no objections to wmomen bishops as I don't to women priests, who, in gerneral are doing an excellent job, but this isn't about competance for the job. There are some Anglocatholics who cannot- and I emphasise that in place of won't accept women priests or male priests ordained by women bishops. As one who cares passionately about the future of our national church I hopw ++ Rowan will look favourably upon the formation of an independent province. It's a natural progression from the Act of Synod and is the only thing which can prevent another mass exodous to Rome of Orthodoxy.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Paul
Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sola Scriptura
Shipmate
# 2229
|
Posted
It would be quite right to consider that the first century customs weren't binding upon us if Jesus Christ hadn't been around. However, and if my simpole mind it is a big however, when Jesus was on earth he was very God as well as very man. And while I accept that Our Lord's attitude towards women was very progressive and radical, even though he was God, he didn't commission women as apostles. I may be wrong but if Jesus is very God surely he of all people who like to break social customs would have done so on this issue.
As for the issue of divorce and remarriage Our Lord says things which can be very painful but it its the God Incarnate we believed said such things. And for the Law while Jesus never mentions the issue of homosexuality, I would have thought that by his refernce to the ideal of man leaving and clinging to his wife suggests that sex outside marriage is not considered the ideal or right.
If we don't trust any of the Scripture Tradtion and Reason then we could be right to make it up as we go along, to be socially influenced rather than to influence society. And if we don't trust the word of God as reported in Scripture as the words issued from Our Lord I would have thought we may as well pack up our faith and be humanists instead.
I struggle with these issues. I feel that women should be ordained priests. But who am I or who is this little blob of a sister church to go UDI on these subjects without considering the unity of the wider church and the catholicity we proclaim.
The results so fdar have been:
1. The Unity talks with Rome and Orthodoxy have been scuppered.
2. Within our own communion the sacrament of unity the Eucharist is a sore point of divsion.
3. Fellow priests are not in communion with one another and their bishops.
The fragmentation of Anglicanism means that rather than searching for truth and catholicity we are splintering into many protestant sects each doing what is right in their own eyes.
--------------------
Used to be Gunner.
Posts: 576 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chorister
Completely Frocked
# 473
|
Posted
I thought 'catholic' meant universal and inclusive. Using that understanding, more of us are catholic that you might think.
'I believe in the Holy Ghost, the holy, Catholick Church, the Communion of Saints, the Forgiveness of sins, the Resurrection of the body, and the life everlasting. Amen.' sayeth the creed which those of us who go to Mattins and/or Evensong say every Sunday.
--------------------
Retired, sitting back and watching others for a change.
Posts: 34626 | From: Cream Tealand | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Merseymike
Shipmate
# 3022
|
Posted
A Third Province is a non-starter, and I think the Act of Synod will have to be repealed, as it leaves no option for women bishops- and now we have women priests, there is no logic in not having women bishops. Indeed , it is just that we do so.
I feel sorry for those who feel that they will have to depart as a result of this decision, but there are denominations which would share their views on this matter, and I think the importance of giving women equality outweighs the importance of keeping them on board. I am sure they will be welcomed in other churches, and think that, not a third province, is the only realistic answer, if they cannot accept the existence of women in both priesthood and episcopate.
--------------------
Christianity is not a problem to be solved, but a mystery to be experienced
Posts: 3360 | From: Walked the plank | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
Dear Elizabeth
Orthodoxy does not hold to the "iconic" argument against female ordination. The priest need have no "natural resemblance" (Aquinas) to Christ the High Priest in respect of his gender, race or anything else other than his humanity (but even then I suspect that an alien convert to the Christ-of-the-humans would have no difficulty either in becoming a priest ... I am making a serious point).
Paul ... you are correct that the substantial objections are ecclesiological but I would also embrace Christ's actual practice (to which Gunner has referred). Nonetheless, Gunner, although St. Mary Magdalene was technically an apostle; she is referred to in the Orthodox Church as "equal to the apostles" as is St. Helen, St. Nina and many other women. Rome has a good point also that the Mother of God's dignity exceeds that of the apostles (we refer to that in our hymns).
Gunner .... I am now on didgy ground because we are not supposed to comment on the trials of other churches. Nonetheless I can say this ... the Church of England has a right to expect full compliance with its ordination policy. To do otherwise would be to compromise its own organic unity. The Act of Synod is misconceived (except as to the severance package). Such a thing will not happen again .... and in any event ... the issue is the laity, not just the clergy.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fr.Philip
Shipmate
# 2801
|
Posted
Reading all of the above I get the feeling that Anglicans use the same words to mean different things.
It is possible to believe in a Catholic Chuch without belonging to it incidentally.
Do you use these words and have the generally same meaning throughout the C. of E. and Anglicanism generally? Catholic, Church, communion, priest, salvation?
Also I wonder if Anglicans concentrate too much on the role of the clergy and not enough on the Laity. One I was an Anglican priest... a long while ago and well before women were ordained priest (hence my question above: I think things have changed since I was about!)... when I left the C. of E. (I was a happy Anglican and those folk helped me enormously in my Christian pilgrimage) I became a lay person again. The sheer joy of it! I had a far fuller "ministry" and brought more people to Christ, was able, at last to stop talking about the Church all the time and concentrate on the Saviour (as I still do now that I am an Orthodox priest) have a real job with a real insight into how secular work is etc. I think that all this concentration on who is and who aint Ordained is a snare.
I agree with Fr. Gregory: It does seem odd to have an Ordination policy going back 10 years and have people in disagreement with it but still hanging about (some of them getting paid too)! Tell them to clear off! (And if they are priests: defrock them!)
--------------------
Yours in Christ,
Fr. Philip.
Posts: 138 | From: Brigg | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Thurible
Shipmate
# 3206
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fr.Philip:
I agree with Fr. Gregory: It does seem odd to have an Ordination policy going back 10 years and have people in disagreement with it but still hanging about (some of them getting paid too)! Tell them to clear off! (And if they are priests: defrock them!)
The fact that I might well have to "clear off" was brought home to me today when I went to S. Chad's College Chapel, Durham for a reasonably Catholic Mass, and saw that the preacher was a visiting female ordained person. No problems there. It was when she started to concelebrate that I realised I was in a real mess. I didn't receive the Sacrament, because I thought that her presence had invalidated the Mass, despite accepting the orders of the male Principal Concelebrant. The Church of England is in a mess. We who disagree need to work out what we're going to do, and soon.
I disagree with too much of Roman Catholicism to make that move; I feel called to be an Anglican priest. I'm in despair. Still, "all things intermingle well for them that love God."
Thurible
--------------------
"I've been baptised not lobotomised."
Posts: 8049 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Merseymike
Shipmate
# 3022
|
Posted
But, Thurible, having women in the priesthood is part of the Church of England now.
Surely the fact this happens at St. Chad's says to you that many people who regard themselves as catholic really don't have a problem with this. Nor did the male concelebrant.
The only answer is for you to accept the presence of women, if you really do feel called to the Church of England - or perhaps Orthodoxy may be a better place for you. I don't want to force you out - but if I had to choose, then its more important for women to be in the priesthood than for us to allow discrimination because of the beliefs of some who wish to keep the priesthood all male.It isn't - and it never will be again, in the Church of England. Things have changed, and I think for the better on that score. Its no good pretending that women are not there, because they are, and they are here to stay. Surely you can see that the possibility of withdrawing female ordination in the Church of England is nil ? It has happened, and its a permanent change.
--------------------
Christianity is not a problem to be solved, but a mystery to be experienced
Posts: 3360 | From: Walked the plank | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
PaulTH*
Shipmate
# 320
|
Posted
Gunner and Father Gregory
I take your (collective) point that Jesus didn't appoint women as Apostles, but could He have done in that culture? Who would have listened to them? The case of Mary Magdalene, first witness of the resurrection has been made. My point is that the esteem in whicj Jesus held women was radical, but what you'd expect from the Son, who knows that all are equal in th eyes of the Father.
Jesus not appointing women as Apostles, still, IMO belongs within the realm of first century near eastern culture, rather than divine law. As Thurible said, the Church of England is in a real mess over this issue. Thurible despairs because he believes in the C of E and can't find a way out of this impasse. I despair because this impasse threatens to destroy the church as we know it. I hope ++ Rowan's great intellect will come up with an answer to this one.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Paul
Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
I suppose the question about whether Christ appointed women apostles depends on what we mean by "apostle"? If we mean by that a title, then it's debatable whether Jesus appointed anyone an Apostle at all. If, on the other hand, we mean a role - that of telling others about Christ (with the additional proviso of being sent directly by Christ I suppose) - then we have several examples. Most notably Mary Magdelene after the Resurrection and the Samritan woman at the well.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
Yes Alan ... the issue isn't about "apostle." St. Mary Magdalenr readily fits the bill. The issue is about community leadership. There are more NT apostles than the 12-1+1+1, (deduct Judas, insert Mathias, add Paul).
Paul ... Jesus shows no sign of moderating his radical cutting edge in other areas ... why so in this one? Just a thought ... not conclusive I know but it adds more balance to the cultural relativity argument.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Carys
Ship's Celticist
# 78
|
Posted
Thurible wrote quote:
No problems there. It was when she started to concelebrate that I realised I was in a real mess. I didn't receive the Sacrament, because I thought that her presence had invalidated the Mass, despite accepting the orders of the male Principal Concelebrant.
How can she invalidate the Mass? Surely someone's non-ordainedness (not that I'd say that the woman wasn't ordained) cannot outweigh the ordination of someone else? If a random lay person (male or female) where attempt to concelebrate (for want of a better term) would not invalidate the Mass?
Carys
--------------------
O Lord, you have searched me and know me
You know when I sit and when I rise
Posts: 6896 | From: Bryste mwy na thebyg | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Carys
Ship's Celticist
# 78
|
Posted
Preview post is my friend.
I'm too tired, what I meant, of course, is quote:
If a random lay person (male or female) were attempt to concelebrate (for want of a better term) would not invalidate the Mass?
Carys
--------------------
O Lord, you have searched me and know me
You know when I sit and when I rise
Posts: 6896 | From: Bryste mwy na thebyg | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spong
Ship's coffee grinder
# 1518
|
Posted
The temporary provisions of the Act of Synod were specifically for a period of discernment to decide whether or not it was God's will that women be ordained priest. At some point we have to reach an answer on that, and pretty clearly for the majority of the CofE the answer is going to be 'yes'.
I'm more than happy that individual parishes should have the right to say that their traditions should be respected and that they should not therefore be asked to accept a woman priest. I'd prefer it if they didn't insist on having a specific resolution, because no other tradition needs one, but if it helps, OK.
What is not, AFAICS, tenable is the idea that the Church of England should continue for too much longer to hold the 'two integrities' position, for the simple reason that the passage of time makes the two integrities untenable. Early on it's just about reasonable to say 'we don't know whether God has called women to be priests' but at the end of ten years you ought to have some idea. The logic of saying 'two provinces of the Church of England believe that women are priests but one does not' completely defeats me. That isn't a separate province, it's a separate church.
And on the whole subject of 'contagion', so that a woman concelebrating somehow prevents the bread and wine becoming the body and blood ![[Confused]](confused.gif) why is this not solved for good traditionalists by Article XXVI - of the Unowrothiness of Ministers?
--------------------
Spong
The needs of our neighbours are the needs of the whole human family. Let's respond just as we do when our immediate family is in need or trouble. Rowan Williams
Posts: 2173 | From: South-East UK | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sola Scriptura
Shipmate
# 2229
|
Posted
Dear Fr G,
I totally agree that The Act of Synod was misconcieved and is basically a severance package. I wrestle not because I want the best financial package but because I feel emotionally tied to the CofE. If ever I felt there was no longer a place for me here I would go and NOT expect to be paid for my conscience. It is the cost one has to pay and not to be paid for having a conscience.
I still hang on wrestling and praying and trusting that at the end of everything God is God and nothing will chance that - not even our church myopia
--------------------
Used to be Gunner.
Posts: 576 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
Dear Gunner
I respect your own personal position about money but I think that it was reasonable that the Act made provision for retraining and resettlement costs. Some of us did believe that the "terms and conditions of our employment" had been significantly reconfigured.
As to the emotional attachment ... is it emotional or is it based on the view (erroneous in my opinion) that Anglican forms and identity are essential to the Church's mission to the whole nation?
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Merseymike
Shipmate
# 3022
|
Posted
I think Spoooong got it absolutely right. There is no possibility that those women who have already been ordained will have their ordination removed - the vast majority of the Church of England supports the ordination of women.
And I agree that to have a third province would be a separate church, particularly once women are bishops - which they will be.
I wonder if those who do still oppose women priests think that the Church of England will change its mind ? Surely they know this will not happen ? And surely they realise that a Third Province is a total non-starter ?
--------------------
Christianity is not a problem to be solved, but a mystery to be experienced
Posts: 3360 | From: Walked the plank | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
FCB
Hillbilly Thomist
# 1495
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fr. Gregory:
Orthodoxy does not hold to the "iconic" argument against female ordination. The priest need have no "natural resemblance" (Aquinas) to Christ the High Priest in respect of his gender, race or anything else other than his humanity.
[pedantic point]
Thomas actually does not make the "natural resemblance" argument. He makes the (even less appealing) argument that women can't be priests because "it is not possible in the female sex to signify eminence of degree, for a woman is in the state of subjection" (ST Suppl. 39.1). It's a slight variation on the "natural resemblance" argument, but a variation nonetheless.[/pedantic point]
FCB
--------------------
Agent of the Inquisition since 1982.
Posts: 2928 | From: that city in "The Wire" | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
So what actual harm mightl a third province do that hasn't been done already?
And how will it be less harmful than a complete formal schism?
And in a situation where CofE parishes are effectively non-territorial, and have been since the invention of the railway train (or possibly since the almost synchronous invention of Anglo-Catholicism) - more than half of the worshippers at a typical service live within the parish boundaries - why do we have to stick to the territorial principle for bishops?
And if a similar separate-but-equal episcopal oversight was agreed for Methodists in formal reunion with the CofE, would you have the same
Sudden bad thought - maybe the CofE should let them go and let them take their church buildings with them - after all, they are far too expensive for us to maintain - lumber them with the costs of it all ![[Devil]](graemlins/devil.gif) what a charitable act of downsizing that would be ![[Frown]](frown.gif)
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Merseymike
Shipmate
# 3022
|
Posted
A third province would essentially be a separate church operating within the Church of England : I think the honest thing to do would be to set up a separate institution, which could come to some arrangement with the Anglican Communion ( itself a fairly irrelevant talking shop in any case )
Yes, I'd go along with you on the buildings. There are too many Anglican churches anyway. In our suburb there are four - one High, one MoR/low, two MoR. The latter three have congregations of approx 40 each. They all maintain a building, which costs considerable amounts of money to maintain. Two vicars service the two united benefices and so have twice the normal amount of committees etc. to go to.
I think the answer is obvious.
--------------------
Christianity is not a problem to be solved, but a mystery to be experienced
Posts: 3360 | From: Walked the plank | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
more than half of the worshippers at a typical service live within the parish boundaries
Of course I meant to say:
quote:
lessthan half of the worshippers at a typical service live within the parish boundaries
Which may or may not be true in general, but is true of my present church, I think my present parish church (which is different), and at least 3 and perhaps 4 of the previous 6 parish churches I've been a member of.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Merseymike:
I think the honest thing to do would be to set up a separate institution, which could come to some arrangement with the Anglican Communion
I thought that was more or less what a "third province" was meant to be?
The alternative being that some or all of the FiF priests, with or without their congregations and church buildings, leave the Anglican communion altogether either to Rome or as a separated denominational church.
And presumably a few evangelical churches as well, though I am skeptical about how many would feel the need to. However much you disagree with women priests and bishops (& most evangelicals-in-the-pew don't) there isn't the pressure to secede if you don't have a "high" doctrine of episcopacy or apostolic succession. There isn't the notion of "taint" which some of the anglo-catholics feel.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Merseymike
Shipmate
# 3022
|
Posted
No,it isn't, Ken, which is the problem. Its essentially a 'church within a church', with their Province having an equivalence with York and Canterbury, but be a no-go area for women priests.
I just think its not feasible and would absolutely change the catholic order of the Church of England in a way which simply isn't acceptable - and I do hold those views about episcopacy and apostolic succession, I just don't think a schism is the way to deal with them. What would be produced would be far from catholic order.
--------------------
Christianity is not a problem to be solved, but a mystery to be experienced
Posts: 3360 | From: Walked the plank | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sola Scriptura
Shipmate
# 2229
|
Posted
We already have a 'church within a church' system operating with PEVs.
I agree that the ordination of women was an act of faith and that a period of discernment should be prayerfully employed. What is wrong by both extremes is that they have already made up their minds. The FinFs have already said 'No, never' while the Aff Caths have said 'Yes, here to stay.' None of these positions sho9uld be cast in stone. ![[brick wall]](graemlins/brick_wall.gif)
--------------------
Used to be Gunner.
Posts: 576 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Amanuensis
Idler
# 1555
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
lessthan half of the worshippers at a typical service live within the parish boundaries.
Which may or may not be true in general, but is true of my present church, I think my present parish church (which is different), and at least 3 and perhaps 4 of the previous 6 parish churches I've been a member of.
Although 6 parishes is not a huge sample size.
In our small town parish, approx. 95% of the worshippers live within the parish boundaries. It's different in bigger towns and cities. In rural areas, the parish system feels quite natural.
--------------------
What's new?
Posts: 547 | From: Cornwall | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
sakura
Shipmate
# 1449
|
Posted
Posted by PaulTH:
quote:
There are some Anglocatholics who cannot- and I emphasise that in place of won't accept women priests or male priests ordained by women bishops.
But the church to which they belong has ordained them. Why is disobedience to the church permissible in this case? That is what I can't understand. These people are anglo-catholic. It is such a [non pejorative use of word follows] Protestant thing to hold to one's own conscience rather than the teaching of the Church. Yet they do it - they plead conscience over obedience and refuse to recognise the sacraments of the church to which they belong. So cannot does equal won't. Ironic, IMHO.
Not much chance of a female priest at my parish any time soon. We are the only anglo-catholic parish in town not formally aligned with FiF, but I suspect a number of prominent parishioners feel sympathy for that organisation.
--------------------
Keep me as the apple of Your eye.
Hide me under the shadow of Your wings.
Posts: 478 | From: Melbourne | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sola Scriptura
Shipmate
# 2229
|
Posted
I heard, and I may be wrong, but a Luteran Church ordained women for many years, and fater years of reflection they came to the conculsion it was not the right thing to have done. Has anyone else heard this?
If this is the case, they were, as the CofE is, in a position of discernment. If we are in that process of'reception' we can't get go full steam and consecrate women. The wounds are too raw, the pain is still sharp and we are not in communion with one another. Although 10 years of women in the priesthood may seem a long time in the grand scheme of things it isn't.
We should perhaps wait and pray...
--------------------
Used to be Gunner.
Posts: 576 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Merseymike
Shipmate
# 3022
|
Posted
I agree that the Act of Synod has started the 'church within a church' process - although still within the authority of Canterbury and York. However, I am opposed to the Act of Synod, I think it should be repealed, because it simply cannot be sustained long-term.
I honestly think that to continue as we are prolongs the agony. I can see no reason why we would ever come to the conclusion that it is wrong to ordain women. Theologically, there is simply a difference of opinion. The experience of having women priests has undoubtedly been positive, and I can see no real need for further prayer in the hope that one side or the other will change their minds. I do not think a third province is viable, and I think that the decision will have to be made as to whether those who oppose women priests wish to stay in a church which has them or not. If not, then other structures need to be looked for - but not within the Church of England. Two integrities has no integrity.
--------------------
Christianity is not a problem to be solved, but a mystery to be experienced
Posts: 3360 | From: Walked the plank | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
But why isnt it viable? How will it inconvenience the rest of us?
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
John Holding
Coffee and Cognac
# 158
|
Posted
Gunner -- the C of E may still be in a process of discernment, but the other branches of the Anglican Communion are not.
Lambeth in the late 80s confirmed the rightness of ordaining women, but left it to individual churches to decide whether it was appropriate for them as a matter of culture and discipline, not as a matter of theology. Many African churches, therefore, do not ordain women, but some are now beginning to as their societies change. In Canada, the first women in the Arctic were ordained much later than in the rest of the country, because it had to be culturally acceptable to the Inuit.
In several provinces or national churhces, there have been female priests for 20-25 years. Female bishops participated in and voted at the last Lambeth Conference -- they are in the photo, too.
If the C of E were to decide that the theology of female ordination is wrong, it would cut itself off from the rest of the Communion, including both Wales and Scotland (not a problem, I know, to those in the C of E who forget that there are many times as many Anglicans in the world as live in England, and are under the delusion that we look to the C of E for a lead more than to other sister churches).
This in no way means I think the church should disregard the need of those people who do have theological problems. And the C of E has to work its own problems out by itself. However, it may wish to consider the experience of its sisters. The Canadian experience is that those who treated the first 10-15 years as a time of discernment (and did not start with the position that there was nothing to discern), have come to believe that ordination is theologically right.
John Holding
Posts: 5929 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sola Scriptura
Shipmate
# 2229
|
Posted
20-30 years may seem like an awful long time but it isn't - it's a mere blink of the eye. For those Anglicans who have lived through the times when women were not ordained and considered themselves amongst the vast majority of catholic christians thought the 2,000 years of Christainity to have male only priests, can be forgiven if they seem peeved. We can't just assume that because the church is aping popular culture that it has it right! It may be right for women to be ordianed. But it can never be right for a few Christains to have made that decision without the full consent of the catholic church. And for those Anglicans who can't not won't accept it we have to forgive them if they feel uncomfortable when the CofE has moved its goal posts. There has to be compassion from all quarters.
For thse difficult questions it can't be right for Anglicans to go out alone no matter what they personally believe. To caliam to be catholic and then sticking 2 fingers up to the vast majority of catholic christians is wrong.
It can be now surprise that the ecumenical relationships between Anglicans and Catholics and Orthodox has become quite icy.
--------------------
Used to be Gunner.
Posts: 576 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
Dear Gunner
Looking at it now from the "other side" as it were, the reasons for ecumenical coolness (I wouldn't go as far as "icy") have more to do with Anglican attitudes to doctrine rather than any one particular issue. Orthodoxy and Catholicism are broad churches insofar as we interpret the fullness and diversity of the dogmatic traditions of our respective communions, but there are very well marked out limits. In Anglicanism we see a similar diversity but expanding and attenuated in content because there do not seem to be any generally agreed limits. Partly, in England at least, this has to do with establishment, being all things to all people and being the repository of English culture, (two heretics such as Darwin and Newton, brilliant though they were and true in their fields are buried in Westminster Abbey). Many Anglicans see this as a strength since so many theological positions can be accommodated .... but on what grounds can they coinhere in one Church? How can Christians who do and don't believe in the historical veracity of the Incarnation as "an event of the Word become flesh" inhabit the same church? Dom Aidan Nicholls rightly observed in "The Panther and the Hind" that, henceforth, ecumenism with Anglicanism would have to be on a group by group basis rather than with the communion as a whole. The communion as a whole does not seem to speak with one coherent theological voice. Anglicanism is that most English of things ... a compromise ... or more tartly perhaps, a coexistence.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Merseymike
Shipmate
# 3022
|
Posted
Its not viable, Ken , because it will destroy the episcopal and catholic order of the Church of England - which is why affirming catholics are more opposed to it than evangelicals, who don't thuink those matters are so important. Its not a matter of inconvenience, its about what it will do to the structures of the Church of England in terms of their catholicity. Schism, officially sanctioned and sectioned, is no way forward
--------------------
Christianity is not a problem to be solved, but a mystery to be experienced
Posts: 3360 | From: Walked the plank | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Merseymike
Shipmate
# 3022
|
Posted
The Church of England is certainly a co-existence , as you describe it, Gregory - the fact that I , Gunner, and ken all are Church of England attenders speaks volumes!
That breadth has always been seen as a strength in a national church. Perhaps it is less feasible than it once was.
--------------------
Christianity is not a problem to be solved, but a mystery to be experienced
Posts: 3360 | From: Walked the plank | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
PaulTH*
Shipmate
# 320
|
Posted
Although I fear for the future of the C of E, There is a point where I agree with Merseymike and disagree with Gunner. Gunner says that the fact that we have women priests shouldn't be set in stone any more than FiF's objections to them should. But it is set in stone in the sense that the C of E isn't going to take a backward step on such a major change.
Hence my agreement with Merseymike. A third Province which isn't in communuion with the other two provinces for fear of taint, isn't part of the same church. The sad fact for those who are totally unable to accept the ordination of women
is that they will have to find another church to belong to. Within the next couple of years the question, both simple and yet painfully difficult
will be, "Do you want to belong to this church or don't you?"
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Paul
Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
Thurible writes
quote:
I disagree with too much of Roman Catholicism to make that move; I feel called to be an Anglican priest.
This is a genuine question - I am not trying to score points or anything - but what exactly does Thurible and other FinF supporters not accept about the RC church? I know from reading some of the MW reports,that many anglo-catholics scorn Rome because its liturgy has changed. The climate in the RC church (not Rome itself perhaps) has changed irreversibly since Vatican 2, even if JP2's 'advisers' are busy closing the stable door and putting the clock back as fast as they can (apology for mixed metaphors). But it means that anyone with a catholic faith formed in the anglican tradition should feel at home. If the objection is that Rome is too authoritarian, well you can't have it both ways. There are many (R) catholics who shrug their shoulders and just get on with living the faith whatever the pope says. I suspect many a-c's fear a church which is actually more like anglicanism than they would like, and prefer to maintain their sectarian way of life in their tat-filled ghettoes (which indeed they always have done, for years before women priests were a gleam in anyone's eye).
I hasten to add, I'm not accusing Thurible of thinking this. There are many anglicans with a deep emotional attachment to the BCP etc etc, who are also deeply unhappy with women's priesthood, and I feel for them even though I can't agree. What I can't understand is people who have always to all intents and purposes been Roman Catholic refusing to make the final jump.
As an 'affirming catholic', had the CofE voted no ten years ago I would seriously have considered becoming RC. There would have been no justification for staying in what would have become a small reactionary sect. Better to join a big reactionary church (with at least more chance of finding friendly rebels).
--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
PaulTH*
Shipmate
# 320
|
Posted
Angloid has touched on something which has always confused me. I don't say that this applies to Thurible as he said that there's much about Rome he disagrees with. But those at the extremely catholic end of the C of E such as members of the Catholic League or the SSC have a theology and practices which are indidtinguishable from Rome. One of the aims of the Catholic League is the union of all Christians with the Apostolic See of Rome.
The ordination of women to the episciopate will probably be enough to drive such people out, but I've always wondered why they ever remained within the C of E even prior to the ordination of women. I prefer the label of Reformed Catholic to Protestant any day as a description of the Church of England, but it has been open to any of us to join Rome at any time as individuals, and I've had plenty of opportunity to do so if I wanted to which I don't. A person whose theology and practices are RC and whose aim is to be united under the Holy See should be a RC not an Anglican.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Paul
Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eanswyth
Ship's raven
# 3363
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by angloid:
If the objection is that Rome is too authoritarian, well you can't have it both ways. There are many (R) catholics who shrug their shoulders and just get on with living the faith whatever the pope says.
But, you see, this is why I left the Roman church. It felt like extreme dishonesty to call myself RC but say "I don't believe dogma X and I choose to do Y, which the pope said not to."
Posts: 1323 | From: San Diego | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
