Originally posted by CL:
About f**king time!
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
quote:About f**king time!
The Following are Candidates for Ordination to the Priesthood 2012
Tuesday, May 08, 2012
AISBITT Osmond John
ALLDRITT Nicholas Sebastian Fitzansculf
BENNIE Stanley James Gordon
BERRY Kenneth Percy John
BOUNDY David
CANN Christopher James
CORBYN John Robert
COPUS Brian George
GIBBONS Paul James
GILL Brian Alvan
GRIEVES Ian Leslie
GIFFIN Alan Howard Foster
GULL William John
HUNWICKE John William
MAUNDER John David
MINCHEW Donald Patrick
NARUSAWA Masaki Alec
READER-MOORE Anthony
STAFFORD David George
WATTS Franklin Charles
WESTON Ivan John
quote:I agree.
Originally posted by CL:
About f**king time!
quote:Fr Maunder was TAC, as was Fr Gill who until recently was Vicar General of the UK constituent of TAC.
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
Not sure what there is to discuss - but...
Fr. John Maunder is a TAC man, isn't he? Correct me if I'm wrong, but this presumably also heralds the first successful TAC transition into the ordinariate.
quote:I as well. I've always admired him and found him to be a very gracious and pliantness person from the few times I've actually met him.
Originally posted by leo:
Glad Fr. Hunwicke is on the list.
quote:I quite sincerely echo the first two sentences, but not the third. I, as an Anglican, am frankly glad to see the back of them, and hope the remaining members of 'Forward in Faith' and similar groups will soon get round to becoming proper Catholics instead of pretend ones. They're obviously very unhappy in the C. of E., they are thorough nuisances to the rest of us, and they're Catholics in all but official recognition, so why don't they all decamp to Rome and have done?
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
I hope and pray that these people, and the laity who'll go with them, will find their true spiritual home. I'll be very happy for them if they do. I'm very sorry that the Church of England turned out not to be it.
quote:Hooray! Someone who knows and uses the correct form!
Originally posted by CL:
...Rev. Mr. Hunwicke...
quote:I was making a deliberate effort not to be bitchy or sarcastic, and I think I succeeded. Why should I pretend to miss them? They've been utterly selfish pains in the arse for decades - at least, the FiF ones, who are still in communion with Canterbury, have. I admit I didn't read the previous posts carefully enough: the TAC, about whom we're primarily talking, at least had the good grace and sense to leave the Anglican communion.
Originally posted by Trisagion:
At least Pyx_e's bitchiness is witty, Steve H. Yours, I'm afraid, simply sounds mean-spirited. Fortunately, most of those they leave behind have, at least in public, had the good grace to see their going as a loss. Thanks be to God that, The Tablet and it's fellow-travellers aside, they have been welcomed this side of the Tiber.
quote:Whereas those who have sought to alter the Anglican Communion's teaching on Holy Orders have at all times behaved with selfless charity to all and have never been a pain in anyone's arse. That isn't what it looked like from here. It looked like an episode in which all sides behaved abominably, none being prepared to give the other the presumption of good faith. It wasn't exactly edifying.
Originally posted by Steve H:
They've been utterly selfish pains in the arse for decades - at least, the FiF ones, who are still in communion with Canterbury, have.
quote:I don't think that's been true, by and large, though maybe there are a couple of trouble-makers in that list - I don't know the people well enough to say either way.
Originally posted by Steve H:
quote:I was making a deliberate effort not to be bitchy or sarcastic, and I think I succeeded. Why should I pretend to miss them? They've been utterly selfish pains in the arse for decades - at least, the FiF ones, who are still in communion with Canterbury, have. I admit I didn't read the previous posts carefully enough: the TAC, about whom we're primarily talking, at least had the good grace and sense to leave the Anglican communion.
Originally posted by Trisagion:
At least Pyx_e's bitchiness is witty, Steve H. Yours, I'm afraid, simply sounds mean-spirited. Fortunately, most of those they leave behind have, at least in public, had the good grace to see their going as a loss. Thanks be to God that, The Tablet and it's fellow-travellers aside, they have been welcomed this side of the Tiber.
quote:What Trisagion said. You are dismissing friends of mine (with whom i don't agree but whose position i respect) who have acted with integrity, have been deeply hurt by the goings on in General Synod and its uninclusive hostility towards hard-working, loyal priests who have exercised a sacrificial ministry.
Originally posted by Steve H:
They've been utterly selfish pains in the arse for decades - at least, the FiF ones, who are still in communion with Canterbury, have. I admit I didn't read the previous posts carefully enough: the TAC, about whom we're primarily talking, at least had the good grace and sense to leave the Anglican communion.
quote:The Church of England wasn't making concessions to them: it was making arrangements to respect their conscientious adherence to the understanding of Holy Orders that had been the Church of England's doctrine for the four hundred and sixty years of its existence, in continuity with the doctrine held by the Catholic and Orthodox churches for two thousand. When these men were ordained the CofE didn't ordain women. It chose to abandon its former doctrine and said that in doing so it was doing so ad experimentum. The worst that can be said about these men is that they were fools in believing that their opponents actually meant what they said. Still, in coming to the realisation that they were intentionally deceived, they were well prepared for life in the Catholic Church, where our almost universal experience of ecumenical dialogue with Anglicans is that they'll tell you what they think you want to hear, whilst in no way being prepared to be held to the consequences of what they've said and, at the same time making entirely contradictory remarks to others. I think they call it Anglican fudge or Anglican comprehensiveness. Mmmm.
Originally posted by Steve H:
The rest of the Church of England has bent over backwards to make concessions to Forward in Faith, and all they've ever done is make more and more demands. You can call that integrity; I call it selfishness. The trouble is, the more concessions the church makes to them, the less equal women priests are. As I said before: they are obviously deeply unhappy in the C of E, they are a confounded nuisance to the rest of it, and they are to all intents and purposes Catholics already, so why don't they make it official? That's not a sarcastic or spiteful question, but a perfectly straightforward one.
quote:?
When these men were ordained the CofE didn't ordain women.
quote:Trisagion, when a friend of yours is getting divorced, is it your usual habit to support him by calling the wife a slut to her face?
...I think they call it Anglican fudge or Anglican comprehensiveness. Mmmm.
quote:Sampling error. You unconsciously select the Anglicans who are going to tell you what you want to hear. Meanwhile the Lutherans are talking to a different lot of Anglicans who like Lutherans, the Methodists to someone else who thinks that Methodism is the model for the whole Church, the Independent Charismatics to still others. Inevitable result of a denomination with no official doctrine and no means of enforcing one if it had one
Originally posted by Trisagion:
... our almost universal experience of ecumenical dialogue with Anglicans is that they'll tell you what they think you want to hear ...
![[Biased]](wink.gif)
quote:Would that we got to select our Anglican interlocutors. Sadly we have to put up with those we are given.
Originally posted by ken:
Sampling error. You unconsciously select the Anglicans who are going to tell you what you want to hear. Meanwhile the Lutherans are talking to a different lot of Anglicans who like Lutherans, the Methodists to someone else who thinks that Methodism is the model for the whole Church, the Independent Charismatics to still others. Inevitable result of a denomination with no official doctrine and no means of enforcing one if it had one
quote:I don't have a dog in the fight, Anselmina. I simply find it extraordinary the nastiness with which some express their valedictions to their former co-religionists and the refusal to allow the other the presumption of good faith.
Originally posted by Anselmina:
Steve H and Trisagion. Trying hard to get a fag paper between the two attitudes. But. Not. quite. managing. it.
Both of your 'arguments' sound equally uncharitable, misanthropical and extreme. You may happen to be on different sides of an argument - but you seem to both be out of the same mould when it comes to make that argument.
quote:Oh, we have have plenty of doctrines - it's just that we have to make them up individually.
Inevitable result of a denomination with no official doctrine and no means of enforcing one if it had one
quote:Got it in one, ken!
Originally posted by ken:
quote:Sampling error. You unconsciously select the Anglicans who are going to tell you what you want to hear. Meanwhile the Lutherans are talking to a different lot of Anglicans who like Lutherans, the Methodists to someone else who thinks that Methodism is the model for the whole Church, the Independent Charismatics to still others. Inevitable result of a denomination with no official doctrine and no means of enforcing one if it had one
Originally posted by Trisagion:
... our almost universal experience of ecumenical dialogue with Anglicans is that they'll tell you what they think you want to hear ...
quote:I didn't realize we were allowed to judge the whole of a denomination - or ecclesial community - of our fellow Christians on the examples of those we 'have to put up with'.
Originally posted by Trisagion:
Would that we got to select our Anglican interlocutors. Sadly we have to put up with those we are given.
quote:As a matter of fact, I rather resent this post. I have actually tried hard to be charitable: I specifically agreed with another poster who wished the new ordinands well in their new communion (and I wasn't being in the least sarcastic in doing so), and I have continually resisted the temptation to meet Trisagion's habitual sarcasm with sarcasm of my own. Should you feel inclined to offer an apology, I would of course accept it.
Originally posted by Anselmina:
Steve H and Trisagion. Trying hard to get a fag paper between the two attitudes. But. Not. quite. managing. it.
Both of your 'arguments' sound equally uncharitable, misanthropical and extreme. You may happen to be on different sides of an argument - but you seem to both be out of the same mould when it comes to make that argument
Good luck with that, gentlemen.
quote:Well presumably the Anglican Communion selects its representatives in official ecumenical dialogue on the basis that they are representative of the Anglican Communion, or have I missed something? Are they intended to be representative of something else?
Originally posted by Anselmina:
I didn't realize we were allowed to judge the whole of a denomination - or ecclesial community - of our fellow Christians on the examples of those we 'have to put up with'.
quote:I don't think it overextends the divorce metaphor to say that ideally both sides should be able to go their separate ways with the simple understanding that sometimes things cannot work out, but that's not how divorces works in real life. I am not saying SteveH's attitude it good, but he is an Anglican after all, and the acrimony has been going both ways in the Anglican Communion for a long while now.
I don't have a dog in the fight, Anselmina. I simply find it extraordinary the nastiness with which some express their valedictions to their former co-religionists and the refusal to allow the other the presumption of good faith.
quote:That's probably quite an accurate assessment. I would add that I am rather glad there is no official doctrine and no means of enforcing one.
Originally posted by ken:
quote:Sampling error. You unconsciously select the Anglicans who are going to tell you what you want to hear. Meanwhile the Lutherans are talking to a different lot of Anglicans who like Lutherans, the Methodists to someone else who thinks that Methodism is the model for the whole Church, the Independent Charismatics to still others. Inevitable result of a denomination with no official doctrine and no means of enforcing one if it had one
Originally posted by Trisagion:
... our almost universal experience of ecumenical dialogue with Anglicans is that they'll tell you what they think you want to hear ...
quote:No they haven't.
Originally posted by Steve H:
The rest of the Church of England has bent over backwards to make concessions to Forward in Faith, and all they've ever done is make more and more demands.
quote:Gosh! I keep agreeing with you today.
Originally posted by Trisagion:
quote:Well presumably the Anglican Communion selects its representatives in official ecumenical dialogue on the basis that they are representative of the Anglican Communion, or have I missed something? Are they intended to be representative of something else?
Originally posted by Anselmina:
I didn't realize we were allowed to judge the whole of a denomination - or ecclesial community - of our fellow Christians on the examples of those we 'have to put up with'.
quote:Could you sketch out for me, separated from the particulars of the Ordination of Women, how this theology of the development of doctrine works, and how authentic developments can be distinguished from corruptions?
Originally posted by Sooze:
I am very grateful for Steve H's posts, it's about time Anglicans stood up for the ordination of women as a positive change inspired by the Holy Spirit moving in the church. I have yet to hear a convincing account of what opponents think is happening to women who feel that they have been called by God to serve as priests. We have had our vocations tested by the church and many of us have been ministering successfully for years now. If this were not of God, how would we be doing it?
quote:The usual Anglican line, Sooze, is that only the Bible is infallible on matters of doctrine. The Anglican case gets terribly perilous if we stray beyond that.
Originally posted by Sooze:
Yes I can. You cannot undertake the work of a priest without the help of God. Women have been doing this work for some time now with no sign that God does not help them. What signs can you point to to show that this is not of the Holy Spirit?
quote:Sorry, Sooze, for these purposes, I have no interest in the question of whether the CofE should ordain women or not, neither do I have a view as to whether this development within the Anglican Communion is "of the Holy Spirit" or not. What I'm interested in is the development of doctrine per se, which is why I asked you to separate the matter from the particulars of the OoW and how you would distinguish authentic and corrupt developments.
Originally posted by Sooze:
Yes I can. You cannot undertake the work of a priest without the help of God. Women have been doing this work for some time now with no sign that God does not help them. What signs can you point to to show that this is not of the Holy Spirit?
quote:That'd be the Bible and it's divinely inspired and revealed table of contents, would it, Zach82?
Originally posted by Zach82:
The usual Anglican line, Sooze, is that only the Bible is infallible on matters of doctrine. The Anglican case gets terribly perilous if we stray beyond that.
quote:I am not sure what you are asking. Anglicans and Roman Catholics agree that the Bible is infallible. Roman Catholic theology has a system of interpreting those Scriptures infallibly and Anglicanism doesn't. I've hardly said anything that's controversial.
That'd be the Bible and it's divinely inspired and revealed table of contents, would it, Zach82?
quote:Revelation from God is the basis of Christian action. A Christian cannot, therefore, consign doctrine to irrelevance. There must be a scriptural case for the ordination of women if there is to be a Christian case for it.
Oh my days doctrine schmoctrine...
quote:I am terribly sorry, Sooze, that won't pass muster. Tomorrow, I too will go back to my extremely taxing and challenging job too but it is entirely irrelevant to the question at hand. If it weren't a Dead Horse, I'd suggest that you learn some history so that you could familiarise yourself with the gender characteristics of spiritual authority in the ancient world. Instead, how about you agree to answer the question you were asked, so that we can come to understand why your view of this matter should trump that of those who say that you are wrong. We could also agree to do it without dealing with an issue in which you are obviously and understandably invested. In the alternative, we could draw the conclusion that you don't have an answer other than " because it feels right to me".
Originally posted by Sooze:
Oh my days doctrine schmoctrine, I will just go back to my extremely taxing and challenging job as a prison chaplain tomorrow morning and get on with the work of the Gospel. I hold to the view that if I am saved by Christ even though he is male and I am female then my gender does not affect any doctrine of priesthood - a doctrine of humanity rather than gender. What is the justification for a doctrine of male priesthood apart from it arising from a secular convention of 2000 years ago which kept women uneducated and therefore incapable of spiritual authority?
quote:I was suggesting - lamely - that according such infallibility to the Bible without according, in logical priority, the same infallibility to the body that decided what was and what was not "the Bible", seemed problematic.
Originally posted by Zach82:
I am not sure what you are asking. Anglicans and Roman Catholics agree that the Bible is infallible. Roman Catholic theology has a system of interpreting those Scriptures infallibly and Anglicanism doesn't. I've hardly said anything that's controversial.
quote:Hooray!
Originally posted by Sooze:
I am very grateful for Steve H's posts, it's about time Anglicans stood up for the ordination of women as a positive change inspired by the Holy Spirit moving in the church. I have yet to hear a convincing account of what opponents think is happening to women who feel that they have been called by God to serve as priests. We have had our vocations tested by the church and many of us have been ministering successfully for years now. If this were not of God, how would we be doing it?
quote:No, we don't. I'm an Anglican, and I certainly don't regard the Bible as infallible. There are whole sections of it that are thoroughly wicked.
Originally posted by Zach82:
Anglicans and Roman Catholics agree that the Bible is infallible.
quote:Perhaps. There is a certain point where Scripture and tradition are essentially the same, and at this point faith in Jesus demands faith in Jesus' Church. Calling the Holy Scriptures infallible, in my personal case, is to make the Apostles' experience of the risen Christ the basis of all Christian life.
I was suggesting - lamely - that according such infallibility to the Bible without according, in logical priority, the same infallibility to the body that decided what was and what was not "the Bible", seemed problematic.
quote:So that's a no then.
Originally posted by Sooze:
It is not because 'it feels right to me'. I have submitted my perception of calling to the discernment of the church and undergone the fairly rigorous process of having my vocation tested. The passages of Scrpiture which give me most confidence in taking on priestly authority are those in which Jesus encourages women to preach, anoint and learn; the woman with the issue of blood, the women who anointed Jesus and Mary of Bethany. Jesus did not ordain anyone priest, male or female, but he went out of his way to encourage them.
quote:I suggest you do some study of the methods of scriptural exegesis and how the Bible is used in Christian theology. Christian theology does not, for example, generally propose that God goes about making bets with the devil no matter what the book of Job might say.
Originally posted by Steve H:
No, we don't. I'm an Anglican, and I certainly don't regard the Bible as infallible. There are whole sections of it that are thoroughly wicked.
quote:Wow, I think you just got your metaphorical dick out and demanded a weigh in. With a woman.
My academic work is concerned with the development of doctrine and I had hoped you might have something to say to that broader question.
quote:Oh shit. What a berk. I am, nevertheless, really interested in the answer.
Originally posted by Pyx_e:
Wow, I think you just got your metaphorical dick out and demanded a weigh in. With a woman.
AtB, Pyx_e
quote:As would I, as a champion of wooly thinking I think the force is strong in this one, come Sooze speak with us. This is not the doctrine we are looking for?
Originally posted by Trisagion:
quote:Oh shit. What a berk. I am, nevertheless, really interested in the answer.
Originally posted by Pyx_e:
Wow, I think you just got your metaphorical dick out and demanded a weigh in. With a woman.
AtB, Pyx_e
quote:Jebus, it's catching.
As a theologian myself....
quote:It's a cute sentiment, but surely you will grant that knowledge of scripture and the ability to discern its propositions intellectually counts for something. Otherwise the Christian faith is left with nothing but feelings.
A theologian is one who prays...
quote:That is obviously true. What seems obviously false, to me, is that prayer is sufficient to participate in theological debate without according understanding of Scripture and doctrine. That's the upshot of Pyx's objection.
I'd say they only find their proper context in a life of prayer. I think it's rather more than a cute notion and I'd say it's foundational to theological methodology.
quote:The Church of England wasn't making concessions to them: it was making arrangements to respect their conscientious adherence to the understanding of Holy Orders that had been the Church of England's doctrine for the four hundred and sixty years of its existence, in continuity with the doctrine held by the Catholic and Orthodox churches for two thousand. When these men were ordained the CofE didn't ordain women. ....
Originally posted by Trisagion:
quote:I gather that it likely, but not necessarily, meanhs that the RC authorities are still processing the files. In times past, this could take a few years, but their dossiers are (by Vatican standards) being fast-tracked. I imagine that it is possible that for a few of them, the close examination may find problems but my contacts tell me that unlikely cases are usually weeded out at an earlier stage (usually to do with complicated marital situations). I am also told that a few will have to take a further year of make-up studies, depending on the rigour of their Anglican training.
Originally posted by Aggie:
Going back to the opening post, there are a couple of candidates named on the list who have not been ordained, instead their ordination has been "deferred". Does this mean that it will take place at a later date, or is this "deferment" a polite way of saying "thanks but no thanks, we've changed our minds, we don't think you are suitable for the priesthood" ?
quote:Well, there you are, then - my point exactly!
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:I suggest you do some study of the methods of scriptural exegesis and how the Bible is used in Christian theology. Christian theology does not, for example, generally propose that God goes about making bets with the devil no matter what the book of Job might say.
Originally posted by Steve H:
No, we don't. I'm an Anglican, and I certainly don't regard the Bible as infallible. There are whole sections of it that are thoroughly wicked.
quote:...but most people who pray are not theologians, so that definition is about as useful as defining 'animal' as 'cat'.
Originally posted by seasick:
A theologian is one who prays...
quote:True but hardly the point. We are not talking about a change in the Catholic view of Anglican Orders but the change in the self-understanding of the Anglican doctrine of orders. As Honest Ron Bacardi said up thread, it used to be said that the CofE had no doctrine of its own distinct from that of the "church catholic". Leaving aside what that arch expression means, it can hardly argue that in ordaining women that it doesn't have a distinct doctrine of Orders, distinct that it from the most likely candidates for the rest of the church catholic.
Originally posted by Enoch:
However, if one looks at RC polemic against the CofE in earlier centuries, certainly including Apostolicae Curae, it is quite clear that to those on the Roman side of the argument, the CofE's understanding of Holy Orders is not the same as theirs, for reasons that have nothing to do with whether women should be ordained, and which are not changed by that step.
quote:No.
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:That is obviously true. What seems obviously false, to me, is that prayer is sufficient to participate in theological debate without according understanding of Scripture and doctrine. That's the upshot of Pyx's objection.
I'd say they only find their proper context in a life of prayer. I think it's rather more than a cute notion and I'd say it's foundational to theological methodology.
quote:We Quakers have a method - but no priesthood. However, I mention this because I would have thought that the cofe would hold that the synod is subject to the inspiration of the holy spirit.
Originally posted by Trisagion:
quote:I am terribly sorry, Sooze, that won't pass muster. Tomorrow, I too will go back to my extremely taxing and challenging job too but it is entirely irrelevant to the question at hand. If it weren't a Dead Horse, I'd suggest that you learn some history so that you could familiarise yourself with the gender characteristics of spiritual authority in the ancient world. Instead, how about you agree to answer the question you were asked, so that we can come to understand why your view of this matter should trump that of those who say that you are wrong. We could also agree to do it without dealing with an issue in which you are obviously and understandably invested. In the alternative, we could draw the conclusion that you don't have an answer other than " because it feels right to me".
Originally posted by Sooze:
Oh my days doctrine schmoctrine, I will just go back to my extremely taxing and challenging job as a prison chaplain tomorrow morning and get on with the work of the Gospel. I hold to the view that if I am saved by Christ even though he is male and I am female then my gender does not affect any doctrine of priesthood - a doctrine of humanity rather than gender. What is the justification for a doctrine of male priesthood apart from it arising from a secular convention of 2000 years ago which kept women uneducated and therefore incapable of spiritual authority?
quote:Yes, it is the point.
Originally posted by Trisagion:
True but hardly the point. We are not talking about a change in the Catholic view of Anglican Orders but the change in the self-understanding of the Anglican doctrine of orders. As Honest Ron Bacardi said up thread, it used to be said that the CofE had no doctrine of its own distinct from that of the "church catholic". Leaving aside what that arch expression means, it can hardly argue that in ordaining women that it doesn't have a distinct doctrine of Orders, distinct that it from the most likely candidates for the rest of the church catholic.
quote:What's the difference from what I said you said? It's looking to be the difference between "Education counts for nothing" and "Education doesn't matter."
No.
The upshot of my objection is you astound me with the depth, width, humour, kindness and compassion of your theology.
Not tell me you are theologian first as some sort of unsubtle reminder that you have read more books than me or as if it adds something special to what you are about to tell me.
quote:Cute scare quotes, but so what? I'm not saying the educated are better people. I am saying they know more about the Christian tradition.
Half the "academics" and "theologians" I know are actively hiding from God in thier books.
Maybe we could have a theological thread on humility. Not that I need one, of course, but you I'm not so sure.
quote:For the four men concerned at this stage it's simply a matter of the necessary paperwork being signed off on by the relevant parties, e.g. the Pope signing the Dispensation from Celibacy. If there were any serious obstacle to ordination involved their names would never have appeared on the list to begin with.
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
quote:I gather that it likely, but not necessarily, meanhs that the RC authorities are still processing the files. In times past, this could take a few years, but their dossiers are (by Vatican standards) being fast-tracked. I imagine that it is possible that for a few of them, the close examination may find problems but my contacts tell me that unlikely cases are usually weeded out at an earlier stage (usually to do with complicated marital situations). I am also told that a few will have to take a further year of make-up studies, depending on the rigour of their Anglican training.
Originally posted by Aggie:
Going back to the opening post, there are a couple of candidates named on the list who have not been ordained, instead their ordination has been "deferred". Does this mean that it will take place at a later date, or is this "deferment" a polite way of saying "thanks but no thanks, we've changed our minds, we don't think you are suitable for the priesthood" ?
quote:Aggie, I'll do my bit to drag the thread back on track!
Originally posted by Aggie:
Going back to the opening post, there are a couple of candidates named on the list who have not been ordained, instead their ordination has been "deferred". Does this mean that it will take place at a later date, or is this "deferment" a polite way of saying "thanks but no thanks, we've changed our minds, we don't think you are suitable for the priesthood" ?
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
![[Axe murder]](graemlins/lovedrops.gif)
quote:Much longer ago than that. Maude Roydon started The Society for the Ministry of Women in 1929. See this.
Originally posted by Enoch:
Whether women can or should be ordained has only become an issue in the last sixty or so years. Before then, it wasn't because almost nobody had thought of doing so.
quote:I am hesitant to speak for Enoch, who is a big boy and can likely answer for himself, but it might be that he was only thinking of OWP in the context of the churches which focus on the three-fold apostolic ministry in the catholic tradition. From this viewpoint, it might be that ordination in the free churches is not on the same page as in the CoE/RCC. I know that, in the Canadian debate on OWP, almost no reference was made by anybody to the (then) half-century-old experience of women ministers in the United Church.
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
Enoch
You know so little about women's ordination that it is laughable. First woman ordained* in the Free Churches in England was 1914 (although the Unitarians got there quicker in 1904). I do not suppose these suddenly appeared without campaigns somehow.
Jengie
* I am aware of something in the Early days of Methodism whether women evangelists, preachers or ministers I am not sure. It did not become part of normative Methodist practice then.
quote:The Quakers had women ministers from the start though their definition of minister was somewhat different. Margaret Fell wrote "Women's Speaking Justified" in 1666 as defense of women speaking in public. Elizabeth Fry was a recorded minister.
Originally posted by Steve H:
The Sally Army has had female officers from the start.
quote:Gawd I hope Anglicans give a thought to whether their actions are consistent with the Christian Faith before acting.
Maybe Anglicans are not so quick to define doctrine or to be concerned about how doctrine is developed...
quote:This is very true, and is one of many reasons why I'm a great admirer of both Quakers and Sallys, and have, at different times, worshipped with both.
Originally posted by Net Spinster:
quote:The Quakers had women ministers from the start though their definition of minister was somewhat different. Margaret Fell wrote "Women's Speaking Justified" in 1666 as defense of women speaking in public. Elizabeth Fry was a recorded minister.
Originally posted by Steve H:
The Sally Army has had female officers from the start.
quote:Hepworth was already told some time ago that he can only return to the Catholic Church as a layman.
Originally posted by Gee D:
The ACC of Australia is a tiny body. There is a congregation in the far NW of Victoria, with about 40 or so members. Near to us, an even smaller group meets in a chapel in a nursing home; my understanding is that the priest has a lay occupation as well. I don't know of any others.
The TAC is a bit larger, principally because a tragic split in the Anglican Diocese in Northern Queensland led to the establishment of the Church of the Torres Strait. The ACC of Aust comes under the general umbrella of the TAC. The previous Archbishop of the TAC, ++John Hepworth, has had an "interesting" matrimonial career, one which would not appeal to any Vatican official, and one which would make it extremely unlikely that he would be appointed ordinary. The TAC rejected ++John's moves to make it the basis of any Australian Ordinariate.
I suspect that apart from the Church of the Torres Strait, the numbers joining the ordinariate will be very small indeed, making no difference to the Anglican Church of Australia, or the Roman Catholic Church here.
quote:More likely because someone in an office somewhere south of a river failed to get some forms in the post to someone in an office somewhere abroad - according to the gossip, that is.
Originally posted by Aggie:
Going back to the opening post, there are a couple of candidates named on the list who have not been ordained, instead their ordination has been "deferred". Does this mean that it will take place at a later date, or is this "deferment" a polite way of saying "thanks but no thanks, we've changed our minds, we don't think you are suitable for the priesthood" ?
quote:Can we all have one? A truly personal Ordinariate.
Originally posted by CL:
The Church of the Torres Strait has requested a seperate Ordinariate, though it's too soon to say at this point whether this request will be granted as there are several practical problems to be overcome.
quote:
Originally posted by Fifi:
quote:More likely because someone in an office somewhere south of a river failed to get some forms in the post to someone in an office somewhere abroad - according to the gossip, that is.
Originally posted by Aggie:
Going back to the opening post, there are a couple of candidates named on the list who have not been ordained, instead their ordination has been "deferred". Does this mean that it will take place at a later date, or is this "deferment" a polite way of saying "thanks but no thanks, we've changed our minds, we don't think you are suitable for the priesthood" ?
quote:Assuming you mean Croydon, it will not be too much of a stretch, I would imagine, for assistance from London (South), London (Central) or Beckenham in the intervening period.
Originally posted by Aggie:
quote:
Originally posted by Fifi:
quote:More likely because someone in an office somewhere south of a river failed to get some forms in the post to someone in an office somewhere abroad - according to the gossip, that is.
Originally posted by Aggie:
Going back to the opening post, there are a couple of candidates named on the list who have not been ordained, instead their ordination has been "deferred". Does this mean that it will take place at a later date, or is this "deferment" a polite way of saying "thanks but no thanks, we've changed our minds, we don't think you are suitable for the priesthood" ?
Nevertheless, this leaves one of the Ordinariate groups without a priest.
quote:I gather that there is a complicated history about this, from when the Diocese of Carpentaria was incorporated into the Diocese of Northern Queensland in 1996. The Torres Straits people (I gather half the Anglican population in Carpentaria), perhaps marginalized by the merger, objected to the nominee for the suffragan bishop for them. As I understand it, the Bishop of Northern Queensland held to his nominee, and the Straits Islanders then attached themselves to TAC. They might have the most solid claim to a separate jurisdiction of all of the Anglican groups crossing to Rome but, given their LMS origins, it would be an interesting case to make.
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:Can we all have one? A truly personal Ordinariate.
Originally posted by CL:
The Church of the Torres Strait has requested a seperate Ordinariate, though it's too soon to say at this point whether this request will be granted as there are several practical problems to be overcome.
quote:What? All 10 of them!
Also it is rumoured, though I have no idea of the veracity of the rumour, that FiF Australia will be decamping en masse to the Australian Ordinariate.
quote:I think your first sentence is rather unfair on those involved in setting up the Church of Torres Strait. A bit of give and take on both sides; use of different language, again on both sides; some understanding by all that "the others" came from a different background; a bit of lateral thinking, and a result satisfactory all around would probably have been reached.
Originally posted by Steve H:
As in England, so in Australia, apparently: it's all take and no give with these people. I remember reading what an English FiFer who was thinking of crossing over to Rome was reported as saying: something along the lines of "Well, we've got all the concessions we're likely to get out of the Anglicans; let's see what Rome can offer". Very Christian.
quote:Steve, while I am sympathetic to some of where you are coming from I think you need to link to that quote or retract it. It does not help when any of what we might have read/heard.
Originally posted by Steve H:
As in England, so in Australia, apparently: it's all take and no give with these people. I remember reading what an English FiFer who was thinking of crossing over to Rome was reported as saying: something along the lines of "Well, we've got all the concessions we're likely to get out of the Anglicans; let's see what Rome can offer". Very Christian.
quote:I think that is an overly optimistic view. There were deeply, deeply profound differences both theologically and liturgically between the Islanders and the diocese. I think this is emphasised by something an Australian Catholic blogger once posted elsewhere a couple of years ago:
Originally posted by Gee D:
quote:I think your first sentence is rather unfair on those involved in setting up the Church of Torres Strait. A bit of give and take on both sides; use of different language, again on both sides; some understanding by all that "the others" came from a different background; a bit of lateral thinking, and a result satisfactory all around would probably have been reached.
Originally posted by Steve H:
As in England, so in Australia, apparently: it's all take and no give with these people. I remember reading what an English FiFer who was thinking of crossing over to Rome was reported as saying: something along the lines of "Well, we've got all the concessions we're likely to get out of the Anglicans; let's see what Rome can offer". Very Christian.
quote:
A nice anecdote: a Catholic bishop told me, as soon as the Torres Strait Islanders broke with the Anglican establishment a little over a decade ago, what did they do? They pushed all the altars back against the wall, and got out their old English Missals!
quote:That is not how either the Anglican Church of Australia or the Church of Torres Strait sees it. Nor is the opinion of such historians as Bruce Kaye.
[B]There were deeply, deeply profound differences both theologically and liturgically between the Islanders and the diocese. /B]
quote:Well, I'd love to link, but it's impossible. It was something I heard on the radio a while back. I didn't name the person, but I will retract the phrase "FiFer", because I can't be sure of that, though it was certainly an ultra-high anglican who objected to women's ordination.
Originally posted by Pyx_e:
quote:Steve, while I am sympathetic to some of where you are coming from I think you need to link to that quote or retract it. It does not help when any of what we might have read/heard.
Originally posted by Steve H:
As in England, so in Australia, apparently: it's all take and no give with these people. I remember reading what an English FiFer who was thinking of crossing over to Rome was reported as saying: something along the lines of "Well, we've got all the concessions we're likely to get out of the Anglicans; let's see what Rome can offer". Very Christian.
AtB, Pyx_e
quote:Why on earth should I apologise?
Originally posted by Steve H:
quote:As a matter of fact, I rather resent this post. I have actually tried hard to be charitable: I specifically agreed with another poster who wished the new ordinands well in their new communion (and I wasn't being in the least sarcastic in doing so), and I have continually resisted the temptation to meet Trisagion's habitual sarcasm with sarcasm of my own. Should you feel inclined to offer an apology, I would of course accept it.
Originally posted by Anselmina:
Steve H and Trisagion. Trying hard to get a fag paper between the two attitudes. But. Not. quite. managing. it.
Both of your 'arguments' sound equally uncharitable, misanthropical and extreme. You may happen to be on different sides of an argument - but you seem to both be out of the same mould when it comes to make that argument
Good luck with that, gentlemen.
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
And why are you banging on about 'sarcasm'? I've given my opinion that some of your opinions have been uncharitable and extreme. You rubbished my notion that some of these people have acted with integrity of conscience and that the work they have faithfully done for the Anglican Church is something to be thankful for. quote:I know that this is quite a tangent from the OP, but if you could give me a few links -- I have seen the Church of Torres Straits site -- so that I could understand more of this quite singular situation. There are few schisms in Commonwealth Anglicanism (aside from the REC on Vancouver Island and CESA in South Africa), and this seems to be the only one with a culturally-distinct majority. I would suspect that, as with most of such situations, there's a lot of blame to go around, but I would like to see the details of other perspectives on this.
Originally posted by Gee D:
From CL:
quote:That is not how either the Anglican Church of Australia or the Church of Torres Strait sees it. Nor is the opinion of such historians as Bruce Kaye.
[B]There were deeply, deeply profound differences both theologically and liturgically between the Islanders and the diocese. /B]
I don't know who your Catholic Bishop is. The quote does not represent what happened in the Torres Strait parishes.
quote:I was simply pointing out an implied factual error. I'm not in the least bit bothered - I was brought up a Methodist, and have been an Anglican since the late 70s. I love both traditions, and don't care tuppence whether or not they ever formally re-unite. I'm with Colin Morris, who, in 'Include me Out', a little book which had a big influence on me 40 or more years ago, pointed out that one shilling is worth no more than two sixpences (and that tells you how old the book is - pre-decimalisation).
Originally posted by Zach82:
Steve, it's a done deal. Let it go.
quote:Thanks. I'll keep my eyes open for the books-- there are some second-hand bookshops on Vancouver Island and Saltspring where such treasures might reasonably be expected to appear.
Originally posted by Gee D:
Augustine the Aleut, I don’t know of any simple links. Books to look for include Bruce Kaye, A Church Without Walls and John Davis, Australian Anglicans and their Constitution.
You’re right to draw attention to the culturally distinct nature of this breakaway group. In that lies confirmation of the cause, where this group felt deeply offended by the rejection of their preferred appointee, and then what they considered an unthinkingly dismissive response to the approach they made to the Metropolitan. I’m not saying that they were right (or wrong) in this, but that it was their perception.
You may have gathered that Madame and I have great respect for the people of these Islands, and are saddened that they felt unable to remain in the Anglican Church.
I'm not so sure about your friend's comparison between this breakaway and that of the Methodists. I can't see any resemblance between those leaving now and the Wesleys; The Wesleys were major national figures and gave the impetus for a strongly based national movement.
quote:
The Episcopal Church:
June 2: Matthew Venuti (St Gregory the Great Mobile AL)
June 3: Jon Chalmers (St Anselm’s Greenville SC)
June 9: Jason Catania (Mount Calvary Baltimore MD)
June 9: Anthony Vidal (Mount Calvary Baltimore MD)
June 9: David Reamsnyder (Mount Calvary Baltimore MD)
June 23: Mark Lewis (St Luke Bladensburg MD)
June 23: Richard Kramer (St Thomas of Canterbury Washington DC)
Anglican Church in North-America:
June 30: Charles Hough III (St John Vianney Cleburne TX)
June 30: Charles Hough IV (Our Lady of Walsingham Houston TX)
June 30: Timothy Perkins (St Peter the Rock Arlington TX)
June 30: Joshua Whitfield
June 30: Mark Cannaday
June 30: Christopher Stainbrook (St Timothy Fort Worth TX)
Anglican Church in America:
July 3: Andrew Bartus (Blessed JH Newman Orange CA)
July 8: Jonathin Chori Seraiah (St Aidan Des Moines IA)
June 16: Nicholas Marziani (St James Green Cove Spring FL)
Lowell Andrews (Holy Nativity Payson AZ)
David Ousley (St Michael the Archangel Philadelphia PA)
Charismatic Episcopal Church:
June 23: Randolph Sly (St Gregory the Great Annandale VA)
quote:I know a few (but not all, younger) clergy who have made terrific sacrifices to join the Ordinariate (luckily most of their wives bring in a good sum). But (and it’s a big but) most are retired, pensioned and more Roman that most Romans.
To make the move requires a lot of sacrifice for clergy
quote:Bully for the Rev. Mr. Hunwicke, but if he's to be "priested" on the 27th, he can't already be the Rev. Mr Hunwicke, can he?
Originally posted by CL:
The Rev. Mr. Hunwicke will be priested on June 27th at the Oxford Oratory.
quote:In recent years, this has become the usage for deacons in the RCC, so it would be the accepted way to address an RC deacon. It was once (before mid-Victorian times) the way to address secular or diocesan priests in the English RCC, but that gave way to the now universal Revd Fr.
Originally posted by Steve H:
quote:Bully for the Rev. Mr. Hunwicke, but if he's to be "priested" on the 27th, he can't already be the Rev. Mr Hunwicke, can he?
Originally posted by CL:
The Rev. Mr. Hunwicke will be priested on June 27th at the Oxford Oratory.
quote:I think that is Anglican and RC use.
Originally posted by Steve H:
quote:Bully for the Rev. Mr. Hunwicke, but if he's to be "priested" on the 27th, he can't already be the Rev. Mr Hunwicke, can he?
Originally posted by CL:
The Rev. Mr. Hunwicke will be priested on June 27th at the Oxford Oratory.
quote:Reverend refers to anyone in Holy Orders, which John Hunwicke has been since last Saturday.
Originally posted by Steve H:
quote:Bully for the Rev. Mr. Hunwicke, but if he's to be "priested" on the 27th, he can't already be the Rev. Mr Hunwicke, can he?
Originally posted by CL:
The Rev. Mr. Hunwicke will be priested on June 27th at the Oxford Oratory.
quote:How would we know? If someone turns up at church we don't demand the history of their previous religious affiliations.
Originally posted by Fr Raphael:
I often think it is a shame that the Anglican church does not give statistics of RCs - especially RC clergy - who become Anglicans.
quote:In Canada, bishops have lists of clerics from other churches who are received and licensed (and ordained de novo if need be). I suppose that the stats could be collected if somebody wanted to gather them together.
Originally posted by ken:
quote:How would we know? If someone turns up at church we don't demand the history of their previous religious affiliations.
Originally posted by Fr Raphael:
I often think it is a shame that the Anglican church does not give statistics of RCs - especially RC clergy - who become Anglicans.
quote:I hope he does. it is more reliable than most 'official' ones - though it won't be as much fun (I think one of the reasons why his [re]ordination was held back was some of his opinions on his blog - though I'd be delighted to be told I am wrong)
Originally posted by Fr Raphael:
quote:I think that is Anglican and RC use.
Originally posted by Steve H:
quote:Bully for the Rev. Mr. Hunwicke, but if he's to be "priested" on the 27th, he can't already be the Rev. Mr Hunwicke, can he?
Originally posted by CL:
The Rev. Mr. Hunwicke will be priested on June 27th at the Oxford Oratory.
I wonder if Mr Hunwicke will be continuing with his rather fun and opinionated Ordo?
Maybe the Ordinariate priests and someAnglo Catholics would share it - an interesting ecumenical cooperation!
quote:Received is one thing, but I imagine there is a lot of flow in and out which would never be recorded. My father would be one instance - he was never 'received' into the C of E - he just started going after I did. In official terms, he is still an RC, as that was how he was baptised and confirmed, but most people wouldn't be aware of the fact or if they were they wouldn't care!
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
quote:In Canada, bishops have lists of clerics from other churches who are received and licensed (and ordained de novo if need be). I suppose that the stats could be collected if somebody wanted to gather them together.
Originally posted by ken:
quote:How would we know? If someone turns up at church we don't demand the history of their previous religious affiliations.
Originally posted by Fr Raphael:
I often think it is a shame that the Anglican church does not give statistics of RCs - especially RC clergy - who become Anglicans.
quote:It was if that's where your ecumenical interest lies. I would prefer to have seen a higher profile for the Anglican-Orthodox dialogues.
Originally posted by leo:
ARCIC was our great hope.....
quote:The subject of my Master's thesis! o be still, my beating heart!!
Originally posted by +Chad:
quote:It was if that's where your ecumenical interest lies. I would prefer to have seen a higher profile for the Anglican-Orthodox dialogues.
Originally posted by leo:
ARCIC was our great hope.....
quote:You want to be the only funny person?
Originally posted by Pyx_e:
Beat the funny out of them I say.
AtB, Pyx_e
quote:Yes. I know someone who does that.
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
On Fridays, they all (about 6 of them all told) attend the morning Eucharist at a nearby Anglican Church, all receiving Communion AFAIK. I guess it's between them and God, but ISTM that they are all being rather disobedient of the rules of the RCC. I wonder if this confusion (if that's the right term) exists elsewhere?
quote:I'd like to see that too.
Originally posted by +Chad:
quote:It was if that's where your ecumenical interest lies. I would prefer to have seen a higher profile for the Anglican-Orthodox dialogues.
Originally posted by leo:
ARCIC was our great hope.....
quote:I want to stay in the C of E where my rapier like wit is appreciated by my superiors.
Originally posted by leo:
quote:You want to be the only funny person?
Originally posted by Pyx_e:
Beat the funny out of them I say.
AtB, Pyx_e
