Ship of Fools: Can the CofE dig itself out of its hole over the OoW?

Thread: Can the CofE dig itself out of its hole over the OoW? Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=028562

Posted by Ender's Shadow (# 2272) on :

On one side we have those who argue passionately that of course we should treat women with equality, and any resistance to it is wrong.

On the other we have those, who for various reasons object.

And sitting in the middle of the battlefield is the promise made at the time of the vote for the ordination of women as priests that there would be a continuing place of honour for the opponents within the CofE. Period. No conditions. No time limit.

I think it is blindingly obvious in retrospect - such is the joy of 20/20 hindsight - that no such promise should have been made. Some way to enable this promise to be scrapped should have been provided. Because the problem was that the vote passed ON THAT BASIS. And so an implicit contract was made between the institution of the CofE and the opponents of women's ordination that they would not be forced out.

But now they need to be forced out if the consecration of women is to be meaningful. The opponents rightly IMHO argue that they have a promise that they don't have to serve in the presbyterate of a person whose orders they don't recognise. Therefore if they are a priest in the diocese of Barchester and the new diocesan bishop is a woman, what are they supposed to do? Logically they have an absolute right to object to her enthronement...

Of course this is only an issue for a small minority. But it goes to the heart of whether we can ever take a bishop's word seriously when he makes a promise, or whether we should treat their promises as worthwhile as those of (secular) politicians - not to be taken too seriously.

So - what's the way out? I really don't have a clue. All I'm certain of is that we are faced with a mess. Of course the people who were foolish enough to make these promises have long since left the scene - always a good option. Of course I'm well aware of the parliamentary doctrine that no parliament can bind a subsequent one, but even there in practice governments do stick to agreements made with third parties even if they disapprove (that's why the UK will briefly have a second, completely useless, aircraft carrier - we couldn't renege on the deal with the shipyards). And as far as I can see the suggestion: 'You should have realised you were being taken for a ride' is an invitation for noone ever to trust a bishop again. Which may be wise, but probably isn't helpful...

Posted by Think² (# 1984) on :

Perhaps a right to ask for a transfer to a different diocese ?

But the church will need to stop ordaining people with these views.

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

It's very simple; they follow what the Canadian bishops did in 1982. Renounce their promises and cease to ordain those who do not accept OWP. In the CoE, of course, they will have to have the relevant measure approved by Parliament. And it would raise some question over the worth of the bishops' commitments over the course of time.

Posted by Louise (# 30) on :

Our open Dead Horse thread might interest you.
L.

Posted by Ender's Shadow (# 2272) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
Our open Dead Horse thread might interest you.
L.

Can't see a reference to this issue on the last page of the thread.

The issue is, I believe, a precise one with far wider implications than just the core issue of OoW; actually it's the same issue as the LibDems have hit over student fees - when is a promise not a promise? If the answer is 'When it's said by a CofE bishop', then we have a problem. The very fact that the question 'How do you tell when a politician is lying' usually generates the answer 'When you see his lips moving' - proves that it is a problem endemic in our wider society, and if church leaders can't model doing better, what hope is there for the rest of us? You see, I'm just a naive idiot believing that people can sometimes be trusted [Waterworks]

Posted by pjkirk (# 10997) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
You see, I'm just a naive idiot believing that people can sometimes be trusted

There, there....
The first step is to admit you have a problem.

Posted by Think² (# 1984) on :

I think the issue rests quite heavily on whether the promise was made in terms of - you who are here now and believe this, we will look after you and ensure your needs are met. In which case the right to transfer to a different diocese would probably cover the issue. Or whether this was a promise to keep this strain of theology going in the church ad infinitum. Does anybody know what was actually agreed ?

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

It seems very odd to me that people who seek to exclude half the population are seeking allowances.

I honestly don't understand this position.

Posted by Ender's Shadow (# 2272) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
It seems very odd to me that people who seek to exclude half the population are seeking allowances.

I honestly don't understand this position.

This isn't the issue - the issue is that specific undertakings were made in a desperate attempt, which proved successful, to get the legislation through on that occasion. You appear to be saying that promises made when it is necessary can be trumped by ideology when they prove inconvenient. Such is the logic of moral expediency, and outside the context of a hostage negotiation - and even there it's iffy - I would argue that it's the road to total distrust.

Moral absolutism? Indeed. But the alternative is?

Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
... The issue is, I believe, a precise one with far wider implications than just the core issue of OoW; actually it's the same issue as the LibDems have hit over student fees - when is a promise not a promise? If the answer is 'When it's said by a CofE bishop', then we have a problem. The very fact that the question 'How do you tell when a politician is lying' usually generates the answer 'When you see his lips moving' - proves that it is a problem endemic in our wider society, and if church leaders can't model doing better, what hope is there for the rest of us? You see, I'm just a naive idiot believing that people can sometimes be trusted

My general policy in the CofE is to love my brothers and sisters in Christ; to obey my bishop in all things right and lawful; and to wear a knife-proof pad between my shoulder-blades.

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

Surely the result is that each objector is left to decide for himself what, in all conscience, to do. Rather than have only one option which all follow. Already, some have gone to Rome, others have actually changed their minds on the issue, while others have sought to move to a more male orientated Diocese. I guess there are other options, too - why should it be necessary to find a way which suits everyone?

Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Think²:
But the church will need to stop ordaining people with these views.

That is in itself a betrayal of the CofE's commitment, which was (IIRC) to treat those opposed to OOW as just as much loyal Anglicans as those who support it. Saying that a person's (ostensibly acceptable) views render them ineligible to fulfil a vocation to ministry does not honour that commitment. Also, it seems bizarre that the church should on the one hand declare that it will ordain women (where there is on any view a theological argument to be had to justify what is certainly an innovation) but on the other hand say that it will not ordain people whose only impediment is that they agree with what is still the majority Christian position (for which there is no thelogical argument whatever).

And it's not just about priests. There are plenty of lay people who are sceptical about women's orders, and the church has a pastoral responsibility to them. Specifically, we ought to provide them with access to sacraments, the validity of which they need have no scruples about. That means having priests and bishops who will at the very least commit themselves to minister as if the anti-OOW position were correct.

I'm pro-OOW myself, but that's not the issue here. The issue is that promises ought to be kept.

Posted by sanityman (# 11598) on :

quote:
originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
I think it is blindingly obvious in retrospect - such is the joy of 20/20 hindsight - that no such promise should have been made.

This.

But, lacking a time machine, ceasing to ordain seems like the only option, coupled with a provision for oversight for those who can't accept it (call me ill-informed, but I thought we had such an arrangement in the flying bishops?). In the long run you can't keep two incompatible brands of ecclesial polity running.

ES is right - the whole thing smacks of the worst bits of secular politics or business, where the only important thing is getting your way and what you say is just a means to that end. Ultimately, what was at best an attempt to mitigate the pain will end up causing more pain further down the road.

A good question though, and far from hypothetical: is there a better way of dealing with a potentially church-splitting issue such as this? Ultimately, is it more important for one side to decisively "win" so that the church (or whatever remains of it) can move forward?What should the pro/anti OoW people and the CofE management have done differently? Being more honest and losing the vote wouldn't have made the issue go away by any means...

- Chris.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

Yes - they should have been more clear and honest at the start, and they should now apologise for that. I agree.

But, as CK said, those who find themselves unhappy now need to decide how big an issue it actually is for them and act accordingly.

Maybe substituting 'black' for 'woman' in their thinking and writing would help them to see that just as exculding black people would be racist, excluding women would be sexist.

Imagine refusing woman doctors the right to practise?

There's a great children's book called 'Bill's New Frock' in which Bill wakes up one morning and he's a girl. The differences in the way he's treated astound him.

I wish, for all anti OWW people, a few days in Bill's frock.

(I know some women are anti OWW - I suppoae some were anti votes for women too [Roll Eyes]

)

Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :

I think part of the issue is that the CofE is still a reformed church and as such doesn't have concepts of church polity that are set in stone because of the nature of how diocesan synods and general synod works. When people are ordained in the church they are aware of how the system works. Similarly those who are members of the church also know how it works. There is an element of democracy about it and the voice of the people must be listened to as it might be a movement of the Holy Spirit. On the other hand it may leave some people out in the cold, which is sad, but nobody went into it blind either.

Personally I think the CofE made a mistake in passing the initial stage. It would have been better to have delayed it and let people mull it over, discuss it, pray about it, rather than producing the mess that exists today.

Posted by seasick (# 48) on :

It seems to me that there is a broader problem of how doctrine is discerned/decided in the CofE. For example, for Catholics they look to Rome and the Magisterium sets out the teaching of the church. Methodists look to the Conference: I can disagree all I like with something the Conference says but at the end of the day I have to acknowledge that that is the Methodist position on the subject. If it's to the extent that I could no longer in good conscience be Methodist then I would have to consider my position as a minister (and indeed as a member). It seems to me that the Church of England wants to have it both ways with the General Synod: it will decide on issues for Anglicans in England, but if you don't like that, never mind.

Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Yes - they should have been more clear and honest at the start, and they should now apologise for that. I agree.

Why assume that the promise of inclusion wasn't both clear and honest? It seemed pretty clear at the time that we were committing to continued inclusion of both view-points. I see no evidence that anyone said that dishonestly.

Since it's a promise which was relied on, and that it would not be immoral to keep, it should be kept. Simple as.

quote:
Maybe substituting 'black' for 'woman' in their thinking and writing would help them to see that just as exculding black people would be racist, excluding women would be sexist.

So having said, in effect, "We promise to treat you with respect, and not just as awkward bigots", the Church should now say "Off you fuck - we aren't keeping that promise because you're just a bunch of awkward bigots"?

Isn't that plainly disgraceful behaviour - whatever you think of OOW?

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

I'm not sure it is a hole. The majority - probably the vast majority - of the CofE can live with ordained women (& not just for the reasons that ES suggested but that's the Dead Horse). Most of them are trying very hard to behave decently to those who do not accept the ordination of women.

I don't regret that at all. Synod actually tried to be more accepting and more generous to the opponents of the majority view than similar bodies in many other Protestant denominations were.

Now we're getting a head-to-head clash between two apparently irreconcilable groups. On the one hand that minority of a minority who are so opposed to ordained women that they find having anything to do with them at all taints the validity of an ordained man's sacraments. Some of them are going to go to Rome. Some of them will overcome their scruples and persuade themselves to stay. But, to be crudely honest, those scruples are their problem, not the majority's. And I strongly suspect that there will be some ongoing separate provision in practice.

On the other hand another minority, I've no idea how big, that does think women should be ordained for, basically, ethical reasons; and wants the opponents, who they see as immoral and oppressive, to either give in or go. A couple of years ago it looked as if they might get their way, now it doesn't seem so clear. And as far as I know the equivalent party did get their way in nearly every other large Protestant group.

But no, I don't think this is a hole for the CofE in general. Most of us accept the ordination of women. Most of us don't want to expel anybody. If either of those two minorities can't live with that its not our fault. Even if the usual voices will be whinging about the Archbishop of Canterbury in the papers.

Posted by Ender's Shadow (# 2272) on :

Chewing away at this, I think there are only two morally right options:

1) Following a public apology for having to withdraw the promise, the priests (including all accepted for ordination) with this view are offered a guarantee of salary and housing equivalent to that which they have at the moment for life. They would be asked nicely to seek other employment to enable the church not to have to cough up, but no pressure. Where this gets stickier still is in terms of capital projects financed by giving from within that constituency; logically the subscribers should be repaid on demand.

2) The establishment of a parallel Anglican province in England with a wholly separate episcopate, in as full communion with Canterbury as the similar opposed provinces of Anglican communion achieve at present.

1 would be seriously expensive, but hopefully not horrendously so. 2 is deeply controversial, but in the real world, where a new denomination is born every 5 seconds (or so it seems), is probably the best solution really.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
I'm pro-OOW myself, but that's not the issue here. The issue is that promises ought to be kept.

Me too.

‘…there are no time limits…in the [1993 Priests: Ordination of Women Measure]…and we see that the safeguards will be there and in perpetuity or for as long as they are required.’ [Professor McClean answering questions before the Ecclesiastical Committee of Parliament, 1993]

‘…those who dissent from, as well as those who assent to the ordination of women to the priesthood and episcopate are both loyal Anglicans.’ [Resolution III.2 of the Lambeth Conference 1998; re-affirmed by the General Synod, 10th July 2006]

Bonds of Peace, the supporting document to the Act, says this: Those who for a variety of reasons cannot conscientiously accept that women may be ordained priests will continue to hold a legitimate and recognised position within the Church of England. There should be no marginalisation of anyone on the basis of their attitude towards the ordination of women to the priesthood. Nor should those who cannot accept the ordination of women seek to marginalise themselves by withdrawing from the life and government of the Church except in those matters where conscientious convictions are directly at stake.

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

The promise should be kept. A parallel province is the only way to keep the promise to those opposing the ordination of women and to women seeking ordination. General Synod should have realized that at the time. Pragmatism is usually lost in debates around the Dead Horse issues.

Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
On one side we have those who argue passionately that of course we should treat women with equality, and any resistance to it is wrong.

On the other we have those, who for various reasons object.

And sitting in the middle of the battlefield is the promise made at the time of the vote for the ordination of women as priests that there would be a continuing place of honour for the opponents within the CofE. Period. No conditions. No time limit.

Also sitting in the middle of the battlefield are the women who waited until the Church - apparently - said 'yes, we do think God is calling you and does want to use your priestly ministry within the CofE' and who using the correct channels of authority and validation entered into ordained ministry.

And yet while taking this step, still having
to also live with the 'but your ministry is only provisional' argument from certain of their colleagues.

I'm afraid the 'yes/and' nature of the original provision certainly was destined to make things very messy.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

It's a Shylock-and-the-pound-of-flesh dilemma. Synod promised, IIRC, not just that special treatment should be afforded to those opposed to OoW, but that there were two integrities who should be equally respected.

The problem is when respecting one integrity by allowing them to opt out of their [female] bishop's jurisdiction, is doing violence to the other integrity by treating the [female] bishop as second-class, or rather as no bishop at all.

I suspect that a significant proportion of the OoW 'integrity' – particularly the laity – will not worry overmuch about the gender of their diocesan bishop, provided that they are guaranteed a male priest, and a male bishop is available for their confirmations etc.

All of us have to accept various compromises to stay part of the Church of England. We have been in less-than-full communion with each other since the first women were ordained. The logic of a 'no-compromise' position is to cross the Tiber, which is made easier now. I wouldn't want to see the back of anybody, but to stay, implies willingness to compromise.

Did the anti-OoW integrity seriously expect, twenty years ago, that the Church would admit it had made a mistake, and revert to a male-only ministry? Of course not.

Posted by sanityman (# 11598) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
Did the anti-OoW integrity seriously expect, twenty years ago, that the Church would admit it had made a mistake, and revert to a male-only ministry? Of course not.

Likewise, were they to have won the vote, did they think that the proponents of OoW would quietly go back into the woodwork? This sort of issue will keep coming back until it's been decisively addressed, and (though it pains me to say it) those who really can't abide by the decision have left. Unfortunately, the odds were stacked against the opponents, as a vote for no change would always be seen a one for no change yet; a vote for change quickly becomes essentially irrevocable, as Angloid said.

- Chris.

Posted by Nightlamp (# 266) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:

The problem is when respecting one integrity by allowing them to opt out of their [female] bishop's jurisdiction, is doing violence to the other integrity by treating the [female] bishop as second-class, or rather as no bishop at all.

I have been always rather puzzled by the second assertion (treating female Bishops as second class) since it seems to smack of a suggestion that female Bishop are naturally going to feel insecure and it feels like an odd form of sexism. By definition some parishes might opt out of a male Bishop's jurisdiction if they ordain women or are consecrated by a woman as they do at the moment under the ABC rules. I have yet to hear of a male Bishop who feels insecure (or feel treated like they are second class) because parishes opt to have alternative Episcopal oversight why female bishops would do so is a mystery to me. I would have assumed a female bishop would be more than capable of dealing with parishes that have alternative oversight.

Posted by GreyFace (# 4682) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
Did the anti-OoW integrity seriously expect, twenty years ago, that the Church would admit it had made a mistake, and revert to a male-only ministry? Of course not.

I expect they thought that eventually the Church would be forced to decide between some sort of Third Province solution and breaking the promise, as there are really no other options long-term once you go for women Bishops.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Nightlamp:

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:

The problem is when respecting one integrity by allowing them to opt out of their [female] bishop's jurisdiction, is doing violence to the other integrity by treating the [female] bishop as second-class, or rather as no bishop at all.
I have been always rather puzzled by the second assertion (treating female Bishops as second class) since it seems to smack of a suggestion that female Bishop are naturally going to feel insecure and it feels like an odd form of sexism. By definition some parishes might opt out of a male Bishop's jurisdiction if they ordain women or are consecrated by a woman as they do at the moment under the ABC rules. I have yet to hear of a male Bishop who feels insecure (or feel treated like they are second class) because parishes opt to have alternative Episcopal oversight why female bishops would do so is a mystery to me. I would have assumed a female bishop would be more than capable of dealing with parishes that have alternative oversight.

Except it's not really a personal matter (a bishop feeling slighted) but a structural one. At present all bishops, whatever their views and/or practice, are part of the 'episcopal college' and mutually accepted. Once women become bishops, those who can't accept it would have to opt out of the episcopal college, which is a nonsense.

Posted by GreyFace (# 4682) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
And yet while taking this step, still having
to also live with the 'but your ministry is only provisional' argument from certain of their colleagues.

I sympathise but this is a necessary outcome of the two integrities thing. In promising to accept as legitimate the integrity of those who were against, a large section of whom were against on ontological rather than purely ecumenical grounds, the authors and supporters of the Act were declaring this very argument to be a fair one.

And if we're now to go down the suggested route of refusing to ordain people who are against OOW, then we're basically declaring by our actions that the CofE regards anti-OOWism (that really rolls off the tongue) as at the very least, borderline heresy. I'd take provisional ministry over that any day.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
Chewing away at this, I think there are only two morally right options:

1) [give them lots of money to go away]

2) The establishment of a parallel Anglican province in England with a wholly separate episcopate,

Why?

I think we can carry on as we were. Flying bishops and all. Withdraw nothing, renege on nothing, enforce nothing. Keep calm and don't panic. Steady as she goes. Let the opponents of women priests carry on in their own churches with their own male priests, for as long as they want to.

If they really can't stomach having a woman bishop around, even if she has no sacramental function in their churches (because they will still have their own male ones) but just because she exists, then that really is their problem. They will have to deal with it as best they can. But the rest of us need break no promises to them.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

All our (Anglican) ministries are provisional. We are supposed to be ordained as 'priests in the Church of God', but only a small part of the Church of God actually accepts that, or ever has.

That's what I mean by saying accepting compromise is part and parcel of being Anglican. If I wanted assurance that my ministry was without qualification that of a Catholic priest I know where to go.

Posted by GreyFace (# 4682) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
If I wanted assurance that my ministry was without qualification that of a Catholic priest I know where to go.

As near as I can determine, and I freely admit I know considerably less than everything but I have spent longer than thirty seconds looking at this, your best bet would be to embrace the Plot™.

The official position of the Catholics is that Orthodox priests are really priests, just schismatic ones. On the other hand, the nearest I can pin down to an Orthodox position is that Catholic priests require their ordinations activating on reception, which presumably means their priesthood having come about outside the Church proper as they see it was a bit dodgy beforehand.

Protestants generally either accept both Roman Catholic and Orthodox orders as legitimate (sacramental or otherwise) or would say "Huh?" to the concept, but the history with Rome gives the nod to the Orthodox here. For non-Chalcedonians I'm on pure guesswork as opposed to the slightly-informed guesswork I used above, and I guess they'd be more inclined to accept Orthie orders on the basis of close praxis if not belief.

So my conclusion is, if you want the widest acceptance of your orders within those claiming to be part of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, it's a trip to Constantinople.
[Razz]

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

I'm sure you're right, Greyface, but a couple of parishes will do me!

Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :

quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:

quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
And yet while taking this step, still having
to also live with the 'but your ministry is only provisional' argument from certain of their colleagues.
I sympathise but this is a necessary outcome of the two integrities thing. In promising to accept as legitimate the integrity of those who were against, a large section of whom were against on ontological rather than purely ecumenical grounds, the authors and supporters of the Act were declaring this very argument to be a fair one.

And if we're now to go down the suggested route of refusing to ordain people who are against OOW, then we're basically declaring by our actions that the CofE regards anti-OOWism (that really rolls off the tongue) as at the very least, borderline heresy. I'd take provisional ministry over that any day.

I think many women were resigned to accept that so-called provisionality for the very reason you mention. And I think many would continue with it for the same reason. I don't think it particularly bothered me, eg, or most of the female priests I knew.

But it nevertheless did get a little tedious to do the work, be the priest, and still be reminded of how 'provisional' everything they did and who they were was. Whatever I may have thought of a fellow priest's legitimacy of vocation I would never have suggsted to her or him that whatever they did was provisional because at any time they could be declared 'not a priest' any more.

But no sympathy is required it's just part of the messiness of the situation, and as I said many supporters of OOW were resigned at least to live with that mess; unresolved and equally as unsatisfactory as it is/was.

Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
All our (Anglican) ministries are provisional. We are supposed to be ordained as 'priests in the Church of God', but only a small part of the Church of God actually accepts that, or ever has.

Well, the provisionality I'm referring to is of one Anglican to another. One particular colleague, I recall, was very definite that my ministry as priest was provisional in that, if and when the CofE decided the experiment of letting the ladies into the club hadn't worked, the women would no longer be priests. Whereas his ministry was under no such provision or threat because it wasn't 'provisionial'. He had the synodical clauses to mind to back up his argument.

But it's quite true that there are plenty of others who would regard neither me nor my male colleague as a 'real' priest anyway. Not that it affects me or my work particularly, I find [Big Grin]

! I just feel so privileged to be doing what I'm doing.

Posted by Think² (# 1984) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
I'm pro-OOW myself, but that's not the issue here. The issue is that promises ought to be kept.
Me too.

‘…there are no time limits…in the [1993 Priests: Ordination of Women Measure]…and we see that the safeguards will be there and in perpetuity or for as long as they are required.’ [Professor McClean answering questions before the Ecclesiastical Committee of Parliament, 1993]

‘…those who dissent from, as well as those who assent to the ordination of women to the priesthood and episcopate are both loyal Anglicans.’ [Resolution III.2 of the Lambeth Conference 1998; re-affirmed by the General Synod, 10th July 2006]

Bonds of Peace, the supporting document to the Act, says this: Those who for a variety of reasons cannot conscientiously accept that women may be ordained priests will continue to hold a legitimate and recognised position within the Church of England. There should be no marginalisation of anyone on the basis of their attitude towards the ordination of women to the priesthood. Nor should those who cannot accept the ordination of women seek to marginalise themselves by withdrawing from the life and government of the Church except in those matters where conscientious convictions are directly at stake.

This doesn't seem to be a promise to continue to ordain those holding this theological position. But rather not to exclude existing priests who hold this view - or those in the laity who do so.

Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Nightlamp:
I have yet to hear of a male Bishop who feels insecure (or feel treated like they are second class) because parishes opt to have alternative Episcopal oversight why female bishops would do so is a mystery to me. I would have assumed a female bishop would be more than capable of dealing with parishes that have alternative oversight.

AFAICT (and I am an outsider to this argument) I think the issue is that alternative episcopal oversight still derives from the authority of the diocesan bishop. This is all right provided that, though you may not like his actions, you still regards him as a valid bishop. If you no longer regard your diocesan as a valid bishop, then the ministry of an alternative bishop, of whom in principle you approve are not acceptable because they derive their authority from no legitimate source. But in any even, this is only part of a package of concern for those who are gainst the OoW

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ken:

quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
Chewing away at this, I think there are only two morally right options:

1) [give them lots of money to go away]

2) The establishment of a parallel Anglican province in England with a wholly separate episcopate,
Why?

I think we can carry on as we were. Flying bishops and all.

No we can't. General Synod has already voted to abolish the PEVs and do not intend to revisit it. There is nothing left for the anti-OOW people.

Posted by cheesymarzipan (# 9442) on :

quote:
Originally posted by BroJames:
AFAICT (and I am an outsider to this argument) I think the issue is that alternative episcopal oversight still derives from the authority of the diocesan bishop. <snip>

As the flying bishops are suffragans , this would seem to be the case. Perhaps a solution would be to make a 'flying diocese'?
I have no idea how complicated that would be, of course. Or how it would work in practice (designating an anti-OoW church as a pro-cathedral?). But it seems like one step below creating another province.

Posted by Nightlamp (# 266) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
No we can't. General Synod has already voted to abolish the PEVs and do not intend to revisit it. There is nothing left for the anti-OOW people.

I think it was a misake to abolish PEV's, it worked and it caused little grief. People going to Rome or going independent will cause grief.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
General Synod has already voted to abolish the PEVs and do not intend to revisit it.

I was saying what I think we should do not what we will do. But, seriously, when will this abolition happen? I think it will be procrastinated over for years.

[ 06. December 2010, 18:59: Message edited by: ken ]

Posted by Nicolemrw (# 28) on :

quote:
And if we're now to go down the suggested route of refusing to ordain people who are against OOW, then we're basically declaring by our actions that the CofE regards anti-OOWism (that really rolls off the tongue) as at the very least, borderline heresy. I'd take provisional ministry over that any day.

I'm not CoE, so maybe I'm missing something here, but I don't see that. Isn't it a matter of discipline rather than theology? Not because of his theology but because he's saying he can't work under or with certain members of the hierarchy.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

I think you're fairly close to it. I simply don't see how you can with integrity as a church permit some of those whom you ordain to deny the validity of the orders of others whom you ordain. It's a matter of order more than faith, perhaps.
D'you know, in the 80s I used to think that MoW were tedious and tiresome and mischievous in their tactics. Now I look at some of the anti-OoW lot, i realise just how patient many women were. This 'two integrities' business has emant that the CofE has effectively compromised its support for its women clergy over the past 15 years. About time that support became a bit more whole-hearted, I think.

Posted by Autenrieth Road (# 10509) on :

Maybe this will be a tangent too far, but why did General Synod abolish PEVs?

[ 06. December 2010, 20:35: Message edited by: Autenrieth Road ]

Posted by FreeJack (# 10612) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Autenrieth Road:
Maybe this will be a tangent too far, but why did General Synod abolish PEVs?

It hasn't yet. But it is likely to when women bishops become a reality. If the diocesan bishop or archbishop can be a woman, then PEVs as currently defined don't 'work'.

But as of 31 December, the southern two of the three are stepping down. The Archbishop of Canterbury has made a temporary arrangement. He could decline to make permanent appointments if he wanted to.

Oh and +Fulham has stepped down as Chairman of FiF.

Posted by Fifi (# 8151) on :

quote:
Originally posted by FreeJack:

. . . But as of 31 December, the southern two of the three are stepping down. The Archbishop of Canterbury has made a temporary arrangement. He could decline to make permanent appointments if he wanted to.

He could, but he has already said that he won't. The statement issued by Lambeth Palace on 8 November included the sentence: 'The Archbishop will now set in train the process for filling the vacant sees.'

Posted by Ondergard (# 9324) on :

Far be it for me to intrude on private grief, as the saying goes, but as far as I understand it, the C of E has not reneged on its promise to hold the two integrities together, has it?

AIUTS, provision is made for the Backwards In Bigotry people to continue to submit to a male Bishop of their ecclesiology, and that has not been rescinded. The C of E has voted to accept the possibility of consecrating female bishops, but have not as a consequence withdrawn their alternative provision, nor denied ordination or preferment or stipend to priests who do not accept such consecrations as valid.

That those priests decide in consequence that they cannot continue in the C of E, purely on the grounds of the existence of female bishops, even though they themselves need have nothing to do with such episcopacy, then that is surely their own decision, not the decision of the C of E, and nor is it a broken promise. The C of E promised to make provision for the BIB lot, and still does. That the BIB lot refuse such succour because it objects to a different (though related) decision of the the Church, and one, furthermore, about which no additional promises were made, then it is entirely in the control of the BIB lot to decided whether to stay or go.

I am not a member or minister in the Church of England, by the way. I'm a Methodist.

Posted by aumbry (# 436) on :

I have a cunning plan. Instead of saying that women can or cannot be bishops why not put a ban on creating any new bishops, male or female, for say the next 5 years? The Church of England is a failing organisation top heavy with useless managers and needs to face the fact that it cannot continue with the present set up.

The Bishops of Neasden, Clegthorpe and Steeple Bumpstead would be first on my list for deepiscopalising.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by cheesymarzipan:
As the flying bishops are suffragans , this would seem to be the case. Perhaps a solution would be to make a 'flying diocese'? ...But it seems like one step below creating another province.

Which is what FiF want - a third province. It's the only solution.

Posted by Nightlamp (# 266) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ondergard:
Far be it for me to intrude on private grief, as the saying goes, but as far as I understand it, the C of E has not reneged on its promise to hold the two integrities together, has it?

Not yet but it plans to as part of the introduction of female Bishops.

Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Yes - they should have been more clear and honest at the start, and they should now apologise for that. I agree.

They couldn't have been. Without the Episcopal Act of Synod which created the flying bishops, parliament would never have passed the legislation, at the time, necessary to ordain women. Now that things have changed, they don't need to keep or renew those promises. This is where the lack of integrity lies.

quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Even if the usual voices will be whinging about the Archbishop of Canterbury in the papers .

I don't think the Archbishop of Canterbury deserves any critcism here. He recognises, as in his speech at the February Synod, that those who object to the OoW often do so out of deeply held theological and ecclsiological beliefs, and that it has nothing to do with misogynism, equality or rights. He has recognised that the only feasible solution would be a structural arrangement, which the Synod has refused to countenance. He and ++ York put forward a proposal in July which was narrowly defeated, in which there could have been a possible way forward. He's done his best and its a pity he doesn't have more authority on these matters.

quote:
Originally posted by Enders Shadow:
2) The establishment of a parallel Anglican province in England with a wholly separate episcopate, in as full communion with Canterbury as the similar opposed provinces of Anglican communion achieve at present.

This is precisely what Forward in Faith proposed and costed out in their 2003 book "Consecrated Womwn?" It seemed at the time quite a sensible move, but the Third Province got no support in the wider church. It was argued, in my opinion correctly, that only two possible outcomes had any integrity, that above, or the passing of a single clause measure which effectively says, "This is what the Church of England does (ie ordains women bishops), if you can't live with it, leave." Sadly, it has chosen the latter, in breach of its promises.

The Ordinariate will take up those who feel strongly enough about it it leave. The Society of St Wilfred and St Hilda, whose role is yet to be defined, may fight for those opponents of OoW who wish to stay in the C of E. But unless something changes, I can't see how SSWSH will achieve anything which FiF couldn't.

Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ondergard:
Backwards In Bigotry

This is an extremely ignorant description of what Forward in Faith stands for. Since the Oxford Movement, founded in 1833 various bodies within the Church of England have sought to reconnect with the Catholic heritage of the church. The logical outcome of this view is to seek corporate unity with the Holy See. The priestly faternity, the Society of the Holy Cross was founded in 1855. The Catholic League in 1913. These were long before the ordination of women was on anyone's horizen.

The creation of ARCIC came in the aftermath of Archbishop Michael Ramsey's historic visit to Pope Paul VI in 1966, in which "corporate unity by the end of the century" was envisaged. Admittedly, not all members of the C of E had any enthusiasm for any of this. In fact, only a small minority. When women's ordination came on the agenda, all groups believing in that vision knew that it would totally scupper their aspirations. Rome is by far the largest Christian body on earth and it doesn't ordain women.

FiF has diligently sought to preserve the spirit of ARCIC and the other bodies, since the OoW, and to explore if the Catholic position in the C of E can be maintained with any integrity. Like all heirs to the Oxford Movement, it has failed, because, as Ken always points out, the C of E is Protestant and ever has been, especially since the Restoration. But it has nothing to do with bigotry, mysoginism, women hating or anything else. It is about the ecclesiology of the Universal Church. This is something Protestants don't get because it isn't part of their tradition, but it's a position held with the utmost integrity, whether you agree with it or not.

Posted by Ender's Shadow (# 2272) on :

Given that historically the CofE was defined in contrast to Rome, a fact marked by their execution of each other's clerics, the Protestants who feel free to ignore Rome's position on the issue have grounds for doing so. [Big Grin]

But yes, any claim to be serious about ecumenism does look iffy if you come along and say 'Yes, I think ecumenism is a good thing' whilst acting in a way that puts up additional boundaries to unity. But then we can't expect people who are the partisans for 'the right on thing' to be constrained by the needs of something as effete as church unity. 'We know we're right, everyone else is a bigot, hang the consequences'. [Waterworks]

Posted by Think² (# 1984) on :

Why the assumption that the Roman Catholic church will never change its position on this ? Female clerics have been ordained in very traditionalist RC countries in extremis - the Roman Catholic Church may value tradition but it is not unchanging.

If one considers the fullest expression of Christ's church to include female ministry, you might with equal integrity take the view that enabling it within the CofE may eventually influence the RCC thereby creating an improved church at the time of unification (which may take a bit longer).

Posted by Pardoner (# 15043) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
On one side we have those who argue passionately that of course we should treat women with equality, and any resistance to it is wrong.

On the other we have those, who for various reasons object.

And sitting in the middle of the battlefield is the promise made at the time of the vote for the ordination of women as priests that there would be a continuing place of honour for the opponents within the CofE. Period. No conditions. No time limit.

I think it is blindingly obvious in retrospect - such is the joy of 20/20 hindsight - that no such promise should have been made. Some way to enable this promise to be scrapped should have been provided.

Seems to me that ES has put his digit on the issue right here. I like ambiguity and fudge as much as the next Anglican, but the fundamental point is that you can't both have, and not have, women bishops at the same time. The church has to choose one way of t'other. And if you choose to have them, its difficult for the antis to feel honoured.

Stating the obvious, really

Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :

Think² wrote:

quote:
Why the assumption that the Roman Catholic church will never change its position on this ? Female clerics have been ordained in very traditionalist RC countries in extremis - the Roman Catholic Church may value tradition but it is not unchanging.

Are you sure, Think²? It's a while since I last looked, but all the references I could find then looked like misinterpretations (e.g. "presbytera" etc.)- any chance of a reference?

(of course there used to be female deacons/deaconesses - that's uncontroversial)

Your latter paragraph is certainly one of the possibilities though. There are others.

Posted by Think² (# 1984) on :

I am sorry, wiki is not a great source. But there was a fair amount of press coverage later on which I read at the time.

It was said to be fairly well attested that underground churches, in communist countries of the communist bloc during the cold war, ordained women to keep the church going owing to the attrition of the clergy by state persecution. This article is quite interesting on the subject. What I think it shows unequivocally - and that I think most people would accept - is that the RCC ordained people it would not normally consider to particular clerical roles, because it was necessary to survive.

[ 07. December 2010, 19:51: Message edited by: Think² ]

Posted by FreeJack (# 10612) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by cheesymarzipan:
As the flying bishops are suffragans , this would seem to be the case. Perhaps a solution would be to make a 'flying diocese'? ...But it seems like one step below creating another province.
Which is what FiF want - a third province. It's the only solution.

Other than a mass departure for Rome.

The one situation where the CofE does 'not break its promises' is where there are only negligible numbers of opponents left.

Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :

Thanks, Think². It looks a bit similar to the Sicilian example I have heard cited. But I had better cease this tangent as it is in danger of tripping over into DH territory.

Posted by Ender's Shadow (# 2272) on :

quote:
Originally posted by FreeJack:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by cheesymarzipan:
As the flying bishops are suffragans , this would seem to be the case. Perhaps a solution would be to make a 'flying diocese'? ...But it seems like one step below creating another province.
Which is what FiF want - a third province. It's the only solution.
Other than a mass departure for Rome.

The one situation where the CofE does 'not break its promises' is where there are only negligible numbers of opponents left.

Hmm - the moral philosophy that says I can ignore my promises because there are only a few beneficiaries left doesn't quite work for me. However you are ignoring the Conservative Evangelicals who are equally opposed - though usually haven't been as visible. I don't know what the statistics are for churches that passed the resolutions - but I think quite a lot of Evangelicals chose the option of excluding women leaders but not associating with the 'flying bishops'.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
However you are ignoring the Conservative Evangelicals who are equally opposed - though usually haven't been as visible.

Some are opposed, some aren't. But they don't have the same worry about tainted sacraments that the Anglo-Catholics do. It just doesn't matter that much to a typical evangelical if the ministers in some other church are unacceptable, as long as the ones in their own church are sound. After all we've been ignoring liberal and heretical and immoral bishops and priests in the CofE for centuries. Any evangelicals still left in the CofE can obviously put up with it. Ordained women don't make the situation noticeably worse.

For at least some of the Anglo-Catholics, on the other hand, the presence of ordained women in other churches seems to cause a problem. So they will avoid male bishops who also ordain women, or even male priests ordained by bishops who also ordain women. (As if femaleness was infectious). Evangelicals just don't have that problem.

Posted by Think² (# 1984) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
Thanks, Think². It looks a bit similar to the Sicilian example I have heard cited. But I had better cease this tangent as it is in danger of tripping over into DH territory.

OK, I was simply hoping to use the example to illustrate - that the argument that OoW lack integrity in ignoring the impact on potential eventual reunion of the whole church is not a given.

Posted by Think² (# 1984) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ken:
So they will avoid male bishops who also ordain women, or even male priests ordained by bishops who also ordain women.

I just don't get the theology of that (and it is the theological position that the CofE promised to honour). The apostolic succession could be broken by male priests ordained by female bishops (i.e. inauthentic ordination) - or the sacraments offered by female priests could be invalid - if you take that theological position.

But how could the males ordained or consecrated by males be a problem ? That stops being a theological position and starts becoming a political position surely ?

I suppose that a flying diocese solution would make the most sense. But I still don't get why you would continue to ordain people who don't believe in the validity of the orders of all the clergy in the church. For it is surely the position of the church as a whole that the orders of its priests are valid, otherwise why bother ?

Posted by FreeJack (# 10612) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
Hmm - the moral philosophy that says I can ignore my promises because there are only a few beneficiaries left doesn't quite work for me. However you are ignoring the Conservative Evangelicals who are equally opposed - though usually haven't been as visible. I don't know what the statistics are for churches that passed the resolutions - but I think quite a lot of Evangelicals chose the option of excluding women leaders but not associating with the 'flying bishops'.

No. The 'promises' were themselves demand driven. It was if there is a demand for flying bishops we will continue to provide them, but if there is no demand they will not continue to exist and so on.

There are a number of conservative evangelical clergy who are more opposed to women priests than their congregations are.

Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :

Think² wrote:

quote:
But how could the males ordained or consecrated by males be a problem ? That stops being a theological position and starts becoming a political position surely ?

Perhaps for some there is an element of that, but I suspect that a greater concern is that if you are concerned about the validity of your sacraments, you will be concerned that in ordaining your presbyters, your church has done what the church has always intended to do. If you are an "impossibilist" opponent of OOWP then you may consider that a bishop who ordains women is not intending to do as the church has always done.

Sorry for the conditionals - I suspect POV's may vary. My experience of talking to people opposed is almost completely limited to "possibilists".

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ken:

For at least some of the Anglo-Catholics, on the other hand, the presence of ordained women in other churches seems to cause a problem. So they will avoid male bishops who also ordain women, or even male priests ordained by bishops who also ordain women. (As if femaleness was infectious).

But it is infectious- didn't you know? Once you've put your hand on someone who is, or may be, or has been, menstruating, you can just never get that yuckiness off....

[ 08. December 2010, 15:46: Message edited by: Albertus ]

Posted by Nightlamp (# 266) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Think²:

It was said to be fairly well attested that underground churches, in communist countries of the communist bloc during the cold war, ordained women to keep the church going

Women may have felt they were ordained but under Roman Catholic law they were not because they couldn't have been since it was against Canon law.

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Think²:

It was said to be fairly well attested that underground churches, in communist countries of the communist bloc during the cold war, ordained women to keep the church going

Through connexions I've described on a post a long long time ago, I am acquainted with the Czech situation through friends who had relations ordained under persecution, and after a call to enquire further, I received an informed opinion that OWP did not take place although there were many (in the eyes of the RCC) irregularities with respect to married men.

While there is the one claim described above, I do not know if I would say that it is fairly well attested. RC authorities would say that it doesn't matter anyway, as orders cannot be conferred on women, but that is another discussion.

As far as the OP is concerned General Synod has determined that a code of practice will be the answer and that extra-diocesan structures are not to be part of the picture. The difficulty is that there is not a high level of trust in a code of practice as opposed to legislation. The example the Canadian House of Bishops has set does not suggest that a high level of trust can be reasonably expected. I fear that I was in a bureaucratic situation last year where an A/Director General plaintively asked if I did not trust her, and I felt obliged to tell the truth. I wonder if there is not a parallel here.

Posted by hereweare (# 15567) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Think²:
Why the assumption that the Roman Catholic church will never change its position on this ?

I think this may help (sorry it is long, but please note the use of the word 'infallibility' towards the end) :

ADDRESS OF THE HOLY FATHER TO THE GERMAN BISHOPS Saturday 20 November 1999
Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church's divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32) I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church's faithful…..Without doubt, the dignity of women is great and must be more and more appreciated! However, too little consideration is given to the difference between the human and civil rights of the person and his rights, duties and related functions in the Church. Precisely for this reason, some time ago, by virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren, I recalled "that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgement is to be definitively held by all the Church's faithful" (Ordinatio sacerdotalis, n. 4). Do not hesitate, then, to emphasize that the Magisterium of the Church has taken this decision not as an act of her own power, but in the knowledge of her duty to obey the will of the Lord of the Church herself. Therefore, the doctrine that the priesthood is reserved to men possesses, by virtue of the Church's ordinary and universal Magisterium, that character of infallibility which Lumen gentium speaks of and to which I gave juridical form in the Motu Proprio Ad tuendam fidem: When the individual Bishops, "even though dispersed throughout the world but preserving among themselves and with Peter's Successor the bond of communion, agree in their authoritative teaching on matters of faith and morals that a particular teaching is to be held definitively and absolutely, they infallibly proclaim the doctrine of Christ" (Lumen gentium, n. 25; cf. Ad tuendam fidem, n. 3).

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

Rome has a long history of changing its mind and finding a form of words that makes it look as if they haven't. If, in the future, they want to ordain women, that document won't stop them.

Posted by hereweare (# 15567) on :

but Ken, that's the point. JPII is saying it doesn't matter whether the Church wants to or not, it can't.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

And if they change their minds later they will find a way round that.

Posted by hereweare (# 15567) on :

I think that would take Jesus himself - "but in the knowledge of her duty to obey the will of the Lord of the Church herself." I guess that's what infalibility means.

Posted by Amos (# 44) on :

quote:
Originally posted by hereweare:
I think that would take Jesus himself - "but in the knowledge of her duty to obey the will of the Lord of the Church herself." I guess that's what infalibility means.

It would take His Spirit. Which continues to abide in and to speak to His Church.

Posted by Alisdair (# 15837) on :

There would seem to be quite a lot of scope for arguing this whole situation has far more to do with institutional politics, verging on a kind of idolatry, than it has to do with the integrity of Christian faith.

Neither side is questioning the person or teaching of Christ, but they are struggling over the tradition of a particular branch of the Church. If the CoE disappeared tomorrow all those people whose faith rests in Christ (rather than in the CoE), would presumably find some other part of the Church where they felt reasonably welcome.

In other words we have people tying themselves in knots trying to enable other people to remain within the ecclesiastical institution where they feel comfortable---but in the end that is NOT what the Church is all about.

'Christians' have been arguing, even to the point of punch ups, since the beginnings of the church, often over matters that ultimately matter little to the substance of Christian faith.

'Promises' made in politically charged situations are invariably seen to be broken by someone. If a particular branch of the Church goes in a direction that some members do not like, they are free to learn to live with it, or leave. If the direction is 'wrong' the church concerned will ultimately be ejected by the wider Church, die out, or repent.

None of us are compelled to remain in one part of the Church; no one part of the Church holds the entire truth of Christ.

Regardless of the rights/wrongs of female ordination and how its implementation has been handled, surely there are far more important issues for Christians, of whatever flavour, to be concerned about and engaged with.

Like letting the PCC choose the colour to paint the church hall, it's something everyone feels free to have a really good row about because in the end it doesn't really matter all that much, meanwhile a beggar sleeps curled up in the hall porch.

[ 10. December 2010, 18:35: Message edited by: Alisdair ]

Posted by hereweare (# 15567) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Amos:

quote:
Originally posted by hereweare:
I think that would take Jesus himself - "but in the knowledge of her duty to obey the will of the Lord of the Church herself." I guess that's what infalibility means.
It would take His Spirit. Which continues to abide in and to speak to His Church.

Er, I think you will find the Trinity is not in the habit of saying opposite things, [Smile]

Ps Is this the same Spirit that said yes to women 'priests' in the CofE and no in the Church in Wales, who then kept on voting until the Spirit agreed with them??? [Devil]

Posted by Ender's Shadow (# 2272) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alisdair:
None of us are compelled to remain in one part of the Church; no one part of the Church holds the entire truth of Christ.

This goes to the heart of your response, and is the point which our Catholic brethren would fundamentally reject. For a Catholic - be they Anglican or Roman - there is no freedom to just wander off to another church when they feel like it; it's part of their beliefs that being in the visible body of Christ constituted in with bishops, priests and deacons deriving their ordination from the apostolic succession is the only right place for them to be. Therefore if the church they have grown up in then does something which is unacceptable - imposing women bishops - they can't just pop down to some other congregation.

The New Testament gives us hints of this when Paul talks about the people who were converted as a result of his ministry as his 'children'. To expect the children of a family to be excluded from it is deeply unfair if they've done nothing wrong - which is how it looks to the those opposed to the consecration of women. That this doesn't match your ecclesiology doesn't mean, if you are to remain in a church that is attempting to be broad, that you have the right to ignore theirs. Which is why the attempts to keep the doors remain mandatory given the promises that were made. Yes it's a horrible hole - which is why I opened up the question to see if there is a way out...

Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :

quote:
Originally posted by hereweare:

quote:
Originally posted by Amos:

quote:
Originally posted by hereweare:
I think that would take Jesus himself - "but in the knowledge of her duty to obey the will of the Lord of the Church herself." I guess that's what infalibility means.
It would take His Spirit. Which continues to abide in and to speak to His Church.
Er, I think you will find the Trinity is not in the habit of saying opposite things,
Ps Is this the same Spirit that said yes to women 'priests' in the CofE and no in the Church in Wales, who then kept on voting until the Spirit agreed with them???

Or who was in agreement with the Spirit's movement and acted upon it (at long last) despite century after century of obstinacy and blindness? [Smile]

Please note, too, that the Church of England doesn't have women 'priests', it has women priests. Their priestly ministry may certainly, by some, be considered illegitimate but it is discourteous, at least, to be derogatory about the title that their own Church has given them.

Posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd) (# 12163) on :

A (male) Anglican priest I know - 83 years old - said, somewhat wistfully, that it might do the Anglican Church (remember I'm in Australia) good if those who opposed the OOW left en masse.

Posted by Alisdair (# 15837) on :

Paul certainly said many things. Some the wider Church holds to as fundamental to Christian faith, some parts of the church uphold, and some are no longer generally held to be necessary to orthodox faith.

Jesus, as far as I know, is not recorded as saying anything about the matter of gender and priesthood; and it is moot whether he had any interest in establishing a 'religion' in the institutional sense. Although it would seem he was willing to work within the established religious structures of his day, but not uncritically.

Perhaps the question of female priests begs a much deeper question about what we actually mean by 'priesthood' generally, especially as the Church seems to have been fundamentally influenced by 'pagan' concepts/practices of priesthood at the time it became politically and financially expedient to change horses when Constantine made 'Christianity' the official religion of the Empire.

There seems no way out of a hole where one or both sides make it a life or death matter of principle from which they cannot/will not budge.

Either they learn to live together in one of those glorious and very human 'fudges', where everyone agrees, for the sake of love and life having to go on, to overlook the glaring inconsistencies, or people must go their separate ways. There is nothing good to be gained by one side holding the other hostage: 'If you do this/don't do this we will take our ball and go'.

Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:

quote:
Originally posted by Alisdair:
None of us are compelled to remain in one part of the Church; no one part of the Church holds the entire truth of Christ.
This goes to the heart of your response, and is the point which our Catholic brethren would fundamentally reject. For a Catholic - be they Anglican or Roman - there is no freedom to just wander off to another church when they feel like it; it's part of their beliefs that being in the visible body of Christ constituted in with bishops, priests and deacons deriving their ordination from the apostolic succession is the only right place for them to be. Therefore if the church they have grown up in then does something which is unacceptable - imposing women bishops - they can't just pop down to some other congregation.

The New Testament gives us hints of this when Paul talks about the people who were converted as a result of his ministry as his 'children'. To expect the children of a family to be excluded from it is deeply unfair if they've done nothing wrong - which is how it looks to the those opposed to the consecration of women. That this doesn't match your ecclesiology doesn't mean, if you are to remain in a church that is attempting to be broad, that you have the right to ignore theirs. Which is why the attempts to keep the doors remain mandatory given the promises that were made. Yes it's a horrible hole - which is why I opened up the question to see if there is a way out...

I think you describe the situation here very well, Ender's Shadow, for those who feel as if they are being pushed away from their 'family'.

Your reference to Paul, however, also reminded me of his assertion that people ought not to claim 'I belong to Paul', 'I belong to Apollos', or 'I belong to Cephas', etc. 'Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?' I think the implication here is that converts came to Christ first and foremost, not the particular school of theology represented by whichever church leader they followed.

I admit though, it would be too easy to say that because people are baptized into Christ, that the church accretions of doctrine, dogma etc, ought to be more flexible or even dispensable! We're only human and our faith is made up of many things including the traditions and teachings and ecclesiologies that have nurtured us, and to varying degrees, shaped our values.

It's interesting to consider what were the 'doctrinal' differences between those who preferred Apollos to Peter, or Peter to Paul!

Posted by hereweare (# 15567) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:

Please note, too, that the Church of England doesn't have women 'priests', it has women priests. Their priestly ministry may certainly, by some, be considered illegitimate but it is discourteous, at least, to be derogatory about the title that their own Church has given them. [/QB]

My apologies, perhaps I should stick to 'ministers' in future [Biased]

Posted by hereweare (# 15567) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd):
A (male) Anglican priest I know - 83 years old - said, somewhat wistfully, that it might do the Anglican Church (remember I'm in Australia) good if those who opposed the OOW left en masse.

Or, all those in favour become Methodist?

Posted by Traveller (# 1943) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
For a Catholic - be they Anglican or Roman - there is no freedom to just wander off to another church when they feel like it; it's part of their beliefs that being in the visible body of Christ constituted in with bishops, priests and deacons deriving their ordination from the apostolic succession is the only right place for them to be. Therefore if the church they have grown up in then does something which is unacceptable - imposing women bishops - they can't just pop down to some other congregation.

So tell me, how is it that the Provincial Episcopal Visitors and others then feel that they can (however provoked) "wander off to another church"?

It seems that the Anglo-Catholics extracted a promise which they could expect would be honoured for a period (as it has been), but which could never be binding on following General Synods for all time, as others have said up-thread.

The wider CofE has learned to live with and value women priests in the intervening years and women have now taken senior roles within the Church. ISTM that it is a natural time that the question of the church ordaining women to the episcopate should arise.

Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :

There is no concept of "another church" in catholic (or orthodox) ecclesiology, so I would guess they simply don't see things that way, Traveller.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

We let this stay here for a while, (it was always borderline Purg/DH). After reviewing the thread and a Hostly confab, we think on balance it will do better now in Dead Horses. We appreciate the promise and politicking dimension but at its heart this thread seems to have moved primarily into a "role of women" rights and wrongs discussion, in a particular church context.

No reason to change the tenor of the debate or your enthusiasm for it. It's just a demarcation decision.

Barnabas62
Purgatory Host

Posted by dj_ordinaire (# 4643) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ken:

quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
Chewing away at this, I think there are only two morally right options:

1) [give them lots of money to go away]

2) The establishment of a parallel Anglican province in England with a wholly separate episcopate,
Why?

I think we can carry on as we were. Flying bishops and all. Withdraw nothing, renege on nothing, enforce nothing. Keep calm and don't panic. Steady as she goes. Let the opponents of women priests carry on in their own churches with their own male priests, for as long as they want to.

If they really can't stomach having a woman bishop around, even if she has no sacramental function in their churches (because they will still have their own male ones) but just because she exists, then that really is their problem. They will have to deal with it as best they can. But the rest of us need break no promises to them.

I think that this really gets to the core of the matter. Synod promised way back when to treat the anti-OoW integrity with respect, and under no circumstances to throw them out. Unfortunately, a small number of the anti-OoW integrity interpret that to mean 'do whatever we want, Free Provinces and all'. The promise has been respected, but clearly the time has come when whatever we do just isn't good enough!

Posted by hereweare (# 15567) on :

I suspect the problem is, is that the anti OoW lobby didn't curl up and die as expected when the promises were made. They seemed to have got stronger?

Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :

dj_ordinaire wrote

quote:
clearly the time has come when whatever we do just isn't good enough!

No doubt the catholic tendency of the CofE has, over the years, thrown up more than its fair share of colourful characters. But is that an adequate analysis of their position?

Surely the problem lies in the latter part of Ken's analysis. It regards the episcopal functions outside direct celebration of the eucharist (or other sacramental functions) as administrative. Therefore let them have their male priests.

The problem is that the catholic view is that it is the bishop who is the unifying focus of the church, and that is done through the episcopal responsibility of celebration of the eucharist. The unity of the church exists by this action making us one in Christ. Any similar actions by presbyters are by delegation from the bishop. So any solution envisaging an episcopacy as an admin or managerial function is bound to founder sooner or later on this or a similar rock.

If you are going to say whatever we do is not good enough, but then restrict their options to things that involve managerial episcopacy, then no, nothing we do will be good enough for them, but that is because we have chosen not to offer them an alternative that they can work within.

Posted by Think² (# 1984) on :

But there are male bishops in the UK, in fact all of them are at the moment. So why can't they simply work in a diocese with a male bishop.

Posted by Ender's Shadow (# 2272) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Think²:
But there are male bishops in the UK, in fact all of them are at the moment. So why can't they simply work in a diocese with a male bishop.

The apparent implication of this is that there are no laity unwilling to submit to having a female diocescan - or that they can all be expected to move [Eek!]

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

I am looking forward to the day we have a female ABC.

Posted by Think² (# 1984) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:

quote:
Originally posted by Think²:
But there are male bishops in the UK, in fact all of them are at the moment. So why can't they simply work in a diocese with a male bishop.
The apparent implication of this is that there are no laity unwilling to submit to having a female diocescan - or that they can all be expected to move

I suspect that is going to depend on the numbers and/or commuting distance. Bear in mind people are apparently prepared to move to be near a particular school, or for a specific job, or for a specific personal relationship. And are claiming the sex of their diocescan is as, or more, important than these things.

Posted by Think² (# 1984) on :

The only data I can find that looks half-way reliable is in this 2004 article by Ruth Gledhil - which cites an academic survey by a reputable department of theology. Gives 81% of clergy in favour of OoW and states higher percentage of agreement amongst the laity. Let us assume, for the sake of argument, 90% in favour and 10% against. Easter communicant numbers for the CofE in 2005 were 1,019,200 - of course this will be up on regular attendance by some margin.

So we are talking about - at a generous estimate - 101,920 people spread over 44 diocese (all of which bar 1 currently have some women priests). As these are 2005 figures we are also still including people who have died / left over the period and assuming no-one has changed their mind since 2004. That's a mean average of 2316 per diocese.

Data from the Church Times show:

quote:

The statistics, which are based on data collected on 1 January this year, reveal that there are 802 parishes under Resolution A (6.2 per cent of all parishes); 966 where Resolution B applies (7.5 per cent); and 363 parishes where a petition for extended episcopal ministry applies (2.8 per cent).

Compared with the year 2000, there has been a 4.1-per-cent decrease in the number of Resolution A parishes, a 1.4-per-cent drop in Resolution B parishes, and a 22.6-per-cent increase in the number of parishes where a petition for extended episcopal ministry applies.

If I have done my maths right that means there are 12880 parishes. A mean average of 293 parishes per diocese - so a mean average of 8 people per parish. IF all the various assumptions hold (which I grant you they may well not - though would argue the general trend would be pro-OoW rather than anti-OoW).

If we assume that episcopal appointments will eventually reflect the gender mix of the of the population - the there will always be about 22 diocese with male headship. If a woman ever becomes ABC then the two integrities thing is really kiboshed.

Another option would be to have a male and female bishop for every diocese, and split the salary in half to ensure it doesn't cost anymore. This might also ease the episcopal workload and allow for more effective ministry across the diocese.

[ 12. December 2010, 10:36: Message edited by: Think² ]

Posted by anne (# 73) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Rome has a long history of changing its mind and finding a form of words that makes it look as if they haven't. If, in the future, they want to ordain women, that document won't stop them.

I was recently in conversation with a priest whose history (not mine to share here) gives him a really informed insight into this issue within Roman Catholicism. He said that the 'headship' issue was stronger than I had imagined within the RCC and that (in his opinion) the ordination of celibate women religious living in community was more likely than the ordination of married men to the priesthood - and that both were still on the agenda - although not during the current pontificate.

I have Roman Catholic friends who feel that their Church will have to grasp one or both of these nettles (ordination of married men and ordination of women) in order to meet the current shortage of priests in the European church.

IF (and I understand that this is a massive if) the Roman Catholic church were to move towards the ordination of women - perhaps limited to women ministering within and to their religious communities - how would this affect the discussion within the CofE?

I sometimes feel that I've been talking about the OoW for my entire life - but there is still so much that I need to understand about the debate. It's so easy to write off those who deny my vocation as "backwards in bigotry" but it's ultimately unsatisfactory. I may be just asking for trouble here, but I just feel driven to try to understand the arguments but the more I try the more the 'anti-positions' seem to multiply - for example I'd not thought about the headship argument from a Catholic perspective until the conversation I refer to above.

So any informed responses to my first 3 paragraphs would be really welcome.

anne

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

quote:
Originally posted by hereweare:
Is this the same Spirit that said yes to women 'priests' in the CofE and no in the Church in Wales, who then kept on voting until the Spirit agreed with them???

The Spirit speaks. How long it takes us to hear what the Spirit is saying is, unfortunately, another matter.

Posted by dyfrig (# 15) on :

I think it's right that ordination of women is more likely in the RCC than of married men - a single, celibate priesthood is significantly cheaper to house and feed than people with dependents.

On ken's point, to steal an opinion from (a Roman Catholic) someone I was in a room with recently, when the Catholic Church decides it's possible to ordain women, it will do so with single-minded gusto and as if it had always been possible to do so.

Posted by hereweare (# 15567) on :

quote:
Originally posted by dyfrig:
I think it's right that ordination of women is more likely in the RCC than of married men - a single, celibate priesthood is significantly cheaper to house and feed than people with dependents.

On ken's point, to steal an opinion from (a Roman Catholic) someone I was in a room with recently, when the Catholic Church decides it's possible to ordain women, it will do so with single-minded gusto and as if it had always been possible to do so.

Dear Anne & dyfrig,
Could I refer you back to my post with the quote from JPII? Well place RC's may have an opinion, but the Church has made her position clear.

As for women before married men, that is plain wrong I'm affraid. The Church already ordains married men in certain circumstances, as celibacy is a human law, which means the Holy Father can give a dispensation. As JPII made'infallibily' clear, the priesthood is reserved to males by God's law, and no one on earth can change that.

You not agree, you may not like it, but that's the Church's position.

Posted by FreeJack (# 10612) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:

quote:
Originally posted by Think²:
But there are male bishops in the UK, in fact all of them are at the moment. So why can't they simply work in a diocese with a male bishop.
The apparent implication of this is that there are no laity unwilling to submit to having a female diocescan - or that they can all be expected to move

But the laity (in general) don't have to submit to their diocesan bishop. Most members of the laity have never met their diocesan bishop.

Submission is only required to get orders or a lay license. Confirmation could be done with another bishop in person.

The rest of the time, it would be a pope in every parish as now.

Posted by hereweare (# 15567) on :

quote:
Originally posted by FreeJack:

quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:

quote:
Originally posted by Think²:
But there are male bishops in the UK, in fact all of them are at the moment. So why can't they simply work in a diocese with a male bishop.
The apparent implication of this is that there are no laity unwilling to submit to having a female diocescan - or that they can all be expected to move
But the laity (in general) don't have to submit to their diocesan bishop. Most members of the laity have never met their diocesan bishop.

Submission is only required to get orders or a lay license. Confirmation could be done with another bishop in person.

The rest of the time, it would be a pope in every parish as now.

Except if your male priest 'pope of your parish' was 'ordained' by a female 'Bishop'....

Posted by anne (# 73) on :

quote:
Originally posted by hereweare:

As JPII made'infallibily' clear, the priesthood is reserved to males by God's law, and no one on earth can change that.

You not agree, you may not like it, but that's the Church's position.

It's not about me not liking it, or agreeing - I'm fairly confident my opinion on this matter is of no interest to His Holiness or the RC Church.

It's about a genuine desire to understand the situation. I hear your position, which is clear, but I also hear (and read) alternative possibilities, and I'm trying to get my head around that.

Where my 'liking it' becomes a bit more relevant is IF (again, a big if) you are wrong and other Roman Catholic commentators are right AND IF that then has an impact on the views of members of my own denomination. Are there people (let's call them the 'ecumenism objectors') who would change their mind about the OoW in the Church of England if that was to happen? Would that affect the views of other people? I'm sort of hoping that the answers to these questions will clarify some of the nuances of the anti-OoW position for me.

So I know that it's hypothetical, and I am sorry if my harping on the question annoys you. I certainly don't intend to imply disrespect to the Roman Catholic Church. I'm just trying to use the question to throw some light on the Anglican situation.

Anne

Posted by JoannaP (# 4493) on :

quote:
Originally posted by hereweare:

quote:
Originally posted by FreeJack:
But the laity (in general) don't have to submit to their diocesan bishop. Most members of the laity have never met their diocesan bishop.

Submission is only required to get orders or a lay license. Confirmation could be done with another bishop in person.

The rest of the time, it would be a pope in every parish as now.
Except if your male priest 'pope of your parish' was 'ordained' by a female 'Bishop'....

I believe the majority of the laity would not care that much.

My church did not pass Resolution C but some members of the congregation have put themselves under the authority of +Ebbsfleet (sorry, I do not know the correct terminology). One of them was complaining today that nobody in church was discussing the Ordinariate and looked stunned at being told that the whole thing "seems rather petty" to another member of the congregation. My gut feeling is that the latter is more typical of the CofE laity in general.

Posted by hereweare (# 15567) on :

quote:
Originally posted by JoannaP:

quote:
Originally posted by hereweare:

quote:
Originally posted by FreeJack:
But the laity (in general) don't have to submit to their diocesan bishop. Most members of the laity have never met their diocesan bishop.

Submission is only required to get orders or a lay license. Confirmation could be done with another bishop in person.

The rest of the time, it would be a pope in every parish as now.
Except if your male priest 'pope of your parish' was 'ordained' by a female 'Bishop'....
I believe the majority of the laity would not care that much.

My church did not pass Resolution C but some members of the congregation have put themselves under the authority of +Ebbsfleet (sorry, I do not know the correct terminology). One of them was complaining today that nobody in church was discussing the Ordinariate and looked stunned at being told that the whole thing "seems rather petty" to another member of the congregation. My gut feeling is that the latter is more typical of the CofE laity in general.

I fear you're right! But I guess the priest, as part of his role, has to ensure the sacraments etc. on behalf of his peopl, even if they don't care/understand. For example (and little extreme) if a priest was to offer coffee and cake at communion some would not mind, others would enjoy it, and a some complained, but it is the priest's job to say no, it should be bread and wine.

Posted by hereweare (# 15567) on :

quote:
Originally posted by anne:

quote:
Originally posted by hereweare:

As JPII made'infallibily' clear, the priesthood is reserved to males by God's law, and no one on earth can change that.

You not agree, you may not like it, but that's the Church's position.
It's not about me not liking it, or agreeing - I'm fairly confident my opinion on this matter is of no interest to His Holiness or the RC Church.

It's about a genuine desire to understand the situation. I hear your position, which is clear, but I also hear (and read) alternative possibilities, and I'm trying to get my head around that.

Where my 'liking it' becomes a bit more relevant is IF (again, a big if) you are wrong and other Roman Catholic commentators are right AND IF that then has an impact on the views of members of my own denomination. Are there people (let's call them the 'ecumenism objectors') who would change their mind about the OoW in the Church of England if that was to happen? Would that affect the views of other people? I'm sort of hoping that the answers to these questions will clarify some of the nuances of the anti-OoW position for me.

So I know that it's hypothetical, and I am sorry if my harping on the question annoys you. I certainly don't intend to imply disrespect to the Roman Catholic Church. I'm just trying to use the question to throw some light on the Anglican situation.

Anne

Not annoyed, honest!
The point I was trying to make, is not that I think it is wrong, but the Church (and God) says it is wrong. Yes, there are RC's who disagree, but unlike in the Anglican Church, their view point is not equally valid to the Church view. Whilst they can think what they wish, it is wrong, as it is not the Church position!! This sense of authority is something that the CofE lacks, hence the pickle it is in, trying to hold opposites togther. So in the CofE, you can hold a differeing view to the official CofE line (if there is such a thing) and could well argue that your point of view is equally valid as there is no 'authority' to say otherwise. Except of course, you say something that might be unkind to the Royal family, and then it is the stake for you [Snigger]

(Bishop Pete [Votive]

)

That all said, if somehow things did change, (eg Jesus returned with Mary, and she said Mass say!)then yes, I think some Anglicans may change their position. However I do wonder where those with ecumenical oppostion are coming from. Yes OoW is a block to unity, but not the only one. If they are that concered about what the Church teaches, they may as well swim the Tiber! I do know some anglicans who say pubilically that they are ecumenically opposed, but in private would say they are impossibilists, but that is not a PC position to hold in public. This position does also assume that the ecumenical movement is only towards Rome, as the non-conformists have problems with the CofE not having women bishops eg the Methodists.

But I can't see it happening! [Smile]

Posted by anne (# 73) on :

quote:
Originally posted by hereweare:

I do know some anglicans who say pubilically that they are ecumenically opposed, but in private would say they are impossibilists, but that is not a PC position to hold in public.

Well, I won't say that I'd never suspected this! Of course they are less likely to share this view with me.

Thanks for your patience.

Posted by hereweare (# 15567) on :

quote:
Originally posted by anne:

quote:
Originally posted by hereweare:

I do know some anglicans who say pubilically that they are ecumenically opposed, but in private would say they are impossibilists, but that is not a PC position to hold in public.
Well, I won't say that I'd never suspected this! Of course they are less likely to share this view with me.

Thanks for your patience.

Happy Sailing!

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

quote:
Originally posted by hereweare:
but ...God... says it is wrong.

This is probably out of order, but all I can say to that is 'does He bollocks'.
Or to out it more politely, it is this aspect of the RCC that reminds me why I can never swim the Tiber; and indeed, if OoW is indeed an insuperable obstacle to reunion between Canterbury and Rome, then all I can say is roll on the first female ABC.

Posted by Edward Green (# 46) on :

quote:
Originally posted by hereweare:
My apologies, perhaps I should stick to 'ministers' in future

Do you not recognise them as Deacons?

Posted by hereweare (# 15567) on :

At that's the point I was making Albertus, you say it is bollocks, others say your view is, who is right? The Church just makes it clear, and distinguishes between those rules which are man made eg celibacy and can be dispensed, and those of God which can not. Simple really.

Re Deacons, Edward, I am afraid the Church states that Anglican orders are null and void ie Deacon, Priest and Bishop. That said, those former Anglican clergy who do come over are not asked to deny anything, and enter at a level that assumes all the 'ministries' have been undertaken, and are at Candidacy level.

Posted by sanityman (# 11598) on :

quote:
Originally posted by hereweare:
At that's the point I was making Albertus, you say it is bollocks, others say your view is, who is right? The Church just makes it clear, and distinguishes between those rules which are man made eg celibacy and can be dispensed, and those of God which can not. Simple really.

I think you may get fewer annoyed people (and annoyed replies, which are a subset of the above) if you phrased something akin to "the RC church says that God says." If you were talking to people who acknowledge the right of the RC church to speak for God, you wouldn't be having the conversation in the first place; as you're not, that appeal to authority is guaranteed to fall on deaf ears. Something to bear in mind.

- Chris.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

Thank you, sanityman, for living up to your name and putting more courteously and helpfully the point that I would have made had I not let my anger and irritation at the tone and content of hereweare's post run away with me.

Posted by hereweare (# 15567) on :

quote:
Originally posted by sanityman:

quote:
Originally posted by hereweare:
At that's the point I was making Albertus, you say it is bollocks, others say your view is, who is right? The Church just makes it clear, and distinguishes between those rules which are man made eg celibacy and can be dispensed, and those of God which can not. Simple really.
I think you may get fewer annoyed people (and annoyed replies, which are a subset of the above) if you phrased something akin to "the RC church says that God says." If you were talking to people who acknowledge the right of the RC church to speak for God, you wouldn't be having the conversation in the first place; as you're not, that appeal to authority is guaranteed to fall on deaf ears. Something to bear in mind.

- Chris.

Thanks Chris. Whilst I see where you are coming from, and the point you're making, on Albertus' behalf. But I can not help from where I am coming from too. To say 'The Rc Church says' would suggest that I believe an alternative and probably opposing view would be equally valid, which I do not. The point of my post was you need authority, and I believe that it does not come from an individual, but from the Church. Otherwise we get into the 'bollocks' theology as seen.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

quote:
Originally posted by hereweare:
To say 'The Rc Church says' would suggest that I believe an alternative and probably opposing view would be equally valid, which I do not.

No it wouldn't. To say, 'my church teaches, and I believe does so on divine authority', does not in the least concede anything to opposing views.

Posted by hereweare (# 15567) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:

quote:
Originally posted by hereweare:
To say 'The Rc Church says' would suggest that I believe an alternative and probably opposing view would be equally valid, which I do not.
No it wouldn't. To say, 'my church teaches, and I believe does so on divine authority', does not in the least concede anything to opposing views.

Sorry I left out the '....' after 'The RC Church says'. I do however disagree with your point, as if I had said the RC Church says why 'X then a response would be but the CofE says 'Y' - who is right, just like your 'bollocks' position. It is rather like Pilate and Jesus 'are you the King of the Jews' 'it you who say I'm the King of the Jews'? . Though too late in the evening to formulate it properly!!

Posted by sanityman (# 11598) on :

quote:
Originally posted by hereweare:

quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:

quote:
Originally posted by hereweare:
To say 'The Rc Church says' would suggest that I believe an alternative and probably opposing view would be equally valid, which I do not.
No it wouldn't. To say, 'my church teaches, and I believe does so on divine authority', does not in the least concede anything to opposing views.
Sorry I left out the '....' after 'The RC Church says'. I do however disagree with your point, as if I had said the RC Church says why 'X then a response would be but the CofE says 'Y' - who is right, just like your 'bollocks' position. It is rather like Pilate and Jesus 'are you the King of the Jews' 'it you who say I'm the King of the Jews'? . Though too late in the evening to formulate it properly!!

Likewise, my example phrasing probably wasn't the best. But I do think Albertus has a point, in that it is possible to word in such a way that doesn't implicitly assume your opponent agrees with something they obviously don't.

From what you say, I get the message that you need an absolute standard of infallible divine revelation, or every theological debate devolves into "he says x, she says y." You feel that the RC church provides that, because of the divine authority of the Magisterium.

What I don't get is why you can't see that your acceptance of that divine authority had to be your own decision, based presumably on the church's (pontiffs, whatever) say so. To the Rest Of Us, that looks indistinguishable from a "he says" argument, with the added hubris of claiming, on their own authority and that of their predecessors, to speak for God.

If you accept the teaching, I'm sure it's perfectly self-consistent. But from the outside it looks very different. And I'm afraid as a debating tactic, it's self-defeating. is an absolute that is not testable or generally accepted still an absolute?

- Chris.

Posted by hereweare (# 15567) on :

quote:
Originally posted by sanityman:

quote:
Originally posted by hereweare:

quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:

quote:
Originally posted by hereweare:
To say 'The Rc Church says' would suggest that I believe an alternative and probably opposing view would be equally valid, which I do not.
No it wouldn't. To say, 'my church teaches, and I believe does so on divine authority', does not in the least concede anything to opposing views.
Sorry I left out the '....' after 'The RC Church says'. I do however disagree with your point, as if I had said the RC Church says why 'X then a response would be but the CofE says 'Y' - who is right, just like your 'bollocks' position. It is rather like Pilate and Jesus 'are you the King of the Jews' 'it you who say I'm the King of the Jews'? . Though too late in the evening to formulate it properly!!
Likewise, my example phrasing probably wasn't the best. But I do think Albertus has a point, in that it is possible to word in such a way that doesn't implicitly assume your opponent agrees with something they obviously don't.

From what you say, I get the message that you need an absolute standard of infallible divine revelation, or every theological debate devolves into "he says x, she says y." You feel that the RC church provides that, because of the divine authority of the Magisterium.

What I don't get is why you can't see that your acceptance of that divine authority had to be your own decision, based presumably on the church's (pontiffs, whatever) say so. To the Rest Of Us, that looks indistinguishable from a "he says" argument, with the added hubris of claiming, on their own authority and that of their predecessors, to speak for God.

If you accept the teaching, I'm sure it's perfectly self-consistent. But from the outside it looks very different. And I'm afraid as a debating tactic, it's self-defeating. is an absolute that is not testable or generally accepted still an absolute?

- Chris.

That's the beauty of the Church I guess. I wasn't trying to make Albertus (or anyone else) believe something they do not, I was trying to explain to Anne I think, that ths Church has a different way of thinking than say the CofE, as the absolutes are (eternally) important. I think Albertus and his 'bollocks he does' was a very different way of seeing things (and an even worse debating tatic!).

I agree that I had to accept that something was Divine authority, but my acceptence or otherwise does not effect the absolute, as it is Divine. I could stubbornly refuse to accept that the world is round, but that wouldn't make the world flat. I may not accept that women can't be priests, but it doesn't change the Divine fact.

Posted by anne (# 73) on :

quote:
Originally posted by hereweare:
That's the beauty of the Church I guess. I wasn't trying to make Albertus (or anyone else) believe something they do not, I was trying to explain to Anne I think, that ths Church has a different way of thinking than say the CofE, as the absolutes are (eternally) important. I think Albertus and his 'bollocks he does' was a very different way of seeing things (and an even worse debating tatic!).

I agree that I had to accept that something was Divine authority, but my acceptence or otherwise does not effect the absolute, as it is Divine. I could stubbornly refuse to accept that the world is round, but that wouldn't make the world flat. I may not accept that women can't be priests, but it doesn't change the Divine fact.

Sorry to be dim, but are you comparing like with like here? In terms of this debate, the roundness or otherwise of the earth is subject to external verification (we could take a picture) but the Divine authority (or otherwise) of the church is not externally verifiable is it? It is authoritative (and divine, for that matter) because it says it is.

Whilst I understand that the standing of this Divine Authority of the Church is not affected by your (or my) assent, I don't quite see why you feel that it should be an argument closer for those of us who have not chosen to be under the authority of that church.

Anne

Posted by sanityman (# 11598) on :

quote:
Originally posted by hereweare:
I agree that I had to accept that something was Divine authority, but my acceptence or otherwise does not effect the absolute, as it is Divine. I could stubbornly refuse to accept that the world is round, but that wouldn't make the world flat. I may not accept that women can't be priests, but it doesn't change the Divine fact.

I would echo what anne said here: I included "testable" in my question about absolutes because I do strongly believe that there are absolute, unchanging truths out there - such as the Earth being round. It doesn't matter if I refuse to accept it, because there's a host of objective evidence (including photographs) to show that it is. I don't have to accept the word of anyone, even a scientist: I just have to look at the evidence. I think there is a clear distinction between arguments from evidence such as that, and arguments from authority, such as the one you are making about the RC church.

I hope I'm not stressing a point that you find obvious here, but to take a rather silly example: suppose I declared myself to have Divinely mandated authority, and decreed that women priest were ok. You response would, I imagine, be along the line of the aforementioned "bollocks." (although you may be politer [Biased]

) You would have no reason to accept my authority based solely on my say-so, and to be frank, neither would anyone else. If I and my descendants continued making that truth claim, and attracted some followers, neither our numbers nor the length of time I had been making the claim would be sufficient to validate it.

The argument for accepting the word of the Pontiff on the ordination of women is not, as you argue, validated by their claim to represent the word of God on the issue. Their position is as strong as the reasons that anyone should accept that claim. In my previous (silly) example, there were no good reasons to accept my claim to authority, so my spurious appeal to my own authority was worthless. The RC church has a better, but not universally accepted, claim to authority. That authoirt is not a fact, but a belief which not all share (a bit like the existence of God, for which an identical argument could be made for both theists and atheists!).

However, I note that some who would describe themselves as (Roman) Catholic still dissent from the official line on women's ordination, for example the Catholic Theological Society of America, who in their report "Tradition and the ordination of women" stated

quote:
There are serious doubts regarding the nature of the authority of this teaching and its grounds in Tradition. There is serious, widespread disagreement on this question not only among theologians, but also within the larger community of the Church. Once again, it seems clear, therefore, that further study, discussion, and prayer regarding this question by all the members of the Church in accord with their particular gifts and vocations are necessary if the Church is to be guided by the Spirit in remaining faithful to the authentic Tradition of the Gospel in our day.

It seems that, even for those who do accept the authority of the RC church, the debate isn't as closed as you would have us believe.

- Chris.

Posted by hereweare (# 15567) on :

quote:
Originally posted by sanityman:

quote:
Originally posted by hereweare:
I agree that I had to accept that something was Divine authority, but my acceptence or otherwise does not effect the absolute, as it is Divine. I could stubbornly refuse to accept that the world is round, but that wouldn't make the world flat. I may not accept that women can't be priests, but it doesn't change the Divine fact.
I would echo what anne said here: I included "testable" in my question about absolutes because I do strongly believe that there are absolute, unchanging truths out there - such as the Earth being round. It doesn't matter if I refuse to accept it, because there's a host of objective evidence (including photographs) to show that it is. I don't have to accept the word of anyone, even a scientist: I just have to look at the evidence. I think there is a clear distinction between arguments from evidence such as that, and arguments from authority, such as the one you are making about the RC church.

I hope I'm not stressing a point that you find obvious here, but to take a rather silly example: suppose I declared myself to have Divinely mandated authority, and decreed that women priest were ok. You response would, I imagine, be along the line of the aforementioned "bollocks." (although you may be politer ) You would have no reason to accept my authority based solely on my say-so, and to be frank, neither would anyone else. If I and my descendants continued making that truth claim, and attracted some followers, neither our numbers nor the length of time I had been making the claim would be sufficient to validate it.

The argument for accepting the word of the Pontiff on the ordination of women is not, as you argue, validated by their claim to represent the word of God on the issue. Their position is as strong as the reasons that anyone should accept that claim. In my previous (silly) example, there were no good reasons to accept my claim to authority, so my spurious appeal to my own authority was worthless. The RC church has a better, but not universally accepted, claim to authority. That authoirt is not a fact, but a belief which not all share (a bit like the existence of God, for which an identical argument could be made for both theists and atheists!).

However, I note that some who would describe themselves as (Roman) Catholic still dissent from the official line on women's ordination, for example the Catholic Theological Society of America, who in their report "Tradition and the ordination of women" stated
quote:
There are serious doubts regarding the nature of the authority of this teaching and its grounds in Tradition. There is serious, widespread disagreement on this question not only among theologians, but also within the larger community of the Church. Once again, it seems clear, therefore, that further study, discussion, and prayer regarding this question by all the members of the Church in accord with their particular gifts and vocations are necessary if the Church is to be guided by the Spirit in remaining faithful to the authentic Tradition of the Gospel in our day.
It seems that, even for those who do accept the authority of the RC church, the debate isn't as closed as you would have us believe.

- Chris.

As I said to Anne, I know there are RC's who don't hold what the Church teaches on the OoW amongst a whole host of other things. But whilst they hold an opposing view, they do so only as a personal opinion which in the eyes of the Church is wrong. Now I admit the Church has shifted its position on things, like the earth not actually being flat, but given how JPII expressed, OoW is beyond discussion (at least officially). So yes, it is closed subject, even if people ignore this. Many may not like it in and outside of the Church, but that's the position the Church is in. It is rather like arguing about the Divinity of Christ or the Assumption of Our Lady. The Church has clearly staed that these are dogma, ie have to be believed in for salvation, as I said before, these issues have 'eternal' significance. Now anyone is free to disagree, but can the call themselves full memembers of the Church, if they deny such truths? Heresy is defined as 'obstinate denial or obstinate doubt after the reception of baptism of some truth which is to be believed by divine and Catholic faith' The question that is perhaps really worth discussing (and is) is whether JPII's announcement on OoW was teaching with 'infallibility' as defined by Vat II (it appears JPII did). Though as we note from the above quote from Canon 751 Heresy covers all truth believed to be divine, not just the 'Infallible' ones, so in either case, it has to be believed.

I think at the heart of our discussion, is in fact the nature of Church and where that is and what Authority the Church actually has.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by hereweare:
Now I admit the Church has shifted its position on things, like the earth not actually being flat...

No it hasn't. The Roman Catholic church never insisted that the earth was flat. That's a lie put about by anti-Christian propagandists in the USA in the 19th century.

None of what you say makes the slightest difference to the plain fact that if they chance their mind on the ordination of women they will find a form or words to reconcile their new position with what previous Popes said. Whatever previous Popes said.

Posted by hereweare (# 15567) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ken:

quote:
Originally posted by hereweare:
Now I admit the Church has shifted its position on things, like the earth not actually being flat...
No it hasn't. The Roman Catholic church never insisted that the earth was flat. That's a lie put about by anti-Christian propagandists in the USA in the 19th century.

None of what you say makes the slightest difference to the plain fact that if they chance their mind on the ordination of women they will find a form or words to reconcile their new position with what previous Popes said. Whatever previous Popes said.

Thanks for the US info! Could you provide evidence to back up your other claim?

Posted by Carex (# 9643) on :

quote:
Originally posted by JoannaP:
I believe the majority of the laity would not care that much.

To get back to the OP, whether you see the CofE as being in a hole or not in the first place depends on your perspective. I suspect that a majority of them don't, as JoannaP pointed out, and thus don't see a need that it needs to dig itself out of anything.

Since I'm not a member of the CofE, my positions on the issues really don't matter at all, and it isn't my place to judge any of the positions as "right" or "wrong". But from a distance I can observe some trends in the discussions, and offer the following thoughts from that perspective:

First, a reality check might be helpful. Looking at the situation as a whole I've come to the following practical conclusions.

1) The Church of England ordains women as priests, and will (probably) soon appoint women as bishops. They can make arrangements so that dissenters don't have to take communion from or be under the episcopal authority of the "wrong" type of priest or bishop, but that is not to deny that women hold those positions in the CofE. (In the same way that some people might not consider a Bishop in the LDS church to be a "true" bishop, but that is still their title and office.)

2) No structural solution that requires approval of parliament is likely to pass. I suspect that any Third Province falls in this category. The general unchurched population of England is going to be much less accepting of any accommodations for what they may see as "misogynist bigots" than the members of the Church, some of whom have a better understanding of the issues involved. At least it won't pass until the BNP forms a government.

3) There isn't likely to be any ecumenical agreement on OoW in our lifetimes. Certainly the chance of an Ecumenical Council to discuss it is extremely slim, given how long it has been since the last one and how many new denominations have sprung up in the meantime. Any argument that we need to wait for such agreement is liable to be filed under the heading of "delay is the deadliest form of denial".

4) The argument that OoW and/or women bishops will reduce or eliminate the potential re-integration of the CofE with the Roman Catholic Church (or recognition of orders) won't go over well with the average bum-on-a-pew, who wants nothing to do with the Pope or the RCs. To many, one of the defining characteristics of the CofE is that it is NOT RC.

So the question is, what are the remaining options, and how can the multiple sides (I think this thread has identified more than one grouping of people on both sides of the issue) work together to develop a workable approach. Just because some dissenters aren't getting their preferred solution doesn't mean that the rest of the CofE have abandoned them, or aren't still trying to find a suitable accommodation within the realm of the reality of the situation.

That's not to say that everyone will be happy with the final solution, regardless of what it is. Some of the dissenters will, I'm sure, feel too uncomfortable with the direction of the CofE and choose to leave, as might some of the other side if there is too much accommodation (including a further delay in taking any action.) Is this unfortunate? Certainly. Does this mean they are being "forced out"? It may feel like that to some, and others will say it is a matter of personal choice. Making it more difficult to live in denial about the role of women in the CofE is not the same as refusing to make a place for those who hold an opposing view.

I don't know what Synod will approve in the end, or the details of a possible Code of Practice. But those who appear to be insisting on an impossible outcome seem (to me, at least) to be trying the patience of those who are, in good faith, looking for a practical solution, and may be counterproductive in the long term.

I sincerely hope that a reasonable solution is found that can provide some accommodation for all involved. I know it will not be easy, but I am heartened by some of the posts I've read here on the Ship that show members of both sides can understand the other (to some extent, anyway), and can respect those who hold views opposed to their own. I appreciate the hard work required on both sides and wish them well.

Clarification: I want to make it clear that I've used some shorthand terms, like "dissenters" to represent those who are opposed to the move to women Bishops, without intending any negative connotation. And my use of terms such as "misogynist bigots" was not intended to express my own opinion, but rather those of some of the general public who only see that side of the issue.

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :

Carex,

Thank you for your summary.

One of the things that is aggravating this situation is that the way the "there will always be a place for those who cannot accept women priests in the CofE" or whatever the phrase was, has been interpreted, The PEVs, the pastoral episcopal visitors or flying bishops, have continued to ordain men who believed that they were always going to have a place, even though they were joining a CofE that now ordained women. It feels to me as if those involved have been crossing their fingers behind their backs and hoping that those ordained women will be seen as not properly ordained and be removed at some point and the decision to ordain reversed.

Personally, I think that we should have said quite clearly that if you were to be ordained into the CofE after the decision to ordain women had been made, that should have been accepted by those being ordained into the church. Turning a blind eye and reading the "always have a place" to mean "we can force a place for ever", not that those in the CofE who could not accept the changes would be provided for.

I think we needed to provide for those in the church who could not accept women priests - we made our own provisions locally, providing a service that was guaranteed to be presided by a man. We kept that promise for 10 years, when we could no longer do this - and when we went back to that congregation, they were happy to have a woman priest at their service.

Did the CofE mean that they were providing for a permanent Third Province in perpetuity, or for those who had been ordained in good faith who couldn't accept the changes?

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

Couple of discussions going on here, but to refer to the one with hereweare about the 'Divine fact', I want (unsurprisingly) to support what sanityman and Anne have said. The 'Divine fact' of the impossibility of OoW is an argument closer for hereweare and for those who agree with him (her?)about papal infallibility. We understand and respect that. We see why it's a closer for you. But we don't accept papal infallibility. We're not RCs. hereweare has to understand and accept that. We may be objectively wrong (though I don't think we are) but the appeal to the 'Divine fact' as hereweare puts it won't convince us. Mind you, I suspect that no argument that s/he puts will. So the best we can hope for is that we understand each other's position. There's no point us trying to convince hereweare that s/he's wrong, or vice versa.

Posted by hereweare (# 15567) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Couple of discussions going on here, but to refer to the one with hereweare about the 'Divine fact', I want (unsurprisingly) to support what sanityman and Anne have said. The 'Divine fact' of the impossibility of OoW is an argument closer for hereweare and for those who agree with him (her?)about papal infallibility. We understand and respect that. We see why it's a closer for you. But we don't accept papal infallibility. We're not RCs. hereweare has to understand and accept that. We may be objectively wrong (though I don't think we are) but the appeal to the 'Divine fact' as hereweare puts it won't convince us. Mind you, I suspect that no argument that s/he puts will. So the best we can hope for is that we understand each other's position. There's no point us trying to convince hereweare that s/he's wrong, or vice versa.

I understand that you are not RC's, but as I said above, the issue is the nature of Church, ie who does have the authority to speak for God.

If you recall this tangent started becuause it was claimed the RC Church would change her position. I pointed out the facts (divine or otherwise)that are in black and white, or at least white and yellow, so whether you accept it not is not an issue. I was highlighting that the Church is clear on the issue whether its members agree or not. I'm sure there is another DH thread to argue on what is the Church (and I think we may disagree!!!).I'm not trying to convert here just saying how it is.

The problem I do have though, that it would appear that your or an individual's opinion is some how equal to the teaching authority of the Church. The Pope can't have infallibility, but an individual can, hence the 'bollocks' remark? [Ultra confused]

As I said, this is really a debate the nature and authority of the Church, which I am sure is covered in some other DH thread.

But to bring this back to the OP, it would have been far better for the CofE to have said in 1992 that we are going to ordain women, if you don't like it, here's the door (however unChristian that would be) but it didn't, as it didn't have that authority. It stated both here in the UK and in through out the Communion (Windsor statement IIRC) that those opposed had a honoured and lasting place. It should of course be remembered that those anti-OoW hadn't chnaged their belief but the CofE had. So no wonder those opposed feel that the rug is being pulled from underneath them.

Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :

Albertus - whilst I am generally inclined to agree with you and anne (I think), I'm not sure your summary was exactly what hereweare was saying. Rather that s/he was saying something as though the pope were to have said "I can - under certain limited conditions - declare things infallibly. But this isn't one of them as there are external constraints that don't allow me to do that".

Still, that is for hereweare to confirm or deny.

Posted by hereweare (# 15567) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
Albertus - whilst I am generally inclined to agree with you and anne (I think), I'm not sure your summary was exactly what hereweare was saying. Rather that s/he was saying something as though the pope were to have said "I can - under certain limited conditions - declare things infallibly. But this isn't one of them as there are external constraints that don't allow me to do that".

Still, that is for hereweare to confirm or deny.

I think we cross posted.

Re 'this isn't one of them' depends on how you read JPII's comments to the German Bishop's as posted on p2 and my subsequent comments, basically whether it was a big 'I' or little 'i' not is it or isn't it, it clearly is.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by hereweare:
If you recall this tangent started becuause it was claimed the RC Church would change her position. I pointed out the facts (divine or otherwise)that are in black and white, or at least white and yellow, so whether you accept it not is not an issue.

But it isn't "the facts". Because sooner or later this Pope and the others around him will be dead, other people will be defining doctrine, and if they want to do things differently they just will and there is nothing in practice the current Pope can do to bind them. That's just the way things are. If in those future days it is still important to them to seem to be not contradicting the pronouncements of dead popes then those future Catholics will be able to choose to re-interpret what he said in ways that he would not have intended.

quote:
Originally posted by hereweare:
So no wonder those opposed feel that the rug is being pulled from underneath them.

Except that they haven't and the most of rest of the Church of England is still bending over backwards to accommodate them.

[ 17. December 2010, 17:17: Message edited by: ken ]

Posted by hereweare (# 15567) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ken:

quote:
Originally posted by hereweare:
If you recall this tangent started becuause it was claimed the RC Church would change her position. I pointed out the facts (divine or otherwise)that are in black and white, or at least white and yellow, so whether you accept it not is not an issue.
But it isn't "the facts". Because sooner or later this Pope and the others around him will be dead, other people will be defining doctrine, and if they want to do things differently they just will and there is nothing in practice the current Pope can do to bind them. That's just the way things are. If in those future days it is still important to them to seem to be not contradicting the pronouncements of dead popes then those future Catholics will be able to choose to re-interpret what he said in ways that he would not have intended.

quote:
Originally posted by hereweare:
So no wonder those opposed feel that the rug is being pulled from underneath them.
Except that they haven't and the most of rest of the Church of England is still bending over backwards to accommodate them.

Again Ken I have to ask you, what eveidence have you to support your first statement? Could you say, give an example where a doctrine concerning faith or morals been over turned by a subsequent Pope?

The rug hasn't been pulled yet, but they can feel the tugs!

Posted by JoannaP (# 4493) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Carex:
4) The argument that OoW and/or women bishops will reduce or eliminate the potential re-integration of the CofE with the Roman Catholic Church (or recognition of orders) won't go over well with the average bum-on-a-pew, who wants nothing to do with the Pope or the RCs. To many, one of the defining characteristics of the CofE is that it is NOT RC.

On the other hand, if we do not consecrate women bishops, we will not be able to re-integrate the CofE and the Methodist church. What hope is there of healing a deep and long-standing split if we cannot heal more recent ones, where there is not such a problem with recognition of orders?

Posted by Nightlamp (# 266) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ken:

quote:
Originally posted by hereweare:
If you recall this tangent started becuause it was claimed the RC Church would change her position. I pointed out the facts (divine or otherwise)that are in black and white, or at least white and yellow, so whether you accept it not is not an issue.
But it isn't "the facts". Because sooner or later this Pope and the others around him will be dead,

I agree but the way that Popes appoints the future electorate all but guarantees for the forseeable future (15+ years) that significant change is not going to happen. A secret 'liberal' may get to be Pope but I find this very unlikely.

Posted by Nightlamp (# 266) on :

quote:
Originally posted by hereweare:
Again Ken I have to ask you, what eveidence have you to support your first statement? Could you say, give an example where a doctrine concerning faith or morals been over turned by a subsequent Pope?

Well one example is Usury totally immoral according to RC teaching but I wonder what Diocese actually doesn't pay interest or recieve interest on money in a bank?

Posted by hereweare (# 15567) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Nightlamp:

quote:
Originally posted by hereweare:
Again Ken I have to ask you, what eveidence have you to support your first statement? Could you say, give an example where a doctrine concerning faith or morals been over turned by a subsequent Pope?
Well one example is Usury totally immoral according to RC teaching but I wonder what Diocese actually doesn't pay interest or recieve interest on money in a bank?

The Diocese of A&B at least however lends without interest. Whilst I could look it up I'm sure, could you quote the appropriate canon? Thanks!

Posted by hereweare (# 15567) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Nightlamp:

quote:
Originally posted by ken:

quote:
Originally posted by hereweare:
If you recall this tangent started becuause it was claimed the RC Church would change her position. I pointed out the facts (divine or otherwise)that are in black and white, or at least white and yellow, so whether you accept it not is not an issue.
But it isn't "the facts". Because sooner or later this Pope and the others around him will be dead,
I agree but the way that Popes appoints the future electorate all but guarantees for the forseeable future (15+ years) that significant change is not going to happen. A secret 'liberal' may get to be Pope but I find this very unlikely.

ah, truth is eternal! [Biased]

Posted by Nightlamp (# 266) on :

quote:
Originally posted by hereweare:
[QUOTE]The Diocese of A&B at least however lends without interest. Whilst I could look it up I'm sure, could you quote the appropriate canon? Thanks!

Even a renegade RC like myself has heard of the 3rd Lateran council and being an Ecumencical council has some weight but a number of Popes also spoke against Usury. I personally use the magic of google it is a very useful tool for looking things I suggest you try it. If you do you should find the clause that excomunicates those who use Usury.

Posted by hereweare (# 15567) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Nightlamp:

quote:
Originally posted by hereweare:
[QUOTE]The Diocese of A&B at least however lends without interest. Whilst I could look it up I'm sure, could you quote the appropriate canon? Thanks!
Even a renegade RC like myself has heard of the 3rd Lateran council and being an Ecumencical council has some weight but a number of Popes also spoke against Usury. I personally use the magic of google it is a very useful tool for looking things I suggest you try it. If you do you should find the clause that excomunicates those who use Usury.

See also CCC 2269 para 2

and

The Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church quotes John Paul II from a Feb. 3, 2004, general catechesis. There, the Pope calls for a commitment “not to practice usury — a plague that is a disgraceful reality even in our days that can place a stronghold on the lives of many people.”
The Compendium of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, promulgated at the beginning of Benedict’s pontificate, seems to broaden the sense of usury even more. One of the answers to the question (508) “What is forbidden by the seventh commandment?” is:

“Also forbidden is tax evasion or business fraud; willfully damaging private or public property; usury; corruption; the private abuse of common goods; work deliberately done poorly; and waste.”

No change in the teaching there then....

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

quote:
Originally posted by hereweare:

The problem I do have though, that it would appear that your or an individual's opinion is some how equal to the teaching authority of the Church. The Pope can't have infallibility, but an individual can, hence the 'bollocks' remark? As I said, this is really a debate the nature and authority of the Church, which I am sure is covered in some other DH thread.

No. I don't hold that an individual's opinion is equal to the teaching authority of the Church. But having teaching authority is a long way from the ability to speak directly for God, infallibly. And while I am a long way from being one of the sola scriptura gang, as a good Anglican I believe that Scripture contains all thigns necessary for salvation, so to place something like the Assumption on a par with the divinity of Christ as an article of belief strikes me as verging on blasphemy. I do deny that the Pope has infallibility, but this does not mean that I think that anybody else is infallible.

Posted by hereweare (# 15567) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:

quote:
Originally posted by hereweare:

The problem I do have though, that it would appear that your or an individual's opinion is some how equal to the teaching authority of the Church. The Pope can't have infallibility, but an individual can, hence the 'bollocks' remark? As I said, this is really a debate the nature and authority of the Church, which I am sure is covered in some other DH thread.

No. I don't hold that an individual's opinion is equal to the teaching authority of the Church. But having teaching authority is a long way from the ability to speak directly for God, infallibly. And while I am a long way from being one of the sola scriptura gang, as a good Anglican I believe that Scripture contains all thigns necessary for salvation, so to place something like the Assumption on a par with the divinity of Christ as an article of belief strikes me as verging on blasphemy. I do deny that the Pope has infallibility, but this does not mean that I think that anybody else is infallible.

Agreement at last! I too do not believe anyone other than the Pope has infallibility (except for when the Church does either in synod or spread aboard, but that's not a person as such).

But if you believe the Pope has infallibility, then I don't understand the problem with the Assumption, as that was proclaimed Infallibily?

Posted by Nightlamp (# 266) on :

quote:
Originally posted by hereweare:
No change in the teaching there then....

If you had read what I had posted which I begin to wonder if you do then would have noticed I said there was a change in practice where Usury the giving and recieving interest is widely practiced by Roman Catholics. practice and theology are divergent.

The same applies to married Priests the theology that lay behind the Gegorian reforms was that men were unclean if they came into 'contact' with their wives and hence couldn't celebrate mass. Teh modern day theology behind priestly celibacy is quite different.

The RC church has been quite good at keeping the forms of believe around but in practice they are abandoned. I agree with you I do not see the RC church taking on female priests but I do see they expanding the practice of male married priests.

Posted by hereweare (# 15567) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Nightlamp:

quote:
Originally posted by hereweare:
No change in the teaching there then....
If you had read what I had posted which I begin to wonder if you do then would have noticed I said there was a change in practice where Usury the giving and recieving interest is widely practiced by Roman Catholics. practice and theology are divergent.

The same applies to married Priests the theology that lay behind the Gegorian reforms was that men were unclean if they came into 'contact' with their wives and hence couldn't celebrate mass. Teh modern day theology behind priestly celibacy is quite different.

The RC church has been quite good at keeping the forms of believe around but in practice they are abandoned. I agree with you I do not see the RC church taking on female priests but I do see they expanding the practice of male married priests.

Yes I had read and understood what you posted, but the point I was making, was that teaching had not changed. In fact Benedict seems to have firmed it up (as you point out there may be case to answer between differential between theory and practice). I can't agree with your understanding of the history of celibacy though, the theology goes way back before then. I think the 'unclean' bit etc. has more to do protestant parody of Catholic theology then the whole truth (there may be a grain though [Biased]

) However that is a disscussion for another thread.

Anyway, as mentioned, celibacy is a human law not a divine one, so could, and has been changed, unlike the OoW. Which is a long winded way of saying that I think we agree!!!!

Posted by sanityman (# 11598) on :

quote:
Originally posted by hereweare:
Anyway, as mentioned, celibacy is a human law not a divine one, so could, and has been changed, unlike the OoW. Which is a long winded way of saying that I think we agree!!!!

Pardon my ignorance, but could you give us a quick run-down of why you believe that the RC church's stance on OoW is "divine" but that on celibacy is "human"? This seems to be a key point in your argument, and I've heard it argued different ways by different RCs, so I don't think I understand where you are coming from here.

- Chris.

Posted by hereweare (# 15567) on :

quote:
Originally posted by sanityman:

quote:
Originally posted by hereweare:
Anyway, as mentioned, celibacy is a human law not a divine one, so could, and has been changed, unlike the OoW. Which is a long winded way of saying that I think we agree!!!!
Pardon my ignorance, but could you give us a quick run-down of why you believe that the RC church's stance on OoW is "divine" but that on celibacy is "human"? This seems to be a key point in your argument, and I've heard it argued different ways by different RCs, so I don't think I understand where you are coming from here.

- Chris.

Coz the Pope said so! See JPII above. But to expand, the gender of the priest is to do with the nature of priesthood, and the person, ie divine, where as celibacy is a discipline, ie man made, as there has been times when it was celibate and when it wasn't. Or another way to look at it, when God made us, the only distinction he made was male and female, so gender is of divine significance (I must add this is my thought, I'm not sure if the Church says the same to be honest).

Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on :

The obligation of celibacy for Latin rite priests is a matter of discipline,not doctrine.It is felt to be in the best interests of the Church for the clergy to be celibate and be available for the faithful without the 'encumbrances' of wife and family in order that they may devote themselves 100% to the Church.That is the theory,if not the practice.It is no part of doctrine.

The ordination of women to the priesthood is felt ot be quite different.There is no history of women priests.Christ did not however specifically forbid it.Papal 'infallibility' has however never be invoked to declare that it is impossible for women to be ordained,so there is no real difficulty about the Church possibly coming to the view that women might be ordained to the priesthood,even if a pope has said it is not possible.However at the moment it is definitely not on the cards and that is a matter of discipline for those who are members of the Catholic church.the bishops of the Catholic church are not 'episcopi vagantes' and simply cannot ordain women to the priesthood.

Posted by sanityman (# 11598) on :

quote:
Originally posted by hereweare:

quote:
Originally posted by sanityman:
Pardon my ignorance, but could you give us a quick run-down of why you believe that the RC church's stance on OoW is "divine" but that on celibacy is "human"? This seems to be a key point in your argument, and I've heard it argued different ways by different RCs, so I don't think I understand where you are coming from here.

- Chris.
Coz the Pope said so! See JPII above.

Again: I thought it was the case that the pope was not dogmatically infallible unless speaking ex cathedra - which he wasn't on this occasion. I can understand that the RC church has painted itself into a corner should it wish to have second thoughts on the Immaculate Conception, but I wasn't under the impression that OoW was cut from that cloth, and some RCs seem to agree (see also what Forthview said).

Your comments about gender strike me as a little... odd. I feel there's a lot of philosophical views implicit in both what your saying and the RC official stance which are never aired in the usual debates. I understand the objections to female priests from someone who holds your view of the priesthood well enough (I think!) - but even if I did hold those views, which I'm afraid I don't, I don't think the conclusion that women priests are invalid follows without a lot of supplementary assumptions about the nature and spiritual significance of gender. I'd say "extra-biblical," but that might betray my evangelical roots!

- Chris.

Posted by JoannaP (# 4493) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
The obligation of celibacy for Latin rite priests is a matter of discipline,not doctrine.It is felt to be in the best interests of the Church for the clergy to be celibate and be available for the faithful without the 'encumbrances' of wife and family in order that they may devote themselves 100% to the Church.That is the theory,if not the practice.It is no part of doctrine.

In that case only orphans should be ordained. When I was at Uni, the Catholic Chaplain's mother was in hospital for a couple of weeks. During that time, he said Mass each day but apart from that was he was just not around at all. I don't see how he could have been any less available if it had been a wife rather than his mother that was ill.

Posted by Adrian1 (# 3994) on :

I think the promises made to "traditionalists" in 1992 and 1993 were made in good faith and I don't think there's any just reason to suspect otherwise. However times change and once women had been ordained priest the question of their eventual consecration as bishops (though not provided for by the 1992 Measure) was unlikely to go away.

Also the ordination of women was rigorously debated both in and out of synod for a number of years before the vote taken and the Measure passed. Those opposed knew for a long time what could - and very probably would - happen and it can hardly be claimed that they were taken unawares. Now we are faced with the very real possibility of women bishops a few years from now if the current Synod decides to legislate for it and those opposed will have to make some sort of decisive decision as to how they intend to deal with it.

Personally it's a difficult one for me. I'm very pro women priests and bishops, not minding the reality of the first or the prospect of the second at all. However I have a lady friend who won't attend Communion, much less receive, if a woman's celebrating. Understanding her difficulty with women celebrants, borne of deep conviction, has helped me to see both sides of the question as it were. For what it's worth I wouldn't wish to continue as a member of a church which left those who couldn't accept the ordination or consecration of women in a position where they felt excluded.

Although it's not a solution I'd have advocated a few years ago, I'm increasingly beginning to think that a non-geographical Third Province is the only honourable and honest solution. Joining Rome or the Ordinariate may be a solution for some traditionalists, but neither course is unlikely to appeal to MOTR ones who value their Anglican identity and like 1662.

[ 19. December 2010, 12:24: Message edited by: Adrian1 ]

Posted by Peter's Bark (# 16074) on :

The defeat in synod of the archbishops' amendment would seem to make a third province - which I agree appeared to offer a reasonable solution - unlikely. Curiously, the "co-ordinate" jurisdiction of diocesan and alternative bishops proposed under that amendment is very similar to the "shared" jurisdiction planned for the Ordinariate. The best hope for traditionalists who love 1662 may be that the ordinariate will appropriate significant parts of it as "Anglican patrimony".

Posted by hereweare (# 15567) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
The obligation of celibacy for Latin rite priests is a matter of discipline,not doctrine.It is felt to be in the best interests of the Church for the clergy to be celibate and be available for the faithful without the 'encumbrances' of wife and family in order that they may devote themselves 100% to the Church.That is the theory,if not the practice.It is no part of doctrine.

Papal 'infallibility' has however never be invoked to declare that it is impossible for women to be ordained,so there is no real difficulty about the Church possibly coming to the view that women might be ordained to the priesthood,even if a pope has said it is not possible.However at the moment it is definitely not on the cards and that is a matter of discipline for those who are members of the Catholic church.the bishops of the Catholic church are not 'episcopi vagantes' and simply cannot ordain women to the priesthood.

I can't agree, the Catholic position is far firmer than you have expressed. JP II stated clearly that using 'infallibility' as defined in Lumen Gentium, following the example of Christ, women could not be ordained. Now you could debate the nature of the particular infallibility, and many do, but the out come is surely the same?

Posted by hereweare (# 15567) on :

quote:
Originally posted by sanityman:

quote:
Originally posted by hereweare:

quote:
Originally posted by sanityman:
Pardon my ignorance, but could you give us a quick run-down of why you believe that the RC church's stance on OoW is "divine" but that on celibacy is "human"? This seems to be a key point in your argument, and I've heard it argued different ways by different RCs, so I don't think I understand where you are coming from here.

- Chris.
Coz the Pope said so! See JPII above.
Again: I thought it was the case that the pope was not dogmatically infallible unless speaking ex cathedra - which he wasn't on this occasion. I can understand that the RC church has painted itself into a corner should it wish to have second thoughts on the Immaculate Conception, but I wasn't under the impression that OoW was cut from that cloth, and some RCs seem to agree (see also what Forthview said).

Your comments about gender strike me as a little... odd. I feel there's a lot of philosophical views implicit in both what your saying and the RC official stance which are never aired in the usual debates. I understand the objections to female priests from someone who holds your view of the priesthood well enough (I think!) - but even if I did hold those views, which I'm afraid I don't, I don't think the conclusion that women priests are invalid follows without a lot of supplementary assumptions about the nature and spiritual significance of gender. I'd say "extra-biblical," but that might betray my evangelical roots!

- Chris.

I know I have posted this before, but from JPII:

"Therefore, the doctrine that the priesthood is reserved to men possesses, by virtue of the Church's ordinary and universal Magisterium, that character of infallibility which Lumen gentium speaks of and to which I gave juridical form in the Motu Proprio Ad tuendam fidem:"

My comments about gender are basically that out of the whole host human variation, the basic one is gender and the only one that God made a huge point of - God made man and women- all very biblical and significant. Genders are not an add on but an essential to who we are as person and whilst there are other aspects, such as race or sexuality for example, which are very significant but to extent as gender (silly example we have male / female changing rooms etc.) JP II explored this in Theology of the Body and is not a bad read!

Posted by hereweare (# 15567) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Adrian1:
I think the promises made to "traditionalists" in 1992 and 1993 were made in good faith and I don't think there's any just reason to suspect otherwise. However times change and once women had been ordained priest the question of their eventual consecration as bishops (though not provided for by the 1992 Measure) was unlikely to go away.

Also the ordination of women was rigorously debated both in and out of synod for a number of years before the vote taken and the Measure passed. Those opposed knew for a long time what could - and very probably would - happen and it can hardly be claimed that they were taken unawares. Now we are faced with the very real possibility of women bishops a few years from now if the current Synod decides to legislate for it and those opposed will have to make some sort of decisive decision as to how they intend to deal with it.

Personally it's a difficult one for me. I'm very pro women priests and bishops, not minding the reality of the first or the prospect of the second at all. However I have a lady friend who won't attend Communion, much less receive, if a woman's celebrating. Understanding her difficulty with women celebrants, borne of deep conviction, has helped me to see both sides of the question as it were. For what it's worth I wouldn't wish to continue as a member of a church which left those who couldn't accept the ordination or consecration of women in a position where they felt excluded.

Although it's not a solution I'd have advocated a few years ago, I'm increasingly beginning to think that a non-geographical Third Province is the only honourable and honest solution. Joining Rome or the Ordinariate may be a solution for some traditionalists, but neither course is unlikely to appeal to MOTR ones who value their Anglican identity and like 1662.

sorry that this is post three..

When FiF first started, they were very opposed to a third province too!!! It will be interesting to see what this new synod will come up with, given the numbers now opposed, as discussed somewhere else on here.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by hereweare:
See also CCC 2269 para 2

and

The Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church quotes John Paul II from a Feb. 3, 2004, general catechesis. There, the Pope calls for a commitment “not to practice usury — a plague that is a disgraceful reality even in our days that can place a stronghold on the lives of many people.”
The Compendium of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, promulgated at the beginning of Benedict’s pontificate, seems to broaden the sense of usury even more. One of the answers to the question (508) “What is forbidden by the seventh commandment?” is:

“Also forbidden is tax evasion or business fraud; willfully damaging private or public property; usury; corruption; the private abuse of common goods; work deliberately done poorly; and waste.”

No change in the teaching there then....

That's exactly the sort of legalistic fudge that they will be able to come out with on ordination of women if they also change their minds on that. You are proving my point exactly. If they can redefine the Ten Commandments they can trivially work round the inconvenient utterances of a previous Pope.

quote:
Originally posted by Adrian1:

Although it's not a solution I'd have advocated a few years ago, I'm increasingly beginning to think that a non-geographical Third Province is the only honourable and honest solution.

I can't see that coming without disestablishment. And no-one in government is likely to want to waste Parliamentary time on that.

Posted by Fifi (# 8151) on :

quote:
Originally posted by hereweare:
When FiF first started, they were very opposed to a third province too!!!

Simply not true. The very first FiF National Assembly - 1n 1994 - passed a resolution which said, inter alia:

'The Forward in Faith National Assembly therefore calls upon the House of Bishops and the General Synod of the Church of England . . . to set in train investigation into the possibility of the creation of a third province within the Church of England, wherein all those, ordained, lay and religious who are unable in conscience to accept the ordination of women as priests, may continue to live their lives as Anglicans.'

Posted by hereweare (# 15567) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Fifi:

quote:
Originally posted by hereweare:
When FiF first started, they were very opposed to a third province too!!!
Simply not true. The very first FiF National Assembly - 1n 1994 - passed a resolution which said, inter alia:

'The Forward in Faith National Assembly therefore calls upon the House of Bishops and the General Synod of the Church of England . . . to set in train investigation into the possibility of the creation of a third province within the Church of England, wherein all those, ordained, lay and religious who are unable in conscience to accept the ordination of women as priests, may continue to live their lives as Anglicans.'

My apologies, I was refering to a meeting in Evershott Street when the idea of a third province was not a popular one, but I think that was prior to the first assembly.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

quote:
Originally posted by hereweare:

quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:

quote:
Originally posted by hereweare:

The problem I do have though, that it would appear that your or an individual's opinion is some how equal to the teaching authority of the Church. The Pope can't have infallibility, but an individual can, hence the 'bollocks' remark? As I said, this is really a debate the nature and authority of the Church, which I am sure is covered in some other DH thread.

No. I don't hold that an individual's opinion is equal to the teaching authority of the Church. But having teaching authority is a long way from the ability to speak directly for God, infallibly. And while I am a long way from being one of the sola scriptura gang, as a good Anglican I believe that Scripture contains all thigns necessary for salvation, so to place something like the Assumption on a par with the divinity of Christ as an article of belief strikes me as verging on blasphemy. I do deny that the Pope has infallibility, but this does not mean that I think that anybody else is infallible.
Agreement at last! I too do not believe anyone other than the Pope has infallibility (except for when the Church does either in synod or spread aboard, but that's not a person as such).

But if you believe the Pope has infallibility, then I don't understand the problem with the Assumption, as that was proclaimed Infallibily?

Hang on. We both deny that people other than the Pope are infallible. But if you re-read my post you will see that I also do deny that the Pope is infallible.

Posted by hereweare (# 15567) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ken:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by hereweare:
[qb] See also CCC 2269 para 2

and

The Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church quotes John Paul II from a Feb. 3, 2004, general catechesis. There, the Pope calls for a commitment “not to practice usury — a plague that is a disgraceful reality even in our days that can place a stronghold on the lives of many people.”
The Compendium of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, promulgated at the beginning of Benedict’s pontificate, seems to broaden the sense of usury even more. One of the answers to the question (508) “What is forbidden by the seventh commandment?” is:

“Also forbidden is tax evasion or business fraud; willfully damaging private or public property; usury; corruption; the private abuse of common goods; work deliberately done poorly; and waste.”

No change in the teaching there then....

Er Ken, I may be missing something here, but the above was posted after it was suggested that the Church had u-turned on usury. The way I read the above is that the Church is still opposed to usury, hence no u-turn. You are obviously seeing things a little differently.

I'm glad you are having a [Killing me]

moment, but I think I should slowly walk towards the door keeping firm eye contact with you [Help]

Posted by hereweare (# 15567) on :

Hang on. We both deny that people other than the Pope are infallible. But if you re-read my post you will see that I also do deny that the Pope is infallible.

Good point, [Hot and Hormonal]

, that does explain your issue with the Assumption then! At least we agree on something though, and that must be a good thing! [Smile]

Posted by Think² (# 1984) on :

I think Ken's point is that biblically, usury was lending money for interest - period.

AFAIK the RCs do not teach you shouldn't use a high street bank.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

quote:
Originally posted by hereweare:
Hang on. We both deny that people other than the Pope are infallible. But if you re-read my post you will see that I also do deny that the Pope is infallible.

Good point, , that does explain your issue with the Assumption then! At least we agree on something though, and that must be a good thing!

I think I can recognise the sound of a line being drawn when I hear it! So yes, in the interests of charity, let's leave it there.

Posted by hereweare (# 15567) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Think²:
I think Ken's point is that biblically, usury was lending money for interest - period.

AFAIK the RCs do not teach you shouldn't use a high street bank.

Biblically he may well be right, but that wasn't the point of the post. The point was, the Church hasn't changed her opinion. Clearly you argue what usury actually is in practice, or that the RC Church isn't hard line enough (not often you can say that), but that's not the issue here.

Posted by John Holding (# 158) on :

quote:
Originally posted by hereweare:

quote:
Originally posted by Think²:
I think Ken's point is that biblically, usury was lending money for interest - period.

AFAIK the RCs do not teach you shouldn't use a high street bank.
Biblically he may well be right, but that wasn't the point of the post. The point was, the Church hasn't changed her opinion. Clearly you argue what usury actually is in practice, or that the RC Church isn't hard line enough (not often you can say that), but that's not the issue here.

That is to say that the RC church has not changed its views on "usury", but has changed the meaning of the word so it no longer means what it meant in the first millenium and a half of the church's life.

The strictures on "usuary" from that period were about lending money at interest. That the RC church has now decided that "usury" no longer refers to that, but to something totally different, to my mind means that it is using language to camoflage meaning.

To say that the language has not changed but that what we mean by it has changed --- and therefore we have not changed our mind seems to me to be disingenuous at best.

John

Posted by Adrian1 (# 3994) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Adrian1:

Although it's not a solution I'd have advocated a few years ago, I'm increasingly beginning to think that a non-geographical Third Province is the only honourable and honest solution.

I can't see that coming without disestablishment. And no-one in government is likely to want to waste Parliamentary time on that.

Ken, you're a brighter man than I am. However I can't see why disestablishment would be necessary in order to bring about creation of a Third Province. We managed to introduce "flying bishops" - an idea which has been as divisive and uncatholic as any - without going down that route. There would of course be practical difficulties with the establishment of a Third Province and we would be naive if we imagined otherwise thus. However it would have the advantage of meeting the demands of those who can't accept women as priests or bishops (whatever their churchmanship)whilst allowing the rest of us to get on with being Canterbury & York 'consensus' Anglicans.

[ 20. December 2010, 19:16: Message edited by: Louise ]

Posted by Nicolemrw (# 28) on :

quote:
(silly example we have male / female changing rooms etc.)

In this country at least race was once thought to be so fundimental an attribute that we had seperate accomidations for black and white.

Happily those days are over now.

Posted by hereweare (# 15567) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Nicolemrw:

quote:
(silly example we have male / female changing rooms etc.)
In this country at least race was once thought to be so fundimental an attribute that we had seperate accomidations for black and white.

Happily those days are over now.

Thank God!

Posted by Nightlamp (# 266) on :

quote:
Originally posted by hereweare:
I can't agree with your understanding of the history of celibacy though, the theology goes way back before then.

I agree the practice goes way before the Gregorian reforms but the underlying theology was about uncleanness (council of Cathage) or the basic sinfulness of sex or the dangers of Simony. Interestingly I have never read any protestant reflections on the origin of priestly celibacy only Catholic. I am aware that modern RC teaching says it is all about people being dedicated to God but that is very much a modern rewrite of the origin of Priestly Celibacy.

As has been pointed out the Catholic church have changed the meaning of Priestly Celibacy and the meaning of Usury.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Adrian1:
... I can't see why disestablishment would be necessary in order to bring about creation of a Third Province.

A number of reasons. Basically because a 3P would have to go through Parliament, and Parliament is bloody unlikely to approve of a change in the law that will be presented to it as stick-in-the-mud old sexists. And it will be. So to get it through the CofE would have to reclaim many of its rights from Parliament. (Which I think will happen sooner or later, but not right now)

For one thing, a 3P would involve founding a new diocese. The CofE gets to appoint as many suffragans as it likes but has to go cap in hand to the boss in Westminster for a diocesan bishop. Never mind an Archbishop - do we have any rules about making new ones of those?

For another the transfer of parishes from their old diocese to the new non-territorial one will almost certainly require legislation, and complex legislation at that. It will look like a waste of Parliamentary time.

For a third problem, the 3P would leave holes in existing dioceses. (Possibly very large ones in Southwark and Chichester) The anti-women side will argue that these wenclaves are simply transfered to a new diocese so the previous bishop now has no responsibility for them. Some others - and you can bet a lot of charismatic evangelicals, especially those with a tendency to church planting, will be among them - will say that these transfered parishes will be make gaps in the "cure of souls" and that neighbouring parishes should be enlarged to take care of them. That might end up getting argued in Parliament as well.

And whats more this involves property. The church buildings themselves. It involves land. English law loves talking about land onwnership. That's what most of it is about. And its fiendishly complicated when parish churches are involved. And trust me, if this gets into Parliament, not only will there be peopel arguning that its all about bigotry and hatred ow women, there will be people arguing that it is all a plot to transfer parish property, church buildings, land, from the Church of England to the Roman Catholics. And that would be a Parliamentary nightmare.

Honestly, I just don't think enough MPs are interested enough to get it thorugh on the timescales that would be needed.

Posted by Adrian1 (# 3994) on :

But surely couldn't it operate on much the same basis as the alternative Episcopal Oversight has?

Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :

I don't see it, Adrian1. Under the flying bishops arrangement, the diocesan remains the top bloke. It needed no new diocesans, only suffragans. I have to say I agree with ken here.

Of course, whether the third province is intended as a starting point for bargaining, or a ditch to die in, might be a separate - and equally interesting - discussion.

Posted by hereweare (# 15567) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Nightlamp:

quote:
Originally posted by hereweare:
I can't agree with your understanding of the history of celibacy though, the theology goes way back before then.
I agree the practice goes way before the Gregorian reforms but the underlying theology was about uncleanness (council of Cathage) or the basic sinfulness of sex or the dangers of Simony. Interestingly I have never read any protestant reflections on the origin of priestly celibacy only Catholic. I am aware that modern RC teaching says it is all about people being dedicated to God but that is very much a modern rewrite of the origin of Priestly Celibacy.

As has been pointed out the Catholic church have changed the meaning of Priestly Celibacy and the meaning of Usury.

understanding perhaps, not meaning.

Posted by Think² (# 1984) on :

So what is to stop the 'understanding' of the gender of priesthood changing ?

Posted by hereweare (# 15567) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Think²:
So what is to stop the 'understanding' of the gender of priesthood changing ?

The understanding of what usury means may have developed, but NOT the oppostion to it. to clarify my earlier post, the meaning and understanding of priestly celibacy has NOT changed, but the application of it has.

As for the gender of priesthood, the understanding of why it is prohibited may be explored and expounded as JPII did, but NOT the prohibition itself.

[ 21. December 2010, 22:14: Message edited by: hereweare ]

Posted by Think² (# 1984) on :

quote:
I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church's faithful…..
*snip*
Do not hesitate, then, to emphasize that the Magisterium of the Church has taken this decision not as an act of her own power, but in the knowledge of her duty to obey the will of the Lord of the Church herself.

New pope in 2045

quote:

Following the vision of (*&^*&^ of Our Lady, we understand that the Holy Spirit has been moved to confer priestly ordination on the person of (&^(* - this being attested by the miracles of x, y, z and following of the faithful. It can not be the role of the Church to deny what the Lord God has made manifest himself in the world and by his grace we shall recognise the new ministry of women he has commanded.

Followed by a long bit of explanation about why now.

Posted by Nightlamp (# 266) on :

quote:
Originally posted by hereweare:
The understanding of what usury means may have developed, but NOT the oppostion to it. to clarify my earlier post, the meaning and understanding of priestly celibacy has NOT changed, but the application of it has.

The theological reasoning has changed but not the application. The application of the theological reasoning is that Priests may not marry.

Posted by hereweare (# 15567) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Nightlamp:

quote:
Originally posted by hereweare:
The understanding of what usury means may have developed, but NOT the oppostion to it. to clarify my earlier post, the meaning and understanding of priestly celibacy has NOT changed, but the application of it has.

The theological reasoning has changed but not the application. The application of the theological reasoning is that Priests may not marry.

I think we could be splitting hairs, but as in times past and present priests could be, and are married, so it must be the application, as the theology has not changed, butthe Canon flowing from that theology is dispensed from.

[ 22. December 2010, 09:54: Message edited by: hereweare ]

Posted by hereweare (# 15567) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Think²:

quote:
I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church's faithful…..
*snip*
Do not hesitate, then, to emphasize that the Magisterium of the Church has taken this decision not as an act of her own power, but in the knowledge of her duty to obey the will of the Lord of the Church herself.
New pope in 2045

quote:

Following the vision of (*&^*&^ of Our Lady, we understand that the Holy Spirit has been moved to confer priestly ordination on the person of (&^(* - this being attested by the miracles of x, y, z and following of the faithful. It can not be the role of the Church to deny what the Lord God has made manifest himself in the world and by his grace we shall recognise the new ministry of women he has commanded.
Followed by a long bit of explanation about why now.

"It can not be the role of the Church to deny what the Lord God has made manifest himself in the world "
Unless God is going to contradict himself, JPII made clear that God has indeed made manifest himself in the world by the example of Christ (cf Ordinatio sacerdotalis)!

Though the [Devil]

in me says what would those Protestants do if Our Lady did say what you suggests? Would they all become anti OoW???? That aside I'm sure Our Lady would actually say 'Well I wasn't ordained, get over it!' [Biased]

Posted by Nightlamp (# 266) on :

quote:
Originally posted by hereweare:
I think we could be splitting hairs, but as in times past and present priests could be, and are married, so it must be the application, as the theology has not changed, butthe Canon flowing from that theology is dispensed from.

I am sorry but the application is the same as it has been more or less since the Gregorian reforms. It is without a doubt the theology that has changed as it has moved from the concept of priests being unclean and unable to carry out the Mass to the modern theology of Priests being able to dedicate themselves wholly to the life of the church.
This is a theological development not a change in application.

Posted by dyfrig (# 15) on :

quote:
Originally posted by hereweare:
"It can not be the role of the Church to deny what the Lord God has made manifest himself in the world "

That gives plenty of wiggle room for the future decision to ordain women - I can hear it now: "The late Pope John Paul II was surely right when he saud 'It can not be the role of the Church to deny what the Lord God has made manifest himself in the world'. The experience of many Christians, guided by the Holy Spirit, demonstrate that God has indeed made manifest His calling of women to the priesthood."

JPII still ends up being right (even though he was wrong), Church moves, as it has always done, to incorporate the new reality, and finds iteslef able to assert, with a clear conscience, that this is how things are.

Posted by hereweare (# 15567) on :

quote:
Originally posted by dyfrig:

quote:
Originally posted by hereweare:
"It can not be the role of the Church to deny what the Lord God has made manifest himself in the world "
That gives plenty of wiggle room for the future decision to ordain women - I can hear it now: "The late Pope John Paul II was surely right when he saud 'It can not be the role of the Church to deny what the Lord God has made manifest himself in the world'. The experience of many Christians, guided by the Holy Spirit, demonstrate that God has indeed made manifest His calling of women to the priesthood."

JPII still ends up being right (even though he was wrong), Church moves, as it has always done, to incorporate the new reality, and finds iteslef able to assert, with a clear conscience, that this is how things are.

Er, no, that is just contradiction.

Posted by hereweare (# 15567) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Nightlamp:

quote:
Originally posted by hereweare:
I think we could be splitting hairs, but as in times past and present priests could be, and are married, so it must be the application, as the theology has not changed, butthe Canon flowing from that theology is dispensed from.
I am sorry but the application is the same as it has been more or less since the Gregorian reforms. It is without a doubt the theology that has changed as it has moved from the concept of priests being unclean and unable to carry out the Mass to the modern theology of Priests being able to dedicate themselves wholly to the life of the church.
This is a theological development not a change in application.

Still think it is hair splitting. Given that Rome now doe sordain some married men, then the application has changed. The theology may have been more fully developed and understood, agreed. But given its nearly Christmas and all that, I'm sure your position is right and makes sense.

Posted by dyfrig (# 15) on :

No-one's ever claimed that the development of an individual's or an organisation's ideas is free from contradiction, hereweare. The Reformation occurs when two distinct ideas in Augustine's thought - his doctrine of the Church and his doctrine of Grace - no longer held together coherently. He didn't intend it, of course, but both paths can draw legitimate lines of decent from his ideas.

Likewise the authors of the Magna Carta would have shuddered at the way their ideas were appropriated. I suspect mediaeval popes would be horrified as to how their exertion of power over monarchs inspired, in small and uncertain ways, the eventual sidelining of the Church from politics, especially when they thought they were increasing the Church's power when doing it.

When the Catholic Church ordains women it will find the words to keep all of its previous utterances in creative tension. It may even come after a period of reassessing JPII's tenure - maybe they will conclude in future that perhaps he wasn't as right as people think he was. You never know. The Church is far more creative than you give it credit for.

Posted by Nightlamp (# 266) on :

quote:
Originally posted by hereweare:
Still think it is hair splitting. Given that Rome now doe sordain some married men, then the application has changed.

but it has been accepting Ordained Priests for centuries (ex -orthodox priests) or Eastern Catholic Churches although at one time they were not meant to have sex prior to celebrating the Mass.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

hereweare, I think your posts here are living proof that what we say is right!

The Vatican changed the official line on usury. They did it by carefully choosing a form of words that make it sound as if they didn't. From the outside, that's obvious. From the inside, where you accept the official redefinitions of things, you can't seem to see that its changed.

So not only is it possible that at some time in future they will change their doctrine on the ordination of women, its possible that when they do you won't even notice that they have...

Merry Christmas [Smile]

Posted by FreeJack (# 10612) on :

The Roman Catholic Church will never have women priests, but in 20 years it might have men priests with ovaries and breasts.

Posted by hereweare (# 15567) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ken:
hereweare, I think your posts here are living proof that what we say is right!

The Vatican changed the official line on usury. They did it by carefully choosing a form of words that make it sound as if they didn't. From the outside, that's obvious. From the inside, where you accept the official redefinitions of things, you can't seem to see that its changed.

So not only is it possible that at some time in future they will change their doctrine on the ordination of women, its possible that when they do you won't even notice that they have...

Merry Christmas

Not sure that's really an arquement, 'if only you were in my shoes, you would see my view', well yes, it probably would, but it may not be right!

Simple question with a yes or no answer : Does the RC say Usury is wrong?

Happy Christmas! [Smile]

Posted by hereweare (# 15567) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Nightlamp:

quote:
Originally posted by hereweare:
Still think it is hair splitting. Given that Rome now doe sordain some married men, then the application has changed.
but it has been accepting Ordained Priests for centuries (ex -orthodox priests) or Eastern Catholic Churches although at one time they were not meant to have sex prior to celebrating the Mass.

You may well be right, but why I said we were splitting hairs (probably should have used a better phrase) is it does not matter that the RC has changed its view, for as I have pointed out, the Church says celibacy is a human law and can be changed, and so this is a tangent of a tangent!! The OoW however is a divine law and can't be changed!

Posted by hereweare (# 15567) on :

quote:
Originally posted by FreeJack:
The Roman Catholic Church will never have women priests, but in 20 years it might have men priests with ovaries and breasts.

Don't hold your breath, there are Canons to cover that too!

Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on :

quote:
Originally posted by hereweare:
The OoW however is a divine law and can't be changed!

The declaration which you cite above is that "the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women". Not that it absolutely could not be done, but that God has not given the Church authority to do it. These are different things.

A future Pope might well say that such-and-such a revelation has now given the Church that authority. He doesn't have to say that his predecessors were wrong - indeed he can affirm that they were absolutely right and obedient, and that it would have been sinful presumption and sacrilege for them to presume to ordain women before whatever-it-was happened that conferred the authority for that step.

I've no idea if that will happen. It could do. And the Pope making the innovation might well be perfectly sincere. He could even be right! If you accept the principle of the magisterium, there would be no logical reason why a hypothetical future declaration like that should disturb your confidence in it.

Posted by Ender's Shadow (# 2272) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ken:

quote:
Originally posted by Adrian1:
... I can't see why disestablishment would be necessary in order to bring about creation of a Third Province.
A number of reasons. Basically because a 3P would have to go through Parliament

I suspect that this could be avoided - we are not talking about the creation of a second Church of England by law established, but the establishment of a second church in England that is part of the Anglican Communion but not the CofE. All that is needed IMHO is the willingness of the Church of England structures to facilitate this process - being willing to rent their churches to the departing parishes for example; there's no NEED for a transfer of ownership. The CofE has a long history of renting redundant buildings to other denominations - this is merely an extension of this. The bishops of this new province would not need to be appointed by the PM. Note that the existence in the past of a church in London that was a part of the Episcopal Church of America is a precedent for the existence of a church that is part of the Anglican Communion but not the CofE (I think I remember hearing of such a church, though it doesn't appear on the present list of parishes - though they are in the diocese of Europe [Big Grin]

The departing parishes would leave holes - but those parish areas could be dealt with under existing redundancy procedures within the church.

Posted by Carex (# 9643) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
..I suspect that this could be avoided - we are not talking about the creation of a second Church of England by law established, but the establishment of a second church in England that is part of the Anglican Communion but not the CofE....

My understanding is that the purpose of a Third Province was to provide a place within the CoE for those opposed to OoW, rather than creating a new Church.

You're right, though, that there is nothing stopping a group right now from creating a new Church, appointing their own bishops, and renting buildings from the CoE, just as other denominations do. The would then have to negotiate with the ABC for an invitation to Lambeth and might, with goodwill and cooperation all around, be accepted as part of the Anglican Communion.

But that isn't the same as people having a welcome place in the Church to which they already belong and, in many cases, by whom they are already employed.

Posted by Ender's Shadow (# 2272) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Carex:
But that isn't the same as people having a welcome place in the Church to which they already belong and, in many cases, by whom they are already employed.

Hmm - given that the basic unit of church structure is the diocese, if they are moving to a new province, they are moving to a new diocese. To my mind a third province in the Anglican Communion but outside the CofE is a good solution all round - or at least 'least worst' given the mess we are in. [Help]

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
Hmm - given that the basic unit of church structure is the diocese...

In truth, in the post-Reformation Church of England, the basic unit of church structure has been the parish.

Posted by Ender's Shadow (# 2272) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ken:

quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
Hmm - given that the basic unit of church structure is the diocese...
In truth, in the post-Reformation Church of England, the basic unit of church structure has been the parish.

Indeed. However given the ecclesiology of most of those campaigning for a third province, the logic and consequences are as I argued.

Posted by sanityman (# 11598) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:

quote:
Originally posted by Carex:
But that isn't the same as people having a welcome place in the Church to which they already belong and, in many cases, by whom they are already employed.
Hmm - given that the basic unit of church structure is the diocese, if they are moving to a new province, they are moving to a new diocese. To my mind a third province in the Anglican Communion but outside the CofE is a good solution all round - or at least 'least worst' given the mess we are in.

Given that the logical conclusion of women's ordination is a (potentially) female Archbishop of Canterbury, would they even wish to remain in the Anglican Communion? Saying "we will as long as you don't..." just doesn't work.

To be honest, the more I think about it the more I think the Ordinariate is a better solution than a separate third province, at least for FiF.

Posted by hereweare (# 15567) on :

quote:
Originally posted by sanityman:

quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:

quote:
Originally posted by Carex:
But that isn't the same as people having a welcome place in the Church to which they already belong and, in many cases, by whom they are already employed.
Hmm - given that the basic unit of church structure is the diocese, if they are moving to a new province, they are moving to a new diocese. To my mind a third province in the Anglican Communion but outside the CofE is a good solution all round - or at least 'least worst' given the mess we are in.
Given that the logical conclusion of women's ordination is a (potentially) female Archbishop of Canterbury, would they even wish to remain in the Anglican Communion? Saying "we will as long as you don't..." just doesn't work.

To be honest, the more I think about it the more I think the Ordinariate is a better solution than a separate third province, at least for FiF.

I not too sure how Anglican structure works, but is the ABC actually the 'head' in the same way is a the Pope? Does the ABYork come under ABC or equal to? Do those in the North come under both? Which is a long way of saying will a female ABC be any more of an issue then any female Bishop?

Posted by FreeJack (# 10612) on :

In formal terms of jurisdiction, the Archbishop of Canterbury is the same as any archbishop in the Church of England, or the Anglican Communion. He is not any sort of Pope and there is not one. He has an honorary role in both the Church of England and Anglican Communion at large.

He does not interfere in the affairs of the Province of York, except when there is a vacancy in see there.

A female archbishop would be more serious than a female diocesan bishop and that would be more serious female suffragan bishop. But that is political as much as sacramental.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

A female ABC would ordain most of the future bishops so that would make a huge difference to those who do not accept the sacramental ministry of women.

Posted by hereweare (# 15567) on :

Thanks for the info! So the 'authority' as such doesn't flow from the ABC or ABY, just the politics? IIRC the CofE has three bishops needed for ordination of a Bishop? So I see who if one was a female ABC then a issue, or would two do????

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

Apparently, two male bishops and one female bishop would be invalid in their eyes - the female would devalue the males.

Some call it 'the theology of taint', though that is a term that they dislike.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

Terry Waite wrote this for the Radio 4 Sunday programme:

A cleric whose fondness for Rome
made him leave both his church and his home,
as he said his farewells his church rang the bells
but the Romans let out a loud groan.

Posted by sanityman (# 11598) on :

quote:
Originally posted by FreeJack:
In formal terms of jurisdiction, the Archbishop of Canterbury is the same as any archbishop in the Church of England, or the Anglican Communion. He is not any sort of Pope and there is not one. He has an honorary role in both the Church of England and Anglican Communion at large.

He does not interfere in the affairs of the Province of York, except when there is a vacancy in see there.

A female archbishop would be more serious than a female diocesan bishop and that would be more serious female suffragan bishop. But that is political as much as sacramental.

I was thinking not so much of the ABofC's role in the CofE, but of his/her role in the Anglican communion. Assuming Wiki has it right, it states:

quote:
As spiritual leader of the Anglican Communion, the archbishop, although without legal authority outside England, is recognised by convention as primus inter pares (first among equals) of all Anglican primates worldwide.

Accepting the "spiritual authority" of someone whilst holding their orders to be invalid would, I'm assuming, be an all-but-impossible act of doublethink.

- Chris.

Posted by John Holding (# 158) on :

quote:
Originally posted by sanityman:
Accepting the "spiritual authority" of someone whilst holding their orders to be invalid would, I'm assuming, be an all-but-impossible act of doublethink.

- Chris.

Indeed, but that problem arises inside the CofE, for the most part. Most of the rest of the Anglican Communion has long accepted the validity of female bishops, though by no means all have actually elected any. It is the breakways -- ACNA and AMiA and so on -- who reject women bishops, not those who are currently in communion with Canterbury.

John

Posted by Think² (# 1984) on :

So is the last of Anglican communion to have held out in opposition to them ? There really are no others ?

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :

John, doesn't the formation of the FCA - Fellowship of Continuing Anglicans following GAFCON, the Global Anglican Future Conference indicate that there are bigger groups than you're suggesting within the Anglican Communion who are not supporting the ordination of women priests? Or are you saying that FCA are now outside the Anglican Communion? That group includes a number of African Dioceses and the Diocese of Sydney.

Posted by FreeJack (# 10612) on :

quote:
Originally posted by hereweare:
Thanks for the info! So the 'authority' as such doesn't flow from the ABC or ABY, just the politics? IIRC the CofE has three bishops needed for ordination of a Bishop? So I see who if one was a female ABC then a issue, or would two do????

The Church of England requires three bishops if the presiding bishop is the archbishop of the province in which the new bishop is to serve, or four bishops if the presiding bishop is a deputy (generally London or Durham). Five or six is I think more common in practice than three or four, depending on who is around!

From the conservative anglo-catholic perspective there is lack of certainty if any women are involved, if not lack of certainty of number of male hands, but certainty as to intent. From their perspective a male archbishop who allows a woman bishop to co-consecrate with him may not be intending to do what the church universal does. Of course, one could say that about any CofE consecration. I don't think it is a formulaic taint calculation, though it looks like it to outsiders.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

Thanks. That is a helpful explanation.

I wish the ungenerous General Synod would understand that.

As a pro-OOW who has many friends in 'the other integrity', I get attacked for supporting misogyny. They don't imagine a point of view other than their own might be valid.

Posted by Think² (# 1984) on :

It may be valid, but it has been inconsistent ever since the original change. There is an asymetry between the two camps. Basically, a pro-oow persons sacraments couldn't be tainted or undermined by having a male priest ordained by a male bishop - and I don't think anyone has developed a theological position in which they say that someone ordaining with the intention of not including women doesn't have the same intention (though presumably one could mirror that viewpoint). But I don't see how it was ever viable for the anti-oow to stay *if* they had a taint position - it was analogous accepting the body of Christ was a bit pregnant but they would be uneffected if they stayed away from the reproductive system.

Posted by John Holding (# 158) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
John, doesn't the formation of the FCA - Fellowship of Continuing Anglicans following GAFCON, the Global Anglican Future Conference indicate that there are bigger groups than you're suggesting within the Anglican Communion who are not supporting the ordination of women priests? Or are you saying that FCA are now outside the Anglican Communion? That group includes a number of African Dioceses and the Diocese of Sydney.

My specific phrase was "most of" -- the last time I looked, that didn't mean "all" -- except the CofE.

Some parts of GAFCON, as I understand it, are not opposed to women bishops. Beyond that, though, in terms of provinces, the FCA -- which I still consider part of the communion -- is a small minority.

In any case, the point I was making, is that the ordination of women bishops is a big deal in the CofE -- but mainly (in the communtion) just in the CofE. And that in areas like North America, those opposed are not in communtion with Canterbury. Most Anglicans have settled it -- a majority of provinces in favour, a minority of provinces against. Only the CofE is dealing with it. And, as usual, as if only the CofE mattered when it comes to business that affects the whole communion.

John

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :

But you're focussing on America here - the places that are against are most of Africa and a big chunk of Australia - not small numbers of people or a minority. And women priests, let alone Bishops, is definitely something of an issue for the Sydney Anglicans.

Posted by Stranger in a strange land (# 11922) on :

And, indeed, some provinces don't even admit women to the Diaconate.

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

Does someone have a list of the provinces/ national churches which do not ordain women to the priesthood? I have lost track of the African churches on this, as I gather that one or two have changed in recent years. As well, I think that Uruguay (in the Southern Cone) is now for.

Posted by John Holding (# 158) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
But you're focussing on America here -

How easy it is to brush off the people you don't agree with. America: WEll that is indeed the US and Canada. But also Mexico, Brazil and a number of other provinces. I really hope you're not saying that we don't count just because we share a continent with a couple of provinces who do something you don't.

But the last time I looked also, Scotland, Ireland, Wales, South Africa, Australia (of which Sydney as a part, but only a part, and not an independent entity), New Zealand, Japan, and, I believe, India and several other Asian provinces.

In fact, bar Singapore and equatorial Africa, I'm not sure who IS objecting. Certainly the Lambeth Conference, for what that matters) had no problems.

John

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
John, doesn't the formation of the FCA - Fellowship of Continuing Anglicans following GAFCON, the Global Anglican Future Conference indicate that there are bigger groups than you're suggesting within the Anglican Communion who are not supporting the ordination of women priests?

GAFCON is not against women's ordination.

quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
But you're focussing on America here - the places that are against are most of Africa and a big chunk of Australia - not small numbers of people or a minority.

Most Anglican provinces in Africa are for, not against. There are 11 Anglican provinces in Africa, and another 2 (Indian Ocean and Jerusalem) with some churches in Africa. Of those 13 provinces at least 8 ordain women to the priesthood, 2 to the diaconate but not the priesthood, and one I think recognises ordained women in some dioceses but not all (like Australia)

Posted by Stranger in a strange land (# 11922) on :

Cyprus and the Gulf do not ordain women to any of the orders (or, at least, a year ago they didn't and had no plans to).

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

FWIW, Wikipedia states that the state of play as at summer 2010 was as follows:

Women Bishops (consecrated): Aotearoa, New Zealand and Polynesia; Australia; Canada; United States (including Cuba)
Women Bishops (none yet consecrated): Bangladesh, Brazil, Central America, Ireland, Japan, Mexico, North India, Philippines, Scotland, Southern Africa, Sudan
Women Priests: Burundi, England, Hong Kong, Indian Ocean, Kenya, Korea, Rwanda, South India, Uganda, Wales, West Indies, West Africa
Women Deacons: Southern Cone, Jerusalem and the Middle East, Congo, Pakistan
No ordination of women: Central Africa, Melanesia, Nigeria, Papua New Guinea, South East Asia, Tanzania

A few surprises ther, I thought, especially in those which allow (but have not yet consecrated) women bishops

Posted by John Holding (# 158) on :

I believe that Wales should be in the list that allows but has not yet consecrated women bishops.

There may be others, as well.

John

[ 06. January 2011, 23:41: Message edited by: John Holding ]

Posted by The Man with a Stick (# 12664) on :

quote:
Originally posted by John Holding:
I believe that Wales should be in the list that allows but has not yet consecrated women bishops.

There may be others, as well.

John

No, the vote for the elevation of women to the episcopate was lost last time round in Wales.

I saw a General Synod candidate write in his address that we must have women bishops "to bring the CofE into line with the rest of the Anglican Communion". When you see that list you realise how incorrect that statement was.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
FWIW, Wikipedia states that the state of play as at summer 2010 was as follows: [...]
No ordination of women: Central Africa, Melanesia, Nigeria, Papua New Guinea, South East Asia, Tanzania

I wouldn't swear to it, but I have heard that there are evangelical dioceses in Tanzania that have accepted women priests. The reason the province as a whole doesn't is that its the only East African area that had a significant input from Anglo-Catholics. The rest of the region is pretty much totally charismatic/evangelical (in my opinion its where Anglican charismatic-evangelicals originated) and although there aren't many ordained women in some provinces, they are allowed in all.

But, as I said, most of African Anglicanism accepts ordained women.

The big holdout is Nigeria of course, the largest province of all in terms of numbers.

But apart from them opposition to women is mainly in small provinces in largely non-Anglican regions with lots of white British and American expats (Southern Cone, Jerusalem, South East Asia) or the few parts of what we used to call "Third World" where the Anglican missionaries were mainly Anglo-Catholic (Melanesia, Papua New Guinea, Tanzania)

Central Africa is actually Zambia and Zimbabwe and I suspect they will have women priests soon - they just have other things on their mind at the moment. Congo is mostly what we used to call Boga-Zaire, and got its Anglicans via Uganda, Rwanda, and Burundi, so I am surprised that they don't ordain women.

But the real heart of opposition to ordained women in Anglican churches is not evangelical Africans. It is politically conservative Anglo-Catholic white people.

Posted by hereweare (# 15567) on :

[Eek!]

Really? Do you have the numbers to back that up? Is it these nasty white folk stopping it in all these countries mentioned above? Is colonialism alive and well and that powerful?

Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :

Maybe ken meant theologically conservative anglo-catholics, hereweare. Though that is equally difficult to see re. Nigeria.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by hereweare:

Really? Do you have the numbers to back that up? Is it these nasty white folk stopping it in all these countries mentioned above? Is colonialism alive and well and that powerful?

No, I meant here, mainly. And lots of them aren't really theologically conservative - there are large numbers of theologically (if not politically) liberal Anglo-Catholics who can't abide women priests.

Posted by hereweare (# 15567) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ken:

quote:
Originally posted by hereweare:

Really? Do you have the numbers to back that up? Is it these nasty white folk stopping it in all these countries mentioned above? Is colonialism alive and well and that powerful?
No, I meant here, mainly. And lots of them aren't really theologically conservative - there are large numbers of theologically (if not politically) liberal Anglo-Catholics who can't abide women priests.

and yet are 'in favour' when suits? I have always suspected that women priets get more trouble from liberal AC's than the FiF crowd, as at least with the FiF crowd they know where they stand.

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :

ken, that's really not fair on all the liberal AC priests who are supportive of women priests. I can think of three immediately, the incumbents of churches I attended, who are and were fully supportive of women in all the forms of the priesthood. And these are people from three different colleges, different age groups and different dioceses.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

quote:
Originally posted by hereweare:

quote:
Originally posted by ken:

quote:
Originally posted by hereweare:

Really? Do you have the numbers to back that up? Is it these nasty white folk stopping it in all these countries mentioned above? Is colonialism alive and well and that powerful?
No, I meant here, mainly. And lots of them aren't really theologically conservative - there are large numbers of theologically (if not politically) liberal Anglo-Catholics who can't abide women priests.
and yet are 'in favour' when suits? I have always suspected that women priets get more trouble from liberal AC's than the FiF crowd, as at least with the FiF crowd they know where they stand.

What do you mean 'when suits'? Is it really beyond even your snarkily chip-on-shoulder-yet-triumphalist brand of RC mindset to recognise that there are AC priests who genuinely believe in OoW? I'll grant that you might think them mistaken to believe it - just as you presumably think them mistaken to believe that they are actually priests, but you (I presume) recognise that this belief is sincerely held.

Posted by hereweare (# 15567) on :

Oh Albertus, don't get your lace in a twist! I have no problem with AC's who are in favour or those opposed, it makes no difference to me. What I do have an issue with, is those who say they are in favour, and then make the lives of their female colleagues hell. Sadly I have come across a few [Frown]

ps don't worry I had all the chips for tea x

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

Including some frequent posters here who say they are all in favour of ordained women and then push the whole thing so far down their list of priorities that they would rather it never came up, and go and give a veto to the Pope anyway.

Posted by FreeJack (# 10612) on :

The Ordinariate ordinations.

BBC

Posted by Think² (# 1984) on :

I know it sounds harsh, but I would have more confidence in the discernment involved in leaving the CofE and that of the RCs involved, if the ordinations didn't seem like a semi-automatic done deal.

These men are acknowledging that they have never been priests, or bishops - that they were wrong in discerning their vocation the first time. But it seems to have taken the church about five minutes to discern their vocation now.

Posted by CL (# 16145) on :

quote:
Originally posted by FreeJack:
The Ordinariate ordinations.

BBC

There were at least three Anglican bishops from the Catholic wing of the Church of England in the congregation, the Rt Rev Lindsay Urwin, the administrator of the Anglican shrine at Walsingham, the Rt Rev Robert Ladds, former bishop of Whitby and Rt Rev Tony Robinson, bishop of Pontefract. The retired bishop of Richborough, Edwin Barnes, the retired bishop of Ballarat David Silk, and Robert Mercer of the Traditional Andlican Communion, were in the congregation. So was Dr Robin Ward, the principal of St Stephen’s House.

The CoE attendees there are interesting.

Posted by pete173 (# 4622) on :

I really really don't get the Ordinariate. If you believe in the RC Church, just go straight over - which is what 3 of my priests have done. Seems to be much more logical than hanging around on a tributary of the Tiber.

Still, good wishes and prayers go with Bishops John, Andrew and Keith (and they are bishops, whether they know it or not). I'm glad for them, and have spent hours talking with them about their future hopes and plans. It's hardly the earthquake that the religious press make it out to be. But I hope that, in the scheme of things, it does something worthwhile for the Kingdom of God.

Posted by FreeJack (# 10612) on :

Were they deaconed privately first? Or did the Archbishop (Pope?) authorise simultaneous or advancement to the priesthood? Does that say anything more about the validity of their diaconate in the CofE?

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :

According to the linked websites above, they were deaconed into the RC church two days before the priesting.

Posted by FreeJack (# 10612) on :

Oops!

quote:

The ceremony has come a fortnight after the three former Anglican clerics were received into the Catholic Church.

They were ordained on Thursday as Catholic deacons at Allen Hall seminary in London.

The Archbishop of Westminster, Most Rev Vincent Nichols, presided over the ordination.

sky news

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by pete173:
I really really don't get the Ordinariate. If you believe in the RC Church, just go straight over - which is what 3 of my priests have done. Seems to be much more logical than hanging around on a tributary of the Tiber.

One former shipmate went over on his own and has spent 7 years preparing for (re)ordination. His ordination, yesterday, was somewhat upstaged by the three formerly flying bishops (2 flying bishops and one suffragan to be precise) who were fast-tracked.

Posted by hereweare (# 15567) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by pete173:
I really really don't get the Ordinariate. If you believe in the RC Church, just go straight over - which is what 3 of my priests have done. Seems to be much more logical than hanging around on a tributary of the Tiber.
One former shipmate went over on his own and has spent 7 years preparing for (re)ordination. His ordination, yesterday, was somewhat upstaged by the three formerly flying bishops (2 flying bishops and one suffragan to be precise) who were fast-tracked.

If it was the one I was thinking of ordained yesterday(one of Pete173's)then it was only three years. Some couldn't make it as they were at Westminster, but I know it didn't matter to him, as he was pleased that Bishop and the Holy Spirit was there!

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

I am merely going on information from a phone call. Were there more than two ordination services that day?

Posted by Thurible (# 3206) on :

Fr Alex Hill's "ordination" coincided with that of Bishops Andrew, John and Keith.

Thurible

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

quote:
Originally posted by pete173:
I really really don't get the Ordinariate. If you believe in the RC Church, just go straight over - which is what 3 of my priests have done. Seems to be much more logical than hanging around on a tributary of the Tiber.
*snip* But I hope that, in the scheme of things, it does something worthwhile for the Kingdom of God.

First, over here (in Canada and, I gather, in much of the US), the Tiber has several tributaries -- within an hour's walk, I can attend Catholic services of Melkite, Maronite, Ukrainian Byzantine and Slovak Byzantine flavours and, if I stretch my stroll to two hours, Malankarese and Chaldean -- so another tributary doesn't hurt.

The greatest pond difference in the Ordinariates is, that in the UK, it will primarily house Anglo-papalists from the CoE (and here I might perhaps largely agree with Pete173), but in Canada and the US it will provide a stable structure to a number of the already-separate ramshackle (IMHO) continuum churches, giving their faithful opportunity to do reach out and inhabit a larger structure with greater opportunities to engage in mission rather than in struggling to maintain their isolated little bodies. With luck, it will restrain wackiness and introduce some rigour into clergy selection and training.

Not that I have a ferret in this race.

Posted by Carex (# 9643) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
... but in Canada and the US it will provide a stable structure to a number of the already-separate ramshackle (IMHO) continuum churches...

And also in Australia - at least for one main Continuing Church which had requested such accommodation.

Posted by rugbyplayingpriest (# 9809) on :

I really, really do get the Ordinariate.

My parish has been completely let down by the C of E since 1992 and all but the most optimistic, or those happy to accept modern Anglicansim, can see that.

If I had just converted solo then I would have walked out on my people. By entering via the Ordinariate we all stay together. The sheep and the shepherd. We journey as one and there is pastoral care.

We then set up shop as Catholics with our history and journey as organic.

Brilliant. And we end up in a church that actually cares for us which is something I am simply not used to.

Posted by Think² (# 1984) on :

They didn't care about you, or they didn't agree with you ?

Posted by hereweare (# 15567) on :

quote:
Originally posted by rugbyplayingpriest:
I really, really do get the Ordinariate.

My parish has been completely let down by the C of E since 1992 and all but the most optimistic, or those happy to accept modern Anglicansim, can see that.

If I had just converted solo then I would have walked out on my people. By entering via the Ordinariate we all stay together. The sheep and the shepherd. We journey as one and there is pastoral care.

We then set up shop as Catholics with our history and journey as organic.

Brilliant. And we end up in a church that actually cares for us which is something I am simply not used to.

But how much of a journey are you actually taking? Is it a journey of the soul, or a change of mass time? I worry that some will just be carried into it without the conversion of heart.

Posted by hereweare (# 15567) on :

....that said, welcome home!

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :

rubgyplayingpriest - you're giving Essex as your location, which puts you in Chelmsford. You've not really given the new Diocesan Bishop any chance at all to change things, have you? Bishop Stephen Cotterell has only been in place since the end of November.

If you're in the area I suspect you're in, then you probably have a Suffragan who is not known to be sympathetic to anyone who isn't within his particular brand of evangelical Christianity, But that means the more churches of a different stripe which stay within that area and keep the church broad, the better for the long term future of the church and the area. Seven Churches leaving to join the ordinariate isn't going to help that breadth.

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Think²:
They didn't care about you, or they didn't agree with you ?

I don't know about rugbyetc's situation, but generally disagreement and lack of concern or care seem to run together.

Posted by rugbyplayingpriest (# 9809) on :

I left Chelmsford Diocese some years ago....

Posted by thomasm (# 4618) on :

quote:
Originally posted by rugbyplayingpriest:
I left Chelmsford Diocese some years ago....

In the sense of "and I haven't updated my profile" or in the sense of "and I seek oversight from a flying bishop"?

Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on :

Think - when you mention the bishops who ahve decided that they were never priests and that now the (rc) church has discerned their vocation in 5 minutes - could this not be put another way -namely that the men concerned did recognise their vocation in the anglican church over the years but had seen that this was leading to a fuller communion with the Catholic church which led them to seek ordination as Catholic priests.Similarly the (rc) church would only have discerned their vocation within 5 minutes because of evidence of the worth of their vocations over several years in the Church of England.

Posted by Stranger in a strange land (# 11922) on :

quote:
Originally posted by thomasm:

quote:
Originally posted by rugbyplayingpriest:
I left Chelmsford Diocese some years ago....
In the sense of "and I haven't updated my profile" or in the sense of "and I seek oversight from a flying bishop"?

You will find that it is the former.

Posted by Think² (# 1984) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
Think - when you mention the bishops who ahve decided that they were never priests and that now the (rc) church has discerned their vocation in 5 minutes - could this not be put another way -namely that the men concerned did recognise their vocation in the anglican church over the years but had seen that this was leading to a fuller communion with the Catholic church which led them to seek ordination as Catholic priests.Similarly the (rc) church would only have discerned their vocation within 5 minutes because of evidence of the worth of their vocations over several years in the Church of England.

Then doesn't that make the Anglican church a valid church ? It seems like you are having it both ways.

Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :

Think² - I know some people seem to be very concerned about this matter of validity, and I guess that you are one of them. All that is being said is that their service as priests and as bishops was in the CofE, and that does not make them a priest in the Catholic church. In fact their ministry in the CofE was commended during their recent ordination service.

That's the short version of course. In practice there are all sorts of discussions to be had around the meaning of catholicity.

Posted by Think² (# 1984) on :

I am in a church without a clergy - so in some sense it is no skin off my nose.

But given the goal of Christian unity, and the distress caused by the fractured communion or being unable to follow what one believes to be a vocation due to some personal characteristic - it makes the divisions look much more like politics than theology, when aspects of them can suddenly be over ridden if you are willing to accept the pope's authority.

So you must be validly ordained in the apostolic succession in order to give communion. If you join the catholic priesthood you must be (re?)-ordained. So what does the pope think these men were doing when they were acting as priests and bishops in the Anglican church ?

Or to put it bluntly, the month before the bishop resigned, when he enacted communion was that bread or the body of Christ he gave to his communicants ?

If it was bread how does the RC church square talking about his ordained ministry in the Anglican church ? If it was the body of Christ, why are they not in communion with the Anglican church ?

Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :

I understand your points, Think², but I think that the people involved see things differently. People have tried to explain things here before and failed, and I'm reluctant to add my name to the list, but FWIW I'll give it a go. Bear in mind I am speaking for myself as being a catholic anglican.

re: catholicity. There are really three subtly different usages here and I think it is useful to distinguish between them.

1. The original meaning, which is close to "the whole lot". This was used to describe the whole collection of churches at an early stage of the churches evolution, as the concept of the church was otherwise just that of "The church in X city"

2. Then came the rise of heterodox sects, the gnostics etc. Catholicity now additionally became associated with the whole faith once delivered to the saints approach as suggested in the Commonitory of Vincent of Lerins. In answer to the question a traveller might ask on arriving in a new city "where should I worship?", the answer would be "go to the catholic church", i.e. the one that taught the whole faith, and didn't chop undesired bits off, or graft new bits on. The catholic church taught the apostolic faith, and its unity was given to it through its unity in the eucharist.

3. The third version arose after the reformation, and was reliant on a theme originally developed by Augustine, who pointed out that there were likely wheat and tares both inside and outside the church - the true church was those destined for salvation, and that was a fact not directly accessible to us. (Given Augustine's stern views on those who set up outside the established church, it's highly unlikely he would have approved of the current ways his theory is used, but that is beside the point).

Category 1) is no longer much use - you would need to include JW's, Mormons and much else in it. Anglican catholics would I think aspire to being in category 2), hopefully by future union. Speaking solely for myself, I cannot say the CofE is truly catholic in this way whilst it does not teach the whole faith. But if I put it this way I hope you can at least see why some people lose confidence if things change in a way that they see taking the church away from that goal. What causes such dismay will vary from person to person. Category 3) is of less help as although we would pray that we might be members of this greater church, the best options we have are to make it happen rather than to let our fractured earthly state be a matter of pride.

Looking at it this way, I can't see why those poping should be ashamed of the work they have done, and I don't think there is any sense of Rome requiring them to repent of it. But they were not priests in the Catholic church in sense 2) above.

Posted by FreeJack (# 10612) on :

The Provincial Legal Officers of the CofE have produced this report on the consequences for vicars, churchwardens and PCC members joining the Ordinariate and related matters.

GS Misc 979

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

Indeed - and it seems to have been written in bad taste and as a form of threat.

Posted by Stranger in a strange land (# 11922) on :

and with an 'Agenda'

(and an highly interpretive representation of PCC law)

Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :

Where do you see bad taste, threats and an agenda? I just see a legal document that more or less states the obvious: that anyone joining the ordinariate won't be legally entitled to take the glebes, church, school and all or any of the money with them.

Posted by anne (# 73) on :

quote:
Originally posted by FreeJack:
The Provincial Legal Officers of the CofE have produced this report on the consequences for vicars, churchwardens and PCC members joining the Ordinariate and related matters.

GS Misc 979

I'm no expert, but it seems to me to be a report on the consequences for those left behind of vicars, churchwardens and/or PCC members joining the Ordinariate. For example, what happens to the legal responsibilities of a PCC when the current members leave? What happens if those representing the parish Church on the board of governors of a Church school are no longer members of the CofE?

Those left behind in the affected parishes will have lots of questions and here are some of the answers they'll need. Isn't that the job of the Provincial Legal Officers of the CofE?

I'm sorry, I'm not detecting poor taste or threat - am I missing something?

Posted by FreeJack (# 10612) on :

It is only a threat against those who thought they could take the PCC, church building, church charities, church schools with them into the Roman Catholic Church.

It isn't a threat against anyone planning to make a clean break of it, that is resigning all distinctively CofE positions on or before reception into the RCC, and in the case of churchwardens giving two months' notice prior to that.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

I didn't like: priest intending to join the Ordinariate will need to consider for how long,
once his mind is made up, he can in conscience continue to hold office in the Church of
England

Not the bit about PCC members - could expose them, amongst other things, to investigation and action by the Charity Commission

On reading the whole guidance, it is clear that it seeks to protect people from legal problems. The excerpt I saw in a recent Church Times felt more menacing.

Posted by FreeJack (# 10612) on :

The first is an obvious point of conscience rather than law.

The second is a general point of instruction which all PCC members would do well to understand, not just potentially departing Ordinariate members. The Charity Commission can now clearly take Court action against PCC members who do not act in the best interest of the PCC's objectives and beneficiaries, and this includes disqualification as a charity trustee and financial penalties to cover financial loss by a PCC, and liability does not end with resignation.

For instance, if the final meeting of the old PCC decided to donate all of the PCCs bank account to the RC diocese they were intending to join, all of those PCC members would be personally jointly and severally responsible for reimbursing the PCC. That is the sort of thing that a warning marker is needed to deal with.

Posted by Edward Green (# 46) on :

quote:
Originally posted by FreeJack:

The second is a general point of instruction which all PCC members would do well to understand, not just potentially departing Ordinariate members. The Charity Commission can now clearly take Court action against PCC members who do not act in the best interest of the PCC's objectives and beneficiaries, and this includes disqualification as a charity trustee and financial penalties to cover financial loss by a PCC, and liability does not end with resignation.

I need that with an official stamp on it for regular PCC issues that have nothing to do with the Ordinariate.

Posted by Rosa Gallica officinalis (# 3886) on :

Edward, this PDF leaflet might help.

Posted by rugbyplayingpriest (# 9809) on :

As one on the journey let me state

1) I am being forced to apply for a faculty to remove MY OWN POSSESIONS from the church

2) A group of people has been drafted in by the Archdeacon to form the Anglican friends...two thirds have not worshipped here for many years if at all, all espouse a theology never witnessed here but they will take all our money, items and plant. All of which was given for the Catholic cause.

3) My people whom synod has failed (they did not change their beliefs the C of E did) are forced to leave with NOTHING. I even requested 7 out of 60 vestments as a good will gesture and it was refused. Most were given by those leaving in memory of dead loved ones. But no. They must take NOTHING or be sued.

4) I am being bullied into resigning my orders, something Rome is not requesting or wanting.

....forget law. Where is the love, where is the charity? Where is the common decency?

As of next month daily mass will end. The huge and expensive building will be used for one hour every week and will cost the diocese a fortune. They will not allow us to share costs and share building.

Seems pretty dog in the manger from where I stand.

Posted by anne (# 73) on :

quote:
Originally posted by rugbyplayingpriest:
As one on the journey let me state

1) I am being forced to apply for a faculty to remove MY OWN POSSESIONS from the church

2) A group of people has been drafted in by the Archdeacon to form the Anglican friends...two thirds have not worshipped here for many years if at all, all espouse a theology never witnessed here but they will take all our money, items and plant. All of which was given for the Catholic cause.

3) My people whom synod has failed (they did not change their beliefs the C of E did) are forced to leave with NOTHING. I even requested 7 out of 60 vestments as a good will gesture and it was refused. Most were given by those leaving in memory of dead loved ones. But no. They must take NOTHING or be sued.

4) I am being bullied into resigning my orders, something Rome is not requesting or wanting.

....forget law. Where is the love, where is the charity? Where is the common decency?

As of next month daily mass will end. The huge and expensive building will be used for one hour every week and will cost the diocese a fortune. They will not allow us to share costs and share building.

Seems pretty dog in the manger from where I stand.

Your pain is clear and it is heart-breaking that you and those of the parish who (I assume) are planning to join the Ordinariate feel abused by the process of leaving. Although I do not fully understand an ecclesiology or theology of priesthood which can cope with the ordination of women, but not with their consecration as bishops, you and all those in similar situations are in my prayers. Bullying by the PTB in this situation is unconscionable.

You probably don't want to get into details here, but i don't understand why a faculty would be required to remove any portable personal possession from the church. Are they fixtures and fittings?

One of the churches that I'm licensed to was rebuilt during the Commonwealth having been burnt down during the civil war. An earlier vicar had been hung off the tower, wearing his vestments and with a thurible around his neck for his part in the prayer book revolt. The locals quietly and unofficially changed the name of the church from St SaintpopularwithCatholics to St Anapostlesoconsideredsafe during the reformation. The dedication was never made official, but it's still there. Successive generations have seen the churchmanship change too. We have ebbed and flowed as Rectors and trends have come and gone. I would like to describe us now as 'Thoughtful Catholic' but churchmanship is in the eye of the beholder really isn't it?

This is all really a preamble to saying that the church is stuffed to the gunwales with gifts from generations of worshippers, many of whom would have profoundly disagreed with one another about aspects of theology and ecclesiology. If I (a woman) preach from a lectern made before the reformation before presiding at an altar given by a protestant using a chalice donated in memory of a tractarian priest, which donor am I insulting? Should we check with the donors of our vestments how they feel about me wearing them? I don't wish to make light of the situation, but a gift to the parish church is just that, a gift. The giver can't expect to dictate its use.

Vestments, even buildings, these are physical things which will be apportioned according to the legal guidance. The loss of a daily Eucharist is more important (IMO) and truly sad - is there no room for negotiation on this point?

anne

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

quote:
Originally posted by anne:
I don't wish to make light of the situation, but a gift to the parish church is just that, a gift. The giver can't expect to dictate its use.

I think the difficulty is that rugbyplayingpriest considers the gifts were given to the parish qua congregation (and therefore if the congregation goes to Rome, at least some of the gifts should go with them), whereas the diocese considers they were given to the parish qua component member of the Church of England.

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

... and for the record, though the Diocese may be legally correct, I don't think rugbyplayingpriest's position is necessarily unreasonable.

Did the Church of England steal the Roman Catholic Church's buildings at the Reformation? The usual answer is no, the churches belonged to the congregations that worshipped there, and those congregations transferred their allegiance from Rome to Canterbury. Logically, therefore, if a congregation transfers its allegiance back from Canterbury to Rome, the church buildings should go with them.

[Granted, I wouldn't say we should guide our actions today by what happened at the Reformation, but I don't think it's as simple as people think.]

[ 09. February 2011, 11:12: Message edited by: Ricardus ]

Posted by anne (# 73) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
... and for the record, though the Diocese may be legally correct, I don't think rugbyplayingpriest's position is necessarily unreasonable.

Did the Church of England steal the Roman Catholic Church's buildings at the Reformation? The usual answer is no, the churches belonged to the congregations that worshipped there, and those congregations transferred their allegiance from Rome to Canterbury. Logically, therefore, if a congregation transfers its allegiance back from Canterbury to Rome, the church buildings should go with them.

[Granted, I wouldn't say we should guide our actions today by what happened at the Reformation, but I don't think it's as simple as people think.]

No it's not simple - and legal is not the same as pastoral or reasonable.

Adding to the complexity for Anglican parish churches in England is the whole establishment business. I think that those churches actually belong to the inhabitants of the parish, rather than the worshipping congregation. At the time of the reformation those two groups would have been largely the same people, but over the centuries since, the parish church has continued to belong to the Anglican, Methodist, Presbyterian, Catholic, Hindu and atheist inhabitants of the parish. We, the worshipping community, may blithely refer to "our church", but we're wrong - or only right in the broadest sense - especially if we're a gathered congregation.

None of this will affect the pain and loss felt by congregations who feel forced to leave 'their' church, but - well, it's not simple.

anne

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by rugbyplayingpriest:

3) My people whom synod has failed (they did not change their beliefs the C of E did) are forced to leave with NOTHING.

Why are they being "forced to leave"? Who is forcing them? Would someone come round and kick you all out if you all just stayed as Anglicans?

If they are all off to become Roman Catholics then it sounds to me as if they are choosing to leave, not being forced to. (what proportion are likely to be moving?)

Posted by The Man with a Stick (# 12664) on :

quote:
Originally posted by FreeJack:
The first is an obvious point of conscience rather than law.

The second is a general point of instruction which all PCC members would do well to understand, not just potentially departing Ordinariate members. The Charity Commission can now clearly take Court action against PCC members who do not act in the best interest of the PCC's objectives and beneficiaries, and this includes disqualification as a charity trustee and financial penalties to cover financial loss by a PCC, and liability does not end with resignation.

For instance, if the final meeting of the old PCC decided to donate all of the PCCs bank account to the RC diocese they were intending to join, all of those PCC members would be personally jointly and severally responsible for reimbursing the PCC. That is the sort of thing that a warning marker is needed to deal with.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ken:

quote:
Originally posted by rugbyplayingpriest:

3) My people whom synod has failed (they did not change their beliefs the C of E did) are forced to leave with NOTHING.
Why are they being "forced to leave"? Who is forcing them? Would someone come round and kick you all out if you all just stayed as Anglicans?

If they are all off to become Roman Catholics then it sounds to me as if they are choosing to leave, not being forced to. (what proportion are likely to be moving?)

Forced to leave because the C of E has ceased to have valid orders, has forfeited its claim to be the catholic church of this land.

They were ordained believing that they were being ordained as priests on the catholic church but would be expected to change into ministers of a state protestant church.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

They were ordained believing that they were being ordained as priests on the catholic church but would be expected to change into ministers of a state protestant church.

Anyway, they still have the same priest or minister they always had. So even if they hold to the the doctrine of taint you describe no-one is forcing them to do anything just yet.

Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :

Ken - as a matter of interest, I believe you elsewhere expressed the view that the reformation involved local parishes changing their connexion (hence the continuity with the past).

Would you have objections to these parishes doing that again, as here? (Just interested in exploring the connexion dimension rather than anything else).

Posted by FreeJack (# 10612) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
... and for the record, though the Diocese may be legally correct, I don't think rugbyplayingpriest's position is necessarily unreasonable.

I don't think his personal philosophical position is unreasonable, it just isn't that of English law, and that is as determined by Parliament, the Government, the Courts not the Synod or the Diocese.

There is no question that his Archdeacon is just doing his job. And even if the Archdeacon wanted to be more loving / charitable than that, the legal system would over-rule the Archdeacon.

Gifts were given to the PCC in perpetuity, not the Catholic cause at one moment in time.

What the current congregation chooses to do is irrelevant.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ken:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

They were ordained believing that they were being ordained as priests on the catholic church but would be expected to change into ministers of a state protestant church.

Anyway, they still have the same priest or minister they always had.

I don't understand what you say - they ARE the priest - I am talking about men, several of whom are long-standing friends of mine, who have given their whole lives for this, only to be told that they are no longer wanted.

Posted by sanityman (# 11598) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by ken:

quote:
Originally posted by rugbyplayingpriest:

3) My people whom synod has failed (they did not change their beliefs the C of E did) are forced to leave with NOTHING.
Why are they being "forced to leave"? Who is forcing them? Would someone come round and kick you all out if you all just stayed as Anglicans?

If they are all off to become Roman Catholics then it sounds to me as if they are choosing to leave, not being forced to. (what proportion are likely to be moving?)
Forced to leave because the C of E has ceased to have valid orders, has forfeited its claim to be the catholic church of this land.

They were ordained believing that they were being ordained as priests on the catholic church but would be expected to change into ministers of a state protestant church.

If I may ask a naif question, are Anglican orders regarded as valid or otherwise depending on Rome's say-so, or is it down to the personal theology of the individual as to whether someone's orders are valid?

I'm a bit at sea here, because ISTM that the word "valid" implies an imprimatur from some authority - and I'm not sure that Rome has ever regarded Anglican orders as valid? The alternative seems to stray into protestant individualism, or at least an individualistic interpretation of tradition that is now at odds with both Rome and the C of E.

I freely confess I don't have much grasp of the notion, and probably have is bass-ackward.

- Chris.

Posted by Edward Green (# 46) on :

quote:
Originally posted by FreeJack:

Gifts were given to the PCC in perpetuity, not the Catholic cause at one moment in time.

And many gifts that were given in the Catholic cause are locked in societies and are unavailable to the ordinariate or those who have accepted the decision of the Synod.

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Forced to leave because the C of E has ceased to have valid orders, has forfeited its claim to be the catholic church of this land.

At best you could say that their consciences are forcing them to leave. But then the Synod would argue that its collective conscience "forced" it to act in the way it did.

Posted by Invictus_88 (# 15352) on :

quote:
Originally posted by FreeJack:

Gifts were given to the PCC in perpetuity, not the Catholic cause at one moment in time.

...and of those gifts given to the RCC in perpetuity?

Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :

It's not simple and straight forward thats for sure, but the fact of the matter is that some people are expressing a desire to leave the CofE and join the ordinariate. The expectation that they would be able to bring things with them seems incredibly naive to me. It isn't a simple case of people having given items to the Roman Catholic Church or 'cause'; they gave gifts to a parish that was CofE and will remain CofE. They did this knowing how the CofE works; knowing that a Vicar (even in the near future) might throw their item in the bin with the consent of the pcc and church bodies, or put it to the back of a cupboard never to be used or at best, use it until it can be used no longer. Nothing lasts forever in this world of perishables and although we might put our desires into giving the gift with conditions, we can never really guarantee that beyond a generation or two, mainly because we will be dead and gone and hopefully in a place with spectacular vestments that don't wear out and aren't laden with soggy church politics.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I don't understand what you say - they ARE the priest - I am talking about men, several of whom are long-standing friends of mine, who have given their whole lives for this, only to be told that they are no longer wanted.

1) No, we were talking about rugbyplayingpriets claim that his whole congregation had been forced to leave the CofE.

2) It is a lie to say anti-women priests were told "they are no longer wanted" - they are most certainly wanted and accepted - the majority ofthe CofE who are in favour of ordaining women have been bending over backwards for years trying to put up with the demands of that crowd only to be told again and again that it isn't enough.

3) And nothing has changed in the last almost twenty years to "force" anyone out. No-one is forcing these people to have women priests. There are mno women bishops in the CofE yet. No-one who coudl in conscience remain in the CofE after about 1992 has been "forced" to do anything. The mendacious claim that they have is typical of the kind of language these people are using more and more and its really quite unjustified.

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I don't understand what you say - they ARE the priest - I am talking about men, several of whom are long-standing friends of mine, who have given their whole lives for this, only to be told that they are no longer wanted.

It's not your long-standing friends who told are not wanted. It's women who are told they're not wanted. To be precise, it's women who are told that they're not wanted by your long-standing friends. And not only are women not wanted by your long-standing friends, your long-standing friends are telling the rest of us that women mustn't be wanted by the rest of us either.

You can try to take your stand on issues of theological principle. But if they complain that they're being told they're not wanted, then they're ignoring the fact that women have been facing the same message but worse for decades. The complaint is only possible for people who are dismissing women's experience; it's only possible if your long-standing friends really are misogynists.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

I am sure that their are some mysogynists in FiF but, on the whole, they are not. They have theological issues, as do the vast majority of Christians throughout time and space, with the notion that women can be priests.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

Women have not been told for decades that they aren't wanted. They have been allowed to be members of the church and given valid sacraments.

Is priesthood some sort of career path? Not according to catholic theology.

PS Please remember that I welcome women's priestly ministry but that i see both sides of the argument.

Posted by FreeJack (# 10612) on :

The irony is that it is the aggressive way that liberal anglo-catholics have pursued women's consecration 'pushing' out the conservative anglo-catholics is going to create a majority evangelical church, which is hardly what the liberal anglo-catholics really want if they think about it.

If you want to see how bad relationships are between some in the two groups of anglo-catholics in the House of Clergy, have a look at the preferences in the recent by-election for a member of the CNC.

CNC Clergy Election

If I read it right, Tim Dakin (evangelical CMS/CEEC) beats Andrew Nunn (liberal anglo-catholic SCP Southwark) with the transfer votes from David Houlding (conservative anglo-catholic FinF/SSC London) and Gavin Ashenden (supports safeguards.)

Posted by anne (# 73) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Women have not been told for decades that they aren't wanted. They have been allowed to be members of the church and given valid sacraments.

Is priesthood some sort of career path? Not according to catholic theology.

PS Please remember that I welcome women's priestly ministry but that i see both sides of the argument.

I am not women, but I am a woman and can speak to some of these points from my own experience.

To take them in order:

I have been told that I am not wanted. I have been told that my priesthood is not real.

Allowed?? I've been allowed to be a member of the church?
I really hope that that's not what you meant. But you are right - I have been allowed to be a member of the church and given valid sacraments. If you mean that I have been allowed to be ordained a priest in the church, then that's true too - and less likely to have me spitting in fury.

But, whilst I am truly grateful to the church that allowed me to be ordained, and to the women and men who (I believe) responded to the Holy Spirit and voted in Synod for the changes that allowed that to happen, I also believe that God called me to this ministry, and it was in obedience to His will that I was ordained priest. I am sorry to sound pompous, but really allowed ???

My priesthood is not a career path - I had one of those. In fact, I left it in order to do this.

I see both sides of the argument too - i know that most opponents of the ordination of women are speaking from deeply held theological beliefs. But sometimes, just sometimes, there's deeply held misogyny too. Sometimes from men who however catholic their theology also see the priesthood as a career path and some of the gifted holy senior priests who happen to be women as competition. Not me - I'm no competition to anyone, but I'm not really typical.

There is real pain amongst those who feel that the church is moving in the wrong direction, but the pain of those on the 'other side' is genuine too. Please don't underestimate that.

Thank you for your welcoming of my ministry.

Anne

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

Thank you. I don't always express myself very well.

I have listened to many such testimonies from women about their sense of vocation. Indeed, they were the major factor that made me leave the anglo-catholic ghetto decades ago.

I am sure I will think of something else top say later. Meanwhile, some of the most holy women priests that I know in my deanery share my pain at the seeming exclusion of male colleagues.

There is something costly about being 'liberal.' Confucius he say, 'He who sits in the middle of the road gets hit double.'

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by FreeJack:
The irony is that it is the aggressive way that liberal anglo-catholics have pursued women's consecration 'pushing' out the conservative anglo-catholics is going to create a majority evangelical church, which is hardly what the liberal anglo-catholics really want if they think about it.

If you want to see how bad relationships are between some in the two groups of anglo-catholics in the House of Clergy, have a look at the preferences in the recent by-election for a member of the CNC.

CNC Clergy Election

If I read it right, Tim Dakin (evangelical CMS/CEEC) beats Andrew Nunn (liberal anglo-catholic SCP Southwark) with the transfer votes from David Houlding (conservative anglo-catholic FinF/SSC London) and Gavin Ashenden (supports safeguards.)

That is interesting and disturbing. I head David Houlding refer to AffCaths like myself as 'the enemy' (listening to a podcast of the last FiF rally). It hurt me deeply as one who as sought to bring the catholic movement together across the divide. It was tempted to say that I had argued their case on my turf but you never argue my case on your turn. So f**k off to Rome and see how you like it.

Then I felt guilty for thinking thus.

Now I am just confused.

However, I don't fear an evangelical takeover as such. I have just spent a whole day at a deanery chapter meeting and happened to be sat with the evangelicals from a highly 'successful' charismatic church and we were all surprised at how much we agreed with each other about many issues.

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I am sure that their are some mysogynists in FiF but, on the whole, they are not. They have theological issues, as do the vast majority of Christians throughout time and space, with the notion that women can be priests.

I am not talking about FiF. I am talking about people who complain that 'they are no longer wanted'.
FiF may have theological objections to female priests. People who complain that 'they are no longer wanted' are saying implicitly or explicitly that women can't make the same complaint, such people have gone beyond theological objections and are actually dismissing women's experience. Dismissing women's experience is misogynistic. What Anne said about 'allowed'. I mean, how can you say 'women have not been told that they're not wanted'? On what basis of interviews and discussion with women who feel they have a vocation to priesthood do you feel justified in asserting that?

Seeing both sides of the argument sometimes means calling what you see by their proper names.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I am sure that their are some mysogynists in FiF but, on the whole, they are not. They have theological issues, as do the vast majority of Christians throughout time and space, with the notion that women can be priests.

Yes, but so what? They have managed to stay in the CofE for the last twenty years despite those "theological issues" and now some of them are leaving saying they are being "forced out". But nothing has changed. So what is this mysterious "forcing"?

Lots of people, especially on the evangelical side, have been trying quite hard to get them as much as is practically possible of what they asked for and are, pretty much getting slapped by them for it. Its annoying.

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
PS Please remember that I welcome women's priestly ministry

You often say that on here but show very little evidence of it in the rest of your posts. OK, that's me being polite, in fact its no evidence at all as far as I remember, and quite a bit of arguing on the other side. It sometimes seems very near "I'm not a sexist but..."

quote:
Originally posted by FreeJack:
If I read it right, Tim Dakin (evangelical CMS/CEEC) beats Andrew Nunn (liberal anglo-catholic SCP Southwark) with the transfer votes from David Houlding (conservative anglo-catholic FinF/SSC London) and Gavin Ashenden (supports safeguards.)

Hardly a surprise. Like a lot of the self-identified "open evangelicals" (including Pete173 of this parish), I think Tim Dakin has been pretty consistently strongly in favour of ordaining women but has also tried to understand, accomodate, and support their opponents. (In fact exactly the stance Leo says he takes, though doesn't show much of here)

If you look at the votes on women bishops in the last Synod, Tim Dakin pretty much voted consistently the opposite way to most of the Southwark delegation (who are nice people, and most of whom I have met, and one or two of whom I know quite well, but who are mostly not at all in favour of accomodating FiF.)

So yes, its very sensible for those opposed to women's ordination to vote for them. Well, for "us" I suppose because its the position I'd take.

quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
I am not talking about FiF. I am talking about people who complain that 'they are no longer wanted'. FiF may have theological objections to female priests. People who complain that 'they are no longer wanted' are saying implicitly or explicitly that women can't make the same complaint, such people have gone beyond theological objections and are actually dismissing women's experience. Dismissing women's experience is misogynistic.

Yes.

For some reason the current way the arguments are going at the moment is making me angry,I think you've hit on some of the reasons why.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ken:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I am sure that their are some mysogynists in FiF but, on the whole, they are not. They have theological issues, as do the vast majority of Christians throughout time and space, with the notion that women can be priests.
Yes, but so what? They have managed to stay in the CofE for the last twenty years despite those "theological issues" and now some of them are leaving saying they are being "forced out". But nothing has changed. So what is this mysterious "forcing"?

What has changed is the synod has reneged on the promises it made by removing the PEVs.

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :

Umm - the way we heard it, the PEVs all resigned and removed themselves - took up the offer of the Ordinariate. And isn't there still some interim provision for those churches requesting oversight, although when all the PEVs have resigned no-one has rushed to re-establish a system that hasn't been brilliantly helpful and supportive to the CofE.

From here, it has looked as if the PEVs have been indulging in private empire building which they seem to be moving lock, stock and as much of the barrel as they can to their new little empire, the Ordinariate.

[ 11. February 2011, 16:29: Message edited by: Curiosity killed ... ]

Posted by rugbyplayingpriest (# 9809) on :

Nothing has changed?

EVERYTHING has changed. The offer of the Ordinariate provides love, welcome and support that FIF priests have simply not experienced.

Remember we did not seek to stop women bishops merely to have provision that would enable us to flourish. Now we have that but it took Rome to show the C of E the meaning of liberal and flexible to achieve this.

Fortunately the Diocesan has been much nicer than the AD and we are now moving forwards a little - I am impressed with him.

But the feeble notion put forward that synod has bent over backwards to accomodate us is frankly risible. We entered synod with resolutions, promises, PEVs and hope. We left with the Code of Practice we had painstakingly explained could never do....

However you look at it. The C of E shifted the goalposts and left trad Catholics out in the cold.

How I wish liberals were all like Leo, indeed I believe I am one like that, this new breed are narrow minded, cruel and vindictive.

Still God is good and we await a new future. I think when emotions calm down then history will prove we were people of integrity and that synod acted dishonourably. After all they said the same of Newman as they now say of us... and he has been beatified.

I also think the loss of our departure will be more significant than people realise, opening up a war betwixt liberal and evangelicals on matters sexual.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
Umm - the way we heard it, the PEVs all resigned and removed themselves - took up the offer of the Ordinariate. And isn't there still some interim provision for those churches requesting oversight, although when all the PEVs have resigned no-one has rushed to re-establish a system that hasn't been brilliantly helpful and supportive to the CofE.

From here, it has looked as if the PEVs have been indulging in private empire building which they seem to be moving lock, stock and as much of the barrel as they can to their new little empire, the Ordinariate.

No, the loss of PEVs is because the new legislation includes the rescinding of the Act of Synod that created them. That's why 2 PEVs decided to join the ordinariate because there was no future for them in the C of E.

PEVs will cease to exist once the legislation has been accepted. There will be temporary appointments in the meantime.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
no-one has rushed to re-establish a system that hasn't been brilliantly helpful and supportive to the CofE.

Yes they did - Rowan made immediate, interim, arrangements upon receiving the resignations.

Posted by Autenrieth Road (# 10509) on :

quote:
Originally posted by rugbyplayingpriest:
EVERYTHING has changed. The offer of the Ordinariate provides love, welcome and support that FIF priests have simply not experienced.

This does not constitute the CoE forcing them out, however.

I do not deny that the actions of Synod may be experienced as forcing you out by changing the arrangements for PEVs and raising the inexorable specter of women bishops with no adequate provision.

I hope that the fact that you lead your catalog of what has changed with the Ordinariate pluses rather than the Synod minuses means that your worldview is shifting from "we were forced out" and anger over the past, to "we are in (or will be soon) a good place" and joy for the future.

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
no-one has rushed to re-establish a system that hasn't been brilliantly helpful and supportive to the CofE.
Yes they did - Rowan made immediate, interim, arrangements upon receiving the resignations.

The first half of the sentence you cropped said exactly what you're saying - that interim arrangements are in place.

I do think that those in the Church of England who had the goal posts changed, who were in place when women were first ordained priests did need provision and support. The PEVs had a purpose initially, to do just this.

But my comment about empire building - the one that you've ignored - refers to those priests that the PEVs have ordained, who have chosen to be ordained into the Church of England since the CofE agreed to ordain women, refusing to accept that women are valid priests. And a large proportion of those making sad and unhappy noises about being forced out have wilfully ignored a lot of things they found inconvenient - but particularly that they were choosing to be ordained into a church that also ordained women, so the church as a whole had accepted women priests.

I don't see how people can choose to join an organisation that ordains women in the vain and foolish hope that things are going to change the way they want can complain when they find that things really aren't going to change.

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ken:

quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
I am not talking about FiF. I am talking about people who complain that 'they are no longer wanted'. FiF may have theological objections to female priests. People who complain that 'they are no longer wanted' are saying implicitly or explicitly that women can't make the same complaint, such people have gone beyond theological objections and are actually dismissing women's experience. Dismissing women's experience is misogynistic.
Yes.

For some reason the current way the arguments are going at the moment is making me angry,I think you've hit on some of the reasons why.

I agree.

I'm not a great fan of arguments in terms of "belief X is bad because it's offensive and hurtful", when in most cases the real question is whether X is true. However, someone a bit nicer and more compassionate than me could reasonably argue I'm just an insensitive git.

What's unreasonable, however, is to complain that Synod's actions are "hurtful" to FiFers, while ignoring that FiFers' actions are hurtful to women priests.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by rugbyplayingpriest:
Nothing has changed?

EVERYTHING has changed.

Does the CofE have women bishops yet?

Did the CofE not ordain women nearly 20 years ago?

Hasn't the CofE been in full communion with churches that do have women bishops for decades?

None of that has changed. No-one has been forced to do anything.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by rugbyplayingpriest:
How I wish liberals were all like Leo, indeed I believe I am one like that, this new breed are narrow minded, cruel and vindictive.

Which is why I do not own the title/label 'liberal'. Liberals are intolerant of everyone who isn't liberal.

I don't like the term 'traditionalist' either, since I have reverence for the tradition.

I think 'radical orthodoxy' best describes where I am coming from.

Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :

Thats ok Leo, we'll allow you to be a radical orthodox christian and stay in the church

Posted by Alex Cockell (# 7487) on :

So - let me get this straight.

Departing CofE priests get their P45 and their pensions frozen. if stuff has been bought with church funds, it's left behind... if given to the PCC - it's left behind.

Surely, if stuff like robes etc is bought with church money, they have to be handed back, as they are leaving the CofE's employ?

Surely that's part of any resignation?

And one Shippie here is griping about it?

Posted by FreeJack (# 10612) on :

quote:
Originally posted by rugbyplayingpriest:
Nothing has changed?

EVERYTHING has changed.

Nothing much has changed since John Henry Newman converted.

If you have come to the realisation that John Henry Newman was right to convert, then good for you and we wish you well, but it is still your realisation that ultimately the CofE is a state protestant church and the Roman Catholic Church is a bigger part of the apostolic church universal that seems to be what has changed.

Not whether or not the CofE should have ordained women priests in 1994 or will consecrate women priests in say 2016 or whether or not your archdeacon is a bureaucrat with a sense of humour failure, or even whether is an ordinariate or anything else.

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

I do not blame the departers for feeling put-upon nor do I blame the stayers for feeling frustrated at what they perceive to be ingratitude. The two-integrities approach was designed so that both elements could feel more-or-less rewarded and cared-for. There was no deadline date involved and reception meant whatever you care to say. It was, theologically and practically, unworkable, and was designed purposely to make OOW get through Parliament. I will leave others to comment on the intellectual integrity and ecclesiological coherence involved.

When GS determined that the Act of Synod would not continue with its provisions, the objectors were left with no room for denial and with a sense of betrayal. I do not hold with the argument that those ordained since the Act of Synod have no grounds to stand upon-- they allowed themselves to think, and were not contradicted by authority, that the Act's provisions would continue and that their particular integrity would continue in its way. I could have told them that the politics of it all would not permit that, but I am only one voice, and far away in a snowy country. A promise was made, without a time limit on the package and, if it is to be broken (and promises and vows are sometimes broken), it should be done with a maximum of respect and a minimum of aggro. (As an irrelevant tangent, I think that the Porvoo Agreement should have been the breaking point, but only two other people agree with me)

This having been said and IMHO it's all really very obvious, the only question is how to arrange terms of departure. For individual clergy, it's always been clear, and usually both the CoE and RC hierarchies have been fairly supportive and respectful (certainly in the cases of which I have knowledge). With the introduction of the Ordinariate, the departure of communities would, I think, suggest a parallel form of generosity. The extra mile and all that, even if I forget exactly where that phrase comes from. Earlier in the thread, I've offered a few practical ideas on this, and I still think that they are worth looking at.

I wonder if the Ordinariate will not turn out to be a good thing for both the RCs & the CoE. For the CoE in that it provides a sensible home (as opposed to the alphabet soup whackoland of the continuum) for those who feel that they cannot continue post-Act of Synod-- I see little point in continuing with a bitter element in the CoE-- and the RCs get a shot of diversity.

Posted by FreeJack (# 10612) on :

I agree the Porvoo agreement was actually a bigger break threat to catholic order than the ordination of women priests. (I'm not an anglo-catholic and I am in favour of both developments.) But it was not a visible threat to catholic order in the average anglo-catholic parish / diocese. As long as the average priest could be Father / Pope in his own parish then it didn't matter what happened in Stockholm.

Promises were made, but they aren't being broken in draft by the same people who made them, or even the same house. The House of Clergy has increasing numbers of women priests in its own membership. London, still a bastion of FiF in many parishes, has four out of ten including an archdeacon.

Posted by The Man with a Stick (# 12664) on :

Re the point about the temporary replacements for the PEVs (and +Fulham) - they can only provide that episcopal oversight at the Diocesan's request. In what I believe to be rugbyplayingpriest's diocese, the silence as to whom is providing oversight (+Sowerby, +Ford, +Wheatley or +Urwin) has been deafening, so I'm not surprised an ABC parish in the diocese feels they are without a replacement for their departed bishop.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

Of course from this side of the fence Porvoo looks like a great move towards true catholicity - which does not consist in kow-towing to Popes and Cardinals or in the beaurucratic adherence to procedures laid down by some official long agao and far away, but in recognising the body of Christ and the work of the Hoily Spirit in churches all over the world, and not pretending that somehow our own denomination is the One True Church on Earth and the rest are in some way deficient or invalid.

Posted by rugbyplayingpriest (# 9809) on :

Ken I find your notion of Catholicity appalling. You seem quite happy to accept the Holy Spirit in lots of different churches equally as if our division is not a complete scandal to the Gospel.

S. John's Gospel makes clear that God's will is for his church to be one. Simply blessing each to do their own thing is manifestly NOT Catholic.

Ultimately I have come to see that the achilles heal of Protestantism is the failure of choice over obedience. It places too much emphasis on autonomy and that is why there are now over 30,000 different prot denominations all out of communion with each other to varying degrees. There is but one Catholic church and I delight in entering into it.

It might not be perfect but at least it is unified.

Posted by Think² (# 1984) on :

What made you pick the Roman Catholics over the Orthodox ?

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

For that matter, why did you get ordained into the Anglican church in the first place, if

a. The most important aspect of a church is its opinion of unity and catholicity,

b. The Anglicans' opinion of unity and catholicity is diametrically opposed to your own?

ETA: Honestly, I'm not saying your opinions are wrong, but I simply don't understand how you can complain that the Anglican church has turned out not to be something it's never claimed to be.

[ 15. February 2011, 08:44: Message edited by: Ricardus ]

Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :

I'm not sure that Anglicanism has a uniform view on unity and catholicity.

quote:
Originally posted by Think²:
What made you pick the Roman Catholics over the Orthodox ?

RPP - Like Think², I would genuinely be interested in knowing how you see this.

Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :

posted by rugbyplayingpriest:

quote:

S. John's Gospel makes clear that God's will is for his church to be one. Simply blessing each to do their own thing is manifestly NOT Catholic.

When did unity suddenly equal conformity?

Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on :

quote:
Originally posted by rugbyplayingpriest:
You seem quite happy to accept the Holy Spirit in lots of different churches equally as if our division is not a complete scandal to the Gospel.

As someone who agrees with ken on this point, I find it extremely odd that someone should think that denying the Holy Spirit to other churches is an appropriate response to that scandal.

We are called to unity. You are a Christian who cannot abide to be in unity with certain other Christians who disagree with you - that's why you're leaving a part of the church. If you were convinced that only Rome was truly the body of Christ, you'd have left years ago.

I wish you well, and I'm sorry that the Church of England wasn't able to provide some way in which you could have stayed without offending your conscience. But really, you don't get to treat a genuine and honest disagreement as communion-breaking, and then accuse people like ken (who would have been perfectly happy for you to stay) of being indifferent to the scandal of division. That stinks.

Posted by Invictus_88 (# 15352) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:

quote:
Originally posted by rugbyplayingpriest:
You seem quite happy to accept the Holy Spirit in lots of different churches equally as if our division is not a complete scandal to the Gospel.
As someone who agrees with ken on this point, I find it extremely odd that someone should think that denying the Holy Spirit to other churches is an appropriate response to that scandal.

We are called to unity. You are a Christian who cannot abide to be in unity with certain other Christians who disagree with you - that's why you're leaving a part of the church. If you were convinced that only Rome was truly the body of Christ, you'd have left years ago.
(...)

If it might hypothesise here..

The unity did exist, as evidenced by the long historical compatibility which people have found between Anglicanism and the universal catholic Churches, and when the CofE committed to support that unity this was - we can assume - a laudable and adequate expression of Christian unity.

Then when the CofE neglected to support that unity, allowing insoluble division from the universal catholic Churches to develop, some individuals were compelled by conscience to maintain that unity even when their church denied it of them as an institution.

Would it then not be a mistake to tar someone for 'leaving', when they have simply stood still on ground abandoned by the CofE but always tilled and sown by the largest and oldest churches?

Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :

Eliab wrote

quote:
I wish you well, and I'm sorry that the Church of England wasn't able to provide some way in which you could have stayed without offending your conscience. But really, you don't get to treat a genuine and honest disagreement as communion-breaking, and then accuse people like ken (who would have been perfectly happy for you to stay) of being indifferent to the scandal of division. That stinks.

Whilst I disagree with RPP on the Holy Spirit business (and I suspect the Catholic church might as well), I think your argument doesn't work at this point.

I may affirm that I am in good odour and full communion with my next-door neighbour. But if I am also in the habit of lobbing dead cats over her garden hedge, she may beg to disagree. The point being that communion always has to be a two-sided process. If there is a point of offence that causes one side to assert that communion is broken, then broken it is.

Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Invictus_88:
The unity did exist, as evidenced by the long historical compatibility which people have found between Anglicanism and the universal catholic Churches, and when the CofE committed to support that unity this was - we can assume - a laudable and adequate expression of Christian unity.

The CofE has always (in living memory, at least) included people who call themselves "Catholics" and mean by that that they are "Catholics" in sense that includes the RCC and excludes the non-conformists. But it has never (in living memory, at least) been the case that all, or even most, of its members have either used or accepted that definition of themselves. And it has never stopped us from disagreeing - institutionally disagreeing - with Rome, by, for example, ordaining priests who are not recognised by Rome.

And that's still the case. You can be an Anglican who thinks they're Catholic, or one who thinks they're Protestant, or one who thinks they're both.

quote:
Then when the CofE neglected to support that unity, allowing insoluble division from the universal catholic Churches to develop, some individuals were compelled by conscience to maintain that unity even when their church denied it of them as an institution.

The important point there - that they were compelled by conscience - I would not disagree with. I'm not suggesting any bad faith. They may well have felt that they could not properly remain.
The rest of the church includes a proportion (which RPP seems to be trying hard to increase) who would say to him "Fuck off, already". And it includes a proportion who regret that he's going and feel that it was gravely wrong not to do more to accommodate him. And it includes a proportion who bear him no ill will but don't understand why he's making this an issue to leave over. But the decision that he cannot coexist with the whole lot of us in one church is his. It's his conscience that has dictated that this is an issue grave enough to cause a split. He has decided that something is more important to him than the unity with those Christians which he was in communion with and now will not be.

He might be right, of course. He might have God on his side. It might really be true that women can't be priests and that anyone who realises that ought at this point to leave the CofE. But he is still wrong to accuse the people that he is leaving, and who would not mind in the least if he stayed of being indifferent to a division which he wants and they don't.

quote:
Would it then not be a mistake to tar someone for 'leaving', when they have simply stood still on ground abandoned by the CofE but always tilled and sown by the largest and oldest churches?

"Leaving" isn't a loaded word. To call the move "defection", "schism", or "desertion" would be "tarring someone", saying that they are "leaving" is not.

RPP is leaving. He was and is a member of one church. He will cease to be a member of that church and join another. The church he is joining does not admit members of his former church to the sacraments and considers the practices of the former church to be defective in important respects. His relationship with the other members of the CofE changes from full communion to division. You can argue that he's right to leave. Arguing that he isn't leaving is laughable.

[ 15. February 2011, 11:51: Message edited by: Eliab ]

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

ADMIN NOTE

We have a long standing rule on the Ship not to discuss the internal disputes of individual congregations. There are good reasons for this rule, including that we don't want the Ship to be a place for antagonists to attempt to gain support. Also, such discussions tend to open the doors to potential legal issues, especially when there are accusations of one side acting in bad faith. We normally only find it necessary to invoke this reasonable requirement in Ecclesiantics, due to the particular subject matter discussed there. However, the rule applies across the Ship.

After some consideration, we have decided that some of the discussion here, particularly starting with this post, is simply too close to discussing a dispute within a single congregation. Especially as the identity of rugbyplayingpriest is well known, and hence the church in question can be readily identified.

There is plenty of relevant things to discuss in this thread, without discussing an individual congregation. Please stick to the general subject. We don't want to see any further discussion of particular congregations.

Alan

Ship of Fools Admin

Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
Whilst I disagree with RPP on the Holy Spirit business (and I suspect the Catholic church might as well), I think your argument doesn't work at this point.

I may affirm that I am in good odour and full communion with my next-door neighbour. But if I am also in the habit of lobbing dead cats over her garden hedge, she may beg to disagree. The point being that communion always has to be a two-sided process. If there is a point of offence that causes one side to assert that communion is broken, then broken it is.

Not knowing RPP, I obviously can't say how many dead cats have been targetted at him, but I think you would stretch yourself to find any that were thrown by ken.

Anglicanism has wide boundaries. If honest disagreement is "dead cat throwing" then part of the deal that we've all signed up for is that every so often we'll have a dead cat fight. We're all going to get one in the face from time to time.

I don't deny that the breach of trust involved in moving from an open promise of acceptance for his point of view to the feeling that acceptance will be at the whim and suffrance of future individuals and not an iron-clad guarantee is an especially large and putrid dead cat, and even within the rules of the fight, it was very wrong to have flung it, but the decision that it was one moggy too many was RPP's. Not mine, not ken's. We don't especially want him gone. Even the people who threw the cat didn't (for the most part) do so in order to drive him out.

Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on :

My last post was written without seeing Alan's warning, and cross-posted.

If it goes beyond the acceptable limits of discussion, then I apologise.

(FWIW, I have no idea who RPP is, and nothing I have written either is, or could be, a comment on any part of his situation except what he has postd here).

Posted by Edward Green (# 46) on :

The Priest who helped bring me to the fullness of faith shared with me through his life and ministry how being a Catholic Anglican seemed to be a very natural position in the 70's. If you trained lived and worked in a certain 'ARCIC' bubble then the CofE and the RCC were sharing the same post Vatican II journey towards a modern (counter)reformed catholic faith. CofE and RCC Priests shared altars and even con-celebrated on pilgrimages. Re-unification to some must have seemed a step away.

The OOW debate shattered this community. There were those who in all integrity believed that the OOW was wrong for all time (AC1). Those who believed that the Spirit of Vatican II would soon lead to the OOW and we should wait (AC2). Those who believed that as (in their PBC reading) the 1549 BCP had foreshadowed the reforms of Vatican II the CofE was called to take a prophetic lead(AC3).

After the vote those in AC1 either decided to stay under the Act and extended care (AC1a), but some left (AC1b- now RCA1!). Some in AC2 joined AC1 in resolutions whilst still holding that Women could in theory be ordained (AC2a) others accepted the decision of Synod (AC2b). AC3 got on with it, but perhaps suffered from an over liberal bias (AC3a) and the waning of the Dearmerite Prayer Book Catholic tradition (AC3b).

AC1a are now split again, some will follow the ordinariate (RCA2!), some will remain in SSWSH joined by many in AC2a (who mostly didn't sign resolution C!). Those in AC2b (which is my background) are probably further divided between waiting to ordain Women as Bishops on the basis of CofE unity (AC2bi) and admitting that ARCIC is DITW (dead in the water!)- (AC2bii).

Meanwhile a post-liberal reaction within AC3, the influence of RO (Radical Orthodoxy) and AC1a's and AC2a's changing their minds, has resulted in a group of often younger folks (lay and ordained) who are remarkably conservative Catholic in Worship, Spirituality and Theology, but 'Inclusive' on the Gender/Sexuality issue (ACI). Many ACI's are ordained Women.

Of course that doesn't explain it all. There were anti OOW PBC's I am sure, the differences between Modern and English Missal and 101 other variations.

And I would suggest that the Charismatic Evangelical movement is just as diverse in the CofE. It has so far avoided the divisions of the British New Church movement (R1, R2, R3!) but a point will come when those who grew up in New Wine and expect more unity with those BNCM churches will increasing discover that the rest of the CofE isn't along for the ride, just like it wasn't in the 70's with ARCIC.

I hope that is clear as mud!

Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :

Mr Green, it makes it eminently clear! One of the things that I strongly dislike about the way that the arguments regarding the OoW and the Ordinariate is panning out is the implicit and explicit assumption that anglo-caths all think the same way about it, and if you think differently you weren't anglo-cath in the first place. It's deeply insulting, but also strangely odd that in a very short time a great gulf opens up entirely of our own making. One would expect assumption and ignorance about another's position to appear a long time after any split or separation, but in this case it's happened so damn quickly. But it's not a situation unique to the CofE, it's pretty rife throughout the anglican communion in general. You could cite a number of things that has caused this, but I think the greatest one is entrenchment (on all sides) and the rejection of the value of truly listening to one another.

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

Edward Green's racecard is illuminating, and should be kept as a reference by non-AC commentators to strengthen the pertinence of their contributions of the discussion.

Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :

Eliab

(I think I can come back to your point without referencing any particular congregation - the point is a general one)

I am absolutely not targeting Ken or anyone else with my metaphor. Perhaps I could have used a different one about me parking my tanks on my neighbour's lawn, or some such. Because I do mean me - I was very much supportive of the OOWP before its introduction.

What I am saying - in perhaps another way - is that I am sure that everyone who says they would like to see those who have trouble with OOWP/B stay are 100% sincere. It's not that - it's that we have not offered them an option that gives them sacramental assurance for the future. It's not as if that issue was just dreamed up recently - it very much pre-dates the OOWP issue.

I agree that the decision as to what is communion-breaking is in the hands of the other party, and may or may not be valid in my eyes. But if I make a change to the structure of a relationship, I do have to be alert to the potential for division, and if I cannot resolve it, the responsibility for that division will be mine, not my neighbour's.

This issue is giving me considerable grief at the moment, hence my interest in exploring this point.

Posted by Edward Green (# 46) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
Edward Green's racecard is illuminating, and should be kept as a reference by non-AC commentators to strengthen the pertinence of their contributions of the discussion.

Just my take on the parties. I came into the Church long after the OOW.

Here it is in picture form

Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Edward Green:
Here it is in picture form

Well cool. Ta.

Posted by FooloftheShip (# 15579) on :

Yeah, thanks for that. Another two stools for me to fall between: "'Inclusive' Catholic" and "Liberal Sacramental". If the only difference is ecclesiological, I'm probably the latter. Otherwise, I suspect my addiction to paradox may just prove terminal, as I am sawn in half by my last fence....

Posted by Edward Green (# 46) on :

I didn't take into account those who went East, or make a differentiation between all the different views on sexuality and gender - there are folks who are happy with same sex relationships but not the ordination of women and folks who accept women in the diaconate but not the priesthood, people in favour of OOW but not happy with same sex relationships.

Also there are plenty of folks who are more 'Apostolical' rather than 'Catholic'. A good friend of mine is in general inclusive but theologically more eastern.

Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :

I'm sure that's right, Edward. You could crank out endless exceptions at the individual level, but in terms of generally understanding the lie of the land, I think it's excellent.

(Though I might point out that so far as people drifting from one POV to another is concerned, you have only got one mentioned on your diagram, but I know of several examples of others. And of course people may drift off the page - or into it - entirely).

Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
I am absolutely not targeting Ken or anyone else with my metaphor. Perhaps I could have used a different one about me parking my tanks on my neighbour's lawn, or some such. Because I do mean me - I was very much supportive of the OOWP before its introduction.

OK, but the post (of RPP's) that I was responding to did target ken - specifically that it was "appalling" for him to accept that the Holy Spirit works in different churches, because this (by some unexplained non sequitur) meant that ken (and anyone who agrees with him that churches outside the Catholic tradition as defined by RPP might have the Spirit) did not think division was a scandal. The point was not that RPP has not been treated badly (he might have been - I just don't know) or that he should not leave (that's for his conscience, not mine) but that he doesn't get to accuse people of not caring about division, when they would like him to remain in the same church, and have not personally treated him badly, and it's him who's choosing to break communion with them.

While I'm at it, this (from the same post) is silly beyond words:

quote:
Originally posted by rugbyplayingpriest:
Ultimately I have come to see that the achilles heal of Protestantism is the failure of choice over obedience. It places too much emphasis on autonomy and that is why there are now over 30,000 different prot denominations all out of communion with each other to varying degrees. There is but one Catholic church and I delight in entering into it.

It might not be perfect but at least it is unified.

It would be silly even in the mouth of a life-long Catholic, because of course by his definition, any group splitting from the Catholic church ceases to be Catholic (and thus increases the count of Protestant entities by one), whereas any group splitting from a Protestant community is still Protestant (and also increases the number of Protestant bodies). So the Catholics could spawn 30,001 churches (as, indeed, they have, directly or indirectly) and still claim to be "one" by definition, but because of the way the lines are drawn, a Protestant church with precisely the same incidence of defection from its tradition would on this view be seen as hopelessly divided.

It's even more silly an argument for RPP to use, because his whole argument is that the Catholic church IS divided - he was a Proper Catholic when he was Anglican and if the CofE hadn't moved away from the Catholic faith, he still would be one. That's the only basis on which he can purport to have been "forced" out - that the rest of us so altered the church that it isn't Catholic anymore. He can't say that if we never were Catholic, because if that were the case, what's changed is not us, but his new-found perception of the truth that what he thought he had is to be found elsewhere.

I'm glad he likes his new spiritual home, though. Long may that continue.

Posted by Edward Green (# 46) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:

(Though I might point out that so far as people drifting from one POV to another is concerned, you have only got one mentioned on your diagram, but I know of several examples of others. And of course people may drift off the page - or into it - entirely).

The main example of drift I have seen is from 'wait for Rome' to 'inclusive (but orthodox) catholic'.

Quite happy to put some more arrows in!

Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :

It was only a passing comment, Edward. It would be better not to clutter things up with extra arrows I think.

Eliab - thanks for responding. I'll give it some thought and respond if I can think of anything constructive.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Edward Green:
... those BNCM churches...

Bayesian Network Causal Model? Is that the proper Dynamic Hidden Markov Model or just boring old Linear Programing? [Big Grin]

Posted by Edward Green (# 46) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ken:

quote:
Originally posted by Edward Green:
... those BNCM churches...
Bayesian Network Causal Model? Is that the proper Dynamic Hidden Markov Model or just boring old Linear Programing?

The British New Church Movement.

Not to be confused with the NWOBHM

Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on :

quote:
Originally posted by pete173:
I really really don't get the Ordinariate. If you believe in the RC Church, just go straight over

Perhaps it's an invitation to disenchanted Anglicans who have hung around because they consider schism to be worse than heresy (in the words of Fr. Jeffery Steenson during his Rosemont days). Perhaps they hope that under the Ordinariate, they can continue to get the pastoral care they are accustomed to, more than if they joined a regular RC parish. The RC has a worsening clergy shortage, whereas Anglicanism (at least TEC) has, for all practical purposes, a clergy surplus.

Time will tell whether the Ordinariate is populated by the same nuts as too many of those constituting the breakaway continuing-Anglican alphabet soup. I've been hopeful, seeing a possible future there for myself if necessary; but thus far not too impressed.

Do I understand that Fr. Steenson, a former rector of Good Shepherd, Rosemont, has denied admission to the Ordinariate as a priest to his Rosemont successor, David Moyer? Interesting... smart move as far as I'm concerned.

Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on :

Alogon: couldn't you have waited one more day, so we could get the dates of posting sorted out in proper order?

You're one day short of a year from the last previous post. I got quite confused as to how people posted tomorrow until I saw the year.

[ 15. February 2012, 19:23: Message edited by: Horseman Bree ]

Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on :

Horseman Bree, I didn't notice that. The thread wasn't all that far down in Dead Horses. How time flies!

The news itself is barely two weeks old. I stumbled upon it this week while trying to get up to date on the Good Shepherd saga. What I wrote may be inaccurate in that the decision itself is attributed to Archbishop Chaput; with how much advice from Fr. Steenson I'm not sure. Perhaps he was just the messenger.

VirtueOnline seems to be reporting the matter now with uncharacteristic objectivity, perhaps paralyzed with too much ambivalence to do otherwise. The comments are themselves interesting, such as that the most enthusiastic people to enter the ordinariate are clergy, not laity; that the members of Fr. Moyer's congregation might not want to go ahead without "their leader;" and that his congregation of less than 100 is the largest group seeking admission to the Ordinariate in the entire United States.

Am I the only one who finds a purported intest in the Ordinariate only if one can keep a "leader" who has already led them into schism to be a bit ironic? These people need to decide whether they are Catholics or Protestants. Perhaps uncertainty on this issue is part of what gives Abp. Chaput pause. Who can blame him?

[ 15. February 2012, 20:05: Message edited by: Alogon ]

Posted by CL (# 16145) on :

David Moyer has already been granted his "nulla osta/nihil obstat" by the CDF meaning there is no canonical obstacle to his ordination to the Catholic priesthood. What Archbishop Chaput has not granted at this point is his "votum", that is consent or approval, for Moyer to proceed. There is no finality in this and all official correspondence has been phrased in terms of the present, not the future. The reason why the votum has not been granted at this point, though it has not been publicly stated, is that Moyer is currently the subject of litigation related to Good Shepherd, Rosemount. While he is still subject to these proceedings the votum cannot be granted.

Posted by pete173 (# 4622) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:

quote:
Originally posted by pete173:
I really really don't get the Ordinariate. If you believe in the RC Church, just go straight over
Perhaps it's an invitation to disenchanted Anglicans who have hung around because they consider schism to be worse than heresy (in the words of Fr. Jeffery Steenson during his Rosemont days). Perhaps they hope that under the Ordinariate, they can continue to get the pastoral care they are accustomed to, more than if they joined a regular RC parish. The RC has a worsening clergy shortage, whereas Anglicanism (at least TEC) has, for all practical purposes, a clergy surplus.

Yeah, but if it's the True Church (a concept I don't believe in), then surely you just join it. You don't say "I might get a bit of pastoral attention from people if I stay in the halfway staging post." The solidarity that you crave with Benedict should say to you "I'll be a part of this no matter what."

No, I'm sorry, it just doesn't add up. Either you're an RC or you ain't. Pick a denomination and
stick with it.

Posted by dj_ordinaire (# 4643) on :

Whilst I do not agree with those who refuse to accept the Ordination of women to the Priesthood, I think this seems a very harsh attitude, my Lord.

Was this the attitude of St. Paul to the converts? 'They want to convert, they should be circumcised like everyone else'. No... even if the desire for an 'Anglican' space by those joining the RC is a weakness, I think it is churlish to say they should not be allowed it. We all benefit from plenty of allowances for our many weaknesses, in many different ways, why shouldn't they?

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by dj_ordinaire:
Was this the attitude of St. Paul to the converts? 'They want to convert, they should be circumcised like everyone else'.

I feel the parallel is more the other way around:
The church has deemed that women can become priests / gentiles can become christian without circumcision, and yet the church is still trying to accommodate a group who think that women cannot be priests/ uncircumcised gentiles cannot be members of the church.

Posted by pete173 (# 4622) on :

quote:
Originally posted by dj_ordinaire:
Whilst I do not agree with those who refuse to accept the Ordination of women to the Priesthood, I think this seems a very harsh attitude, my Lord.

Was this the attitude of St. Paul to the converts? 'They want to convert, they should be circumcised like everyone else'. No... even if the desire for an 'Anglican' space by those joining the RC is a weakness, I think it is churlish to say they should not be allowed it. We all benefit from plenty of allowances for our many weaknesses, in many different ways, why shouldn't they?

Because it's a con. It's not really Anglican, because the very rite they've never used is about the only vestige of Anglicanism that's left to them. And they're led by the very people who were their Anglican bishops but who now think that the RC Church is the denomination to be in. It's not weakness that Benedict is catering for; it's arrant stupidity. If you want to be an RC, go and be an RC. Don't sit twiddling your thumbs in the playground next door. Only someone who was completely deluded would recognise the ordinariate as Anglican; that's patently what it isn't.

If they went over properly, they'd have churches, priests and fellow Christians to join. This way, they're just a little rump of people bemoaning what the CofE has become. And they're hardly a missional base for evangelising the UK!

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

I think, Pete173, that your comments might only apply to the Walshingham ordinariate, and only in part. The US group has long been what might be called advanced Prayer Book Catholic and only a very few TEC parishes were Ordo Novus.

I can only really comment on the North American situation, where a minority has felt isolated by a church establishment moving in other directions. Latin RC parishes were providing a mixed reception to TEC converts, partly for reasons of ethnicity. While anecdotology is no substitute for research, 4/7 of my TEC to Latin RC acquaintances returned to TEC (at least one of them would not have been satisfied with anything, but that would be another thread). All but one of my Canadian Anglican to Latin RCs stayed there, but the ethnic makeup and political culture of Canadian Romanism is different.

Remember that the dissidents were largely uncomfortable with the liturgical changes of TEC and knew that Novus Ordo parishes were much of the same, if not worse. This is why a surprising number of TEC converts went to Melkite or other Byzantine Catholic churches, where liturgical attitudes were far more in line with their Anglican upbringing.

Perhaps, as well, Pete is not used to living in a place with a number of different Catholic rites-- there are very very few Canadian Latins who would now dare claim that they are the only way for people to "go over properly." Within an hour's walk, I can attend RC services using Ukrainian, Romanian, Melkite and Maronite liturgies as well as the Latins.

I really don't think that it's fair to call it a con-- certainly, some entering the Ordinariates have been kidding themselves on a variety of grounds, but that is another issue. Many of them have been floating around the mundo bizarro of the continuing churches, and the little haven B16 is offering them will bring them back into the mainstream, and do them a lot of good.

In terms of Walsingham, it will end their unhealthy period of internal self-exile-- I suspect there will be little tolerance among the receiving Latins for much self-indulgence. Clergy will be set to work and their parishioners to getting on with it.

Posted by Ender's Shadow (# 2272) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Edward Green:
And I would suggest that the Charismatic Evangelical movement is just as diverse in the CofE. It has so far avoided the divisions of the British New Church movement (R1, R2, R3!) but a point will come when those who grew up in New Wine and expect more unity with those BNCM churches will increasing discover that the rest of the CofE isn't along for the ride, just like it wasn't in the 70's with ARCIC.

I hope that is clear as mud!

I don't understand this reference. From my perspective within the CofE and in New Wine, we've currently got all the unity that we actually need, since structural unity is not a priority for Evangelicals. LEPs can be used to achieve the next level of unity if that's found to be relevant - the big 'CofE' charismatic church in Sheffield is technically an LEP. So what is it you're referring to?

Posted by k-mann (# 8490) on :

quote:
Originally posted by pete173:

quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:

quote:
Originally posted by pete173:
I really really don't get the Ordinariate. If you believe in the RC Church, just go straight over
Perhaps it's an invitation to disenchanted Anglicans who have hung around because they consider schism to be worse than heresy (in the words of Fr. Jeffery Steenson during his Rosemont days). Perhaps they hope that under the Ordinariate, they can continue to get the pastoral care they are accustomed to, more than if they joined a regular RC parish. The RC has a worsening clergy shortage, whereas Anglicanism (at least TEC) has, for all practical purposes, a clergy surplus.
Yeah, but if it's the True Church (a concept I don't believe in), then surely you just join it. You don't say "I might get a bit of pastoral attention from people if I stay in the halfway staging post." The solidarity that you crave with Benedict should say to you "I'll be a part of this no matter what."

No, I'm sorry, it just doesn't add up. Either you're an RC or you ain't. Pick a denomination and
stick with it.

But if you are given the chance to do so without rejecting everything you had, you would probably do so.

It seems to me that you don’t really know much about the Catholic Church. There are a wide variety of rites, and the Church itself is made up of 23 particular churches, all in communion with the Pope. Calling the Ordinariate ‘the halfway staging post’ betray ignorance on your part. Is the Caldean Catholics also a ‘halfway staging post’? Or what about the Greek Catholics?

Posted by Ender's Shadow (# 2272) on :

quote:
Originally posted by k-mann:
But if you are given the chance to do so without rejecting everything you had, you would probably do so.

It seems to me that you don’t really know much about the Catholic Church. There are a wide variety of rites, and the Church itself is made up of 23 particular churches, all in communion with the Pope. Calling the Ordinariate ‘the halfway staging post’ betray ignorance on your part. Is the Caldean Catholics also a ‘halfway staging post’? Or what about the Greek Catholics?

The problem is that when you look at the history of the CofE, especially the fact that its founding genius, Cramner, was burnt at the stake by Roman Catholics, this idea does really fall apart. Either Cramner was right - in which case you're abandoning the way of a martyr - or he was wrong, in which case it is rather unclear why you were ever an Anglican in the first place. Given that those joining the ordinariate don't seem to be claiming any doctrinal enlightenment to justify their decision, one is forced to the conclusion that they were never really Anglicans. In which case they really should be honest about it and pay back the stipends they've received over the years...

Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
Either Cramner was right - in which case you're abandoning the way of a martyr - or he was wrong, in which case it is rather unclear why you were ever an Anglican in the first place.

I was an Anglican in the first place because my parents started attending an Episcopal church when I was six years old, and I came to love it. One abandons or scoffs at martyrs whatever decision one might make.

Unlike Pete173, I do believe in one true church without being at all certain that the RCC has a monopoly on that status. The problem with the neat dichotomy in which both of you see the matter is the uncertainties and tradeoffs of real life. Supposedly, right beliefs are vindicated by their survival in the church, while wrong beliefs eventually die out. The process and the premises are quite Darwinian, really. So if one is unsure about a controversy now, one can wait until the answer is clearer. I used to think that the decline of those parts of the Anglican Communion that had begun to ordain women looked suspiciously like a refutation of that innovation. But now the Church of Rome is also in plenty of difficulties for reasons having to do with a male-dominated and sexist hierarchy.

For the time being, I think it is a reasonable position to have doubts about the validity of female priests without much doubting that of the male priests in the same church. Indeed I have have no substantial doubts at all as to the validity of RC priests, but I doubt that their teaching on contraception, for example, is correct. Ingo, Chesterbelloc, et al. call anyone who entertains such doubts a "cafeteria Catholic" and don't acknowledge the right. In that sense, I'm afraid that I'm a little too Protestant to fit.

Furthermore, given the nearly desperate clergy shortage there, it's like an overloaded lifeboat. Clambering aboard is less than charitable, at least before one is sure that the vessel one is already on is sinking.

Posted by k-mann (# 8490) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
Given that those joining the ordinariate don't seem to be claiming any doctrinal enlightenment to justify their decision, one is forced to the conclusion that they were never really Anglicans.

Or maybe they haven't said anything to you. I think it's better to assume the best and not be a cynic for cynicism's sake.

Posted by k-mann (# 8490) on :

quote:
Originally posted by hereweare:
But how much of a journey are you [rugbyplayingpriest] actually taking? Is it a journey of the soul, or a change of mass time? I worry that some will just be carried into it without the conversion of heart.

Which of course is between them and God, and not something we need to be concerned with.

It is a bit like when Peter asked Christ how many would be saved. Christ didn’t giv an answer to that particular question, but just said, “Strive to enter in.” In other words: “Mind your own business.” If people go into something without the conversion of heart, that is not a good thing. But it is not something we should worry about, and it’s not something we can do anything about. It is between them and God.

And also, I prefer to assume that people know what they’re doing and refrain from speculating about *real* motives.

Posted by Ender's Shadow (# 2272) on :

quote:
Originally posted by k-mann:

quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
Given that those joining the ordinariate don't seem to be claiming any doctrinal enlightenment to justify their decision, one is forced to the conclusion that they were never really Anglicans.
Or maybe they haven't said anything to you. I think it's better to assume the best and not be a cynic for cynicism's sake.

Hmm - interesting point. I would argue that I'm accurately reflecting what those who've swum the Tiber have consistently said; they're going because of what the CofE has done (OoW and now consecration). But then they would probably argue that the CofE was a truly catholic until these issues split it away. And I'm coming from a 'dyed in the wool proddy' background, though one that is far more open to Catholicism these days, so with a built in scepticism about how seriously Anglo-Catholics take the Reformation. The situation for Evangelicals who are opposed to OoW is far less problematic; the doctrinal differences between the CofE and most non-Conformist churches are usually minor and the issue of bishops is not significant to us, so we really don't have a problem with moving out.

For the record, I think the CofE is nuts in not allowing the sharing of building with departing congregations; we need the money and they need the home; we routinely allow it with other groups, so this strikes me as petty...

Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
...But then they would probably argue that the CofE was a truly catholic until these issues split it away.

Having been involved with Forward in Faith, I don't think they would now say that the C of E was EVER part of the OHC&A Church. They probably used to say this, but would have changed their views when they joined the ordinariate. The problem I have is that they used to say "the reason I am not Roman Catholic is because there is a problem, not with the person of the Pope himself, but with the position of the Pope, eg "Vicar of Christ", supreme pontiff etc. - this problem hasn't gone away...

quote:
The situation for Evangelicals who are opposed to OoW is far less problematic

Well, they all seem to be a law unto themselves!

Posted by Louise (# 30) on :

moved over from closed thread on Bishop's legislation

quote:
Originally posted by iamchristianhearmeroar:
At the risk of finding a deceased equine's head on my pillow tomorrow morning...but this is a specific point, and I don't see it being discussed anywhere on the ship.

The group of six have voted (by a majority) that the amendments made by the house of bishops to the draft women bishops legislation do not change the substance of the measure, so this will go before general synod this July for a final vote.

The amendments haven't exactly been greeted with favour from any side of the debate. WATCH don't like them; Reform doesn't like them; Forward in Faith doesn't like them. In trying to please everyone has the House of Bishops in fact enraged everybody?

When this goes back to synod should it pass as amended? If the measure is voted down what does that mean for the future of women in the episcopate in the CofE?

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:

quote:
The situation for Evangelicals who are opposed to OoW is far less problematic
Well, they all seem to be a law unto themselves!

If by that you mean they try their best to follow the word of God as revealed, rather than bothering too much about which human bureaucratic organisation theuir churches are attached to...

Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ken:

quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:

quote:
The situation for Evangelicals who are opposed to OoW is far less problematic
Well, they all seem to be a law unto themselves!
If by that you mean they try their best to follow the word of God as revealed, rather than bothering too much about which human bureaucratic organisation theuir churches are attached to...

Well, you obviously have no regard or respect for Holy Tradition - I can't help you.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:

quote:
Originally posted by ken:

quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:

quote:
The situation for Evangelicals who are opposed to OoW is far less problematic
Well, they all seem to be a law unto themselves!
If by that you mean they try their best to follow the word of God as revealed, rather than bothering too much about which human bureaucratic organisation theuir churches are attached to...
Well, you obviously have no regard or respect for Holy Tradition - I can't help you.

Well you obviously have no respect or regard for faithful churches of God that are blessed by the Holy Spirit but don't happen to be members of your denomination or take orders from your favourite bishop - I can't help you.

Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :

"Denomination" hmphhhh!! [Mad]

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

Nice one, ken!

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

OK, that is enough.

ken, you know where Hell is and how it works on the Ship. You do not retaliate tit-for-tat anywhere other than Hell. You've been here long enough to know that.

Mark,

quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
Well, you obviously have no regard or respect for Holy Tradition - I can't help you.

Is a personal attack on another Shipmate. That is not allowed here. The Ship has people from a very wide range of Christian (and beyond) traditions. Respect those beliefs. You're not here to "help" people into what you think is the correct belief - read Commandment 8.

Alan
Ship of Fools Admin

Posted by Michael Astley (# 5638) on :

quote:
Originally posted by k-mann:
There are a wide variety of rites, and the Church itself is made up of 23 particular churches, all in communion with the Pope. Calling the Ordinariate ‘the halfway staging post’ betray ignorance on your part. Is the Caldean Catholics also a ‘halfway staging post’? Or what about the Greek Catholics?

From conversations with the ones with whom I am acquainted, I would say so.

The Eastern Catholics may be in communion with Mr Ratzinger on paper but if there is anybody who thinks that all of their clergy are happy concelebrating with Roman Catholic clergy, that there is no objection to the Latin rather than distinctly eastern expressions of doctrine found among their catechisms, that none of them are vocal about their embarrassment at the insistence of clerical celibacy in the Latin church, or that they are not affronted in the extreme by suggestions that their clergy ought to be made to submit to the same strictures, or thinks that they gladly accept the so-called Immaculate Conception and papal infallibility, and who thinks that everything is sunshine, lollipops, and rainbows, then that person needs to get a reality check.

Seriously, talk to them. As one of their clergy said to me on one occasion, there are certainly Rome enthusiasts among their number, but the truth is that most of the pew-fodder - the people who turn up Sunday by Sunday and don't care about much else - don't really give a hoot. They just "go to church", and if the name of a bishop in Rome is mentioned in the litanies, they don't much care, if they notice at all. But, he said, among those who know something about the situation of their church, of their history and development, and how they came to be where they are today, it is not difficult to find a significant number of both laity and clergy alike who, if pushed, will express their discontentment with the present situation.

Resigning oneself to accepting a situation because that's just the way things are is not the same as being a banner-waving supporter of the status quo, and, take it from one who knows, it does sometimes feel like being part of a half-way staging post.

[ 25. May 2012, 14:50: Message edited by: Michael Astley ]

Posted by FreeJack (# 10612) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
moved over from closed thread on Bishop's legislation

quote:
Originally posted by iamchristianhearmeroar:
At the risk of finding a deceased equine's head on my pillow tomorrow morning...but this is a specific point, and I don't see it being discussed anywhere on the ship.

The group of six have voted (by a majority) that the amendments made by the house of bishops to the draft women bishops legislation do not change the substance of the measure, so this will go before general synod this July for a final vote.

The amendments haven't exactly been greeted with favour from any side of the debate. WATCH don't like them; Reform doesn't like them; Forward in Faith doesn't like them. In trying to please everyone has the House of Bishops in fact enraged everybody?

When this goes back to synod should it pass as amended? If the measure is voted down what does that mean for the future of women in the episcopate in the CofE?

Will Watch actually vote against though? Would they really scupper the ministry of potential women bishops for at least 6 or 7 years because the proposal wasn't purist enough for them. Only a hardened few.

Arguably the vote is better for Reform than the current legislation where they can choose a theologically acceptable bishop rather than a PEV who are all conservative anglo-catholic currently.

Because of the defections to the Ordinariate, the FiF / catholic group in General Synod must be smaller than last time.

Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :

quote:
Originally posted by FreeJack:
Will Watch actually vote against though? Would they really scupper the ministry of potential women bishops for at least 6 or 7 years because the proposal wasn't purist enough for them. Only a hardened few.

Arguably the vote is better for Reform than the current legislation where they can choose a theologically acceptable bishop rather than a PEV who are all conservative anglo-catholic currently.

Because of the defections to the Ordinariate, the FiF / catholic group in General Synod must be smaller than last time.

This whole thing is a compromise upon an already compromised position. Watch don't run the synod, they only influence - people may (if they dare!) vote contrary to Watch's recommendations if they are too severe - this even includes liberals!

So, I expect the measure to be passed, in spite of Watch's "advice". After all, as this is a compromise of an already compromised position, with already broken promises, why can't the position be compromised even further in future years - after the C of E has become more protestant and more liberal?

I think many of the FiF/catholics have already left, or are on the verge of leaving - this is at least part of the reason I left to convert to Orthodoxy. So the "catholic" voice in the C of E is fast becoming more liberal, in the guise of "Affirming Catholicism" - ANATHEMA!! ANATHEMA!! (I'm only joking of course!)

[ 26. May 2012, 08:15: Message edited by: Mark Betts ]

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

I don't understand why Forward in Faith are unhappy with this amended code of conduct. As an ex-FiF type, I think the concessions are generous and the very best they could hope for, realistically.

Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :

It would help, of course, if we knew exactly what the two ammendments by the House of Bishops were. Here's a summary (courtesy of BBC news):

Female authority

The House made two changes to the draft measure.

The first centres on whether a female bishop's legal authority would be diminished, if a traditionalist parish requested access to an "alternative" male bishop.

The amendment addresses a situation in which, if a parish in the diocese of a female bishop refused to recognise her authority, the bishop could delegate her powers to an alternative male colleague.

It makes it clear that though the alternative male bishop derives his legal authority from the diocesan woman bishop who appoints him, the authority to exercise the office of a bishop comes from his own ordination.

This is an area of serious disagreement - supporters of women bishops are anxious a woman should not be a "second class bishop" and their opponents are concerned the alternative bishop should not derive his authority from a woman.

The second change adds to a new code of practice for bishops, being drawn up for approval if the consecration of women bishops is passed by the general synod.

Not "far-reaching"

It states further guidance will be issued, surrounding the opting-out of parishes who decide on the grounds of theological conviction, that they do not want a female bishop.

That guidance will be directed at ensuring the exercise of ministry by bishops and priests appointed to serve in parishes which object to women bishops, will be consistent with those objections.

In statement the House said: "We rejected more far reaching amendments that would have changed the legal basis on which bishops would exercise authority, when ministering to parishes unable to receive the ministry of female bishops."

But supporters of women bishops fear the creation of a "double-standard" of authority, where so-called "untainted" male bishops (those who have not ordained female clergy or received ordination from a woman) become sought after by traditionalist parishes.
___________________

The main problem is Authority, and this has not really been resolved at all. Still, the ultimate Authority (within a Diocese) is with the Diocesan Bishop (who might in future be a woman).

The second amendment is nothing more than a promise of "further guidance" - it is not even worth commenting on!

Posted by Fidei Defensor (# 17105) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Michael Astley:
The Eastern Catholics may be in communion with Mr Ratzinger on paper but if there is anybody who thinks that all of their clergy are happy concelebrating with Roman Catholic clergy, that there is no objection to the Latin rather than distinctly eastern expressions of doctrine found among their catechisms, that none of them are vocal about their embarrassment at the insistence of clerical celibacy in the Latin church, or that they are not affronted in the extreme by suggestions that their clergy ought to be made to submit to the same strictures, or thinks that they gladly accept the so-called Immaculate Conception and papal infallibility, and who thinks that everything is sunshine, lollipops, and rainbows, then that person needs to get a reality check.
..............
take it from one who knows, it does sometimes feel like being part of a half-way staging post.

Look Sunshine, you've just described how the faithful of most denominations (and don't give me Mark Betts' implied suggestion that the Eastern churches aren't as schismatic and hence denominational as the rest of us who hobble toward John 17 v21) view their leaders. Roman and Eastern congregations perhaps suffer a greater disconnect than the Reformed, but that's just a consequence of the formers' ecclesiocrats having had more time to become corrupt.
The C of E (of which I am not a member) has going for it that it is open to the Spirit which didn't stop inhaling and exhaling in 1054, and whose members aren't in thrall to its bishops who aren't in turn in thrall to its primates. It will fudge, which is at once a C of E characteristic and a loveable if sometimes frustrating indicator of its desire to hold its factions together in the family.
May God bless it and its acted parable of blessing those who persecute it.

Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Fidei Defensor:
...(and don't give me Mark Betts' implied suggestion that the Eastern churches aren't as schismatic and hence denominational as the rest of us who hobble toward John 17 v21)

The Eastern Orthodox Church isn't "denominational" at all - we don't even recognise that word.

The only major schism in Orthodoxy was with the Nestorians and the Non-Chalcedonians who rejected the First Council of Ephesus (431) and the Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon (451).

Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :

...Oh! Just one more thing...

Fidei Defensor claims that "The C of E has going for it that it is open to the Spirit which didn't stop inhaling and exhaling in 1054, and whose members aren't in thrall to its bishops who aren't in turn in thrall to its primates."

Open to the spirit yes - but which spirit? The spirit of non-conformism? ..of humanism? ..of nihilism? ..of liberalsim? ..of schism? ..of apostacy? ..of God?

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
It would help, of course, if we knew exactly what the two ammendments by the House of Bishops were. Here's a summary (courtesy of BBC news):

The crucial bit for Fifers will be that the bishops whop have delegated powers are in a male line of succession - it is typical of how the 'traditionalists' are misunderstood that the BBC has not picked up on this crucial point. The Church Times HAS.

Posted by Michael Astley (# 5638) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Fidei Defensor:

quote:
Originally posted by Michael Astley:
The Eastern Catholics may be in communion with Mr Ratzinger on paper but if there is anybody who thinks that all of their clergy are happy concelebrating with Roman Catholic clergy, that there is no objection to the Latin rather than distinctly eastern expressions of doctrine found among their catechisms, that none of them are vocal about their embarrassment at the insistence of clerical celibacy in the Latin church, or that they are not affronted in the extreme by suggestions that their clergy ought to be made to submit to the same strictures, or thinks that they gladly accept the so-called Immaculate Conception and papal infallibility, and who thinks that everything is sunshine, lollipops, and rainbows, then that person needs to get a reality check.
..............
take it from one who knows, it does sometimes feel like being part of a half-way staging post.
Look Sunshine, you've just described how the faithful of most denominations (and don't give me Mark Betts' implied suggestion that the Eastern churches aren't as schismatic and hence denominational as the rest of us who hobble toward John 17 v21) view their leaders. Roman and Eastern congregations perhaps suffer a greater disconnect than the Reformed, but that's just a consequence of the formers' ecclesiocrats having had more time to become corrupt.

Sunshine, really? Were my words or my tone such that I came across as needing to be put in my place? If so, I hope you will accept my apology. I was merely seeking to point out the reality that pete173 description, while perhaps not entirely fair, was also not without grounding, including when applied to the other examples that k-mann posited to counter that description.

As for my understanding of whether such situations and feelings exist in the Orthodox Church, I should think that my final paragraph in the post of mine that you quoted said all that needed to be said.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
The Eastern Orthodox Church isn't "denominational" at all - we don't even recognise that word.

Tough. You don't get to control the English language. In English, "denomination" is the normal word used to describe a group of Christian churches that are connected with each other in some way, and in normal English the Orthodox are a denomination.

quote:

The only major schism in Orthodoxy was with the Nestorians and the Non-Chalcedonians who rejected the First Council of Ephesus (431) and the Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon (451).

Oh please. Read some Russian history. The Orthodox are as schismatic (and their hands are as bloody) as the rest of us.

And it is ingenuous to say that is a split in Orthodoxy as if the Catholics and Protestants are not also descended from the same Orthodox, Catholic, Chalcedonian churches. It would be just as true to say that the Egyptians split from the Catholics as it would be to say that they split from the Orthodox. And we are all equally the heirs of the Fathers of that council.

Posted by Trisagion (# 5235) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Michael Astley:
...Mr Ratzinger...

Nice.

Posted by iamchristianhearmeroar (# 15483) on :

quote:
Open to the spirit yes - but which spirit? The spirit of non-conformism? ..of humanism? ..of nihilism? ..of liberalsim? ..of schism? ..of apostacy? ..of God?

The spirit of however you want to call it. Clearly...

Posted by Louise (# 30) on :

hosting
Thread temporarily closed and brought to the attention of the admins.

Thanks,
Louise
Dead Horses Host

hosting off

Posted by Louise (# 30) on :

hosting

Thanks for your patience! Can people please cool it a bit in terms of sneers at other people's churches/ condescending terms of address? It's tending to derail discussion.

thanks!
Louise
Dead Horses Host

hosting off

[In fact given the state this has got into, I'm just going to close it altogether and resurrect the big main thread on women's ordination]

[ 27. May 2012, 17:31: Message edited by: Louise ]

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0