Posted                   

quote:

---

For traditionalists it will mean that any man who offers himself for ordination must be aware that offices of diocesan bishops and archbishops will be out of bounds, for the few bishops who will be assigned for traditionalist would mean it is unrealistic to think of the ministry as a career path.

---

Posted                    

quote:

---

Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
The Church of England will be no more or less tolerant than it was before now. The C of E is becoming more tolerant of women clergy but less tolerant to "traditionalist" clergy. It's a wash.

---

Posted                    

code:

---

         only men
            ¦
     A      ¦      B
            ¦
essential ----- not essential
            ¦
     C      ¦      D
            ¦
       both genders

---

Posted                   

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
To introduce an intolerance of people...

---

Posted                   

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
A similar argument can be made for those of C not being compatible with any other square, since they think both that women can be bishops and that bishops are essential for the community.

---

Posted                    

quote:

---

56 On the basis of this agreement we believe
that our churches should confidently acknowledge one another as churches and enter in to a new relationship:

that each church as a whole has maintained an authentic apostolic succession of witness and service;

that each church has had transmitted to it an apostolic ministry of word and sacrament by prayer and the laying on of hands;

that each church has maintained an orderly succession of episcopal ministry within the continuity of its pastoral life, focused in the consecrations of bishops and in the experience and witness of the historic sees.

57 In the light of all this we find that the time has come when all our churches can affirm together the value and use of the sign of the historic episcopal succession. This means that those churches in which the sign has at some time not been used are free to recognise the value of the sign and should embrace it without denying their own apostolic continuity. This also means that those churches in which the sign has been used are free to recognise the reality of the episcopal office and should affirm the apostolic continuity of those churches in which the sign of episcopal succession has at some time not been used.

---

Posted                   

quote:

---

Nice try, IngoB, but you are wrong in assuming that bishops as essential is the traditional doctrine of the CofE - rather it is a belief which the Oxford Movement discovered...

---

Posted                   

quote:

---

I think about half the congregation would manage to become more tolerant (and are probably more tolerant secretly already - judging by disagreements over gays, for example, which have already occurred), but maybe the other half will follow whatever the priest decides to do. An almighty split if it does go ahead.

---

Posted                    

quote:

---

If last few rounds of schisms in the Episcopal Church are any indication, a lot fewer people will actually leave than the schismatics hope, when all is said and done.

---

Posted                   

quote:

---

Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
Zach82 wrote

quote:

---

If last few rounds of schisms in the Episcopal Church are any indication, a lot fewer people will actually leave than the schismatics hope, when all is said and done.

---

I don't know - you've lost about 10% total headcount over the last 10 years if memory serves (?). But TEC is a much smaller church than most other mainstream US churches and seems to gain quite a lot of people from them, at least if judged by the testimonies of many I have seen.

I suspect (and its only a suspicion because you would need to put the figures together to be certain either way) that TEC is actually churning a lot of people, i.e. they are actually losing quite a lot of people, but also attracting quite a few as well.

---

Posted                   

quote:

---

Don't expect ANY tolerance from Evangelicals over priests in gay relationship - the words 'we are a broad church' have been redefined to mean 'we are a church requiring conformity to what we regard as of major importance'.

---

Posted                   

quote:

---

Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
The Church of England will be no more or less tolerant than it was before now. The C of E is becoming more tolerant of women clergy but less tolerant to "traditionalist" clergy. It's a wash.

---

Posted                    

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
Your future is The Episcopal Church and the Church of Sweden.

---

Posted                    

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
Nice try, IngoB, but you are wrong in assuming that bishops as essential is the traditional doctrine of the CofE - rather it is a belief which the Oxford Movement discovered; the history of the CofE before the 19th century has it in close contact with Protestant churches of Europe, in no way doubting their validity. ... In the light of this position B is entirely logical, and a B / D coalition perfectly acceptable, as long as the traditionalist integrity is respected.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
OK Zach82 - I read your post to be more about people leaving in general than about schism in particular. I think schism is even less likely here. The number of departing congregations leaving for a new denom. (as opposed to joining an existing one) is vanishingly small. We will lose people primarily by attrition rather than schism I feel.

---

Posted                   

quote:

---

Edited to remove the word 'normal', ain't nothing normal these days about being a churchgoer

---

Posted                   

quote:

---

Nice try, IngoB, but you are wrong in assuming that bishops as essential is the traditional doctrine of the CofE - rather it is a belief which the Oxford Movement discovered; the history of the CofE before the 19th century has it in close contact with Protestant churches of Europe, in no way doubting their validity. ... In the light of this position B is entirely logical, and a B / D coalition perfectly acceptable, as long as the traditionalist integrity is respected.

---

Posted                    

quote:

---

Originally posted by Spiffy:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
OK Zach82 - I read your post to be more about people leaving in general than about schism in particular. I think schism is even less likely here. The number of departing congregations leaving for a new denom. (as opposed to joining an existing one) is vanishingly small. We will lose people primarily by attrition rather than schism I feel.

---

How much of that attrition is traditionalists with reasoned and learned theological stances, and how much of that is other people with very little theological training just plain fed up with all the arguing?

[Edited to remove the word 'normal', ain't nothing normal these days about being a churchgoer]

---

Posted                    

quote:

---

Originally posted by TubaMirum:
What's also really interesting is this point in Ender's Shadow's post:

quote:

---

Don't expect ANY tolerance from Evangelicals over priests in gay relationship - the words 'we are a broad church' have been redefined to mean 'we are a church requiring conformity to what we regard as of major importance'.

---

IOW, "truth" really has little consequence in any of these discussions; it's all political hardball and "alliances" against enemies.

And of course the people actually involved are inconsequential as well. Well, we knew that already; thanks for clarifying, though.....

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
I fear that there was doubting of the validity of their orders which is a very major way-- normally, Lutheran or Calvinist immigrant clerics collated to CoE parishes in the post-Reformation period were ordained by Anglican bishops before they could officiate. Generally, exceptions were cases where the cure of souls was not involved, and benefices were used to provide pensions for refugee clerics who hung out at Oxford or Cambridge.

I have seen William Moreton's papers where, as Bishop of Kildare, he had arranged to have two Huguenot clerics ordained as deacons and then priests on the same weekend but not on the same day, as that would have been indecent. Often clergy who served foreign congregations in London were ordained by the Bishop of London, at least until the Napoleonic wars.

RC clerics who found their way into the CoE were not (re)ordained, but simply collated or instituted, as the case might be.

There is, in any case, a strong tradition among Caroline divines that episcopacy was of the esse, not simply the bene esse, of the church (that is, essential rather than helpful).

---

Posted                   

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:

quote:

---

Edited to remove the word 'normal', ain't nothing normal these days about being a churchgoer

---

Testify!

Zach

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:

quote:

---

Edited to remove the word 'normal', ain't nothing normal these days about being a churchgoer

---

Testify!

Zach

---

"He was a really nice guy. He went to church and everything."

---

Posted                    

quote:

---

Originally posted by St. Punk the Pious:
I have a great deal of trouble seeing how those who cry "Tolerance" and advocate women bishops do not also advocate a safe place for those who cannot in good conscience accept the ministry of women bishops.

I am not a fan of the current Archbishop of Canterbury. But, to his credit, he has advocated such a safe place. That the rest of the C of E is slow to follow his lead in this matter and may instead go in the opposite direction is sad indeed.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
However, you have a strong point about Porvoo-- the only Anglican I know prepping for the Ordinariate told me that Porvoo was the seal on the end of catholicity in Anglicanism. Oddly enough, non-Porvoo Lutheran clerics, such as the new Dean of Québec, are ordained as if they were laymen, where if they had come to Canada from a neighbouring Lutheran Church (I think he was Estonian or Latvian), he would have been cheerfully licensed and led up to the nearest chalice. Theological and sacramental consistency has never been a strong point of Canadian bishops.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ricardus:
My understanding is that the Porvoo Lutheran churches have either preserved the apostolic succession (at least as High Anglicans understand the term), or have regained it (I have some vague recollection that the Church of Norway sent off to the Church of England for a valid bishop), whereas the non-Porvoo churches haven't. Therefore no inconsistency.

---

Posted                    

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ricardus:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
However, you have a strong point about Porvoo-- the only Anglican I know prepping for the Ordinariate told me that Porvoo was the seal on the end of catholicity in Anglicanism. Oddly enough, non-Porvoo Lutheran clerics, such as the new Dean of Québec, are ordained as if they were laymen, where if they had come to Canada from a neighbouring Lutheran Church (I think he was Estonian or Latvian), he would have been cheerfully licensed and led up to the nearest chalice. Theological and sacramental consistency has never been a strong point of Canadian bishops.

---

My understanding is that the Porvoo Lutheran churches have either preserved the apostolic succession (at least as High Anglicans understand the term), or have regained it (I have some vague recollection that the Church of Norway sent off to the Church of England for a valid bishop), whereas the non-Porvoo churches haven't. Therefore no inconsistency.

---

Posted                    

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:

If last few rounds of schisms in the Episcopal Church are any indication, a lot fewer people will actually leave than the schismatics hope, when all is said and done.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
Nope - the evidence of the ordination of the Dean of Quebec and the statements in Porvoo I quoted clearly indicates that some of the churches had not maintained an episcopally mediated apostolic succession.

---

quote:

---

Without neglecting the legitimacy of the ordained ministry and the episcopal character of Church of Norway in the past, the Porvoo agreement (signed 1996) initiates that Anglican bishops “normally” participate in the consecrations of bishops in the Church of Norway. According to the decisions of the Synod, the Church of Norway finds the emphasis on the ministry of oversight and the sign of mutual participations in consecrations of bishops to be important signs of our visible unity. Nevertheless, they are not regarded as conditions for unity, consequently not a hindrance for church fellowship with Lutheran churches without the so-called episcopal succession, nor with the Reformed churches in Europe.

---

Posted                   

quote:

---

Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
Canon law is an expression of theology, and he was but one of many bishops who laid apostolic hands on continental clerics (the attitude does not seem to have been reciprocal-- I know of no instance where a continental reformed church reordained Anglican clerics). I only pulled him out as an example as Anglican churches clearly did not unreservedly acknowledge the validity of European Protestant churches after the Reformation.

However, you have a strong point about Porvoo-- the only Anglican I know prepping for the Ordinariate told me that Porvoo was the seal on the end of catholicity in Anglicanism. Oddly enough, non-Porvoo Lutheran clerics, such as the new Dean of Québec, are ordained as if they were laymen, where if they had come to Canada from a neighbouring Lutheran Church (I think he was Estonian or Latvian), he would have been cheerfully licensed and led up to the nearest chalice. Theological and sacramental consistency has never been a strong point of Canadian bishops. The successor of SS Fiacc and Conleth had fewer doubts when he led his Huguenots into S Brigid's Cathedral.

---

Posted                   

quote:

---

My understanding is that the Porvoo Lutheran churches have either preserved the apostolic succession (at least as High Anglicans understand the term), or have regained it (I have some vague recollection that the Church of Norway sent off to the Church of England for a valid bishop)

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
Nice point about ARCICC Edward, but the reality is that we have no other measure of a church's theology but its practice, when that is specifically endorsed by a vote in synod. Certainly the hardline apostolic succession idea, which rejects all churches without it as wholly invalid, collapsed with the general popularity of the ecumenical movement.

---

Posted                    

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
My understanding of the Lutheran traditional position on Apostolic succession is it was the same for individual denominations as circumcision was for St Paul. If you had it you should not seek to lose it, if you didn't you should not seek to gain.

Actually technically that is also the Reformed Church due to the Hungarian situation. I have long favoured that if Anglican's insist we will go that way to to gaining apostolic succession at least because it stops us having to have it regained if we eventually merge with Rome.

Jengie

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Edward Green:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ricardus:
My understanding is that the Porvoo Lutheran churches have either preserved the apostolic succession (at least as High Anglicans understand the term), or have regained it (I have some vague recollection that the Church of Norway sent off to the Church of England for a valid bishop), whereas the non-Porvoo churches haven't. Therefore no inconsistency.

---

I would be interested to know.

I think the whole thing was rather rushed through Synod. John Hunwickes Take

However for Enders to suggest that Porvoo defines Anglican theology is a bit like claiming that ARCIC statements define Anglican theology.

---