UBB.classicTM 6.5.0
quote:This is where you show your cards, despite your pretension of calling for a tolerant Church.
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.
quote:What's being asked for is a set of rules that the traditionalists can trust will not be set aside in the future that ensures they will have a continuing, respected place when women bishops arrive. Given the inability of the church to pay up when the traditionalists sought to cash the promises made when the ordination of women went through, this doesn't seem unreasonable. To introduce an intolerance of people on what is unquestionably a second order issue (the gender of the ordained) demonstrates an unwillingness to take the rhetoric about being a 'broad church' seriously when it means something that you find uncomfortable. 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'.
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.
code:Clearly, the RCC and the Orthodox are at A. It seems to me that this position is incompatible with B, C and D. With C it agrees on the importance on bishops, but hence cannot agree with C allowing women to become bishops. With B and D it disagrees on the essential governing element of the community.only men
¦
A ¦ B
¦
essential ----- not essential
¦
C ¦ D
¦
both genders
quote:That's the problem, methinks. I for one see the dawn of women bishops as removing intolerance, not introducing it.
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
To introduce an intolerance of people...
quote:C is not inherently incompatible with A, in as much as the beliefs in C can be held without there actually being any female bishops in the church.
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.
quote:Porvoo agreement - section on Episcopacy
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.
quote:Not it's not. It was the belief of folks like Thomas Cranmer and William Laud. Whether the episcopacy was essential to Christianity, for Cranmer, was ambiguous. But its centrality to English Christianity was never denied. Laud believed the episcopacy and apostolic succession was divinely ordained going back to Jesus Christ himself.
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...
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 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.
quote: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.
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.
quote:Neither of these have much to do with schism. Christianity in general is simply losing members, including the Roman Catholic Church when the influx of Latin American immigrants is factored out. Loose denominational allegiance is also merely a (regrettable) factor of American spiritually.
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
Zach82 wrotequote: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.
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 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.
quote:IOW, "truth" really has little consequence in any of these discussions; it's all political hardball and "alliances" against enemies.
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'.
quote:The CofE already "tolerates" women clergy. In **** it ordains them. This problem is about how a minority of a minority who cannot tolerate women priests - and who are not at all the same as theological "traditionalists" - want the rest of us to treat them.
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.
quote:Yes please!
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
Your future is The Episcopal Church and the Church of Sweden.
quote:I completely agree, and have agreed in my post above, that a coalition of B & D is viable. I just don't buy the "argument from tradition" for B. Clearly, any argument for "men only as bishops" must seek its roots elsewhere than the situation of England in 1538. But if one looks further back in time and space in order to motivate "men only", then one must also look further back for the role of the bishop. And there cannot be any doubt that pre-Reformation at least, the bishop was considered essential.
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.
quote: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?
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.
quote:Testify!
Edited to remove the word 'normal', ain't nothing normal these days about being a churchgoer
quote: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.
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.
quote:Goodness, Spiffy - that's a very good question. I don't really have much of a feel for that.
Originally posted by Spiffy:
quote: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?
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.
[Edited to remove the word 'normal', ain't nothing normal these days about being a churchgoer]
quote:I can just imagine that argument from the leaders of the church of Pergamum.
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
What's also really interesting is this point in Ender's Shadow's post:
quote:IOW, "truth" really has little consequence in any of these discussions; it's all political hardball and "alliances" against enemies.
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'.
And of course the people actually involved are inconsequential as well. Well, we knew that already; thanks for clarifying, though.....
quote:Interesting argument; I suspect it's valid to argue that the bishop of Kildare is more responding to canon law than necessarily reflecting the theology of CofE as such. The argument about what the Caroline divines did or didn't believe is beyond me, but of course all divines of the Commonwealth were people of the CofE before the civil war. And it's certainly the case that Evangelicals have never been in the slightest interested in bishops as such. But surely the adoption of the Porvoo agreement does establish the CofE's rejection of the theology...
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).
quote:"He was a really nice guy. He went to church and everything."
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:Testify!
Edited to remove the word 'normal', ain't nothing normal these days about being a churchgoer
Zach
quote:I said 'normal', as in conforming to the standard or the common type; usual; not abnormal; regular; natural.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:"He was a really nice guy. He went to church and everything."
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:Testify!
Edited to remove the word 'normal', ain't nothing normal these days about being a churchgoer
Zach
quote:The OP asked if the Church of England will be less tolerant. It will not be. So far, those not wanting the ministry of women bishops have had their way. Those wanting the ministry of bishops have not gotten what they want. Now, they will. Even if those who opposed the ministry of women bishops had women bishops forced upon them, the church would not be less tolerant. The Church of England would maintain the same level of intolerance just directed at the other side.
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.
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), whereas the non-Porvoo churches haven't. Therefore no inconsistency.
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.
quote:I would be interested to know.
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.
quote: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.
Originally posted by Ricardus:
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), whereas the non-Porvoo churches haven't. Therefore no inconsistency.
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.
quote:I agree. For most of the laity this is such a non-issue.
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.
quote:Clear isn't a word I'd use to describe any aspect of Porvoo ...
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:As far as I can tell, the Anglican delegation at Porvoo regarded tactile succession as essential. Lutheran half not only didn't regard it as essential, but would be offended at attempts to "reconsecrate" their bishops to bring them back into the apostolic fold because it would imply they weren't already legitimate. However, they were prepared to accept that tactile succession conferred an additional, though unnecessary, sign of apostolic unity.
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.
quote:Why Porvoo and not the Anglican-German Bishopric in Jerusalem?
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.
quote:That will be news to the Danes.
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)
quote:In a sense I agree with you because I have stated that I feel sacramental theology is on the defensive in the Church of England. Making our best Theologians (Evangelical and Catholic and Liberal) Bishop's and Archbishops can have the effect of dulling their brilliance, influence and vision for the Church.
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.
quote:What about an invitation to the Moderator and Bishops of the Churches of North and South India?
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
quote:I reluctantly agree with Fr. Hunwicke - I often do.
Originally posted by Edward Green:
quote:I would be interested to know.
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 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.
quote:You can't define Anglican theology because there is no distinctive Anglican theology.
Originally posted by Edward Green:
However for Enders to suggest that Porvoo defines Anglican theology is a bit like claiming that ARCIC statements define Anglican theology.
quote:Not so, Birdseye. The archbishops and bishops at the time of both Edward VI and Elizabeth I took great care to ensure that the physical succession was maintained, although in 1559 and 1560, it was not easily done. The CoE's consistent Elizabethan and Jacobean insistence on episcopal ordination of continental immigrant clerics made it clear that this was not a simple political gesture, but a critical aspect of the church's practice and identity. It is true that explanations directed toward puritan clerics had a whiff of ambiguity about theme (the old esse vs bene esse discourse), but the concern was not an issue which arose in the 1800s in response to the union of Irish bishoprics or the re-ordering of English diocesan and capitular untidiness.
the significance of physical, historical Apostolic succession is a very new innovation in the Church of England: physical rather than theological Apostolic Succession being trumpeted as the divine prerogative of the Church of England only when threatened with Reform by secular state authorities in the 1830s/40s... of course the fact that there was a break in the line during the Reformation led many such as JH Newman to go voluntarily to Rome (in 1845)(this is of course not to mention those breaks in the papal line early in its history -which is the Catholic Church's problem and not worth discussing here).
quote:
Originally posted by Birdseye:
the significance of physical, historical Apostolic succession is a very new innovation in the Church of England:
quote:
the fact that there was a break in the line during the Reformation
quote:Evidence for any of the above, please?
not to mention those breaks in the papal line early in its history
quote:First bit: I recommend reading 'Tracts for our Times' for an actual taste of the innovation -though you may find yourself convinced, even though ultimately many of the writers were not. For the history, a short but decent bibliography:
quote:Originally posted by Birdseye:
the significance of physical, historical Apostolic succession is a very new innovation in the Church of England:
quote:the fact that there was a break in the line during the Reformation
quote:not to mention those breaks in the papal line early in its history
quote:Not just recent theology surely? Most of the clauses in the Nicene creed came about that way, as a way of safeguarding something.
what I'm saying is that like a lot of recent theology it develops firstly out of practical, defensive circumstances.
quote:, a passing reference to the non-existence then of the papacy as we know it now (which I would agree with and there are even RCs who would do so as well), does not substantiate a claim of breaks in the Roman line. Given the overall patristic reverence for the conservatism and continuity of the Bishops of Rome in the pre-Nicene period, I would need some very serious chaptering and versing before I could agree with you on claim of breaks.
not to mention those breaks in the papal line early in its history
quote:Oh the Anglo-German Bishopric has been defunct for well over a century but the point I was making is that if communion with Lutherans under Porvoo was a deal breaker, so to speak, why not the far earlier communion agreement with the Prussian Union which included not merely Lutherans but Calvinists too. The basis for the logic that Porvoo ended catholicism or the hope of catholicism in Anglicanism surely must also apply to the earlier agreement. Indeed Newman thought so.
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
The Deanof Québec had nothing to do with the Norwegian church. I fear that I can't quite remember the situation, whether he was Latvian or Estonian. However, the two churches had maintained the same succession but one was in Porvoo and the other wasn't, so he was received as a layman and ordained both deacon and priest. His orders were likely more solid in the sense of historic succession as Anglicans understand it than those of the clergy being licensed through our own concordat with the local Lutherans.
As far as the Anglo-German bishopric is concerned, I gather that it has not been in operation for a century and a half and can not be said to be a current issue. My Ordinariate-bound interlocutor believes Porvoo to be a greater issue than OWP but neither have a lot to do with his decision, which is over the general issue of authority.
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
this might raise the question of intention, a point much loved by RC apologists and discutants.
![[Axe murder]](graemlins/lovedrops.gif)
![[Snigger]](graemlins/snigger.gif)
quote:Irenaeus, Against Heresies, III.3.4.
John, the disciple of the Lord, going to bathe at Ephesus, and perceiving Cerinthus [a leader of the Gnostics] within, rushed out of the bath-house without bathing, exclaiming, "Let us fly, lest even the bath-house fall down, because Cerinthus, the enemy of the truth, is within."
quote:There isn't.
Originally posted by Eleanor Jane:
I find it utterly bizarre that there is considered to be a difference between ordaining woman as priests and as bishops.
quote:And thank you, Ender's Shadow, for a very clear argument demonstrating that the male-only priesthood is itself a heresy!
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
Thank you EJ for pointing us to such a clear demonstration that a heresy is an overfocus on one element of the bible to the exclusion of clear indications pointing in the opposite direction.
![[Biased]](wink.gif)
quote:Very simply, they had been told (several archbishops and bishops involved at a series of general synods and lots of material there for web archaeologists) that the question was under reception and it had yet to be determined if this innovation be final. While any fool could have told them otherwise, these ordinands chose to believe the bishops and official statements. If there be fault, I do not know if I would start with blaming those who chose rose-coloured glasses or those who were handing them out.
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
What I am about to post may sound harsh, but I will try very hard not to be, as it is a genuine question rather than an attempt at point scoring. It is now twenty or more years since the CoE ordained women as priests. If this is such an important issue for some people, why have they still been ordained in the CoE during those twenty years? Those who were already ordained when the decision was taken clealry need to be protected and compensated (if neccessary). The organisation they had joined changed around them; they had not. But since the decision was taken anyone signing up knew what they were joining. If this issue (or any other for that matter) is SO IMPORTANT why commit yourself to an organisation that goes against your deep convictions?
quote:Baker is a Freemason. For many CoE traditionalists that simply adds insult to injury.
Originally posted by FreeJack:
Traditionalists seem to be happy with the two new flying bishops in the Province of Canterbury. Jonathan Baker is relatively young for a PEV.
Ebbsfleet
and the Vicar of Walsingham is symbolic if nothing else.
Richborough
quote:And very reluctantly too.
Originally posted by leo:
Baker has resigned from the masons.
quote:If congregations had the right to choose their Vicar, this might be right. As a rule, they do not (well the Parish Reps have a veto in certain circumstances).
Originally posted by Think²:
As an outsider looking in, I can understand why those who are worried about sacramental lineage would be concerned. But I don't see why they can't get hold of an ordination "family tree" so that they can have confidence in a particular vicar.
quote:And of course, although rural congregations aren't in the same boat I'd guess most of us can vote with our feet if we have to. Parish boundaries ain't what they used to be.
Originally posted by The Man with a Stick:
If congregations had the right to choose their Vicar, this might be right. As a rule, they do not (well the Parish Reps have a veto in certain circumstances).
quote:The church I attend is part of a team ministry covering 5 churches (and another closed). One church has resolutions A & B but a woman is being ordained NSM curate to the team. Obviously with a full-time team vicar it will be trickier - but two clergy will leave and not be replaced before we go through that hurdle.
Originally posted by ken:
Except that parishes that won't have women aren't amalgamated with ones that will. Or round here, at all. When we were gently persuaded into a reluctant union a few years ago the local men-only parishes simply weren't part of the discussions.