Ship of Fools: House of Bishops May 2013 statement on women bishops

Thread: House of Bishops May 2013 statement on women bishops 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=030677

Posted by Arvan (# 13608) on :

The CofE website Women Bishops page currently has a statement dated 21st May 2013 saying:

quote:
The report of the Working Group presented four new options as a way forward and proposed that the General Synod should consider those options at its meeting in July. The Working Group also proposed a timetable which would involve the legislation starting its formal stages in the Synod in November and receiving Final Approval in 2015.

Anyone know what the proposals are, or the timescale for publication?

Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on :

Well, it looks like not even WATCH know what is in the report.

I must admit to being somewhat concerned by a couple of aspects of this statement. I hope my concerns are misplaced, but recent history suggests it is wise to be cautious....

First of all, I am concerned that there are going to be FOUR proposals. That hardly seems the actions of a group that knows what it is doing and is moving forward with confidence. After all this time and all the mess the C of E has needlessly got itself into, is it too much to ask that ONE proposal could be put forward, behind which everyone could/should put their efforts?

As it stands at the moment, it looks as if the build up to the Synod meeting in July will be spent arguing about the different proposals, rather than focusing on one and trying to discern what it will need to make it happen.

Secondly, call me a realist, but I'm still disappointed with a process where - even with a following wind - final approval will not be for another 2 years. My suspicion is that even this miserable target will not be reached. But the dioceses gave a clear lead - women bishops MUST happen. Piddling around just destroys what small credibility the C of E still has.

In the aftermath of the Synod debacle, the bishops promised swift action. If this is as swift as they can make it, heaven help us all.

Posted by Charles Read (# 3963) on :

And we are spending all day Saturday at the July Synod is groups beinmg nice to each other before we have a brief debate on the Monday:

quote:
Saturday 6 July
7.30 am Holy Communion in Central Hall
9.30-1pm Reflection, discussion and worship in small groups
2.30 pm Further group discussion followed by private plenary session
6.20 pm Evening worship
Monday 8 July
7.30 am Holy Communion in Central Hall
9.30 am – 1 pm
9.30 am Morning Worship
Women in the Episcopate: Report from the House of Bishops
Legislative Business
Any items of legislative business from Special Agenda I proposed to be dealt with under the Procedure for Deeming will be debated at this point if a debate is required. If debate is not required on any of these items, the First Report by the Business Committee on the Work of the Elections Review Group will be taken.

Posted by Amos (# 44) on :

[Projectile]

Disgusted and angry.

Posted by iamchristianhearmeroar (# 15483) on :

So, the House of Bishops have now taken a strong lead proposing a "single clause measure" and the repeal of the Act of Synod. They are suggesting either a new Act of Synod or for the House of Bishops to make a formal declaration providing provision for those unable to receive the ministry of 50% of the population.

Will the House of Laity buy it? That seems to be the only question...

Posted by Arvan (# 13608) on :

The proposals are linked from this press release

I've not had time to read them in detail yet...

Posted by Carys (# 78) on :

I've just read the proposals and am energised and positive. I think they've found the rabbit; can synod manage to pull it out of the hat? I wasn't convinced there was a rabbit in the hat, so this is huge progress.

The clear affirmation of being a church which ordains women (especially point 2 of para 12 of HoB/24 of annex) is strong enough that Ican accept the following three points of provision for those who dissent.

Have seen much positive from those of us who want women as bishops, nothing yet from those who oppose this move.

Carys

Posted by Vulpior (# 12744) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Charles Read:
And we are spending all day Saturday at the July Synod is groups beinmg nice to each other before we have a brief debate on the Monday:

quote:
Saturday 6 July
7.30 am Holy Communion in Central Hall
9.30-1pm Reflection, discussion and worship in small groups
2.30 pm Further group discussion followed by private plenary session
6.20 pm Evening worship
Monday 8 July
7.30 am Holy Communion in Central Hall
9.30 am – 1 pm
9.30 am Morning Worship
Women in the Episcopate: Report from the House of Bishops
Legislative Business
Any items of legislative business from Special Agenda I proposed to be dealt with under the Procedure for Deeming will be debated at this point if a debate is required. If debate is not required on any of these items, the First Report by the Business Committee on the Work of the Elections Review Group will be taken.

Synod as "reflection, discussion and worship in small groups" sounds like my idea of hell.

Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :

I think the proposals are confusing, and they don't seem to address the traditionalists main problem as I understand it - which is to maintain some all male unbroken lineage of ordination.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
I think the proposals are confusing, and they don't seem to address the traditionalists main problem as I understand it - which is to maintain some all male unbroken lineage of ordination.

Yes - they still don't get it so I wonder if Synod will reject it again.

Posted by *Leon* (# 3377) on :

To be fair, they don't fail to address the unbroken lineage of ordination either. The document only discusses whether the rules should be in an act or a measure, not what the rules should be.

I am deeply sceptical that what's needed is a wordy document about synod procedure, which is what we have.

Posted by Indifferently (# 17517) on :

We will be campaigning against this until the liberals realize that we mean business. Get rid of the resolutions and the flying bishops and you will declare war on the Tradition of our Church. Also, the legislation was defeated only last November, why are they bringing it forward again so soon? Very sinister stuff, yet again.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

I think the whole thing will crash again.

The again, there maybe something deliberately sinister in that the bishops want to vote on motions in order. If option one goes through, which most people agree to, the following options could one lost and women bishops will go ahead without any safeguards for the 'traditionalists'.

I hope i am wrong and i hope someone will explain to me why I wrong.

I want women bishops but not at the cost of my friends who feel hat they have been betrayed, that promises have been broken and that they will have to leave the C of E.

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Indifferently:
We will be campaigning against this until the liberals realize that we mean business. Get rid of the resolutions and the flying bishops and you will declare war on the Tradition of our Church. Also, the legislation was defeated only last November, why are they bringing it forward again so soon? Very sinister stuff, yet again.

Because it's clear that the vast majority of the church believe that God is both willing and able to call women to be Bishops? That may be the church shouldn't be standing in the way of that? That a lot of the claims by the misogynist faction to just want to be able to believe what they believe have proved to be false, that they continue to want to exert control over the whole church? Nothing sinister about deciding to be done with the disingenuous pretences that the "conservatives" will vote to allow women Bishops so long as enough "accommodation" is made for their prejudices. That was never going to happen without breaking the church in two. There were already people who voted against November's compromise because it made too much accommodation; it's time to see whether they were the ones who tipped the balance.

Posted by Vade Mecum (# 17688) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:

quote:
Originally posted by Indifferently:
We will be campaigning against this until the liberals realize that we mean business. Get rid of the resolutions and the flying bishops and you will declare war on the Tradition of our Church. Also, the legislation was defeated only last November, why are they bringing it forward again so soon? Very sinister stuff, yet again.
Because it's clear that the vast majority of the church believe that God is both willing and able to call women to be Bishops? That may be the church shouldn't be standing in the way of that? That a lot of the claims by the misogynist faction to just want to be able to believe what they believe have proved to be false, that they continue to want to exert control over the whole church? Nothing sinister about deciding to be done with the disingenuous pretences that the "conservatives" will vote to allow women Bishops so long as enough "accommodation" is made for their prejudices. That was never going to happen without breaking the church in two. There were already people who voted against November's compromise because it made too much accommodation; it's time to see whether they were the ones who tipped the balance.

Except that the Anglican church has never considered itself (excepting a few heretics, perhaps) as 'the' Church. So it simply is not true to say that the majority in the Church is in favour of female ordination: to think in terms of our parochial CofE provinces (two provinces out of so many!) is to cut ourselves off from any notion of a united Church (Et unum sint and all that). This has always, it seems to me, been the strongest argument on the side of the Traditionalists. Perhaps before the CofE starts tilting at these particular windmills, it needs to debate what exactly it believes itself to be, in the context of the wider Church, and precisely why it feels it has the authority to make this change.

Personally, I cannot imagine this new measure succeeding if the composition of the HoL is the same as last time: it's even less of a compromise, and the likelihood of us seeing the provisions for Traditionalists is just as small, ISTM.

Posted by Aelred of Rievaulx (# 16860) on :

Vade Mecum -

Sow the wind, reap the whirlwind.
A single clause measure is just about precisely what we should have been going for all along. It is fairer on you.

The HoB say that it will make unambiguously clear that the C of E as a whole does receive the ministry of women in all orders. Those who do not accept this will at least have to accept that the C of E does so accept the ministry of women and men equally. Because the Anglican Communion as a whole does have areas where people do not accept the ministry of women there is still space for you and your kind to carry on.

But the whole of the mechanism of Resolutions and Acts of Synod, which were used in a way entirely contrary to their original intention to erect unbreachable walls against women are a lot of now redundant gimcrackery that can and should rightly be swept away. If space for those who don't themselves accept the ministry of women is going to be retained, then it must be with and through the trustful relationships that people like that have with people who believe the precise opposite - and not through creating a church within a church.

My understanding is that if the process is followed correctly, the final vote on this proposal will not come until after the election of a new Synod in 2015. So it will be up to the electors of the next General Synod to either vote in a Synod that reflects the will of the overwhelming makority of Diocesan Synods who voted in favour of the previous legislation, or for "traditionalists" to make sure that the numbers are there to ensure that this new, tougher legislation is defeated. I know how I will be campaigning.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
the vast majority of the church believe that God is both willing and able to call women to be Bishops?

THE Church? The vast majority of the church is Roman catholic and Eastern orthodox - neither of whom have a majority in favour of women being ordained.

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
the vast majority of the church believe that God is both willing and able to call women to be Bishops?
THE Church? The vast majority of the church is Roman catholic and Eastern orthodox - neither of whom have a majority in favour of women being ordained.

I would have thought it was pretty obvious that I was referring to the membership of Church of England specifically and not to the universal church; whether militant, repenting, or triumphant.

Though I feel I should apologise for my tone, I allowed Indifferently to wind me up.

[ 24. June 2013, 15:33: Message edited by: Arethosemyfeet ]

Posted by John Holding (# 158) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Vade Mecum:
Except that the Anglican church has never considered itself (excepting a few heretics, perhaps) as 'the' Church. So it simply is not true to say that the majority in the Church is in favour of female ordination: to think in terms of our parochial CofE provinces (two provinces out of so many!) is to cut ourselves off from any notion of a united Church (Et unum sint and all that). This has always, it seems to me, been the strongest argument on the side of the Traditionalists. Perhaps before the CofE starts tilting at these particular windmills, it needs to debate what exactly it believes itself to be, in the context of the wider Church, and precisely why it feels it has the authority to make this change.

If you support the marriage of clergy, or if you believe in the validity of Anglican orders, then this boat has left for you. The RCs deny both (though they admit the first is not a matter of doctrine) and the Orthodox deny the second. The CofE moved briskly ahead with both, paying no attention at all to what the RCs believe (or, in fact, to what the Orthodox believed, although I doubt the Orthodox were large on Cranmer's horizon).

Why, if you believe clergy can marry, and that CofE clergy are validly bishops, priests and deacons despite the disapproval of the RCs and Orthodox, do you want to wait for their approval before moving on the consecration of female bishops (because you already have female priests and deacons)?

And if you don't believe clergy can marry and don't believe CofE clergy are validly ordained, are you really part of the CofE, and why do you care?

John

Posted by iamchristianhearmeroar (# 15483) on :

The bishop of Willesden's latest blog post suggests that the most fruitful thing for traditionalists to do at this stage would be to go along with the House of Bishops' lead and work as hard as possible to influence a new Act of Synod which provides as much provision as is possible by that route. His intimation is that a failure to do so is only going to diminish the provisions that will be on offer.

Is he correct? Is it now time for traditionalists to employ some real politik here? My own prediction would be that the traditionalist catholics may now approach the matter in this way, but the traditionalist evangelicals will stick to their "male headship" guns, but that's pure guesswork.

Posted by Vade Mecum (# 17688) on :

quote:
Originally posted by John Holding:

quote:
Originally posted by Vade Mecum:
Except that the Anglican church has never considered itself (excepting a few heretics, perhaps) as 'the' Church. So it simply is not true to say that the majority in the Church is in favour of female ordination: to think in terms of our parochial CofE provinces (two provinces out of so many!) is to cut ourselves off from any notion of a united Church (Et unum sint and all that). This has always, it seems to me, been the strongest argument on the side of the Traditionalists. Perhaps before the CofE starts tilting at these particular windmills, it needs to debate what exactly it believes itself to be, in the context of the wider Church, and precisely why it feels it has the authority to make this change.

If you support the marriage of clergy, or if you believe in the validity of Anglican orders, then this boat has left for you. The RCs deny both (though they admit the first is not a matter of doctrine) and the Orthodox deny the second. The CofE moved briskly ahead with both, paying no attention at all to what the RCs believe (or, in fact, to what the Orthodox believed, although I doubt the Orthodox were large on Cranmer's horizon).

Why, if you believe clergy can marry, and that CofE clergy are validly bishops, priests and deacons despite the disapproval of the RCs and Orthodox, do you want to wait for their approval before moving on the consecration of female bishops (because you already have female priests and deacons)?

And if you don't believe clergy can marry and don't believe CofE clergy are validly ordained, are you really part of the CofE, and why do you care?

John

Well for a start, the RCs do believe that clergy can marry. They prefer celibate clergy as a matter of discipline. It is not a fundamental division. So that's silly.

The matter of orders is different, but I would argue that Romans and Catholic Anglicans have the same fundamental understanding of orders, but that one believes the CofE to possess them, the other not. This conception does not include ordained women.

Fundamentally, it is not the case that we want to wait for Rome, or do as the Romans do, or anything like that. Rather, we believe, with the Romans but not merely because of them, that the ancient understanding of orders is true.

And Aelred, your attitude is a prime example of that most annoyingly condescending attitude with which the smug pro campaign treats the (as they see it) vanquished traditionalists. You are not only in conflict with most of the Christian world, both past and present, but also with almost all of Anglican history. Why do you think you have the unshakeable and unquestionable right to do this, as though the debate has been had and won, and nobody else is worth a damn?

Posted by iamchristianhearmeroar (# 15483) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Vade Mecum:
as though the debate has been had

But for the CofE it has, at least in part.

The CofE [B]has resolved the "whether" of women bishops, and have answered that in the affirmative. The debate now is about the "how" - how to reconcile the various groups within the CofE whose beliefs differ.

Sadly, some people seem to be taking every opportunity to retell why women should not be bishops (or priests). At least that was what I heard at General Synod last year. Answer to the wrong question at this stage, surely.

Us smug pro-campaigners might be more receptive and less condescending if the issue currently under debate were debated, rather than an issue which has already been decided on by Synod.

(Which is not to say that people on this thread have done this.)

Posted by Carys (# 78) on :

And there are female Anglican bishops already so that boat has sailed.

The report managed to set out basis for provision for those who dissent from CofE's affirmation of women's call priestly ministry in a way I can accept. Post-November I was very dubious about compromise with injustice as it seems with me. That is why I thought circle had been squared, but discussions on Twitter has shown that this perception not shared by those who do no accept the call of women to priestly ministry. Third province is still their request. We fundamentally disagree. I think church is following spirit, they think she is falling into error. We can't both be right.

I do wonder whether there were those after the council of Jerusalem who wanted an honoured place for the party of the circumcision...

Carys

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Carys:
I do wonder whether there were those after the council of Jerusalem who wanted an honoured place for the party of the circumcision...

As the Church Fathers carried on criticising Ebionites, Judaizers, and Nazarenes for the next four or five centuries, I think there were quite a lot of them!

Posted by pete173 (# 4622) on :

Thank you to IamChristianhearmeroar for linking to my blog post here.

I'm getting loads of grief on Stand Firm from the USA ecclesial Right, who think I've sold the pass on provision, but I do think there is a real danger that the more they cover their ears and shout "Nothing but a Measure will do", the more we are in danger of Parliament just legislating for us. So my realpolitik proposal is a way of saying "You'd be better off voting for something than getting nothing."

Posted by iamchristianhearmeroar (# 15483) on :

I find it interesting that the US are wading in on this (at least to express their opinions). Are more people invested in what the CofE decide on this issue than we might imagine? Would, for example, a vote "for" be seen as a vote of confidence in TEC and against ACNA? Would it send a signal to other churches in the Anglican Communion that where Canterbury has led they should follow?

As a side-note, if I (and those who believe as I do) see myself referred to as a "revisionist" one more time I think I'll scream (or worse).

Posted by Bax (# 16572) on :

quote:
Originally posted by pete173:
Thank you to IamChristianhearmeroar for linking to my blog post here.

I'm getting loads of grief on Stand Firm from the USA ecclesial Right, who think I've sold the pass on provision, but I do think there is a real danger that the more they cover their ears and shout "Nothing but a Measure will do", the more we are in danger of Parliament just legislating for us. So my realpolitik proposal is a way of saying "You'd be better off voting for something than getting nothing."

Is there really any prospect of parliament legislating on an issue which, although political, is also theological?

I don't doubt plenty of MPs & even ministers will make statements saying how dreadful it all is etc etc but for the government to actually take legislative action would surely be politically unthinkable: opening a can of worms.

If the government were to force legislation on the church, I for one, as a member of the C-of-E, would have some soul-searching to do...

Posted by MarsmanTJ (# 8689) on :

quote:
Originally posted by pete173:
I'm getting loads of grief on Stand Firm from the USA ecclesial Right, who think I've sold the pass on provision, but I do think there is a real danger that the more they cover their ears and shout "Nothing but a Measure will do", the more we are in danger of Parliament just legislating for us. So my realpolitik proposal is a way of saying "You'd be better off voting for something than getting nothing."

I'm inclined to agree. Particularly as I know people in not a few dioceses who are members of diocesan synod who are for the first time ever seriously considering standing for the house of Laity at General Synod, taking paid vacation time to do so, simply so they can vote in favour of women becoming Bishops in the next General Synod. If they don't accept a reasonable provision this Synod, the next one looks like having a good chance at becoming hostile to the 'traditional' view. I think they massively shot themselves in the foot in November, since I genuinely believe that is the best they had a chance of getting, anything now will be second-best.

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

quote:
Originally posted by MarsmanTJ:

quote:
Originally posted by pete173:
I'm getting loads of grief on Stand Firm from the USA ecclesial Right, who think I've sold the pass on provision, but I do think there is a real danger that the more they cover their ears and shout "Nothing but a Measure will do", the more we are in danger of Parliament just legislating for us. So my realpolitik proposal is a way of saying "You'd be better off voting for something than getting nothing."
I'm inclined to agree. Particularly as I know people in not a few dioceses who are members of diocesan synod who are for the first time ever seriously considering standing for the house of Laity at General Synod, taking paid vacation time to do so, simply so they can vote in favour of women becoming Bishops in the next General Synod. If they don't accept a reasonable provision this Synod, the next one looks like having a good chance at becoming hostile to the 'traditional' view. I think they massively shot themselves in the foot in November, since I genuinely believe that is the best they had a chance of getting, anything now will be second-best.

And there's a reasonable possibility that anyone motivated enough the get themselves onto General Synod for this is more likely than average to be liberal on a certain other deceased equine. Blessings of same sex civil marriages could be right around the corner.

Posted by Indifferently (# 17517) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:

quote:
Originally posted by Indifferently:
We will be campaigning against this until the liberals realize that we mean business. Get rid of the resolutions and the flying bishops and you will declare war on the Tradition of our Church. Also, the legislation was defeated only last November, why are they bringing it forward again so soon? Very sinister stuff, yet again.
Because it's clear that the vast majority of the church believe that God is both willing and able to call women to be Bishops? That may be the church shouldn't be standing in the way of that? That a lot of the claims by the misogynist faction to just want to be able to believe what they believe have proved to be false, that they continue to want to exert control over the whole church? Nothing sinister about deciding to be done with the disingenuous pretences that the "conservatives" will vote to allow women Bishops so long as enough "accommodation" is made for their prejudices. That was never going to happen without breaking the church in two. There were already people who voted against November's compromise because it made too much accommodation; it's time to see whether they were the ones who tipped the balance.

The vast majority of "the Church"? What "Church"? The Church of England is but a small corner of the Church, the vast majority of which finds the idea of women in mitres to be anathema.

Posted by Indifferently (# 17517) on :

Further, the General Synod has yet to explain where it gets its authority to make this change. The great Richard Hooker often spoke of "the Church with her Authority", so where is the authority for this change? English Canon law of 1571 is clear:

"Preachers shall behave themselves modestly and soberly in every department of their life. But especially shall they see to it that they teach nothing in the way of a sermon, which they would have religiously held and believed by the people, save what is agreeable to the teaching of the Old or New Testament, and what the Catholic fathers and ancient bishops have collected from this selfsame doctrine."

We're there high priestesses under the Old Covenant? Were the Apostles or early Church bishops women? Did the Catholic fathers and anciene bishops teach that women could exercise priestly office? No. No. No.

So when you think about it, the Church of England cannot accept or allow this innovation, as it is contrary to the C of E's own doctrine. Therefore those of us opposed to cross dressers at the altar are not merely "traditionalists" but a small remnant upholdeng the actual doctrine of our own particular Church (the Church of England).

[ 27. June 2013, 10:17: Message edited by: Indifferently ]

Posted by Vade Mecum (# 17688) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Indifferently:
So when you think about it, the Church of England cannot accept or allow this innovation, as it is contrary to the C of E's own doctrine. Therefore those of us opposed to cross dressers at the altar are not merely "traditionalists" but a small remnant upholdeng the actual doctrine of our own particular Church (the Church of England).

This is the truly galling point, I think: that CofE hasn't merely decided to tell most of the other parts of the Universal Church to sod off, but also most of the previous generations of its own worshippers and theologians (many of whom, we hope and believe, are present to us in the company of saints). It is a total casting aside of the traditional understanding of the essence of the Christian Church.

Posted by Indifferently (# 17517) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Vade Mecum:

quote:
Originally posted by Indifferently:
So when you think about it, the Church of England cannot accept or allow this innovation, as it is contrary to the C of E's own doctrine. Therefore those of us opposed to cross dressers at the altar are not merely "traditionalists" but a small remnant upholdeng the actual doctrine of our own particular Church (the Church of England).
This is the truly galling point, I think: that CofE hasn't merely decided to tell most of the other parts of the Universal Church to sod off, but also most of the previous generations of its own worshippers and theologians (many of whom, we hope and believe, are present to us in the company of saints). It is a total casting aside of the traditional understanding of the essence of the Christian Church.

I believe Chesterton called this the democracy of the dead. Perhaps liberals should excise "the communion of saints" from the Creed next.

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Indifferently:
Further, the General Synod has yet to explain where it gets its authority to make this change. The great Richard Hooker often spoke of "the Church with her Authority", so where is the authority for this change? English Canon law of 1571 is clear:

"Preachers shall behave themselves modestly and soberly in every department of their life. But especially shall they see to it that they teach nothing in the way of a sermon, which they would have religiously held and believed by the people, save what is agreeable to the teaching of the Old or New Testament, and what the Catholic fathers and ancient bishops have collected from this selfsame doctrine."

We're there high priestesses under the Old Covenant? Were the Apostles or early Church bishops women? Did the Catholic fathers and anciene bishops teach that women could exercise priestly office? No. No. No.

So when you think about it, the Church of England cannot accept or allow this innovation, as it is contrary to the C of E's own doctrine. Therefore those of us opposed to cross dressers at the altar are not merely "traditionalists" but a small remnant upholdeng the actual doctrine of our own particular Church (the Church of England).

Our Lord made Our Lady priest , so who are you to deny the women He calls now that role? Who are you to decide who God does and does not call to the priesthood and the episcopate?

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Indifferently:

We're there high priestesses under the Old Covenant?

There were prophets and pastors who were women. That's enough.

Christian priests are presbyters, elders of the church. Not sacrificing kohanim. Their ministry is, or ought to be, pastoral and prophetic. No blood need be spilled. They have no special right or duty to enter into the Holy of Holies because the vail of the Temples is torn and God dwells with us in Jesus Christ. The old priestly ministry is now entirely subsumed in the workl of Jesus and does not need to be repeated. We are not all elders, not all presbyters, but insofar as we are all in Chrsit we all participate in that ongoing priestly ministry.

Posted by Aelred of Rievaulx (# 16860) on :

Vade mecum

I have the right to say that I think that traditionalists are going to get almost nothing of what they want because of what they orchestrated in November 2012 because that is precisely what I think. I'm not smug about it.

Actually, I think their "theological conscientious objections" to women in all orders of ministry are dressed up sexism. I think we should not have allowed the established church a get out clause at all when everyone else was obliged to stop discriminating on the grounds of gender.

As for not being in step with the church throughout history I am not in the slightest concerned about that. If we had kept in step with the church throughout history then we would still have slavery. We learnt (eventually) that keeping other people as your possession is just plain morally and ethically wrong, and not only a shameful thing for a Christian to do, but something so bad that we should legislate for whole societies not to do it. But the preservers of tradition would have been presiding over their slave plantations today if we had listened to what Christian tradition said about slavery.

There comes a time in the affairs of men and women, when a kind of ethical revelation takes place. It took place over slavery, and it is still taking place over the capacity and the rightness of opposing sexism and opening up the whole of human society to men and women equally. It is taking place rapidly in an analogous way over the place of LGBT people and the moral wrongness of discriminating against people on the basis of their sexual orientation. I rather think this ethical revelation is a work of the Holy Spirit which blows wherever s/he wills. The Spirit's activity is found as much in the world as in the Church (despite all efforts to domesticate the Dove), so it surprises me not at all to hear huffing and puffing from "traditionalists" who, in my view, hold morally repugnant views about women that they should be ashamed of.

I respect entirely your right to hold and speak a completely contrary view to my own I just don't respect the view itself. And I look forward to the day when we have women bishops who are recognised throughout our church as the equal of men. "Traditionalists" who want to stay will have to deal with them and negotiate with them.

Posted by Indifferently (# 17517) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ken:

quote:
Originally posted by Indifferently:

We're there high priestesses under the Old Covenant?
There were prophets and pastors who were women. That's enough.

Christian priests are presbyters, elders of the church. Not sacrificing kohanim. Their ministry is, or ought to be, pastoral and prophetic. No blood need be spilled. They have no special right or duty to enter into the Holy of Holies because the vail of the Temples is torn and God dwells with us in Jesus Christ. The old priestly ministry is now entirely subsumed in the workl of Jesus and does not need to be repeated. We are not all elders, not all presbyters, but insofar as we are all in Chrsit we all participate in that ongoing priestly ministry.

On whose AUTHORITY do you declare this? I've got the doctrine of Ken here, not the doctrine of the old and new Testaments as received and believed in the Ancient Catholic Church. Quite frankly your personal interpretation of scripture is cute but carries absolutely no authority. Same with Jade and her harridan esque line of questioning.

Prove women bishops from the Fathers and then I will take you seriously.

Posted by Vade Mecum (# 17688) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Aelred of Rievaulx:
Vade mecum

I have the right to say that I think that traditionalists are going to get almost nothing of what they want because of what they orchestrated in November 2012 because that is precisely what I think. I'm not smug about it.

Actually, I think their "theological conscientious objections" to women in all orders of ministry are dressed up sexism. I think we should not have allowed the established church a get out clause at all when everyone else was obliged to stop discriminating on the grounds of gender.

As for not being in step with the church throughout history I am not in the slightest concerned about that. If we had kept in step with the church throughout history then we would still have slavery. We learnt (eventually) that keeping other people as your possession is just plain morally and ethically wrong, and not only a shameful thing for a Christian to do, but something so bad that we should legislate for whole societies not to do it. But the preservers of tradition would have been presiding over their slave plantations today if we had listened to what Christian tradition said about slavery.

There comes a time in the affairs of men and women, when a kind of ethical revelation takes place. It took place over slavery, and it is still taking place over the capacity and the rightness of opposing sexism and opening up the whole of human society to men and women equally. It is taking place rapidly in an analogous way over the place of LGBT people and the moral wrongness of discriminating against people on the basis of their sexual orientation. I rather think this ethical revelation is a work of the Holy Spirit which blows wherever s/he wills. The Spirit's activity is found as much in the world as in the Church (despite all efforts to domesticate the Dove), so it surprises me not at all to hear huffing and puffing from "traditionalists" who, in my view, hold morally repugnant views about women that they should be ashamed of.

I respect entirely your right to hold and speak a completely contrary view to my own I just don't respect the view itself. And I look forward to the day when we have women bishops who are recognised throughout our church as the equal of men. "Traditionalists" who want to stay will have to deal with them and negotiate with them.

This is simply not the case. What you have articulated is heresy. We share so little common understanding of the Church that further discussion is pointless.

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Indifferently:

quote:
Originally posted by ken:

quote:
Originally posted by Indifferently:

We're there high priestesses under the Old Covenant?
There were prophets and pastors who were women. That's enough.

Christian priests are presbyters, elders of the church. Not sacrificing kohanim. Their ministry is, or ought to be, pastoral and prophetic. No blood need be spilled. They have no special right or duty to enter into the Holy of Holies because the vail of the Temples is torn and God dwells with us in Jesus Christ. The old priestly ministry is now entirely subsumed in the workl of Jesus and does not need to be repeated. We are not all elders, not all presbyters, but insofar as we are all in Chrsit we all participate in that ongoing priestly ministry.
On whose AUTHORITY do you declare this? I've got the doctrine of Ken here, not the doctrine of the old and new Testaments as received and believed in the Ancient Catholic Church. Quite frankly your personal interpretation of scripture is cute but carries absolutely no authority. Same with Jade and her harridan esque line of questioning.

Prove women bishops from the Fathers and then I will take you seriously.

What a delightful bit of sexism. Will it be 'calm down dear' next?

Also, you've failed to say why Our Lady's priesthood isn't good enough for you....

Posted by Indifferently (# 17517) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Aelred of Rievaulx:
Vade mecum

I have the right to say that I think that traditionalists are going to get almost nothing of what they want because of what they orchestrated in November 2012 because that is precisely what I think. I'm not smug about it.

Actually, I think their "theological conscientious objections" to women in all orders of ministry are dressed up sexism. I think we should not have allowed the established church a get out clause at all when everyone else was obliged to stop discriminating on the grounds of gender.

As for not being in step with the church throughout history I am not in the slightest concerned about that. If we had kept in step with the church throughout history then we would still have slavery. We learnt (eventually) that keeping other people as your possession is just plain morally and ethically wrong, and not only a shameful thing for a Christian to do, but something so bad that we should legislate for whole societies not to do it. But the preservers of tradition would have been presiding over their slave plantations today if we had listened to what Christian tradition said about slavery.

There comes a time in the affairs of men and women, when a kind of ethical revelation takes place. It took place over slavery, and it is still taking place over the capacity and the rightness of opposing sexism and opening up the whole of human society to men and women equally. It is taking place rapidly in an analogous way over the place of LGBT people and the moral wrongness of discriminating against people on the basis of their sexual orientation. I rather think this ethical revelation is a work of the Holy Spirit which blows wherever s/he wills. The Spirit's activity is found as much in the world as in the Church (despite all efforts to domesticate the Dove), so it surprises me not at all to hear huffing and puffing from "traditionalists" who, in my view, hold morally repugnant views about women that they should be ashamed of.

I respect entirely your right to hold and speak a completely contrary view to my own I just don't respect the view itself. And I look forward to the day when we have women bishops who are recognised throughout our church as the equal of men. "Traditionalists" who want to stay will have to deal with them and negotiate with them.

Sexism? Where exactly does this anti-Marxist thought crime appear in the Bible?

Leftists showing their hand again - all the arguments for priestesses and bishopesses have to be secular because the Catholic argument for it is completely non-existent. This is nothing but a Marxist infiltration job and I for one am not fooled.

[ 27. June 2013, 13:06: Message edited by: Indifferently ]

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

I think you've replied to the wrong post?

Again, why is Our Lady's priesthood (as demonstrated in those ancient mosaics and icons) not good enough? Ancient and early medieval veneration of the Blessed Virgin Mary is hardly marxist infiltration!

And 'harridan' (along with priestess and bishopess - which are not welcome on the Ship) is sexist. And the 'anti-marxist thought crime' or as normal people call it, insulting a sister made in the image of God, is found in Genesis 1:27 and Galatians 3:28. God abhors sexism, it's about time you did too.

Posted by Vade Mecum (# 17688) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
I think you've replied to the wrong post?

Again, why is Our Lady's priesthood (as demonstrated in those ancient mosaics and icons) not good enough? Ancient and early medieval veneration of the Blessed Virgin Mary is hardly marxist infiltration!

And 'harridan' (along with priestess and bishopess - which are not welcome on the Ship) is sexist. And the 'anti-marxist thought crime' or as normal people call it, insulting a sister made in the image of God, is found in Genesis 1:27 and Galatians 3:28. God abhors sexism, it's about time you did too.

Our Lady's supposed priesthood is the most tenuous and ridiculous notion, gleaned by people entirely unfamiliar with nuanced thought. You'll be telling us that because sometimes copes are put on her statues it means Anglo-Catholics consider her a priest... [Roll Eyes]

Posted by Louise (# 30) on :

hosting

Indifferently, to paraphrase my recent warning to others
kindly stop driving a horse and cart through C4 - 'if you must get personal take it to Hell'. We do allow a lot of lee way for critiquing arguments but this

"Same with Jade and her harridan esque line of questioning."

is blatantly making a conflict personal with another poster. Kindly stop now as per C4 or take it to Hell.

Jade and others, please be sure not to respond in kind - there are several open Hell threads.

Many thanks
Louise
Dead horses Host
hosting off

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Vade Mecum:

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
I think you've replied to the wrong post?

Again, why is Our Lady's priesthood (as demonstrated in those ancient mosaics and icons) not good enough? Ancient and early medieval veneration of the Blessed Virgin Mary is hardly marxist infiltration!

And 'harridan' (along with priestess and bishopess - which are not welcome on the Ship) is sexist. And the 'anti-marxist thought crime' or as normal people call it, insulting a sister made in the image of God, is found in Genesis 1:27 and Galatians 3:28. God abhors sexism, it's about time you did too.
Our Lady's supposed priesthood is the most tenuous and ridiculous notion, gleaned by people entirely unfamiliar with nuanced thought. You'll be telling us that because sometimes copes are put on her statues it means Anglo-Catholics consider her a priest...

*is Anglo-Catholic*
*considers Our Lady a priest*

Sorry, but how is depicting Mary wearing *vestments* and baptising John in the womb not hinting at priestly identity? It is a perfectly valid line of reasoning. I am entirely familiar with nuanced thought, I just don't subscribe to the mental gymnastics involved in (rightly) venerating Our Lady but (wrongly) dismissing her actual power. Mary as intercessor is surely extremely priestly?

Posted by Vade Mecum (# 17688) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:

quote:
Originally posted by Vade Mecum:

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
I think you've replied to the wrong post?

Again, why is Our Lady's priesthood (as demonstrated in those ancient mosaics and icons) not good enough? Ancient and early medieval veneration of the Blessed Virgin Mary is hardly marxist infiltration!

And 'harridan' (along with priestess and bishopess - which are not welcome on the Ship) is sexist. And the 'anti-marxist thought crime' or as normal people call it, insulting a sister made in the image of God, is found in Genesis 1:27 and Galatians 3:28. God abhors sexism, it's about time you did too.
Our Lady's supposed priesthood is the most tenuous and ridiculous notion, gleaned by people entirely unfamiliar with nuanced thought. You'll be telling us that because sometimes copes are put on her statues it means Anglo-Catholics consider her a priest...
*is Anglo-Catholic*
*considers Our Lady a priest*

Sorry, but how is depicting Mary wearing *vestments* and baptising John in the womb not hinting at priestly identity? It is a perfectly valid line of reasoning. I am entirely familiar with nuanced thought, I just don't subscribe to the mental gymnastics involved in (rightly) venerating Our Lady but (wrongly) dismissing her actual power. Mary as intercessor is surely extremely priestly?

Baptism is not a solely priestly act.

Nor is wearing copes

Nor is intercession - in fact, that's the whole *point* of Christianity, according to Hebrews: that you Do Not Need Priests To Intercede For You.

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Indifferently:
Leftists showing their hand again - all the arguments for priestesses and bishopesses have to be secular because the Catholic argument for it is completely non-existent. This is nothing but a Marxist infiltration job and I for one am not fooled.

Sexism (along with racism and classism) is pretty clearly frowned upon as per Galatians 3:28.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Indifferently:
On whose AUTHORITY do you declare this?

God's word written.

If you want to see the arguments, search the threads here. I suspect I've written literally tens of thousands of words on the subject in the last few years, and if anyone cared what I thought about it to start with they will be bored up to their eyeballs with it by now so its not worth repeating if you can use Google.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Bax:
Is there really any prospect of parliament legislating on an issue which, although political, is also theological?

Not according to General Synod it isn't. Not since 1975 anyway when they decided that there were "no fundamental theological objections to the ordination of women to the priesthood". Its supposedly a matter of church government and good order, not the doctrine of God.

And if, God forbid, the thing ever gets decided in Parliament, its only going to be about political equality. No sane MP who wanted to be re-elected is going to give any attention whatsoever l to the opponents of women priests and bishops, apart maybe from using them as an example of how deeply irrelevant they think Christianity is to human life. If they every get mentioned at all it will be to dismiss them as a pointless bunch of nasty misogynistic old fogies.

The only place the anti-women group in the CofE can get any more concessions from is General Synod, and pretty much the only people in General Synod they can get any movement from are the evangelicals who are in favour or women's ordiantion because they are the only people who are likely to do any moving, the liberal and catholic wings of the Anglican triangle being not only split on this issue but entrentched on one side ot the other. There are evangelicals on both sides as well but they have less invested in it, whether women get ordained or not is not fundamental to their self-identification as evangelicals or as Anglicans so they can sometimes give a little in practice, without feeling they are compromising on their principles.

(And yes there are liberal Anglicans in England who are opposed to women's ordination. Odd though it sounds. Probably not many of them but they exist. A couple of them are regular posters here - though at least one claims he supports women bishops while arguing against it at every turn. There's nowt so queer as folk).

quote:
Originally posted by Indifferently:
Sexism? Where exactly does this anti-Marxist thought crime appear in the Bible?

Leftists showing their hand again - all the arguments for priestesses and bishopesses have to be secular because the Catholic argument for it is completely non-existent. This is nothing but a Marxist infiltration job and I for one am not fooled.

What on earth has Marxism got to do with this? Do you even know what the word means? Have you ever read Marx, or even anything about Marx?

Why are you using the name of Marx to describe ideas and people which are nothing to do with Marx or Marxism? You are bearing false witness against your neighbour.

Loads of neighbours in fact - false witness against Christians who accept ordained women because they mostly have theological and scriptural reasons for supporting the ordained minitry of women; false witness against those feminists you hate because they are mostly not Marxists and often strongly opposed to Marxism (as well as being mostly not Christians and mostly not caring about who gets ordained or not ); and false witness against Karl Marx who had fuck all to do with arguments about women's ordination or 21st-century ideas of radical equality.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

In fact, Marxists have often been very sexist. I used to know the Redgraves, and they were involved in the WRP, a Trotskyist party, anyway, there was a huge rumpus when the leader (a Mr Gerry Healey) was discovered having very close encounters with young girls in the movement. Cue headlines about 'Red Sex Slaves', etc.

And there are tons of stories like this in the left-wing movement - I remember when women were asked to make the tea in some groups!

True, there have been some pro-women sentiments also, see for example, Alexandra Kollontai, who set up women's groups, and fought for women's rights, after the Russian revolution.

But feminism has often been intensely denigrated by Marxists, and vice versa.

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
In fact, Marxists have often been very sexist. I used to know the Redgraves, and they were involved in the WRP, a Trotskyist party, anyway, there was a huge rumpus when the leader (a Mr Gerry Healey) was discovered having very close encounters with young girls in the movement. Cue headlines about 'Red Sex Slaves', etc.

And there are tons of stories like this in the left-wing movement - I remember when women were asked to make the tea in some groups!

True, there have been some pro-women sentiments also, see for example, Alexandra Kollontai, who set up women's groups, and fought for women's rights, after the Russian revolution.

But feminism has often been intensely denigrated by Marxists, and vice versa.

Quite - I am a Marxist-feminist, but that's not the same as Marxism. Not all feminists are Marxists either, although the number of Marxist feminists probably outnumber the number of feminist Marxists.

Re women making the tea at left wing groups - I have heard the same thing about early gay liberation groups. I hope it's not the same groups!

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
In fact, Marxists have often been very sexist. I used to know the Redgraves, and they were involved in the WRP, a Trotskyist party, anyway, there was a huge rumpus when the leader (a Mr Gerry Healey) was discovered having very close encounters with young girls in the movement. Cue headlines about 'Red Sex Slaves', etc.

Yep. And the SWP is tearing itself apart in semi-public over similar bad behaviour right now and has been for a couple of years.

That's not neccessarily "sexist" in a strict sense of course. The abusive political leader might well be a feminist in theory and still be a sexual bully. All it takes is being a bit of a shit. And they might well be abusing male comrades as well I suppose. Maybe they are shits to everyone.

I'm not a fan of the SWP [Frown]

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
hosting

Indifferently, to paraphrase my recent warning to others
kindly stop driving a horse and cart through C4 - 'if you must get personal take it to Hell'. We do allow a lot of lee way for critiquing arguments but this

"Same with Jade and her harridan esque line of questioning."

is blatantly making a conflict personal with another poster. Kindly stop now as per C4 or take it to Hell.

Jade and others, please be sure not to respond in kind - there are several open Hell threads.

Many thanks
Louise
Dead horses Host
hosting off

[ADMIN]

When a Host has give direction to one shipmate as many times as Louise and Tony have you it's a sign someone needs a restorative vacation.

Enjoy your two-week break from the boards, Indifferently, and please use that time thinking about more effective ways of using them than that which you have currently chosen.

Kelly Alves
Admin

Posted by Aelred of Rievaulx (# 16860) on :

Look, VM, calling me a heretic won't cut it. That really is arrogant tosh. I'm a perfectly ordinary bible-loving creed-saying ex animo Christian.

I just think sexism and homophobia stink.

Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leo:
THE Church? The vast majority of the church is Roman catholic and Eastern orthodox - neither of whom have a majority in favour of women being ordained.

quote:
Originally posted by Indifferently:
The vast majority of "the Church"? What "Church"? The Church of England is but a small corner of the Church, the vast majority of which finds the idea of women in mitres to be anathema.

quote:
Originally posted by Vade Mecum:
It is a total casting aside of the traditional understanding of the essence of the Christian Church.

quote:
Originally posted by Vade Mecum:
We share so little common understanding of the Church that further discussion is pointless.

I fully agree with the ecclesiological point which is being made in the above quotes. Though Leo is just playing devil's advocate, and is a supporter of women bishops, it puzzles me why Indifferently and Vade Mecum believe that the Church of England can still give them an ecclesiology they can live with. For many years I held to the branch theory , beloved of the nineteenth century Oxford Movement. But as other shipmates, Ken for example, always said, the Church of England is a church of the Reformation and is Protestant.

Although Anglo-Catholicism has had an enormous effect on C of E practices, any notion that it is a branch of the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church has now finally been laid to rest. As a Reformation church, the C of E has used its democratic process to ordain women to the priesthood. Though it failed, again by its own rules, to approve women bishops last year, the equality fascists will go to any length, from dissolving synod to parliamentary intervention, in order to get this through. Then it will be entitled to say, "This is what we do. If you want membership of this church, you accept it."

The ecclesiology which Vade Mecum and Indifferently seem to believe in, has been definitively lost to the C of E, if indeed it ever existed in the first place. They will find no rest there, unless they abandon those principles.

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

No, the CoE is Anglican AND Reformed. Since when was ordaining women not compatible with being part of the One Holy Catholic And Apostolic Church, as all CoE congregations affirm in the creed every Sunday?

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
...any notion that it is a branch of the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church has now finally been laid to rest.

Not at all! Anglican churches are part of the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church, just as are churches of other Protestant denominations, and also Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches.

And to correct Leo, there are more Protestants than there are Orthodox. And I'm not sure that most Orthodox would like being treated as Catholics with better beards and chanting. Lots of them would think that (western) Catholics and Protestants have more in common with each other than with the Orthodox.

(Also, on this and similar threads, Leo shows little sign of being in favour of women being bishops)

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

Quite (about the CofE being part of the OHCAAC). I've mentioned before, I think, ++ Geoffrey Fisher's encounter* with some RC seminarians, who had never heard of Canterbury, at some airport somewhere in Africa or Asia:

'Are you a Catholic?'
'Not what you mean by a Catholic'
'Are you then a Protestant?'
'Not what you mean by a Protestant'.

*In Latin, of course, this being the only language they had in common.

Posted by Vade Mecum (# 17688) on :

Well, Indifferently can jolly well fend for himself should he ever return, but I would argue that the CofE is more than those of its members who happen to be alive right now. Indeed, if we're serious (as I am) about our being part of the OHCAC, then we're obliged (I think) to take into account the views not only of current members of the churches with whom we are (i.e. should be) desirous of being in communion with, but also those members (and our own) who have fallen asleep in the hope of the Resurrection.

So, rather than say: my church is now dead and mired in heresy, I say that this generation has abandoned the teachings of the church. I am content to wait for this to cease to be the case, as I fervently hope shall be the case. I am well aware that this is unlikely to occur within my lifetime.

Thus I think it incorrect to say that "The Anglican Church ordains women", because it manifestly did not for most of its history. A minority of the historic Church (Anglican or otherwise) purport so to do, in defiance of the faith passed to the Apostles.

Chesterton: "Tradition means giving votes to the most obscure of all classes – our ancestors. It is the democracy of the dead. Tradition refuses to submit to the small and arrogant oligarchy of those who merely happen to be walking around."

quote:
Jade C: Since when was ordaining women not compatible with being part of the One Holy Catholic And Apostolic Church, as all CoE congregations affirm in the creed every Sunday?

Since one of the Marks of the Church was the possession of valid Orders. i.e., since the beginning.

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

But this is the crux of the matter - why does one being a woman invalidate one's Orders? Particularly given the Feast of St Mary Magdalene being so recently gone, the Apostle to the Apostles, it is ridiculous that having XX chromosones instead of XY overrides the calling to the priesthood (and diaconate and episcopate) that God has given so many women. Just because churches have historically ignored God calling women (because said churches were and still are run by men who were afraid of women with power...unless they were the BVM in bland statue form) doesn't mean that God hasn't been calling women to the priesthood since He instituted it.

How do you explain the fact that God has called so many women to the priesthood?

Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :

That's assuming he's calling them, of course. On the other hand, they could just be wrong.

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

If they were, then there would be a demonstrable difference between their abilities as priest once ordained compared to their male colleagues. That has not been the case, and many churches have flourished under care of a female priest. If God hadn't called them, surely that wouldn't happen? Women are evidently as capable of fulfilling the criteria for the priesthood as men are. There's nothing about men that makes them inherently better priests.

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
That's assuming he's calling them, of course. On the other hand, they could just be wrong.

...or perhaps those who deny the possibility that God might call women have put God in a box and covered their own ears.

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
That's assuming he's calling them, of course. On the other hand, they could just be wrong.

That's why there is a selection process, where calling (among other things) is assessed. Either you believe the process of selection the CofE uses for both men and women is flawed in some way (and please do explain how, without reference to the OOW); that it is applied differently to men and women (again, please explain how); or that Anglican orders were never valid in the first place.

Incidentally, on the issue of "a minority of the historic churches" ordaining women, are we going by church or by membership? Obviously as far as membership goes the RCC has the deciding vote, having half the world's Christians, but if we're talking about churches then that's a different matter, and tough to draw the line. For example, given the Episcopal ties between Anglicanism and Old Catholicism, do these now constitute one church? Or does every province of the Anglican communion count as a separate church (as would be supported by Anglican ideas). Indeed, how many churches make up the RCC and Orthodoxy? Not all provinces of Anglicanism ordain women, but many smaller churches do. What about Methodists? Presbyterians (the Church of Scotland has an arguable claim to be the continuation of the historic church in Scotland)? How should we split Lutheranism? Is the word "historic" intended to refer to Apostolic Succession, institutional continuation, age or something else?

[ 25. July 2013, 07:38: Message edited by: Arethosemyfeet ]

Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
If they were, then there would be a demonstrable difference between their abilities as priest once ordained compared to their male colleagues. That has not been the case, and many churches have flourished under care of a female priest. If God hadn't called them, surely that wouldn't happen? Women are evidently as capable of fulfilling the criteria for the priesthood as men are. There's nothing about men that makes them inherently better priests.

Now I would be inclined to agree with this, as someone who left the CofE because of the style of arguments being made against women in the priesthood, and not being answered very publically. But I am also an argumentative person, and an answer to this position has occurred.

In the past I have come across an argument by which people get round the priests who is a proven bad person, and the efficacy of his administering the Sacraments. Apparently God has a work round for this, if the man has been ordained. So, if God wants to make sure that the Sacraments are available to His flock, and can ignore the nature of the priest in order to do that, why can He not have a similar work round in the case of a woman, so although she is not capapble of being a priest, God is capable of providing the usual services to the faithful. Thus a woman would appear to be fulfilling the task, while it is really God doing it, and she remains not a priest.

On the other hand, if God does that, how would that be different from the woman being a priest anyway?

Just playing with ideas here. I have never been able to understand why having more chromosomal material invalidates a woman from being a full human. And if she cannot be a priest, then she lacks something that makes a man a human being.

Posted by iamchristianhearmeroar (# 15483) on :

The notion of a definitive "calling" to the priesthood is a relatively modern development (or possibly redevelopment) isn't it? Those who went into the church in days gone by because they were the second son of the lord of the manor, or they desired an easy time with the living of a parish can hardly be described as "called" in the way it would be understood in today's discernment process. But that's immaterial for the present discussion...

The application to tradition, specifically in the Church of England, is always a bit dangerous for conservative Anglo-Catholics isn't it? What would Archbishop Cranmer make of most modern conservative Anglo-Catholic practice? What would the framers of the 39 Articles think? What do those Articles themselves say about, I don't know, Benediction of the Most Blessed Sacrament?

Application to tradition is fine as long as you apply to the bit of tradition that happens to suit your argument. (Just like the Bible)

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

I have yet to hear a convincing theological argument against OoW (the 'alter Christus' thing cuts no ice because surely the point of the Incarnation is that God became Man, not that God became man). AFAICS it's all ecumenical concerns (what will Big Sister think, conveniently forgetting that Big Sister doesn't recognise our orders anyway), Headship (a particular reading of Scripture which, oddly enough, just happens to support the power interests of those who are mostly directing the reading), sociological / cultural conservatism, unspoken and perhaps even unacknowledged menstrual taboos, or straight sexism. As for the dead generations on whose behalf vademecum pleads (BTW he and Ad Orientem shoudl get together sometime: they could have a lovely time) it makes no difference whatsoever to them. Might as well say that we should undo the Reformation because of the expectations of dead Christians in England that their Church would be under the authority of Rome.
I was sceptical about OoW before it happened in England, largely on culturally conservative grounds (and also because a local deaconess who was big in MOW got right up my nose). Then it happened and I saw some very good female clergy - some lousy ones too, but then the same is true of male clergy. By their fruits ye shall know them.

Posted by Vade Mecum (# 17688) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
But this is the crux of the matter - why does one being a woman invalidate one's Orders? Particularly given the Feast of St Mary Magdalene being so recently gone, the Apostle to the Apostles, it is ridiculous that having XX chromosones instead of XY overrides the calling to the priesthood (and diaconate and episcopate) that God has given so many women. Just because churches have historically ignored God calling women (because said churches were and still are run by men who were afraid of women with power...unless they were the BVM in bland statue form) doesn't mean that God hasn't been calling women to the priesthood since He instituted it.

How do you explain the fact that God has called so many women to the priesthood?

But this is all very much begging the point, isn't it? Does He? Prove it. As iamchristianhearmeroar says, modern vocational thought is very, well, modern: as he doesn't say, the early Church clearly considered the calling of the Church (rather than the interior calling of the ordinand) to be more important - hence the forcible ordinations of talented men.

And your reduction of the difference between male and female to chromosomes, rhetorical or not, speaks to the point: we have, I imagine, very different conceptions of the nature of sex as ordered by Creation. It isn't just genitals (as the actress said &c...) Kallistos Ware is very good on this point, here as elsewhere.

As for the CofE's own selection process, I have absolutely no confidence in it, because it uses a spurious methodology and is steeped in spurious theology. The fact that it deems women capable of Holy Orders is irrelevant, for it is the Church, not a particular committee, which exercises/evaluates God's call of people to the priesthood.

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
If they were, then there would be a demonstrable difference between their abilities as priest once ordained compared to their male colleagues.

Would there? Why? Women can and do preach, inspire, care pastorally and can wear a vestment just as well as any of us: as I tire of explaining to people IRL, That Is Not The Point. Surely the only thing necessarily lacking would be the Sacraments? And how do we tell if they're there or no?

quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
As for the dead generations on whose behalf vademecum pleads (BTW he and Ad Orientem shoudl get together sometime: they could have a lovely time) it makes no difference whatsoever to them. Might as well say that we should undo the Reformation because of the expectations of dead Christians in England that their Church would be under the authority of Rome.

Well, only if the communion of saints retains no interest whatever in the Church Militant, no desire for its continuance, its Sacraments, its Salvation. Which doesn't seem entirely reasonable. And yes, rolling back the Deformation would be lovely, glad you suggested it.

As for PennyS's point: Opposition to OoW often gets labelled Donatism, but in reality they are complete polar opposites: the former is about whether X can be a priest; the latter about whether X, given that he is a priest can cease so to be if he acts wickedly. It is always God rather than the priest who acts, because it is always His sacraments He/we celebrate(s). But the ordinary channel is the priesthood: God can act outside of this channel, obviously, but relying on Him so to do is presumption and pride.

quote:
Originally posted by iamchristianhearmeroar:
Incidentally, on the issue of "a minority of the historic churches" ordaining women, are we going by church or by membership? Obviously as far as membership goes the RCC has the deciding vote, having half the world's Christians, but if we're talking about churches then that's a different matter, and tough to draw the line.

Except there is One Church, part of which we all seek to be, so we could never be talking about 'churches' casting votes, but of the weight of the paradosis we have received corporately. And your formulation misses the point of the angle of history: even those churches which now purport to ordain women did not always so.

quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
(BTW he and Ad Orientem shoudl get together sometime: they could have a lovely time)

Doubtless.

Posted by iamchristianhearmeroar (# 15483) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Vade Mecum
Well, only if the communion of saints retains no interest whatever in the Church Militant, no desire for its continuance, its Sacraments, its Salvation. Which doesn't seem entirely reasonable. And yes, rolling back the Deformation would be lovely, glad you suggested it.

Doesn't that depend entirely on the membership of the communion of saints, and some presumption that all members would be in agreement about every point? One can't assume, say, that Blessed John Henry Newman and Martin Luther would agree on everything can one?! So who are we to satisfy in honouring the dead?

Do you also imply that no Reformed Christian can be among the communion of saints?

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ken:
And to correct Leo, there are more Protestants than there are Orthodox. And I'm not sure that most Orthodox would like being treated as Catholics with better beards and chanting. Lots of them would think that (western) Catholics and Protestants have more in common with each other than with the Orthodox.

(Also, on this and similar threads, Leo shows little sign of being in favour of women being bishops)

I didn't say that the orthodoxen outnumber protestants. i said

quote:
The vast majority of the church is Roman catholic and Eastern orthodox

- the two together outnumber protestants.

World population - 6.9 billion people

Christians - 33.32 percent of world population

Catholics - 17 percent
Orthodox - 3.53 percent
Anglicans - 1.25 percent
Protestants - 5.78 percent

Or
There are about 1.5 billion Christians.

1.1 billion are Catholic.

300 million are Protestants.

100 million are Orthodox.

One source claims Another or Catholicism - 1.2 billion
Eastern Orthodoxy - 230 million
Protestantism - 600–800 million

I am in favour of women bishops but ONLY if there are safeguards for the so-called traditionalists.

Posted by Vade Mecum (# 17688) on :

quote:
Originally posted by iamchristianhearmeroar:
Do you also imply that no Reformed Christian can be among the communion of saints?

No, just that if they are there, they will have seen the error of their ways... [/mild facetiousness]

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

Vade Mecum - please outline what it is about women that prevents them from fulfilling the priestly role. And I spoke only of chromosones since genitalia is irrelevant to gender, but even then I wasn't quite right since XX = female excludes trans women, who are as fully female as cisgender women (women who identify as the gender they were assigned at birth, opposite of trans). So there isn't some kind of magic that comes with having a penis that makes one able to be a priest because having a vagina makes the Sacraments not work, since some women have penises and some men have vaginas. And some people have both! Reducing people to biology seems to be ignoring Galatians 3:28.

Posted by Vade Mecum (# 17688) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Vade Mecum - please outline what it is about women that prevents them from fulfilling the priestly role. And I spoke only of chromosones since genitalia is irrelevant to gender, but even then I wasn't quite right since XX = female excludes trans women, who are as fully female as cisgender women (women who identify as the gender they were assigned at birth, opposite of trans). So there isn't some kind of magic that comes with having a penis that makes one able to be a priest because having a vagina makes the Sacraments not work, since some women have penises and some men have vaginas. And some people have both! Reducing people to biology seems to be ignoring Galatians 3:28.

I am not the creator: I cannot outline the exact ontological realities which underlie sex. However, read metropolitan Ware (linked above) on the role of sex in the Christian Community: as good an attempt as many.

You take a reductionist biological view of what is a complex ontological state, with facets which extend beyond merely the bodily, which seems to be the limit within which you would confine the difference.

Galatians 3:28 says nothing about sex and everything about the equality of, not Orders, but Baptism , about which Paul is speaking, and which could not obviate sex because that would be to obviate Creation itself. The torturing of this verse tires and frustrates me no end.

As it happens, I do not accept the hypothesis that trans women are women: prove that they are not mutilated men. So presenting your hyper-progressive opinions as facts which support you case is slightly trying.

Frankly, I don't place too much weight on any one of the arguments which might be advanced: the fact is that Christ ordained no women as priests or bishops, and the Church has ever understood Holy Orders to be conferable only upon men, and since, as Ad Orientem points out every other thread, what is true now cannot contradict what was true before and remain truth, we have no authority for pretending to ordain women.

We come back to the fact that we're both asking different questions: you look for an evidence-based interrogation of the precise reason why women cannot be ordained, I for an explanation of precisely on what authority we presume to meddle with the Sacramental Order of the Church. I contend that the latter is infinitely more important than the former. Naturally you will disagree, at which point discussion becomes a bit moot, no?

Posted by iamchristianhearmeroar (# 15483) on :

Er, did Christ "ordain" anyone as "priests and bishops" as we know them?

Posted by CL (# 16145) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
If they were, then there would be a demonstrable difference between their abilities as priest once ordained compared to their male colleagues. That has not been the case, and many churches have flourished under care of a female priest. If God hadn't called them, surely that wouldn't happen? Women are evidently as capable of fulfilling the criteria for the priesthood as men are. There's nothing about men that makes them inherently better priests.

What a curious form of Donatism.

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

Err, trans women are not 'mutilated men'. Many trans women do not have gender reassignment surgery of any kind, either due to cost/lack of availability or just because they don't want it. Gender isn't based on what's between your legs.

And this transphobia is quite disgusting and un-Christian.

As for Christ ordaining priests, He didn't ordain anyone.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
So there isn't some kind of magic that comes with having a penis that makes one able to be a priest because having a vagina makes the Sacraments not work, since some women have penises and some men have vaginas.

I strongly suspect that everyone who holds the opinion that only men can be priests would also hold the opinion that a female->male transgender person is not a man, at least in so far as his qualification for the priesthood goes. I don't see how anyone can believe that priesthood requires maleness and also accept the description of gender that you propose here.

You will, I am sure, recall the recent discussion on transgender issues, in which IngoB, amongst others, described how the idea of "male person in female body" was a complete nonsense to his way of thinking.

I don't think we need to repeat that discussion in this thread - suffice it to say that there are plenty of people who would say that your logic was fine, but your premise (the definition of gender) is wrong.

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

quote:
Originally posted by CL:

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
If they were, then there would be a demonstrable difference between their abilities as priest once ordained compared to their male colleagues. That has not been the case, and many churches have flourished under care of a female priest. If God hadn't called them, surely that wouldn't happen? Women are evidently as capable of fulfilling the criteria for the priesthood as men are. There's nothing about men that makes them inherently better priests.
What a curious form of Donatism.

Not at all, it's just a logical view of how one would tell if someone was really not called by God to be a priest - there would surely be a visible effect. There clearly is in men who enter the priesthood but are not actually called by God to be there, so why not for women? It makes no sense for God to not want somebody to be a priest, but not actually make that clear. There are bad women priests but also bad male priests.

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
So there isn't some kind of magic that comes with having a penis that makes one able to be a priest because having a vagina makes the Sacraments not work, since some women have penises and some men have vaginas.
I strongly suspect that everyone who holds the opinion that only men can be priests would also hold the opinion that a female->male transgender person is not a man, at least in so far as his qualification for the priesthood goes. I don't see how anyone can believe that priesthood requires maleness and also accept the description of gender that you propose here.

You will, I am sure, recall the recent discussion on transgender issues, in which IngoB, amongst others, described how the idea of "male person in female body" was a complete nonsense to his way of thinking.

I don't think we need to repeat that discussion in this thread - suffice it to say that there are plenty of people who would say that your logic was fine, but your premise (the definition of gender) is wrong.

But presumably according to a gender essentialist view, trans women would be perfectly entitled to become priests, since they are 'really men'?

It is very sad but not surprising that transphobia is not treated as seriously as homophobia on SoF.

Posted by Garasu (# 17152) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Presumably according to a gender essentialist view, trans women would be perfectly entitled to become priests, since they are 'really men'?

I'm a little surprised that it hasn't come up... Have I just missed it? Or has there really been no case of a priest seeking gender reassignment?

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Garasu:

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Presumably according to a gender essentialist view, trans women would be perfectly entitled to become priests, since they are 'really men'?
I'm a little surprised that it hasn't come up... Have I just missed it? Or has there really been no case of a priest seeking gender reassignment?

I believe that in the CoE a trans woman priest has transitioned while ordained - though obviously in the CoE that's not an issue in terms of women being able to be priests. I have no idea about churches that do not have female clergy.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

quote:
Originally posted by CL:

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
If they were, then there would be a demonstrable difference between their abilities as priest once ordained compared to their male colleagues. That has not been the case, and many churches have flourished under care of a female priest. If God hadn't called them, surely that wouldn't happen? Women are evidently as capable of fulfilling the criteria for the priesthood as men are. There's nothing about men that makes them inherently better priests.
What a curious form of Donatism.

What a sadly uncurious and predictable form of pomposity.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
But presumably according to a gender essentialist view, trans women would be perfectly entitled to become priests, since they are 'really men'?

I suspect that, in such a view, "a man who thought he was a woman" would be disqualified because of his apparent disordered mental state.

quote:

It is very sad but not surprising that transphobia is not treated as seriously as homophobia on SoF.

I don't think it's fair to call this view "transphobia", although as I recall, you were also describing as transphobic men who said that they would not date a trans woman because of her ex-male status, so I don't think we're going to agree on this one.

As I said in the previous discussion, the thing that we know is that there are some people who are born with male bodies but think that they are women, and vice versa (I'm leaving intersex conditions to one side for the moment). That is a fact.

There are, broadly speaking, two possible explanations - either the person is correct, and they are a "woman trapped in a man's body", or the person is a man, but has some kind of mental delusion that makes him think he should be female. These explanations are indistinguishable.

Now, given that you have a brain and a body that disagree on gender, there are two possibilities - fix the brain, or fix the body. We don't know how to fix the brain - the only thing that we can confidently do is alter the body to make it more closely resemble the other sex. One can choose to do this - to encourage the person to dress and live as the sex they think they are, and possibly have surgery to make their body more closely match that sex - regardless of which one of the two possible explanations above is correct.

But if some kind of essential ontological maleness is a requirement for priesthood, then which of the two possible explanations is correct must matter, and how we choose to treat transgender people, or the human social construct that we call "gender" can't possibly be relevant.

Posted by Garasu (# 17152) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
I suspect that, in such a view, "a man who thought he was a woman" would be disqualified because of his apparent disordered mental state.

Why isn't that Donatism?

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Garasu:

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
I suspect that, in such a view, "a man who thought he was a woman" would be disqualified because of his apparent disordered mental state.
Why isn't that Donatism?

People who are, for reasons of mental instability or whatever else, not suited to the priesthood are not, in practice, ordained. This doesn't mean that an ordained priest who proves unsuited to the pastoral ministry has invalid orders.

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
But presumably according to a gender essentialist view, trans women would be perfectly entitled to become priests, since they are 'really men'?
I suspect that, in such a view, "a man who thought he was a woman" would be disqualified because of his apparent disordered mental state.

quote:

It is very sad but not surprising that transphobia is not treated as seriously as homophobia on SoF.
I don't think it's fair to call this view "transphobia", although as I recall, you were also describing as transphobic men who said that they would not date a trans woman because of her ex-male status, so I don't think we're going to agree on this one.

As I said in the previous discussion, the thing that we know is that there are some people who are born with male bodies but think that they are women, and vice versa (I'm leaving intersex conditions to one side for the moment). That is a fact.

There are, broadly speaking, two possible explanations - either the person is correct, and they are a "woman trapped in a man's body", or the person is a man, but has some kind of mental delusion that makes him think he should be female. These explanations are indistinguishable.

Now, given that you have a brain and a body that disagree on gender, there are two possibilities - fix the brain, or fix the body. We don't know how to fix the brain - the only thing that we can confidently do is alter the body to make it more closely resemble the other sex. One can choose to do this - to encourage the person to dress and live as the sex they think they are, and possibly have surgery to make their body more closely match that sex - regardless of which one of the two possible explanations above is correct.

But if some kind of essential ontological maleness is a requirement for priesthood, then which of the two possible explanations is correct must matter, and how we choose to treat transgender people, or the human social construct that we call "gender" can't possibly be relevant.

Calling transwomen 'mutilated men' is using insulting and transphobic language.

There are ways to disagree on gender essentialism without insulting trans people.

Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:

quote:
Originally posted by Garasu:

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
I suspect that, in such a view, "a man who thought he was a woman" would be disqualified because of his apparent disordered mental state.
Why isn't that Donatism?
People who are, for reasons of mental instability or whatever else, not suited to the priesthood are not, in practice, ordained. This doesn't mean that an ordained priest who proves unsuited to the pastoral ministry has invalid orders.

That explains why the RCC has been overflowing with paedophile priests then?

Posted by Garasu (# 17152) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
People who are, for reasons of mental instability or whatever else, not suited to the priesthood are not, in practice, ordained. This doesn't mean that an ordained priest who proves unsuited to the pastoral ministry has invalid orders.

Isn't that conflating their mediating role with their pastoral role?

Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Vade Mecum:
Well, Indifferently can jolly well fend for himself should he ever return, but I would argue that the CofE is more than those of its members who happen to be alive right now. Indeed, if we're serious (as I am) about our being part of the OHCAC, then we're obliged (I think) to take into account the views not only of current members of the churches with whom we are (i.e. should be) desirous of being in communion with, but also those members (and our own) who have fallen asleep in the hope of the Resurrection.

That would be a good argument if past generations had voted on the point.

If, throughout the church's history, the ordination of women had been on the agenda, freely discussed, arguments for and against considered, the experiences of women listened to as being of equal importance to those of men, in the absence of any social or cultural expectation that women did not belong in professional or leadership roles, AND after all that most Christians agreed that women, despite their equal competence and worth, could not be priests, well, we'd have to take that seriously.

But since that manifestly has not happened, you don't really have much of a point. In fact, only recently in church history have we started even approximating to that position, but as soon as we got close, we started ordaining women. And the more openly the issue is discussed, the fewer social restrictions are placed on women generally, and the more exposure Christians have to women's ministry, mirabile dictu, the more they tend to accept and approve of women's ordination.

So, no, I don't think you can count the votes of Christians for whom women's ordination was never on the agenda, or who were conditioned not to see women as equally capable of learning and leadership, or whose aspiration to ministry was never listened to or considered, as enthusiastic votes in your favour. Those people never voted. Either they couldn't, or they weren't allowed to. It is the responsibility of today's Christians who are privileged to be able to address the question fairly, to decide what is right.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
That explains why the RCC has been overflowing with paedophile priests then?

The RCC may be guilty of many things with regard to paedophile priests, but knowingly ordaining a paedophile would be a clear breach of canon law. This isn't to say that it hasn't happened, but that it shouldn't.

None of that alters the fact that if a paedophile is ordained, he is every bit as much a priest as every other priest.

The RCC, however, says that it does not have the authority to ordain women. So should a woman sneak under the radar (whether ordained by a rogue bishop, or by passing herself off as a man) then she would no more be ordained than a man would be married if he went through a marriage service with an already married woman.

There is a trans man called Shannon Kearns who is a priest in the North American Old Catholic Church - but they ordain women, so just like Jade's mention of the C of E there's no particular impediment ion their eyes to ordaining a trans man.

Posted by Louise (# 30) on :

hosting

This seems to have turned into the old Priestly Genitalia Dead Horse. Please leave this thread and decamp to the original to discuss general arguments about ordination of women, unless you'd like to discuss the House of Bishops statement on women Bishops, or Female Bishops in the C of E, in which case you can still post here.

Transgender issues should be discussed in Purgatory, unless they specifically impact on homosexuality or ordination of women. If they don't relate to Female Bishops in the C of E, then not on this thread please. Either start a new thread on the correct board, or if it relates to Ordination of Women take it to Priestly Genitalia.

This thread only for female bishops and the C of E, please!

many thanks!

Louise
Dead Horses Host

hosting off

[ 25. July 2013, 23:32: Message edited by: Louise ]

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0