|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Ordination of Women Contagion Theory
|
Peter Spence
Shipmate
# 14085
|
Posted
In my travels to and from various religious blogs I've come across the belief that when a bishop ordains a woman he becomes somehow "spoiled" and any male subsequently ordained by him would have either extremely suspect or completely invalid orders. I assume this would be subscibed to by those who prefer the ministry of 'Flying Bishops' in the CoE. Just wondering if this is the official teaching of any Church and what the theological basis is.
Posts: 51 | From: Dublin | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Magic Wand
Shipmate
# 4227
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Peter Spence:
In my travels to and from various religious blogs I've come across the belief that when a bishop ordains a woman he becomes somehow "spoiled" and any male subsequently ordained by him would have either extremely suspect or completely invalid orders. I assume this would be subscibed to by those who prefer the ministry of 'Flying Bishops' in the CoE. Just wondering if this is the official teaching of any Church and what the theological basis is.
I have come across this "tainted hands" theory before, but am not personally familiar with anyone with anyone who subscribes to it. It makes no sense to me, and it appears to be a very poor understanding of sacramental theology, specifically the concept of intention.
Posts: 371 | From: Princeton, NJ | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Vade Mecum
Shipmate
# 17688
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Peter Spence:
In my travels to and from various religious blogs I've come across the belief that when a bishop ordains a woman he becomes somehow "spoiled" and any male subsequently ordained by him would have either extremely suspect or completely invalid orders. I assume this would be subscibed to by those who prefer the ministry of 'Flying Bishops' in the CoE. Just wondering if this is the official teaching of any Church and what the theological basis is.
This is the so-called theology of 'taint', and precious few people actually hold it, in my experience.
What they might believe is that, by purporting to ordain women, said bishop has demonstrated that he possesses a flawed idea of what the sacrament of orders is, and thus his intention in ordaining would be defective (the validity of a sacrament being traditionally held to be a case of valid matter, form, and intent).
It may also be the case that people who oppose OoW speak of bishops as being 'spoiled' from 'soundness' or what-have-you, without necessarily attaching any theological force to the statement. It is easy to see how such statements may be mis-read, or even harden into cod-theologies over time.
--------------------
I have given them thy word; and the world hath hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.
Posts: 307 | From: North London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Siegfried
Ship's ferret
# 29
|
Posted
I've heard the "taint' bit discussed on the Ship before, but only in the context of a priest who was ordained by a woman bishop (which, is still entirely a what-if question in the CoE). I'm glad to see from other responses that this extension of it is held with even less regard.
--------------------
Siegfried
Life is just a bowl of cherries!
Posts: 5592 | From: Tallahassee, FL USA | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Belle Ringer
Shipmate
# 13379
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Siegfried:
I've heard the "taint' bit discussed on the Ship before, but only in the context of a priest who was ordained by a woman bishop (which, is still entirely a what-if question in the CoE). I'm glad to see from other responses that this extension of it is held with even less regard.
Hmm, a real bishop wouldn't do that so maybe he's not a real bishop and as a result your ordination is not real?
Or maybe it's guilt by association - if you let *that* Bishop ordain you, probably you agree with the terrible thing he did, meaning you are no better than he? (Do people have a choice which bishop?)
Does the taint work backwards making suspect the ordinations of men in preceding years, or just forwards affecting the men ordained in following years?
Posts: 5830 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Amos
Shipmate
# 44
|
Posted
Only following years. He was fine before he did it. This theology is very like the old-fashioned view that if your Kennel-club registered bitch gets caught by a dog of another breed (or no particular breed at all), every puppy she produces forever afterwards will be a mongrel. And yes, there are people who believe this.
--------------------
At the end of the day we face our Maker alongside Jesus--ken
Posts: 7667 | From: Summerisle | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
If you believe that a bishop has a defective understanding of orders and that therefore any ordinations carried out by him are defective, it does make a nonsense of any desire to remain in the same communion. Either such a bishop is schismatic or you are. You can't then go complaining that someone that you're in schism with isn't giving you an equal and honoured place or is only giving you a code of practice.
It's also a bit odd to worry about a defective intention in ordaining women and not worry about evangelical bishops who profess a non-sacramental understanding of orders.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
The thoughtful opponents of OoW on these boards (and IRL) have, IME, repudiated such a view. If a bishop ordains a woman FiF types would claim to be in impaired communion with him but not that any subsequent male priests he ordained were invalid. If one were to be ordained (as a man) as a priest by, say, the Bishop of Southwark and subsequently come to the conclusion that one was mistaken on the question of the validity of women's orders I think the position of the various Catholic societies within the C of E would be that there is more joy in heaven over one sinner that repenteth than an insistence that said clergyman be reordained by a Flying Bishop.
I'm fairly certain that Crufts theology as described by Amos exists but I'm also pretty sure it's not the official position of FiF et. al. Quite apart from anything else it would also entail that Confirmations of most Anglican laity were invalid since 1992. I would, frankly, bet my car and my kindle that if you join a FiF shack they do not insist that you be reconfirmed if your confirming bishop were not kosher. Certainly when I attended a FiF place for a few months for weekdays and Holy Days of Obligation for various complicated reasons some years ago no-one seemed other than pleased to see me. I didn't get the impression that if people found out that I was confirmed by +Colin Buchanan that I would be cast out with bell, book and candle.
I have less knowledge of Con. Evo. shacks but I think they regard the whole business of validity of orders as a nonsense (there are days when I distinctly sympathise) and primarily regard bishops as sound or unsound as to biblical orthodoxy rather than valid or invalid as to whom they have ordained.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
pererin
Shipmate
# 16956
|
Posted
I suspect the Crufts theology ![[Smile]](smile.gif) was mainly about ensuring that allies got onto the bench of bishops.
--------------------
"They go to and fro in the evening, they grin like a dog, and run about through the city." (Psalm 59.6)
Posts: 446 | From: Llantrisant | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gildas:
The thoughtful opponents of OoW on these boards (and IRL) have, IME, repudiated such a view.
If I understand the situation correctly, it's that they have indeed denied subscribing to such a view, but other opinions they have expressed as part of their argument against the ordination of women can be logically extended to support it, and I don't think there has been an explanation of why such an extension is not implied by their stated views. In particular the very existence of the flying Bishops strongly implies that there is some defect in the ministry of those Bishops who are willing to ordain women, and that defect is sufficiently vast that a parish cannot countenance their continued oversight. That implies that the ordination of women goes beyond mere doctrinal disagreement (otherwise every liberal parish with a conservative Bishop, and vice-versa, would be demanding a flying Bishop) and fundamentally affects the efficacy of the Bishop.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by Gildas:
The thoughtful opponents of OoW on these boards (and IRL) have, IME, repudiated such a view.
If I understand the situation correctly, it's that they have indeed denied subscribing to such a view, but other opinions they have expressed as part of their argument against the ordination of women can be logically extended to support it, and I don't think there has been an explanation of why such an extension is not implied by their stated views. In particular the very existence of the flying Bishops strongly implies that there is some defect in the ministry of those Bishops who are willing to ordain women, and that defect is sufficiently vast that a parish cannot countenance their continued oversight. That implies that the ordination of women goes beyond mere doctrinal disagreement (otherwise every liberal parish with a conservative Bishop, and vice-versa, would be demanding a flying Bishop) and fundamentally affects the efficacy of the Bishop.
The 'defect' in the ordaining bishop is that by ordaining women he has impaired his communion with the opponents of OoW, not that his ability to ordain has been permanently nixed.
I agree as to the extent that there is a certain degree of humbug in this position. Friends in the Diocese of Chichester joke that they would like a flying bishop who would ordain women. Which isn't going to happen. Basically if your parish opposes OoW you can apply for alternative episcopal oversight. If your parish is in favour and your bishop opposed you are stuffed. But it's not the case that Anglican opponents of OoW hold, officially, that one ceases to be a validly consecrated Bishop when one's hands rest on the head of a candidate for the priesthood.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Macrina
Shipmate
# 8807
|
Posted
See the problem I have with this theory is the same problem Augustine had with Donatus and his 'anyone who sinned once has invalid sacraments' idea.
It's not the priest or the bishop who is doing the ordaining. It's God THROUGH the bishop. So we can't go around saying that anything the bishop does as a human can somehow mess up the ability of God to bestow grace on an individual and affect the validity of the ordinations.
The question of whether the women's ordinations are scripturally, theologically or ecclesiologically valid aside, a bishop deciding they are and doing them isn't going to invalidate him ordaining men because it isn't him doing it.
Mind you, you need a pretty sacramental view of Christianity to buy that one.
Posts: 535 | From: Christchurch, New Zealand | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Vade Mecum
Shipmate
# 17688
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gildas:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by Gildas:
The thoughtful opponents of OoW on these boards (and IRL) have, IME, repudiated such a view.
If I understand the situation correctly, it's that they have indeed denied subscribing to such a view, but other opinions they have expressed as part of their argument against the ordination of women can be logically extended to support it, and I don't think there has been an explanation of why such an extension is not implied by their stated views. In particular the very existence of the flying Bishops strongly implies that there is some defect in the ministry of those Bishops who are willing to ordain women, and that defect is sufficiently vast that a parish cannot countenance their continued oversight. That implies that the ordination of women goes beyond mere doctrinal disagreement (otherwise every liberal parish with a conservative Bishop, and vice-versa, would be demanding a flying Bishop) and fundamentally affects the efficacy of the Bishop.
The 'defect' in the ordaining bishop is that by ordaining women he has impaired his communion with the opponents of OoW, not that his ability to ordain has been permanently nixed.
I agree as to the extent that there is a certain degree of humbug in this position. Friends in the Diocese of Chichester joke that they would like a flying bishop who would ordain women. Which isn't going to happen. Basically if your parish opposes OoW you can apply for alternative episcopal oversight. If your parish is in favour and your bishop opposed you are stuffed. But it's not the case that Anglican opponents of OoW hold, officially, that one ceases to be a validly consecrated Bishop when one's hands rest on the head of a candidate for the priesthood.
The current +Chichester has appointed a suffragan to do just that. You might be thinking of +Eric Kemp, who refused to licence women.
--------------------
I have given them thy word; and the world hath hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.
Posts: 307 | From: North London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Peter Spence
Shipmate
# 14085
|
Posted
Thanks to all who responded; I can't say I'm any the wiser and was rather hoping that someone who actually believes in female ordinand to (male) bishop contagion theory might contribute. Without wishing to be unfairly critical of the SoF and all who sail in her I suspect I would have been in with a better chance had the post not been relegated to Dead Horses. I accept that the issue of whether or not women can or should be ordained has been thoroughly flogged but a careful reading of my post would reveal that it is in fact an enquiry about a seemingly novel aspect of sacramental theology. Not that I'm hurt and disappointed or anything.
Posts: 51 | From: Dublin | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
betjemaniac
Shipmate
# 17618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Peter Spence:
Thanks to all who responded; I can't say I'm any the wiser and was rather hoping that someone who actually believes in female ordinand to (male) bishop contagion theory might contribute. Without wishing to be unfairly critical of the SoF and all who sail in her I suspect I would have been in with a better chance had the post not been relegated to Dead Horses. I accept that the issue of whether or not women can or should be ordained has been thoroughly flogged but a careful reading of my post would reveal that it is in fact an enquiry about a seemingly novel aspect of sacramental theology. Not that I'm hurt and disappointed or anything.
Without going too far into it, as it's a dead horse, I also think it could fit under "straw man," you're asking for someone to come forward and argue for "taint" when virtually no one believes in it - and almost the only people arguing it even exists are pro OW types using it as a stick to beat the antis with. I can't say I'm surprised no one has come forward to defend it given that in 20 years of association with FiF I can count on the fingers of one finger the number of taint advocates I've come across.
Basically, the silence is indicative of the fact that it almost doesn't exist outside the minds of those thinking how terrible it is that it exists...
I'm sure someone will now come forward with examples, but honestly it's the exception that proves the rule.
--------------------
And is it true? For if it is....
Posts: 1481 | From: behind the dreaming spires | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Vade Mecum
Shipmate
# 17688
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Peter Spence:
Thanks to all who responded; I can't say I'm any the wiser and was rather hoping that someone who actually believes in female ordinand to (male) bishop contagion theory might contribute. Without wishing to be unfairly critical of the SoF and all who sail in her I suspect I would have been in with a better chance had the post not been relegated to Dead Horses. I accept that the issue of whether or not women can or should be ordained has been thoroughly flogged but a careful reading of my post would reveal that it is in fact an enquiry about a seemingly novel aspect of sacramental theology. Not that I'm hurt and disappointed or anything.
I'm sorry you haven't found what you're looking for, but if I might: the reason no-one holding the theory of Taint has come forward may be because no-one actually does hold such a view. It's largely a misunderstanding by supporters/the media of statements by (at times uncautious) opponents of OoW, or a theological 'reading into' of their actions (which at times do point at something like a theology of taint).
[ETA: x-posted with betjemaniac. What he said.]
[ 13. September 2013, 15:24: Message edited by: Vade Mecum ]
--------------------
I have given them thy word; and the world hath hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.
Posts: 307 | From: North London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
Isn't that a bit like the tories getting annoyed because people talk about the 'bedroom tax' when it is technically the withdrawal of subsidy. It amounts to the same thing for those who have to suffer it. In the same way, if a bishop who ordains women is deemed to be unsuitable to pastor those who don't agree, then it amounts to a view of 'taint' even if it is not strictly the way it is understood.
--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
Originally posted by Vade Mecum:
quote:
The current +Chichester has appointed a suffragan to do just that. You might be thinking of +Eric Kemp, who refused to licence women.
It is rumoured that he might well do that but as things stand there are two Bishops who don't ordain women and a vacancy in Lewes. The most recent ordination I attended in the Diocese was conducted by the Bishop of St. Albans.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Thurible
Shipmate
# 3206
|
Posted
As I've said before, and will no doubt say again, noone believes in this taint nonsense.
FiF has held that those men who are ordained to the priesthood by bishops who ordain women are truly priests, who truly offer the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, and that said bishops are truly bishops, truly successors to the apostles. (I speak only of the CofE here.)
In ordaining women to the priesthood, bishops admit them to their presbyterium. This means that all priests within that presbyterium are interchangeably priestly representatives of those bishops. It is this interchangeability which 'traditionalists' cannot accept and why they look to bishops without women in their presbyterium to represent at the altar.
Were the Bishop of, say, Birmingham to move to a diocese where there are no female priests (even if he continued to believe that they were such), there would be no need to look for extended episcopal care from elsewhere. Each member of that diocese could be confident that each member of the Bishop's presbyterium was indeed a priest.
Thurible
were
--------------------
"I've been baptised not lobotomised."
Posts: 8049 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
It occurs to me that the matter is further complicated by the position of the Roman Catholic Church which ceased to recognise the orders of the Old Catholic Church when it took the decision to ordain women on the grounds that Old Catholic Bishops, previously valid but illicit, no longer intended to do what the Church intended at ordinations and, therefore, such ordinations were no longer valid whether or not ordinands were male or female. Anglican orders being previously irrevocably null and void were not affected, in Papal eyes, by the decision of the C of E to ordain women.
Stringent critics might say that this does somewhat undermine the Anglo-Papalist position within Anglo-Catholicism but a movement that swallowed the camel of insisting that the Pope is God's Vicar On Earth whilst politely declining to enter into communion with him was hardly going to strain at the gnat of ignoring his view that ordaining women fundamentally vitiated one's Catholicity whilst remaining a member, albeit a disaffected one, of a confession that ordained women to the priesthood. Anglo-Papalists who subsequently entered the ordinariate can be seen as accepting the difficulty of their position inasmuch as they effectively acknowledged the invalidity of their orders.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
pererin
Shipmate
# 16956
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gildas:
It occurs to me that the matter is further complicated by the position of the Roman Catholic Church which ceased to recognise the orders of the Old Catholic Church when it took the decision to ordain women on the grounds that Old Catholic Bishops, previously valid but illicit, no longer intended to do what the Church intended at ordinations and, therefore, such ordinations were no longer valid whether or not ordinands were male or female. Anglican orders being previously irrevocably null and void were not affected, in Papal eyes, by the decision of the C of E to ordain women.
Penny for the guy? ![[Two face]](graemlins/scot_twoface.gif)
--------------------
"They go to and fro in the evening, they grin like a dog, and run about through the city." (Psalm 59.6)
Posts: 446 | From: Llantrisant | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
iamchristianhearmeroar
Shipmate
# 15483
|
Posted
Thurible, on your point about the presbyterium, why is it that some traditionalist parishes in the diocese of London do not seek extended episcopal oversight? London contains women priests, albeit not ordained by +chartres.
--------------------
My blog: http://alastairnewman.wordpress.com/
Posts: 642 | From: London, UK | Registered: Feb 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Thurible
Shipmate
# 3206
|
Posted
That shows the diversity of those within the 'traditionalist' wing...
Thurible
--------------------
"I've been baptised not lobotomised."
Posts: 8049 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chorister
Completely Frocked
# 473
|
Posted
I thought the 'taint' idea was scotched the moment Jesus asked the woman to draw water from the well?
--------------------
Retired, sitting back and watching others for a change.
Posts: 34626 | From: Cream Tealand | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Poppy
Ship's dancing cat
# 2000
|
Posted
So what about those priests who carry around plastic altar covers? Allegedly they are to protect the priest from the presence of a woman who may have presided at the altar before he did. The one I saw was perspex and 18" square with a phrase in hebrew etched onto it. The priest who owned that portable altar cover has now retired, but with attitudes like that around it is really hard to avoid the notion that some in FiF have a theology of taint.
--------------------
At the still point of the turning world - there the dance is...
Posts: 1406 | From: mostly on the edge | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
M.
Ship's Spare Part
# 3291
|
Posted
Originally posted by Poppy:
quote:
So what about those priests who carry around plastic altar covers? Allegedly they are to protect the priest from the presence of a woman who may have presided at the altar before he did. The one I saw was perspex and 18" square with a phrase in hebrew etched onto it. The priest who owned that portable altar cover has now retired, but with attitudes like that around it is really hard to avoid the notion that some in FiF have a theology of taint.
No, that sounds like a theology of the lurgy.
M.
Posts: 2303 | From: Lurking in Surrey | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Amos
Shipmate
# 44
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Poppy:
So what about those priests who carry around plastic altar covers? Allegedly they are to protect the priest from the presence of a woman who may have presided at the altar before he did. The one I saw was perspex and 18" square with a phrase in hebrew etched onto it. The priest who owned that portable altar cover has now retired, but with attitudes like that around it is really hard to avoid the notion that some in FiF have a theology of taint.
That is just weird. I have never heard of such a thing. Who manufactures these items?
--------------------
At the end of the day we face our Maker alongside Jesus--ken
Posts: 7667 | From: Summerisle | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Aelred of Rievaulx
Shipmate
# 16860
|
Posted
Theologies of "taint", or "girl cooties" are a number of things:
1. Incoherent. Thepeople in the C of E who hold it are Anglo-papalist, looking to a church that thinks they are not priests anyway. Why should we care what they think any more than any other Christian group? Time to act on our own consciences. I want these people to admit the incoherence of being C of E and holding their views. Never mind an honoured place for them - what about how they don't honour nearly half the C of E's clergy now, by writing crap like Jonathon Baker has just written about the Church in Wales.
2. Misogynistic. Men have to be kept separate from women, and the ruling class has to be all men. Purleese. Don't give me this theological conviction shit, if it walks like a duck and squawks like a duck it is a duck. Be as much of a preferer of male company as you like, but perspex altar covers to protect you from contact? The ones that amaze me are the married ones. How do their wives stick being married to professional despisers of women?
3. Homosocial. Nothing wrong with bromances or with being gay - but the supressed, weird, 1910s (yes 1910s) feel to so much of it is frankly, unhealthy. Ronald Firbank would be right at home. What is it with men who can't get on with half the human race? I'm gay myself, so I prefer men "in that way", but I have loads of women friends and I like them as people.
4. Unchristian. This massive wall of division that is erected by ideology between men and women in the Christian church strikes me as about as far from the spirit of Jesus Christ as it is possible to get. Who was it who included women among his disciples to the scandal of all? Who let women touch him? Who stood round the croos? Who were the first apostles of the Resurrection? Got it. Women. The political ideology of an all male proesthood was contructed later with back justification to one or two texts that purport to come from the mouth of Jesus. There is better justification for slavery.
--------------------
In friendship are joined honor and charm, truth and joy, sweetness and good-will, affection and action. And all these take their beginning from Christ, advance through Christ, and are perfected in Christ.
Posts: 136 | From: English Midlands | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
*Leon*
Shipmate
# 3377
|
Posted
Could an opponent of women's ordination explain why a parish would want to pass resolution C?
Some supporters of womens ordination believe thati its purpose is to prevent 'taint' but that's clearly wrong.
Posts: 831 | From: london | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Poppy
Ship's dancing cat
# 2000
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Amos:
quote:
Originally posted by Poppy:
So what about those priests who carry around plastic altar covers? Allegedly they are to protect the priest from the presence of a woman who may have presided at the altar before he did. The one I saw was perspex and 18" square with a phrase in hebrew etched onto it. The priest who owned that portable altar cover has now retired, but with attitudes like that around it is really hard to avoid the notion that some in FiF have a theology of taint.
That is just weird. I have never heard of such a thing. Who manufactures these items?
I was told they were available by mail order ![[Ultra confused]](graemlins/confused2.gif)
--------------------
At the still point of the turning world - there the dance is...
Posts: 1406 | From: mostly on the edge | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Thurible
Shipmate
# 3206
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by *Leon*:
Could an opponent of women's ordination explain why a parish would want to pass resolution C?
I thought I had.
Thurible
--------------------
"I've been baptised not lobotomised."
Posts: 8049 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Vade Mecum
Shipmate
# 17688
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Aelred of Rievaulx:
Theologies of "taint", or "girl cooties" are a number of things:
[snip]
Or they would be, if they actually existed and anyone actually held them. Produce such people and it might be worth engaging with this pile of bullshit.
quote:
Originally posted by Poppy:
quote:
Originally posted by Amos:
quote:
Originally posted by Poppy:
So what about those priests who carry around plastic altar covers? Allegedly they are to protect the priest from the presence of a woman who may have presided at the altar before he did. The one I saw was perspex and 18" square with a phrase in hebrew etched onto it. The priest who owned that portable altar cover has now retired, but with attitudes like that around it is really hard to avoid the notion that some in FiF have a theology of taint.
That is just weird. I have never heard of such a thing. Who manufactures these items?
I was told they were available by mail order
This is very weird. Are you sure you weren't being sent up? Under no theology would this both a) be necessary, and b) work. If the altar is 'deconsecrated' through sacrilege (hmm...), then no amount of magic hebrew plastic is going to reconsecrate it...
--------------------
I have given them thy word; and the world hath hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.
Posts: 307 | From: North London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Poppy:
So what about those priests who carry around plastic altar covers? Allegedly they are to protect the priest from the presence of a woman who may have presided at the altar before he did. The one I saw was perspex and 18" square with a phrase in hebrew etched onto it. The priest who owned that portable altar cover has now retired, but with attitudes like that around it is really hard to avoid the notion that some in FiF have a theology of taint.
That sounds wrong. It is probably a mensa slab. Such were mandated by Ritual notes and commonly used by anglo-catholic priests long before women's ordination.
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
*Leon*
Shipmate
# 3377
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Thurible:
quote:
Originally posted by *Leon*:
Could an opponent of women's ordination explain why a parish would want to pass resolution C?
I thought I had.
Thurible
Many apologies; I read the thread too fast and missed that.
It does in fact clarify a great deal for me, although I have some extra questions.
Your explanation does seem to suggest that when a bishop ordains a woman, they do become in some sense defective as a bishop in the eyes of 'traditionalists', in that they are incapable of being the bishop that a traditionalist priest represents at the mass even if their ordinations are considered valid. I think many people would consider 'taint' a relevant way of describing this understanding, in that the act of ordaining a woman makes the bishop incapable of fulfilling all the usual roles of a bishop.
I'm also a tad confused by this presbyterium. Does a bishop's presbyterium include just the priests ordained by a particular bishop, or does it consist of those priests and the priests in his area (presumably those who currently represent him at the altar).
It seems slightly odd that the defectiveness of a presbyterium is not viewed as a problem for the priests who are members of it, but is viewed as a problem for the bishop at its head.
However, this may clarify a cause of a lot of misunderstandings in the debate about women bishops. WATCH believes that all the functions of a bishop are indivisible; there's no concept of a bishop who can perform valid ordinations but cannot be represented at the altar or vica versa. FiF appears to disagree. Both sides seem to be under the mistaken opinion that they disagree about women's ordination and nothing else.
Posts: 831 | From: london | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Thurible:
In ordaining women to the priesthood, bishops admit them to their presbyterium. This means that all priests within that presbyterium are interchangeably priestly representatives of those bishops. It is this interchangeability which 'traditionalists' cannot accept and why they look to bishops without women in their presbyterium to represent at the altar.
While I appreciate that "taint" is a hostile description used to belittle opponents of women's ordination, I don't think that it is an obviously absurd or even a particular unfair word to employ in mocking priests who cannot stand to represent a bishop of their own communion if that bishop also happens to be represented by a woman.
My personal view is that the CofE is morally committed to respecting and accommodating those who cannot in conscience accept women priests, and we should do that, but we are in no way obliged to indulge such nonsense as the attitudes you describe. We can (and should) provide that there should be male priests and male bishops for those whose faith would be shaken by having to accept a woman as their pastor or overseer, but having to provide bishops uncontaminated by association with female clergy is exactly the thing that is being mocked, insulted and scorned by the words "theology of taint".
Explanations as to why such uncontaminated bishops are required are as irrelevant as they are unconvincing. The CoE ordains women. If you're in the CoE, you're in communion with female clergy, and there's no obligation on the majority to politely pretend to the dissenters that this ain't so. If they want to pretend to themselves, well, it's both a free country and an accommodating church, but the price of such self-deception is to have a certain amount of urine extracted by their opponents. I fail to see the word 'taint' as a particularly low blow, especially in the context of all the far greater level of disrespect, insincerity and malice that goes the other way on this issue.
--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"
Richard Dawkins
Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Vade Mecum
Shipmate
# 17688
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
quote:
Originally posted by Thurible:
In ordaining women to the priesthood, bishops admit them to their presbyterium. This means that all priests within that presbyterium are interchangeably priestly representatives of those bishops. It is this interchangeability which 'traditionalists' cannot accept and why they look to bishops without women in their presbyterium to represent at the altar.
While I appreciate that "taint" is a hostile description used to belittle opponents of women's ordination, I don't think that it is an obviously absurd or even a particular unfair word to employ in mocking priests who cannot stand to represent a bishop of their own communion if that bishop also happens to be represented by a woman.
My personal view is that the CofE is morally committed to respecting and accommodating those who cannot in conscience accept women priests, and we should do that, but we are in no way obliged to indulge such nonsense as the attitudes you describe. We can (and should) provide that there should be male priests and male bishops for those whose faith would be shaken by having to accept a woman as their pastor or overseer, but having to provide bishops uncontaminated by association with female clergy is exactly the thing that is being mocked, insulted and scorned by the words "theology of taint".
Explanations as to why such uncontaminated bishops are required are as irrelevant as they are unconvincing. The CoE ordains women. If you're in the CoE, you're in communion with female clergy, and there's no obligation on the majority to politely pretend to the dissenters that this ain't so. If they want to pretend to themselves, well, it's both a free country and an accommodating church, but the price of such self-deception is to have a certain amount of urine extracted by their opponents. I fail to see the word 'taint' as a particularly low blow, especially in the context of all the far greater level of disrespect, insincerity and malice that goes the other way on this issue.
The term you're lacking is "impaired Communion": being in Communion isn't an on/off binary. Thus the unreconciled sinner is in an impaired communion, just as a traditionalist priest is in an impaired communion with a bishop who ordains women, and indeed with the women themselves. Looking at it in this reductionist way has made you miss some subtleties, I think.
I've never really understood the motives for the Flying Bishops (we are not a Resolution C parish), but it might be seen as a laudable attempt to be in the fullest possible communion with one's bishop. I personally think we might have put up with a lot of impaired communion rather than reject the traditional geographical episcopacy, but the motives are not necessarily impure.
--------------------
I have given them thy word; and the world hath hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.
Posts: 307 | From: North London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Vade Mecum:
The term you're lacking is "impaired Communion": being in Communion isn't an on/off binary. Thus the unreconciled sinner is in an impaired communion
And the number of flying bishops appointed to supplement the ministry of those bishops who don't care for sacramental confession is?
Zero.
No other sort of impairment to communion gets treated this way. Only women. Nothing else makes the traditionalists' shit itch the way that the idea of a woman celebrating communion does.
When people say "theology of taint", that's what they're taking the piss out of. And it's wide open for piss-taking because it's sexist, absurd and incoherent. It's not the way that I personally would choose to take the piss, but as the right to criticise and, yes, satirise absurd theologies is a valuable rhetoric tool which even God did not disdain to include in Holy Scripture ( example ) I'm going to defend the principle that it is in this instance fair comment.
--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"
Richard Dawkins
Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Oscar the Grouch
Adopted Cascadian
# 1916
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Aelred of Rievaulx:
Theologies of "taint", or "girl cooties" are a number of things:
1. Incoherent. Thepeople in the C of E who hold it are Anglo-papalist, looking to a church that thinks they are not priests anyway. Why should we care what they think any more than any other Christian group? Time to act on our own consciences. I want these people to admit the incoherence of being C of E and holding their views. Never mind an honoured place for them - what about how they don't honour nearly half the C of E's clergy now, by writing crap like Jonathon Baker has just written about the Church in Wales.
2. Misogynistic. Men have to be kept separate from women, and the ruling class has to be all men. Purleese. Don't give me this theological conviction shit, if it walks like a duck and squawks like a duck it is a duck. Be as much of a preferer of male company as you like, but perspex altar covers to protect you from contact? The ones that amaze me are the married ones. How do their wives stick being married to professional despisers of women?
3. Homosocial. Nothing wrong with bromances or with being gay - but the supressed, weird, 1910s (yes 1910s) feel to so much of it is frankly, unhealthy. Ronald Firbank would be right at home. What is it with men who can't get on with half the human race? I'm gay myself, so I prefer men "in that way", but I have loads of women friends and I like them as people.
4. Unchristian. This massive wall of division that is erected by ideology between men and women in the Christian church strikes me as about as far from the spirit of Jesus Christ as it is possible to get. Who was it who included women among his disciples to the scandal of all? Who let women touch him? Who stood round the croos? Who were the first apostles of the Resurrection? Got it. Women. The political ideology of an all male proesthood was contructed later with back justification to one or two texts that purport to come from the mouth of Jesus. There is better justification for slavery.
I agree with all if this. But I think it is worth making the point (which I have made before) that the whole mess is incoherent precisely because there was no "theory" or "theology" involved at the beginning. All this started as a FIF act of protest - "if Bishop X ordains women, we're not going to have anything to do with him".
Only after having made that statement and painted themselves into the corner did anyone realise that once you looked beyond the grand gesture, there were some serious theological problems.
All along, what is commonly called the "theology of taint" is basically an act of protest looking for (and failing to find) a coherent theology to justify it.
I would respect FIF more (but not much more) if they were honest and said "forget about the theology - this is just a protest. We were/are in a simple snit."
--------------------
Faradiu, dundeibáwa weyu lárigi weyu
Posts: 3871 | From: Gamma Quadrant, just to the left of Galifrey | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ecclesiastical Flip-flop
Shipmate
# 10745
|
Posted
I was originally against women priests on traditionalist grounds, but my opposition has mellowed. I have reach a point where I tolerate women priests, but I would not necessarily stamp my mark of approval. I continue to base my standards on forward-in-faith.
In my view, there is no such thing as a tainted ministry because of it; it is either all tainted or none of it is tainted.
--------------------
Joyeuses Pâques! Frohe Ostern! Buona Pasqua! ¡Felices Pascuas! Happy Easter!
Posts: 1946 | From: Surrey UK | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Ecclesiastical Flip-flop
Shipmate
# 10745
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by iamchristianhearmeroar:
Could you tell us why your opposition has mellowed? Has it been any specific encounters?
I am not alone there and others have had a complete "about turn" there.
I have taken the view that a self-imposed exile is not my journey and so I decided not to absent myself from any Eucharists where there was a woman celebrant. In the early stages, I would abstain from making my communion with a woman celebrant. Gradually, I would make my communion, but not too often from a woman celebrant. My opposition having mellowed was due to many encounters, but with no specific encounters that I can think of.
Does that answer your question, or not?
--------------------
Joyeuses Pâques! Frohe Ostern! Buona Pasqua! ¡Felices Pascuas! Happy Easter!
Posts: 1946 | From: Surrey UK | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
fletcher christian
Mutinous Seadog
# 13919
|
Posted
Well, it looks like that 'taint' has happened. In this instance, on a little island facing the Atlantic's roar, in a diocese that once rumored a female Bishop many moons ago. In my own opinion a suitable appointment of a woman to a holy woman's seat.
--------------------
'God is love insaturable, love impossible to describe'
Staretz Silouan
Posts: 5235 | From: a prefecture | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Thurible
Shipmate
# 3206
|
Posted
What?
Thurible
--------------------
"I've been baptised not lobotomised."
Posts: 8049 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Thurible
Shipmate
# 3206
|
Posted
Ah, a new bishop in Ireland. I see.
Thurible
--------------------
"I've been baptised not lobotomised."
Posts: 8049 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Ecclesiastical Flip-flop
Shipmate
# 10745
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by iamchristianhearmeroar:
Ecclesiastical f-f: just interested to hear how and why people's views have changed when they have changed.
A bit unclear from what perspective you are asking that. Do you get around meeting clergy and lay-people and have you noticed how some people's views have changed or mellowed?
If you were to procure a copy of the book, "Jobs for the Boys", you would be able to read the personal journey of Valerie Bonham, who was originally a staunch opponent of women priests; she had a complete change of heart and in due course, became a woman priest herself.
To give another example, the Rector of St. Nicolas' Guildford, who has now been in post for some 20 years and until recently, his parish was f-i-f resolutions ABC, reached a point when he announced that he no longer had a problem with women priests. To cut a long story short, his longevity of tenure made him influence his congregation to his way of thinking, leading to an exodus of people moving to other churches and recently, the ABC resolutions have been rescinded.
Those are two examples of a complete "about turn" and I can think of one or two others. By remaining Anglicans, such people gradually got used to the ministry of women priests.
--------------------
Joyeuses Pâques! Frohe Ostern! Buona Pasqua! ¡Felices Pascuas! Happy Easter!
Posts: 1946 | From: Surrey UK | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
k-mann
Shipmate
# 8490
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
In particular the very existence of the flying Bishops strongly implies that there is some defect in the ministry of those Bishops who are willing to ordain women, and that defect is sufficiently vast that a parish cannot countenance their continued oversight.
Only if you see bishops as nothing more than ‘ordination providers.’ A bishop represents his diocese, and those within his diocese should be, or are, in communion with him. He has the responsibility to teach, and to ensure that proper doctrine be taught. He has a responsibility to ensure ecclesial unity, a unity that is both sacramental and doctrinal. Therefore, to be in communion with a bishop, you need, amongst other things, to be one in doctrine. The ‘flying bishops’ are therefore more than just an insurance that clergy aren’t ordained by ‘tainted hands.’
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
That implies that the ordination of women goes beyond mere doctrinal disagreement (otherwise every liberal parish with a conservative Bishop, and vice-versa, would be demanding a flying Bishop) and fundamentally affects the efficacy of the Bishop.
Yes, they could demand a flying bishop. The fact that they do not do so does not change the fact that they could. But there is also a difference between doctrine and opinion. The issue of the OoW has throughout Church history been regarded as doctrine.
--------------------
"Being religious means asking passionately the question of the meaning of our existence and being willing to receive answers, even if the answers hurt."
— Paul Tillich
Katolikken
Posts: 1314 | From: Norway | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
For decades before the ordination of women, conservative Catholic parishes put up with evangelical or liberal bishops in spite of vast differences over doctrine. What is so special about the ordination of women that it required such extraordinary arrangements?
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
