Thread: Ordination of Women Contagion Theory 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=030702
Posted by Peter Spence (# 14085) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Peter Spence (# 14085) on :
 
'subscibed' needs an 'r'. PS
 
Posted by Magic Wand (# 4227) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Vade Mecum (# 17688) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :
 
Ordination of women is one of a group of topics that we have a special board for--topics that may never be settled, and generate a lot of discussion pro and con--so I will send this down there.

So see you at the bottom of the page down at Dead Horses.

Gwai,
Purgatory Host
 
Posted by Siegfried (# 29) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :
 
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?
 
Posted by Amos (# 44) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Gildas (# 525) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by pererin (# 16956) on :
 
I suspect the Crufts theology [Smile] was mainly about ensuring that allies got onto the bench of bishops.
 
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Gildas (# 525) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Macrina (# 8807) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Vade Mecum (# 17688) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Peter Spence (# 14085) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Vade Mecum (# 17688) on :
 
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 ]
 
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Gildas (# 525) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Thurible (# 3206) on :
 
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
 
Posted by Gildas (# 525) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by pererin (# 16956) on :
 
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]
 
Posted by iamchristianhearmeroar (# 15483) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Thurible (# 3206) on :
 
That shows the diversity of those within the 'traditionalist' wing...

Thurible
 
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :
 
I thought the 'taint' idea was scotched the moment Jesus asked the woman to draw water from the well?
 
Posted by Poppy (# 2000) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by M. (# 3291) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Amos (# 44) on :
 
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?
 
Posted by Aelred of Rievaulx (# 16860) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by *Leon* (# 3377) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Poppy (# 2000) on :
 
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]
 
Posted by Thurible (# 3206) on :
 
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
 
Posted by Vade Mecum (# 17688) on :
 
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 [Ultra confused]
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...
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by *Leon* (# 3377) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Vade Mecum (# 17688) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on :
 
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."
 
Posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop (# 10745) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by iamchristianhearmeroar (# 15483) on :
 
Could you tell us why your opposition has mellowed? Has it been any specific encounters?
 
Posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop (# 10745) on :
 
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?
 
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Thurible (# 3206) on :
 
What?

Thurible
 
Posted by Thurible (# 3206) on :
 
Ah, a new bishop in Ireland. I see.

Thurible
 
Posted by iamchristianhearmeroar (# 15483) on :
 
Ecclesiastical f-f: just interested to hear how and why people's views have changed when they have changed.
 
Posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop (# 10745) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by k-mann (# 8490) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
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?
 
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :
 
Has the position with regard to OoW been doctrine? Was it considered to the extent that it became doctrine? Where and when did it become doctrine?

What occurs to me is the possibility that at the time that it was possible to consider that it might be possible that women do not have souls, the necessity for a doctrine that they could not be priests would not be there.
 
Posted by k-mann (# 8490) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
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?
First, it needs to be said that this is first and foremost a question of sacramental assurance: If there is doubt about validity of a person’s ordination, there will also be doubt about validity of that person’s sacraments. But I digress. In order to answer this question, you need to be more specific. You ask us to compare the specific question of the OofW with ‘vast differences over doctrine.’ Could you cite one example? And note that it needs to be a doctrinal question, not simply a question of opinion. This distinction is crucial.

I would also say that there was a qualified difference between pre and post 1992. Before 1992, there were bishops in the Church of England (CofE) who believed that women could be ordained as priests. But what a bishop privately believes is not that interesting. A bishop is not appointed to pontificate privately. He is appointed to ensure ecclesial unity (both sacramentally and doctrinally), to teach and uphold the doctrine of his Church, and to ensure that proper doctrine be taught. Now pre 1992, the CofE taught that women could not be priests. Therefore any bishop would be responsible to uphold this. Post 1992, however, we see something new: We do not (merely) see the CofE changing position (saying that women could be priests), but we see that the CofE said that it was ecclesially and canonically legitimate either to hold that women could not be priests or to hold that women could be priests. We saw something similar in the Church of Norway in 2006.

In 2006, the Doctrinal Commission of the Church of Norway issued a document on the question of homosexuality and Scripture. (The link is in Norwegian.) The Commission was divided in two on the question of the marrying of same sex couples and the ordination of practicing homosexuals. Prior to 2006, the Church of Norway had one official view, even if there were many bishops who held other views. After 2006, however, there have been two official (and contradictory) views on this question, which means that it is now ecclesially and canonically legitimate either to hold that same sex couples cannot marry in the church and that practicing homosexuals cannot be ordained, or to hold that same sex couples can marry in the church and that practicing homosexuals can be ordained. Because of this, a group of priests and lay people have sought alternative episcopal oversight.

The point of alternative episcopal oversight is that there is a new situation, ecclesially and canonically. The important thing here is that the unity of the Church is both doctrinal and sacramental. This means that if there is a real internal (ecclesial and canonical) schism (i.e. that two opposing views are both legitimate), then this needs to be expressed episcopally. The question is not: What do we do about these [insert adjective] bishops? Thus it is not a question of ‘putting up with’ certain bishops. I don’t particularly care what my bishop privately holds. The question is rather this: What do we do when we have two contradictory views which are both legitimately (ecclesially and canonically) taught within the same Church?
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
What occurs to me is the possibility that at the time that it was possible to consider that it might be possible that women do not have souls....
Not and be an Anglican priest it wasn't. Or any kind of Bible-reading Christian. The idea is pretty much a 20th century myth invented by anti-Christian propagandists. No bottom to it at all.
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by k-mann:
Now pre 1992, the CofE taught that women could not be priests.
Did it? Really? Or did it just not happen to ordain women as priests? Maybe nio-one ever thought about it much. Maybe those that did think about it were thought of as weirdoes. That's not the same thing.

Was there actually such a thing as an official doctrine promulgated by the Chuirch of England t5hat definitively ruled that women cannot be priests? News to me if there was.

quote:

This means that if there is a real internal (ecclesial and canonical) schism (i.e. that two opposing views are both legitimate), then this needs to be expressed episcopally.
Why?

Why not have different people teaching two views? It seems the more honest way to me. The church really does have more than one opinion ion these matters, so let it speak with more than once voice.

There are lots of things that Christians in general have disagreed about, and that different Christians - even different Anglican Bishops - have taught opposing doctrines on. One of the biggest ones in the CofE was the dispute between Calvinists and Arminians. That was huge once upon a time. And clearly a matter of theological doctrine rather than church government. But by and large the Church of England didn't split over that.

There have been theologically liberal bishops and prioests who could not in honesty say the Creeds without mental reservations. Thats' no secret. But no-one splite the CofE over that. There have been politically anti-establishmentarian bishops who couldn't make oaths to the monarch without inwardly crossing their fingers behind their back. No-one sought alternative episcopal oversight to get away from them (or from their monarchist colleagues). There have been pacifist bishops and warmongering bishops. And all sorts of disputes.

Why not say "We disagree about this. There is no settled teaching on the matter" but continue to work together?
 
Posted by k-mann (# 8490) on :
 
It seems that someone believed the Da Vince Code (or similar books) to fairly represents Church history.
 
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
The obvious example of doctrinal difference is whether ordination is considered a sacrament or not. Or whether the celebration of Holy Communion is a sacrificial act. Whether priesthood is a role to which someone is appointed or whether ordination entails an ontological change. I struggle to come to terms with a definition of doctrine that considers to contents of the priests pants to be doctrinally significant and vital for unity, but not any of the others. Surely if your Bishop doesn't consider ordination either to be sacramental or conveying and ontological change then that Bishop's intent when ordaining, and hence the ordinations, are far more questionable than one who agrees with all those things but think that they can be equally applied to women?
 
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
What occurs to me is the possibility that at the time that it was possible to consider that it might be possible that women do not have souls....
Not and be an Anglican priest it wasn't. Or any kind of Bible-reading Christian. The idea is pretty much a 20th century myth invented by anti-Christian propagandists. No bottom to it at all.
Which I would have gone along with, until I read, last week, an account that someone, back in the dark and murky past, had based a bit of misogyny on Gen 2, pointing out that God had breathed into Adam, but not into Eve. And now I'm going to have to look it up again.
 
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :
 
Went through all the links and couldn't find it.

There's a hint in here:

Serious academic stuff
 
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by k-mann:
Now pre 1992, the CofE taught that women could not be priests.
Did it? Really? Or did it just not happen to ordain women as priests? Maybe nio-one ever thought about it much. Maybe those that did think about it were thought of as weirdoes. That's not the same thing.

Was there actually such a thing as an official doctrine promulgated by the Chuirch of England t5hat definitively ruled that women cannot be priests? News to me if there was.
Which was sort of what I was getting at.
 
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :
 
Seems to me that the Roman Catholic church might have taught that women could not be priests. And therefore the sort of Anglican who thought that teaching was definitive also believed that. Unfortunately for them, the RC church also taught that male Anglican priests were not priests either. What logic is there in following the teaching on the former but not the latter, except private opinion?
 
Posted by Vade Mecum (# 17688) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
Seems to me that the Roman Catholic church might have taught that women could not be priests. And therefore the sort of Anglican who thought that teaching was definitive also believed that. Unfortunately for them, the RC church also taught that male Anglican priests were not priests either. What logic is there in following the teaching on the former but not the latter, except private opinion?
Because the logic used by the RCC in dogmatically defining against OoW does not rest solely on the authority of the Petrine Magisterium. It makes sense theologically independent of that authority. The argument of Apostolicae Curae is different, and for many Anglicans, does not make that sort of theological sense. Saepius Officio is a very good rebuttal of it, for instance.

The issue need never be about the Authority of the RCC at all: they made a good argument, and it's easier to quote it than to re-hash it. It doesn't follow that one believes everything the RCC believes, and it is disingenuous to the point of insult to pretend otherwise.
 
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by k-mann:
It seems that someone believed the Da Vince Code (or similar books) to fairly represents Church history.
If you meant me, I certainly don't. Or that the represent any sort of history at all. Except that of the followers of Barnum.
On the other hand, Tertullian, Augustine, Albertus Magnus, Aquinas, Clement of Alexandria, John Chrysostom and Jerome are bona fide respected writers and part of Church History.
Still can't find what I read - not in the browser history or by searching the word string, and I know I would not have invented it. There's a lot of modern Miltonic stuff about him for God only, her for God in him. Infuriating, especially for the single.
As ken pointed out, the question may not have arisen in order to be ruled against. Like there wasn't a rule that dolphins could not be priests.
 
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :
 
ken suggests a 20th century origin for the women have no souls myth, but it is older than that. I found this serious stuff.
Brief history of myth
Same author, more academic

Another Catholic source

Still can't find where I read that stuff. Weird.
 
Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Vade Mecum:
...the logic used by the RCC in dogmatically defining against OoW does not rest solely on the authority of the Petrine Magisterium. It makes sense theologically independent of that authority.
Errr. No, it doesn't. Not really.
 
Posted by Vade Mecum (# 17688) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
quote:
Originally posted by Vade Mecum:
...the logic used by the RCC in dogmatically defining against OoW does not rest solely on the authority of the Petrine Magisterium. It makes sense theologically independent of that authority.
Errr. No, it doesn't. Not really.
Oh ffs. Fine, you don't agree with the argument Ordinatio Sacerdotalis makes. That doesn't mean it isn't making one: it doesn't mean that the doctrine is being asserted purely ex cathedra without argument.

This was obviously my point.
 
Posted by k-mann (# 8490) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
The obvious example of doctrinal difference is whether ordination is considered a sacrament or not. Or whether the celebration of Holy Communion is a sacrificial act. Whether priesthood is a role to which someone is appointed or whether ordination entails an ontological change. I struggle to come to terms with a definition of doctrine that considers to contents of the priests pants to be doctrinally significant and vital for unity, but not any of the others. Surely if your Bishop doesn't consider ordination either to be sacramental or conveying and ontological change then that Bishop's intent when ordaining, and hence the ordinations, are far more questionable than one who agrees with all those things but think that they can be equally applied to women?
That depends on what you mean by ‘intent.’ I’m not entirely sure how that is defined in the Church of England (or in the Anglican Communion as a whole), but in the Catholic Church intent is defined as ‘doing [to do] what the church does’ (facers quod facit ecclesia). So, when a priest says “I baptise you in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost,” he is showing his intent. The question, then, is not about what the individual bishop believes (privately), but about what the Church officially teaches.

And what she teaches is not just shown in her written documents, it is also shown by her actions. When the Church of England did not ordain women, even when women wanted to be ordained, she showed that she did indeed hold that women could not be priests. But the shift in 1992 was not that the Church of England changed her mind, but that it became equally legitimate (ecclesially and canonically) to hold either that women could not be priests or that women could be priests. That is the relevant change.
 
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
If your Bishop doesn't believe, say, that ordination conveys the power and authority of the church to pronounce absolution then surely they must not be intending to "do what the church does" in ordaining.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
But 'the unworthiness of the minister hindereth not the effect of the sacrament' so presumable if some of the congregation 'do what the church intends' that is enough (?)
 
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by k-mann:
[QUOTE] When the Church of England did not ordain women, even when women wanted to be ordained, she showed that she did indeed hold that women could not be priests.
That's a non sequitur. It possibly meant that they should not be ordained until the Church had formally decided. Many people, including bishops, had said that they should, and unlike Rome, nowhere in the C of E's formularies has it definitively been stated that women could not be priests, as it has been already pointed out on this thread.
 
Posted by k-mann (# 8490) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
quote:
Originally posted by k-mann:
[QUOTE] When the Church of England did not ordain women, even when women wanted to be ordained, she showed that she did indeed hold that women could not be priests.
That's a non sequitur. It possibly meant that they should not be ordained until the Church had formally decided. Many people, including bishops, had said that they should, and unlike Rome, nowhere in the C of E's formularies has it definitively been stated that women could not be priests, as it has been already pointed out on this thread.
That might be true, but you’re missing my point. The relevant change in 1992 was not that the Church of England started to acknowledge that women could be ordained (either by just acknowledging what she may ‘always’ have believed, as you suggest or by changing views), but that it became (and still is) permissible, canonically and ecclesially, to hold either that women cannot be ordained or that they can be ordained. Even if the Church of England did not have any views on this matter before 1992 (which I highly doubt), after 1992 it had two: One said that women could be ordained, the other said that women could not be ordained. And canonically and ecclesially, in the juridical sense, both views were, and still is, legitimate expressions of the view of the Church of England. That was the relevant change. And that is the main reason for the ‘flying bishops,’ and why they weren’t created prior to that time.
 
Posted by k-mann (# 8490) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
If your Bishop doesn't believe, say, that ordination conveys the power and authority of the church to pronounce absolution then surely they must not be intending to "do what the church does" in ordaining.
‘Intent’ is not here used about the private intent of the bishop, but the intent of the Church which he represents. And this intent is shown when he actually does what the Church does. So, when a bishop uses the proper form of, say, ordination, we see that he (as bishop and representative of the Church and/or Christ, not as a private individual) intends to do what the Church does.

An atheist can baptise. Do you honestly believe that he privately intends that the ‘baptisee’ should get what baptism gives him?
 
Posted by anne (# 73) on :
 
I went to the Thinking Anglicans site today, to read more about the appointment of the Revd Eggoni Pushpalalitha as a bishop in the Church of South India, and immediately below the link, found these two articles which seemed pertinent to this thread.

Will Adam is writing about the implications for the Church of England of the election of the appointment of a woman as a bishop in the Church of Ireland: article
“… This is bound to bring up again the question of the recognition in a Church which does not permit the ordination of women as bishop of episcopal acts performed by a bishop who is a woman …
However, the consecration of a woman as a bishop in the Church of Ireland changes the situation. Deacons, priests and bishops of the Church of Ireland, Church in Wales and Scottish Episcopal Church are not considered as “overseas” clergy by the law applying to the Church of England. This is significant, because the permission of the Archbishops of Canterbury and York is not required for such ministers to be invited to exercise the ministry of their orders in England”

The next article is a blog post by the Very Rev Kelvin Holdsworth, the Provost of St Mary’s Cathedral in Glasgow and is challengingly titled 'Taint'

He states “What I’m interested in is that with respect of our current bishops in Scotland, all of them have either had a female co-consecrator present at their consecration, joined in consecrating someone with a female co-consecrator present or have been consecrated by someone who has had a female co-consecrator present at their own consecration.
What I wonder is whether those who apply the theology of taint believe that anyone at all (bishops, priests or deacons) now ordained in Scotland is legit.”

So, are the decisions and actions of the Church of England on this matter about to be overtaken by actions in other provinces? Or has this already happened? Or are these actions by the Church of Ireland, Scottish Episcopal Church and Church in Wales utterly irrelevant to our Anglican processes here in England?

anne
 
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
Making the remote possibility of reuniting with Rome marginally more likely is apparently more important to those opposing the ordination of women than remaining united with other Anglicans.
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
ArethosemyfeetGot it in one.

But even though some of the "contagion" theorists are so desperate for Rome, they still don't seem to get the position of Rome towards them:
Which is where The Ordinariate comes in...

Bottom line: there will NEVER be "union" with Rome: all Rome will accept is that everyone will become Roman - and if they're ex-Anglican it would be best to keep them separate just in case they contaminate the true, from birth, Romans.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
they still don't seem to get the position of Rome towards them: [list]
[*]there is no question of their anglican orders being regarded as of any value, ever
Not true - i have seen many priest friends 'go over' to Rome directly or via the Ordinariate.

At the (re) ordinations I have attended, there was a prayer that thanked God for their 'previous ministry' It was written by the late Cardinal Hume:
quote:
Oratio ad gratias agendas pro ministerio ab electo in Communione anglicana expleto
(Prayer for giving thanks for the former ministry of the ordinand in the Anglican Communion)
Deinde omnes surgunt. Episcopus, deposita mitra, stans manibus iunctis, versus ad electrum, dicit:
(Then all rise. The bishop, having doffed his mitre, standing with joined hands, facing toward the ordinand, says:)
N., the Holy Catholic Church recognizes that not a few of the sacred actions of the Christian religion as carried out in communities separated from her can truly engender a life of grace and can rightly be described as providing access to the community of salvation. And so we now pray.
Et omnes, per aliquod temporis spatium, silentio orant. Deinde, manus extensis, Episcopus orat, dicens:
(And all, for a certain space of time, in silence pray. Then, with extended hands, the Bishop prays, saying:)
Almighty Father, we give you thanks for the X years of faithful ministry of your servant N. in the Anglican Communion (vel: in the Church of England), whose fruitfulness for salvation has been derived from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Catholic Church. As your servant has been received into full communion and now seeks to be ordained to the presbyterate in the Catholic Church, we beseech you to bring to fruition that for which we now pray. Through Jesus Christ, our Lord.
Populus acclamat:
(The people acclaim:)
Amen.
I also discovered this:
quote:
While Apostolicae Curae holds that Anglican ordination does not confer the fullness of Catholic orders, this by no means implies that Anglican ordination is without its own value and purpose.....absolute ordination creates the optimum conditions for the reception of Anglican priests into Catholic ministry while also respecting and valuing Anglican ministry.....The bishops of England and Wales, in a joint statement, have made this explicit: “We would never suggest that those now seeking full communion with the Roman Catholic Church deny the value of their previous ministry. According to the teaching of the Second Vatican Council, the liturgical actions of their ministry can most certainly engender a life of grace, for they come from Christ and lead back to him and belong by right to the one church of Christ.”
source
 
Posted by Thurible (# 3206) on :
 
I read that article yesterday, leo, and was astonished that it didn't even mention Saepius Officio [pdf].

Thurible
 
Posted by anne (# 73) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I also discovered this:
quote:
While Apostolicae Curae holds that Anglican ordination does not confer the fullness of Catholic orders, this by no means implies that Anglican ordination is without its own value and purpose.....absolute ordination creates the optimum conditions for the reception of Anglican priests into Catholic ministry while also respecting and valuing Anglican ministry.....The bishops of England and Wales, in a joint statement, have made this explicit: “We would never suggest that those now seeking full communion with the Roman Catholic Church deny the value of their previous ministry. According to the teaching of the Second Vatican Council, the liturgical actions of their ministry can most certainly engender a life of grace, for they come from Christ and lead back to him and belong by right to the one church of Christ.”
source
Thank you Leo, that's really helpful. I understand that the statement that you highlighted ("the liturgical actions of their ministry can most certainly engender a life of grace, for they come from Christ and lead back to him and belong by right to the one church of Christ.” ) is made about those Anglican priests who are seeking full communion with the Roman Catholic Church (and, from context, re-ordination).

In your opinion, would it be safe to assume that the RC Bishops would also view the ordinations of other Anglican priests in the same way (as potentially engendering a life of grace)?

anne
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
When the RCC does come round to ordaining women, they will use language like the language of that prayer to prove that they haven't really changed their minds.
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
Thanking God for previous ministry doesn't at all imply recognition of (major, episcopal/ presbyteral/diaconal) orders. After all, in pretty much all churches which have an ordained ministry (AFAIK) there are also other recognised non-ordained ministries or 'minor' orders- evangelists, pastoral assistants, readers, local preachers, monks/nuns, and so on.
 
Posted by Thurible (# 3206) on :
 
Quite. Conditional ordination would recognise that, in a mealy-mouthed sort of way. Absolute ordination with a little prayer of condescension, on the other hand...

Thurible
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by anne:

In your opinion, would it be safe to assume that the RC Bishops would also view the ordinations of other Anglican priests in the same way (as potentially engendering a life of grace)?

anne
I don't know - I assume so but I don't know any RC bishops personally.

I went to the Requiem of an anglo-catholic priest who got (re)ordained. The RC bishop who preached certainly spoke of this priest's 60 years' priestly ministry. Only 15 of those were as an RC.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Thurible:
I read that article yesterday, leo, and was astonished that it didn't even mention Saepius Officio [pdf].

Thurible
Great minds think alike!

I suspect the RC hierarchy like to think it has come to its own conclusion without being swayed by someone else - like the the situation where wives/partners expertly manipulate husbands by suggesting something in the knowledge that said husband will eventually state something as if was his own idea all along.
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
I know the prayer, Leo: I was there when Basil used it over Augustine Hoey.

I also know what's been written about the "value" placed on the former ministry of ex-Anglicans.

And I can tell you that, apart from a few "celebrity" celibates such as Augustine, the people that matter (Congregation for the Clergy anyone?) ex-Anglicans are viewed with, at best, caution - albeit there is gratitude that they are helping to hide the massive problem Rome has with clergy numbers in the UK ...
 
Posted by CL (# 16145) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
When the RCC does come round to ordaining women, they will use language like the language of that prayer to prove that they haven't really changed their minds.
[Roll Eyes]
 
Posted by CL (# 16145) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
I know the prayer, Leo: I was there when Basil used it over Augustine Hoey.

I also know what's been written about the "value" placed on the former ministry of ex-Anglicans.

And I can tell you that, apart from a few "celebrity" celibates such as Augustine, the people that matter (Congregation for the Clergy anyone?) ex-Anglicans are viewed with, at best, caution - albeit there is gratitude that they are helping to hide the massive problem Rome has with clergy numbers in the UK ...
The Congregation for Clergy has bugger all to do with the Ordinariates or their clergy. They fall under the auspices of the CDF.
 
Posted by Chapelhead (# 21) on :
 
Coming to this late (I haven't been around for a while), I'm stuck by there being two apparently contradictory explanations of the 'impaired communion with the bishop' position.

First we have
quote:
Originally posted by Vade Mecum:
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).
I don't agree with this, but it at least seems plausible, although a problem is that if the bishop thinks that women can be ordained but hasn't actually ordained any women then he is still 'within the pale' but once he has ordained a woman then he is 'beyond the pale', even though his intentions would not have appeared to have changed at all.

But then we have
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.

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.
Which suggests that intention has nothing to do with the matter, it is simply a question of the actual people that comprise the presbyterium. That intention does not matter follows from the statement that, should the Bishop of Birmingham, say, move to a diocese where there are no female priests then the impairment of communion would be ended.

Now Thurible says that nobody actually believes in a theory of taint, and I have great respect for his views, but it does sound awfully as though, while in his present post, the aforementioned Bishop is tainted by the presence in the presbyterium of women, but on moving elsewhere the taint would be removed, even though the Bishop's views, intentions and beliefs had not in the slightest changed.

The only way I can square this circle is by following Oscar the Grouch's line

quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
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.

 
Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on :
 
If a bishop or priest preaches in a manner that encourages schism, do all his previous preachings and teachings become suspect? Is any of his further teaching acceptable? Does he "taint" all those who hear him?
 
Posted by Carys (# 78) on :
 
A question on impaired communion. Recently the ABC consecrated two new bishops one for Ebbsfleet & one for Tewkesbury in the same service. There were female priests from the diocese of Gloucester present & in procession but the FinF priests are reported to have received communion. Why was communion net impaired?

Carys
 
Posted by Stranger in a strange land (# 11922) on :
 
I notice that Michael Langrish - formerly +Exeter - is now listed in the FIF magazine as a 'Bishop of the Society'. Presumably not seen to have been tainted by his many years of ordaining women to the priesthood in that Diocese.
 
Posted by anne (# 73) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Stranger in a strange land:
I notice that Michael Langrish - formerly +Exeter - is now listed in the FIF magazine as a 'Bishop of the Society'. Presumably not seen to have been tainted by his many years of ordaining women to the priesthood in that Diocese.
A couple of years ago I stood with a group of priests from his diocese and listened to him explain why he intended to vote in favour of the consecration of women to the episcopate at the forthcoming synod. He went on to abstain.
So colour me unsurprised.

Anne
 
Posted by Amos (# 44) on :
 
He'd have already bought the cottage in Sussex by that time.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
He probably abstained because of the way the debate went on to vote down every possible provision for 'traditionalists', including the motion from the archbishops.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
I think we should note that the 'traditionalists' have voted overwhelmingly to support the woman bishops motion.

Fr. Simon Killiwick said that his FiF lot would be able to flourish.

That is what I, as a (critical) sympathiser of Fif, want.
 
Posted by Gildas (# 525) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
He probably abstained because of the way the debate went on to vote down every possible provision for 'traditionalists', including the motion from the archbishops.
leo, I voted at Deanery Synod for a motion to the effect that the then proposals didn't give enough provision for 'traditionalists'. But there is a difference between that and between joining FiF.

Langrish started off as a fairly inofensive Aff Cath type, was one of the Nine Nazguls who opposed the appointment of Jeffrey John and has now decided to join FiF. What can I say? "I never dared to be radical when young, for fear it would make me conservative when old".
 


© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0