|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Male headship bishop
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
But folks, remember the CofE's ruling principle in matters like this: the Evos have all the money.
But not all evos are headship evos. I was talking to someone last month- most definitely not a conevo or I'd imagine an evo of any kind- who works for the Diocese of London and was praising very clearly the generosity of HTB and similar places, which contribute way over their quota to the diocese because they can afford to and so think they should.
--------------------
My beard is a testament to my masculinity and virility, and demonstrates that I am a real man. Trouble is, bits of quiche sometimes get caught in it.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
posted by Albertus quote:
Bloody craven spineless bastards.
Spot on.
Question: what's with RT's hair? Strangely bouffant, almost as if someone has spent a lot of time and effort back-combing it...
I noticed that - it looks like one of the characters from "3rd Rock from the Sun", and though I missed the opening episode, I understand one of its running jokes was that the aliens had taken forms which resulted in the commander having the form of a young woman and the subordinate having the form of the older male with the hair.
Posts: 5833 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
How appropriate!
I hope that at least one Diocesan will have the guts to stand up and say 'Rod Thomas as Assistant Bishop in my diocese? Over my dead body'.
Words cannot express my fury and disgust at this whole business. I know I'm not CofE any more (I'm very definitely not CofE anymore, and this is one of the reasosn I say that) but it's the Church I grew up in and a sister province so I still care about it. Fuck all this weaselly talk of 'disagreeing well', of 'mutual flourishing': these Headship bastards wouldn't piss around with that for a moment if they were in charge. Thank God for the Welsh Church Act 1914.
--------------------
My beard is a testament to my masculinity and virility, and demonstrates that I am a real man. Trouble is, bits of quiche sometimes get caught in it.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
OK - the game is up. The C of E has thrown in the towel against AMiE and GAFCON without even an attempt at a fight. How can someone like Thomas, who is part of an organisation that is actively working against the C of E then be made a bishop in it? How is that going to work when AMiE try and plant congregations in dioceses? Craven capitulation. ![[Mad]](angryfire.gif)
Much as those who joined the ordinariate by the sound of it.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chorister
Completely Frocked
# 473
|
Posted
Can any good come out of Creamtealand?
--------------------
Retired, sitting back and watching others for a change.
Posts: 34626 | From: Cream Tealand | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
If the Headship believers were honest they'd all have left the CofE on 6th February 1952; they'd certainly never agree to holding any position of authority in a church with a woman as Supreme Governor.
As for Mr Thomas now agreeing to be a bishop in same church - and thus subordinate to a woman - hypocrite!
One feels bound to ask what these Headship wallahs do when taking the oath before their ordination - do they stand there with their fingers crossed?
[ 07. May 2015, 14:13: Message edited by: L'organist ]
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
In all seriousness, that's a question I've often wondered about, but never heard answered. Anyone out there have enough insight into how the 'headship' mind works to offer an answer?
--------------------
My beard is a testament to my masculinity and virility, and demonstrates that I am a real man. Trouble is, bits of quiche sometimes get caught in it.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768
|
Posted
Could it be something like the Egyptian attitude to Hatshepshut, that the anointing of a Queen somehow endows her with an invisible maleness (like Hatshepshut's visible beard), trumping the obvious accident of her femaleness? Offer only available to sovereigns. And, of course, she doesn't actually do anything with her nominal headship. Like issuing mandates to particular bishops.
It isn't canonical, of course, but I recall that somewhere in one of the odder Gospels something is said about making Mary Magdalene as a man, when the disciples query her being included with them. That could be extended to monarchs, I suppose. If you go in for believing impossible things before breakfast.
Posts: 5833 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
1. If the Headship believers were honest they'd all have left the CofE on 6th February 1952; they'd certainly never agree to holding any position of authority in a church with a woman as Supreme Governor.
2. One feels bound to ask what these Headship wallahs do when taking the oath before their ordination - do they stand there with their fingers crossed?
1. The Supreme Governor is only a man made construct. The ultimate responsibility is to God who transcends gender.
2. See 1. above - but perhaps they DO cross their fingers rather like the very high % of Anglican Priests who do so when assenting to the (Calvinist and anti catholic) 39 Articles. The local priest had no coherent answer to the latter when i asked him ...
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Oscar the Grouch
Adopted Cascadian
# 1916
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
In all seriousness, that's a question I've often wondered about, but never heard answered. Anyone out there have enough insight into how the 'headship' mind works to offer an answer?
From my experience, I think that this is a red herring. The monarch (male or female) is regarded as the equivalent of an Honorary President. They have no real authoriity and so issues of "headship" do not come into play.
The real problem for headship people (and especially bishops) will be when there is a woman archbishop.
--------------------
Faradiu, dundeibáwa weyu lárigi weyu
Posts: 3871 | From: Gamma Quadrant, just to the left of Galifrey | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Oscar the Grouch
Adopted Cascadian
# 1916
|
Posted
(Oops. Forgot something...)
I should have also added that (again, in my own experience) most "headship" clergy would be completely unfazed by disestablishment - in fact many would probably welcome it. So the C of E loses its Honorary President? Who cares?
--------------------
Faradiu, dundeibáwa weyu lárigi weyu
Posts: 3871 | From: Gamma Quadrant, just to the left of Galifrey | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
John Holding
Coffee and Cognac
# 158
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
1. If the Headship believers were honest they'd all have left the CofE on 6th February 1952; they'd certainly never agree to holding any position of authority in a church with a woman as Supreme Governor.
2. One feels bound to ask what these Headship wallahs do when taking the oath before their ordination - do they stand there with their fingers crossed?
1. The Supreme Governor is only a man made construct. The ultimate responsibility is to God who transcends gender.
2. See 1. above - but perhaps they DO cross their fingers rather like the very high % of Anglican Priests who do so when assenting to the (Calvinist and anti catholic) 39 Articles. The local priest had no coherent answer to the latter when i asked him ...
Moat Anglican priests throughout the world don't have to say or swear anything at all about the 39 articles, and haven't for many decades. Nor if they move to England do they have to do so to receive a license to officiate or accept a post.
And I'm sure I've been told that the requirement to swear is no longer there in the CofE -- much less in the Church in Wales or the Scottish Piskies.
In any case, the most notorious swearer without belief was not any of the Anglo-Catholics you've ever heard of -- it was that low-church icon Benjamin Jowett who notoriously said, when told he would have to subscribe to the articles which he had publicly criticised "Bring me a pen."
John
Posts: 5929 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by John Holding:
Most Anglican priests throughout the world don't have to say or swear anything at all about the 39 articles, and haven't for many decades. Nor if they move to England do they have to do so to receive a license to officiate or accept a post.
And I'm sure I've been told that the requirement to swear is no longer there in the CofE --
I don't know about the position overseas but all the installations I've attended (quite a few recently) have included reference to the 39 articles. These are all in the UK.
I'd say that only one of the 10 or so, would affirm the whole of the 39 articles if you asked him direct.
I always wonder at a situation when someone is prepared to cross their fingers over one thing, where they might do the same in other situatins.
[fixed code]
[ 09. May 2015, 06:35: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
I've never taken an oath that I couldn't take in good conscience. I wouldn't. But it does pay to know what oaths do say, and what they don't.
The two oaths that CofE clergy have to take are the Oath of Allegiance and the Oath of Obedience. The Oath of Allegiance is to "the Queen, her heirs and successors according to law". (Notice that if you're a republican, you can even hope that her "successor according to law" is a President, and you're still covered!) The Oath of Obedience is to your bishop "in all things lawful and honest".
The bit about the Articles is in another thing, the Declaration of Assent. The Declaration says that the Church of England is catholic and apostolic in nature. Further, it says that the CofE has quote:
borne witness to Christian truth in its historic formularies, the Thirty-nine Articles of Religion, The Book of Common Prayer and the Ordering of Bishops, Priests and Deacons.
You then have to quote:
affirm your loyalty to this inheritance of faith as your inspiration and guidance under God
Now, I don't see anything there about believing that the 39 Articles are anything more than a piece of archaeology, if that's how you want to take them. Personally, I think you should know the Articles, know what they actually say, and that if you want to argue with them, you'd better have a good argument. But I think that easily lets me say the Declaration with a good conscience.
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
The two oaths that CofE clergy have to take are the Oath of Allegiance and the Oath of Obedience. The Oath of Allegiance is to "the Queen, her heirs and successors according to law".
The Declaration says that the Church of England is catholic and apostolic in nature. Further, it says that the CofE has borne witness to Christian truth in its historic formularies, the Thirty-nine Articles of Religion,
I'd disagree with you on both counts. An oath of Allegiance to the Queen is exactly that: whatever you may hope for in her successor or as her successor by taking the oath you are accepting that you "owe" her allegiance.
With the 39 Articles you are affirming that they are on a par with the historic formularies of the faith. You are affirming that the CofE is bearing witness to this truth. Since the 39 reject the mass and affirm a calvinistic view of salvation, you are affirming to a reformed theology.
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
With the 39 Articles you are affirming that they are on a par with the historic formularies of the faith. You are affirming that the CofE is bearing witness to this truth. Since the 39 reject the mass and affirm a calvinistic view of salvation, you are affirming to a reformed theology.
We need to be clear here: in the Declaration you are emphatically not placing the Articles on a par with the Bible, sacred Tradition, or Reason. Also, you are not saying that the CofE is bearing witness through them, but that it has borne witness through them.
As to the Articles' alleged Calvinism, I refer you to Tract XC - not because I necessarily believe it, but merely to illustrate that with the right glasses on, you can make the Articles say almost anything you want them to say.
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
The two oaths that CofE clergy have to take are the Oath of Allegiance and the Oath of Obedience. The Oath of Allegiance is to "the Queen, her heirs and successors according to law".
...
I'd disagree with you on both counts. An oath of Allegiance to the Queen is exactly that: whatever you may hope for in her successor or as her successor by taking the oath you are accepting that you "owe" her allegiance.
You're right. TBH I don't really see how you can be both a republican and CofE. There may (or may not) be no technical or logical reason why you can't be both, but culturally the combination just doesn't make sense.
[ 09. May 2015, 21:38: Message edited by: Albertus ]
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
[QUOTE] We need to be clear here: in the Declaration you are emphatically not placing the Articles on a par with the Bible, sacred Tradition, or Reason. Also, you are not saying that the CofE is bearing witness through them, but that it has borne witness through them.
As to the Articles' alleged Calvinism, I refer you to Tract XC - not because I necessarily believe it, but merely to illustrate that with the right glasses on, you can make the Articles say almost anything you want them to say.
Nit picking --- if it has borne witness, then what is it doing now? What's changed and on whose permission/agreement?
I can't agree either that the Articles are not put on a par with reason, tradition and scripture. By bracketing the 39 - however tenuously - with the 3, you are including them in the vow.
Yes you can interpret the 39 in more than one way but doesn't the reality of one interpretation that reflects a protestant view cause you concern?
To me as a (now) non Anglican the issue is this: if the 39 are simply an historical allusion as you say - and they are now unclear as to meaning and intent - why do you keep them? If they are considered important why does the CofE ignore them?
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
You're right. TBH I don't really see how you can be both a republican and CofE. T
You can't be both - at least you can't give assent to both. The "state" issue is one of a number of reasons why I can't be a member of the CofE anymore.
As an established church the CofE has lost its prophetic voice - and arguably cannot have such a thing as it is irretrievably bound to mammon.
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768
|
Posted
The bishop of Maidstone was on the Sunday programme on BBC R4 this morning. Sunday, 10th May
Unfortunately, although, unusually, I managed not to drop off to sleep during the programme*, I have managed not to move the item from short term to long term memory. It's about 18 minutes in.
*A problem ever since they moved it from after 8 am to after 7 am.
Posts: 5833 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
He more or less said that he didn't want to be a cause of division but he wanted to provide those congregations that could not deal with a woman bishop the support they needed, but still add the richness and diversity of the worship of the Reform Movement to the nation's pews through his support.
Pretty much as expected, politically bland and unexceptional.
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768
|
Posted
I did rather pick up the idea that he and the churches he is involved with were hoping there would be opportunities to encourage people to study the Bible and work out their understanding of what it teaches. Which I interpreted as "and come to the conviction that we are right".
Posts: 5833 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Twangist
Shipmate
# 16208
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
With the 39 Articles you are affirming that they are on a par with the historic formularies of the faith. You are affirming that the CofE is bearing witness to this truth. Since the 39 reject the mass and affirm a calvinistic view of salvation, you are affirming to a reformed theology.
We need to be clear here: in the Declaration you are emphatically not placing the Articles on a par with the Bible, sacred Tradition, or Reason. Also, you are not saying that the CofE is bearing witness through them, but that it has borne witness through them.
As to the Articles' alleged Calvinism, I refer you to Tract XC - not because I necessarily believe it, but merely to illustrate that with the right glasses on, you can make the Articles say almost anything you want them to say.
Aren't you saying that the articles are a part of tradition, which uses reason to interpret the Bible and that you are standing in the line of that particular tradition and that thus therefore it is somewhat and somehow binding on you?
The Tract 90 argument has always put me in mind of Lewis Carroll's Humpty Dumpty (obviously YMMV).
--------------------
JJ
SDG
blog
Posts: 604 | From: Devon | Registered: Feb 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
american piskie
Shipmate
# 593
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
I've never taken an oath that I couldn't take in good conscience. I wouldn't. But it does pay to know what oaths do say, and what they don't.
The two oaths that CofE clergy have to take are the Oath of Allegiance and the Oath of Obedience. The Oath of Allegiance is to "the Queen, her heirs and successors according to law". (Notice that if you're a republican, you can even hope that her "successor according to law" is a President, and you're still covered!) The Oath of Obedience is to your bishop "in all things lawful and honest".
An equally scrupulous friend, on being offered by his retiring bishop the chance to move from being a (at episcopal pleasure) priest-in-charge to being the legal Vicar with freehold, consulted the Diocesan Registrar on exactly what he would be promising in the Oath of Allegiance. He was told that he was merely acknowledging the obligations all English subjects have to HM in her various capacities: nothing new was involved. So there's no need for republicans to scruple: we are where we are, and have obligations we can't get out of. And the clause about "successors according to law" is actually an escape valve for when the whole nonsense is swept away: the allegiance will pass seamlessly to the new regime, lawfully suceeding--for who makes the laws?--- with no need for another non-juror fiasco.
Posts: 356 | From: Oxford, England, UK | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
pete173
Shipmate
# 4622
|
Posted
Precisely.
--------------------
Pete
Posts: 1653 | From: Kilburn, London NW6 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
fullgospel
Shipmate
# 18233
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by L'organist:
[qb]
2. See 1. above - but perhaps they DO cross their fingers rather like the very high % of Anglican Priests who do so when assenting to the (Calvinist and anti catholic) 39 Articles. The local priest had no coherent answer to the latter when i asked him ...
Church of England clergy do not give assent to the 39 Articles.
That is, they do, no longer.
--------------------
on the one hand - self doubt
on the other, the universe that looks through your eyes - your eyes
Posts: 364 | From: Rubovia | Registered: Sep 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by fullgospel:
[QUOTE]Church of England clergy do not give assent to the 39 Articles. That is, they do, no longer.
It was in the last installation I attended, 2 years ago.
If they don't assent as you claim, then why mention it?
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
[QUOTE]Originally posted by american piskie:
[QB] [QUOTE]So there's no need for republicans to scruple: we are where we are, and have obligations we can't get out of.
And the clause about "successors according to law" is actually an escape valve for when the whole nonsense is swept away: the allegiance will pass seamlessly to the new regime, lawfully suceeding--for who makes the laws?--- with no need for another non-juror fiasco. [/QB What obligations might that be? I can't see what they are tbh - grace to be extended, yes of course, but we only have obligations to God.
"Successors" is intended to refer to the Queen's natural succession (ie family). A republican succession has never been considered.
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by fullgospel:
[QUOTE]Church of England clergy do not give assent to the 39 Articles. That is, they do, no longer.
It was in the last installation I attended, 2 years ago.
If they don't assent as you claim, then why mention it?
This, from the Diocese of Ely (the first one which came up when i googled):
quote:
The Presentation and the Declarations
The Patron leads the Priest before the Bishop who stands at his chair
Patron Reverend Father in God, I present to you A.B. to be admitted to the cure of souls in this parish(es).
Bishop We thank you for your presentation. In the Name of our Lord Jesus Christ and as your Bishop, I intend to admit A.B. to the cure of souls in this parish(es). Let the Declaration of Assent be made and subscribed and the Oaths taken according to law.
Bishop The Church of England is part of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church worshipping the one true God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit. It professes the faith uniquely revealed in the Holy Scriptures and set forth in the catholic creeds, which faith the Church is called upon to proclaim afresh in each generation. Led by the Holy Spirit, it has borne witness to Christian truth in its historic formularies, the Thirty-nine Articles of Religion, the Book of Common Prayer and the Ordering of Bishops, Priests and Deacons. In the declaration you are about to make, will you affirm your loyalty to this inheritance of faith as your inspiration and guidance under God in bringing the grace and truth of Christ to this generation and making Him known to those in your care?
The Priest, facing the People, makes the Declaration of Assent
Priest I, A.B., do so affirm and accordingly declare my belief in the faith which is revealed in the Holy Scriptures and set forth in the catholic creeds and to which the historic formularies of the Church of England bear witness; and in public prayer and administration of the sacraments I will use only the forms of service which are authorised or allowed by Canon.
The Rural Dean hands the Priest the Bible. Facing the people, the Priest holds the Bible and makes the Oath of Allegiance
Priest I, A.B., do swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth II, her heirs and successors, according to law. So help me God.
The Priest turns towards the Bishop for the Oath of Canonical Obedience
Priest I, A.B., do swear by Almighty God that I will pay true and canonical obedience to the Lord Bishop of Ely and his successors in all things lawful and honest. So help me God.
The Declarations are then subscribed
It is about as non-specific an assent to the 39 Articles as you could possibly devise- but it is still a form of assent.
I agree with you about the likely original meaning of 'successors, according to law', but there is just enough wiggle room for republicans, if they look at it in the dusk with the light behind it. But one thing which I think that you and I both agree on is that being a republican is not really consistent with being CofE, especially with being a CofE cleric.
[ 12. May 2015, 08:26: Message edited by: Albertus ]
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
american piskie
Shipmate
# 593
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
"Successors" is intended to refer to the Queen's natural succession (ie family). A republican succession has never been considered.
The succession has been changed before: one thinks of the heirs of the body of the Electress Sophia, and the extraordinary (s)election of the William-and-Mary.
You may never have considered a republican succession; I can assure you many others have! My father assured me that most of his fellow wartime commissioned officers were attached to the "according to law" clause in their oath.
Posts: 356 | From: Oxford, England, UK | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
But one thing which I think that you and I both agree on is that being a republican is not really consistent with being CofE, especially with being a CofE cleric.
That's very true and it's one reason - amongst others - why I'm ordained in another denomination (although most of the CofE wouldn't recognise it).
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by american piskie:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
"Successors" is intended to refer to the Queen's natural succession (ie family). A republican succession has never been considered.
The succession has been changed before: one thinks of the heirs of the body of the Electress Sophia, and the extraordinary (s)election of the William-and-Mary.
You may never have considered a republican succession; I can assure you many others have! My father assured me that most of his fellow wartime commissioned officers were attached to the "according to law" clause in their oath.
Oh I've considered it and longed for it - I suspect that I am in a very small minority. Sadly this is one minority position in the UK that doesn't grant you any kind of opt out clause. It's bad enough not standing up for things like the national anthem .... no one seems to get "it" that you just done approve!
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
But one thing which I think that you and I both agree on is that being a republican is not really consistent with being CofE, especially with being a CofE cleric.
That's very true and it's one reason - amongst others - why I'm ordained in another denomination...
And that's a very respectable position (not that you need me to say that): you know where you stand, and so does everyone else. You're not taking oaths and making declarations with reservations or with your fingers crossed, and kidding yourself that that makes you some kind of cool rebel, like a fifth-former slipping rude words into the school song on speech day. If there's a conversation to be had, the cards are on the table, and agreements and disagreements can be identified and worked with.
[ 12. May 2015, 21:01: Message edited by: Albertus ]
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
John Holding
Coffee and Cognac
# 158
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by american piskie:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
"Successors" is intended to refer to the Queen's natural succession (ie family). A republican succession has never been considered.
The succession has been changed before: one thinks of the heirs of the body of the Electress Sophia, and the extraordinary (s)election of the William-and-Mary.
You may never have considered a republican succession; I can assure you many others have! My father assured me that most of his fellow wartime commissioned officers were attached to the "according to law" clause in their oath.
Somewhat to the point, in the innumerable (because I can't be bothered to count them) former colonies and territories once subject to the Crown which have become republics, it has always been the case that oaths of allegiance to HM and his/her heirs and successors have been deemed to transfer seamlessly to the republic.
John
Posts: 5929 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
Very slightly off the point: on the Diamond Jubilee Sunday in 2012 I preached a sermon which, while commending the Queen as a stabilising presence in our society, also questioned the whole idea of Monarchy and pointed out that loyalty to our Dissenting forebears should mean that our church would be completely opposed to the institution.
I don't think many people listened: they just wanted to go home and watch the River Pageant on the TV (and what a disaster that was!)
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
M.
Ship's Spare Part
# 3291
|
Posted
Tangent - why do you say the River Pageant was a disaster? I was there and it wasn't. True, it was cold and wet but still fun and tremendous to see all the craft on the river. Mind you, I was on the Tattershall Castle (pub on a moored boat), which might have coloured my view. Possibly the Duke of Edinburgh wasn't so happy.
End of tangent.
M.
Posts: 2303 | From: Lurking in Surrey | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
/Re-opens Tangent/ Fair comment. It wasn't so much the Pageant itself, rather the awful BBC coverage, which would have been very poor even if they hadn't had technical problems. /Ends again/
[ 13. May 2015, 06:56: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by american piskie:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
"Successors" is intended to refer to the Queen's natural succession (ie family). A republican succession has never been considered.
The succession has been changed before: one thinks of the heirs of the body of the Electress Sophia, and the extraordinary (s)election of the William-and-Mary.
You may never have considered a republican succession; I can assure you many others have! My father assured me that most of his fellow wartime commissioned officers were attached to the "according to law" clause in their oath.
Oh I've considered it and longed for it - I suspect that I am in a very small minority. Sadly this is one minority position in the UK that doesn't grant you any kind of opt out clause. It's bad enough not standing up for things like the national anthem .... no one seems to get "it" that you just done approve!
Too true. Not to mention the insult of being told that a Royalist ditty is your National Anthem.
I'm Republican by default; I cannot for the life of me see the sense in elevating one family as somehow special simply because of who their ancestors were. It makes zero sense to me and always has. Somehow I muddle along in thw CofE.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768
|
Posted
Come on, now, surely a family that can trace itself back to Aphrodite, Woden and Seth has to have something special about it?
Posts: 5833 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
Very slightly off the point: on the Diamond Jubilee Sunday in 2012 I preached a sermon which, while commending the Queen as a stabilising presence in our society, also questioned the whole idea of Monarchy and pointed out that loyalty to our Dissenting forebears should mean that our church would be completely opposed to the institution.
Our dissenting forbears would be horrified at many of our accommodations to culture. I can't help but feel (and I think there's ample evidence for it), that the denomination BT and I share has lost the plot and is losing more of it as time goes by. Our current leadership is anything but.
On that point, can anyone tell me why Buckingham Palace is not subject to the bedroom tax and its two elderly occupants forced into some kind of almshouse?
[ 13. May 2015, 12:33: Message edited by: ExclamationMark ]
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
I don't think that HRH is a "working-age council or housing association tenant", so not liable to the tax. I doubt if the younger royals are, either.
Strangely my wife, who is a fairly red-blooded Scottish Nationalist Socialist (and a member of our local LibDems to boot), has quite a lot of affection for the Royal family. I can't explain it.
[ 13. May 2015, 13:57: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
Well, lots of Socialists have been monarchists- CR Attlee probably being the prime example- and there's no reason why an independent Scotland couldn't be in personal union with the rump of Ukania, especially since the Royal family are about as Scottish as they are anything else*. In fact, wasn't retention of the monarchy part of the 'Yes' campaign's platform in the independence referendum?
*You probably know the story of HlateM the Queen Mother's reply to the Afrikaner who said that he couldn't forgive the English for what they had done to his country: "As a Scot, I know just how you feel".
--------------------
My beard is a testament to my masculinity and virility, and demonstrates that I am a real man. Trouble is, bits of quiche sometimes get caught in it.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
I don't think that HRH is a "working-age council or housing association tenant", so not liable to the tax. I doubt if the younger royals are, either.
Strangely my wife, who is a fairly red-blooded Scottish Nationalist Socialist (and a member of our local LibDems to boot), has quite a lot of affection for the Royal family. I can't explain it.
It's a big house with lots of space. There's alo a big garden ready to dig up for allotments - plenty of manure from all sorts of sources.
Perhaps your wife's affection has something to do with the fact that the Battenburg-Saxe Coburg-Windsors seem to feel they own most of Scotland.
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
*You probably know the story of HlateM the Queen Mother's reply to the Afrikaner who said that he couldn't forgive the English for what they had done to his country: "As a Scot, I know just how you feel".
yep sure do. I can't forgive them for what they did to the Fens either
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
What, widening the gene pool? (runs for cover...)
[ 13. May 2015, 23:00: Message edited by: Albertus ]
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Paul.
Shipmate
# 37
|
Posted
Just read this on Twitter:
quote:
The case for the British monarchy can be summed up in two words: "President Blair"
Posts: 3690 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
But one thing which I think that you and I both agree on is that being a republican is not really consistent with being CofE, especially with being a CofE cleric.
That's very true and it's one reason - amongst others - why I'm ordained in another denomination...
And that's a very respectable position (not that you need me to say that): you know where you stand, and so does everyone else. You're not taking oaths and making declarations with reservations or with your fingers crossed, and kidding yourself that that makes you some kind of cool rebel, like a fifth-former slipping rude words into the school song on speech day. If there's a conversation to be had, the cards are on the table, and agreements and disagreements can be identified and worked with.
Of course, it helps if there's a suitable other denomination for you to be ordained in! My choice of church is either CoE or RCC, only one of which will ordain me since I am a woman. I don't see how being ordained in another denomination whose theology I don't agree with is more honest than being a republican member of the CoE.
I'm not trying to be a cool rebel, I'm trying to follow the vocation God has called me to without leaving my brain at the door.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Paul.:
Just read this on Twitter:
quote:
The case for the British monarchy can be summed up in two words: "President Blair"
Surely 'King Charles III' makes the case for the British republic? The point is that it's not about individual nice monarchs v individual nasty politicians, but the inherent unfairness of the monarchy. George W Bush having been twice President doesn't suddenly mean the US should have become a monarchy.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
The converse argument in favour of the monarchy is, as I think Palmerston said of the Garter, that 'there's no damn' merit in it'.
I think that the USA would have been a lot better off if it had remained a monarchy (that is, in personal union with the British crown rather than the Spanish or French). Then it might have developed its abundant good qualities to become been as happy and settled a country as say Canada or Australia, rather than the deeply messed up place that it is.
[ 13. May 2015, 23:31: Message edited by: Albertus ]
--------------------
My beard is a testament to my masculinity and virility, and demonstrates that I am a real man. Trouble is, bits of quiche sometimes get caught in it.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Louise
Shipmate
# 30
|
Posted
hosting
Oops, too much tangent! Please take the tangent about the royals/republicanism/royal supremacy per se to Purgatory and open a new thread there, if you wish to continue it. Please use this thread for beliefs about male headship and the episcopate.
Many thanks!
Louise
DH Host
hosting off
--------------------
Now you need never click a Daily Mail link again! Kittenblock replaces Mail links with calming pics of tea and kittens! http://www.teaandkittens.co.uk/ Click under 'other stuff' to find it.
Posts: 6918 | From: Scotland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Printer-friendly view
