homepage
  roll on christmas  
click here to find out more about ship of fools click here to sign up for the ship of fools newsletter click here to support ship of fools
community the mystery worshipper gadgets for god caption competition foolishness features ship stuff
discussion boards live chat cafe avatars frequently-asked questions the ten commandments gallery private boards register for the boards
 
Ship of Fools


Post new thread  Post a reply
My profile login | | Directory | Search | FAQs | Board home
   - Printer-friendly view Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
» Ship of Fools   » Ship's Locker   » Limbo   » Hell: Blasphemous desecration (Page 21)

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.  
Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  ...  18  19  20  21  22 
 
Source: (consider it) Thread: Hell: Blasphemous desecration
welsh dragon

Shipmate
# 3249

 - Posted      Profile for welsh dragon     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
My mum got made a Eucharistic minister years and years ago. My Dad went to a seminary in his youth and a mate of his who had stayed the course was spending some time in London. Don Salvatore decided that Mum would make a good minister so he passed her details to their parish priest. Without asking or telling her. When she found out she was too emberrassed to say no. But this would have been many years ago.

A quick Google threw up a refence to a woman who had served as a Eucharistic minister for 20 years, and I suspect that was about when my Mum started. But it's a post-Vatican II thing and so might possibly be earlier.

There were certainly women Chaplains acting as Eucharistic ministers when we were both at Oxford.

I have noticed, Ariel, that although I think you don't regard yourself as a conventional RC, and possibly don't regard yourself as an RC at all other than a lapsed one, you have a sort of pre-Vatican II sensibility when it does impinge on your consciousness...

Posts: 5352 | From: ebay | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
welsh dragon

Shipmate
# 3249

 - Posted      Profile for welsh dragon     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Thurible:
Rome does discourage women from serving at the Altar/being eucharistic ministers when there are men available.

How very bigoted of them, even more so than I remember from my time as a RC...

Even if women are thought not to be able to do the consecration for whatever strange interpretation of the Bible and history, if lay people can hand out hosts, why on Earth shouldn't women do it? And if they can do it, why shouldn't they do it with equal responsibility to men?

[heaves sigh of relief that am now Anglican]

The church where my mum served as a Eucharistic minister had about 2,000 people on a Sunday. In a predominantly female congregation, it seems to me to make perfect sense to have predominantly female Eucharistic ministers - it makes practical sense.

Also, for elderly/infirm housebound devout RCs, receiving communion at home can be a great comfort. My mum used to spend all morning walking round her neighbourhood with a kit including a pyxful of hosts. I am sure that if any of the men of her parish had wanted to go visiting the sick they could have done so. There did not seem to be a great deluge of volunteers. Least of all from the men of the congregation. My mother quietly did a very substantial portion of the visiting of the sick in that parish...

Posts: 5352 | From: ebay | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Max.
Shipmate
# 5846

 - Posted      Profile for Max.     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Scot:
103 has a girlfriend?!

Oooooh yes!
*Flicks fingers in Ali G Style but then relizes that it isn't a cool thing to do, then relizes that posting on the ship isn't a cool thing to do*

-103

--------------------
For the sake of His sorrowful Passion, have mercy on us and on the whole world.

Posts: 9716 | From: North Yorkshire | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
Emma Louise

Storm in a teapot
# 3571

 - Posted      Profile for Emma Louise   Email Emma Louise   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
vicars not robing for communion is illegial?!?!? Well Im pretty sure Ive never seen my vicar/ curates in robes.......

And at a weekend away he umed and ahhed about whether to wear his dog collar for the service.

(edited to add im with 103's girlfriend on this one...... [Ultra confused] Bet they have fascinating discussions [Big Grin] )

[ 26. April 2005, 06:30: Message edited by: Emma. ]

Posts: 12719 | From: Enid Blyton territory. | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Peronel

The typo slayer
# 569

 - Posted      Profile for Peronel   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Yeah. When normal teenagers are spending all their time in illicit furtling behind the bike sheds, or in dank and dark corners of the undergrowth, 103 and his lass are instead engaged in passionate discussions about the finer points of tat.

Ahhh well. At least it keeps them out of trouble [Biased]

--------------------
Lord, I have sinned, and mine iniquity.
Deserves this hell; yet Lord deliver me.

Posts: 2367 | From: A self-inflicted exile | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Duo Seraphim*
Sea lawyer
# 3251

 - Posted      Profile for Duo Seraphim*   Email Duo Seraphim*       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by welsh dragon:
quote:
Originally posted by Thurible:
Rome does discourage women from serving at the Altar/being eucharistic ministers when there are men available.

How very bigoted of them, even more so than I remember from my time as a RC...

Even if women are thought not to be able to do the consecration for whatever strange interpretation of the Bible and history, if lay people can hand out hosts, why on Earth shouldn't women do it? And if they can do it, why shouldn't they do it with equal responsibility to men?

[heaves sigh of relief that am now Anglican]

The church where my mum served as a Eucharistic minister had about 2,000 people on a Sunday. In a predominantly female congregation, it seems to me to make perfect sense to have predominantly female Eucharistic ministers - it makes practical sense.

Before you all get your panties in a knot, I should point out that Thurible is 100% wrong on this.

The truth at its most doctrinaire, is that technically both lay women and men are discouraged from being Eucharistic Ministers. The priests are the Ministers of the Eucharist. Where there is no priest or the priest cannot distribute Holy Communion for some reason or there are insufficient priests to give Holy Communion without inordinate delay, then Extraordinary Ministers of the Eucharist (the correct term) may be appointed. see para 903 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church is followed (which also deals with lay people as servers, cantors, lectors etc).

There is a fair bit about it in the General instructions on the Roman Missal and there may also be directions on the subject from the local Council of Bishops. Nowhere does it say that women can only be Extraordinary Ministers of the Eucharist if there aren't enough men.

--------------------
2^8, eight bits to a byte

Posts: 3967 | From: Sydney Australia | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Thurible
Shipmate
# 3206

 - Posted      Profile for Thurible   Email Thurible   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I withdraw that, then. In my naievete, I had assumed that Rome would offer the same guidelines on EEMs as it does on altar servers. Evidently not.

Thurible

--------------------
"I've been baptised not lobotomised."

Posts: 8049 | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
welsh dragon

Shipmate
# 3249

 - Posted      Profile for welsh dragon     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Oh good. Though it wouldn't amaze me if the strangely conservative new Pope were to agree withThurible.
Posts: 5352 | From: ebay | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Thurible
Shipmate
# 3206

 - Posted      Profile for Thurible   Email Thurible   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I offer no opinions on it, WD. I don't particularly like lay eucharistic ministers full-stop, but, if we're going to have them, I have no objection at all to female ones.

Thurible

--------------------
"I've been baptised not lobotomised."

Posts: 8049 | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Duo Seraphim*
Sea lawyer
# 3251

 - Posted      Profile for Duo Seraphim*   Email Duo Seraphim*       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Thurible:
I withdraw that, then. In my naievete, I had assumed that Rome would offer the same guidelines on EEMs as it does on altar servers. Evidently not.

Thurible

The Church is precise in its use of "lay people" in para 803. There's a tacit encouragement of boys to be altar servers, because they believe that's where the next generation of priests come from. But no question about it - girls and women are as legitimate altar servers as boys. It is dealt with in Redemptonis Sacramentum.

The determined will find the answer to the vexed question of vesting at Holy Communion too.

Never mind Heck - this place is turning into Heccles.

--------------------
2^8, eight bits to a byte

Posts: 3967 | From: Sydney Australia | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Peronel

The typo slayer
# 569

 - Posted      Profile for Peronel   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by 103 (One-O-Three):
posting on the ship isn't a cool thing to do

-103

It isn't?! [Eek!]

Bugger.

--------------------
Lord, I have sinned, and mine iniquity.
Deserves this hell; yet Lord deliver me.

Posts: 2367 | From: A self-inflicted exile | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
luvanddaisies

the'fun'in'fundie'™
# 5761

 - Posted      Profile for luvanddaisies   Email luvanddaisies   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Emma.:
vicars not robing for communion is illegial?!?!? Well Im pretty sure Ive never seen my vicar/ curates in robes.......
And at a weekend away he umed and ahhed about whether to wear his dog collar for the service.

maybe both of our churches will be raided by crack teams of tat-enforcers.

ours never do the dog-collar thing either - except one who wears it on his way to work then takes it off when he gets there beause he says when he wears it outside church circumstances that it means that people often stop him to engage him in conversation about God the universe & everything!

At weddings / memorials the couple / family can opt for the cleric on duty to be robed, dog-collared or not, which is nice.

--------------------
"Twenty years from now you will be more disappointed by the things you didn't do than by the ones you did do. So throw off the bowlines, sail away from the safe harbour. Catch the trade winds in your sails. Explore. Dream. Discover." (Mark Twain)

Posts: 3711 | From: all at sea. | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
GreyFace
Shipmate
# 4682

 - Posted      Profile for GreyFace   Email GreyFace   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Emma.:
vicars not robing for communion is illegial?!?!? Well Im pretty sure Ive never seen my vicar/ curates in robes.......

From Canon B8 of the Church of England:

"At the Holy Communion the presiding minister shall wear either a surplice or alb with scarf or stole. When a stole is worn other customary vestments may be added."

Your ministers are breaking the rules, Emma.

Posts: 5748 | From: North East England | Registered: Jul 2003  |  IP: Logged
Cosmo
Shipmate
# 117

 - Posted      Profile for Cosmo         Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by luvanddaisies:
At weddings / memorials the couple / family can opt for the cleric on duty to be robed, dog-collared or not, which is nice.

It may be nice but no they can't. As GreyFace's link makes clear, the Canons of the Church of England are very clear about what has to be worn at the celebration of an Occasional Office (which is what a wedding is).

Those clerics who don't wear 'robes' for Mass or the Offices are not just breaking the rules but they are, in fact, breaking the law. Just as I bet those clerics who don't wear robes don't bother with celebrating the Holy Communion on Ascension Day or the Annunciation.

Funny how those clergy so blase about robes are those so hot on the authority of scripture and how the Church should be cracking down on everybody.

At least we Anglo-Catholic's are open about picking and choosing and having a slightly anarchic view of authority.

Cosmo

Posts: 2375 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
luvanddaisies

the'fun'in'fundie'™
# 5761

 - Posted      Profile for luvanddaisies   Email luvanddaisies   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Cosmo:
I bet those clerics who don't wear robes don't bother with celebrating the Holy Communion on Ascension Day or the Annunciation.

not at the annunciation, not being RC, but on Ascension Day we most defintely have at least one service. Maundy Thursday & Ash Wednesday likewise - etc, etc.

what does wearing robes have to do with whether you celebrate Communion on particular special days?
just because they don't dress up in strange outfits doesn't mean that the sacrament of Communion is not viewed as a very important event each and every time it is celebrated.

illegal or not, many other anglican churches do the same thing - even when there's a bish in attendance.

--------------------
"Twenty years from now you will be more disappointed by the things you didn't do than by the ones you did do. So throw off the bowlines, sail away from the safe harbour. Catch the trade winds in your sails. Explore. Dream. Discover." (Mark Twain)

Posts: 3711 | From: all at sea. | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Sarkycow
La belle Dame sans merci
# 1012

 - Posted      Profile for Sarkycow   Email Sarkycow   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Greyface said:
Your ministers are breaking the rules, Emma.

quote:
Cosmo agreed:
Those clerics who don't wear 'robes' for Mass or the Offices are not just breaking the rules but they are, in fact, breaking the law.

Apparently the bishop may grant permission for a vicar not to robe for a service. I believe it's ok 'on special occasions', which certain bishops may define as every Sunday if the vicar asks.

Sarkycow

--------------------
“Just because your voice reaches halfway around the world doesn't mean you are wiser than when it reached only to the end of the bar.”

Posts: 10787 | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Thurible
Shipmate
# 3206

 - Posted      Profile for Thurible   Email Thurible   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by luvanddaisies:
not at the annunciation, not being RC,

What's not being Roman Catholic got to do with celebrating the Annunciation? The Annunciation of Our Lord to the Blessed Virgin Mary is a red-letter day in the Church of England.

Thurible

--------------------
"I've been baptised not lobotomised."

Posts: 8049 | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
GreyFace
Shipmate
# 4682

 - Posted      Profile for GreyFace   Email GreyFace   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by luvanddaisies:
not at the annunciation, not being RC

Eh? Please explain. Are you claiming the Annunciation is no longer celebrated by Anglicans, or any other non-RC churches for that matter?

quote:
what does wearing robes have to do with whether you celebrate Communion on particular special days?
I assume Cosmo was implying that a willingness to break the law on the question of vestments might indicate a willingness to break it on the question of feast days - both stemming, from, I assume, a rejection of anything that looks like Catholicism.

quote:
just because they don't dress up in strange outfits doesn't mean that the sacrament of Communion is not viewed as a very important event each and every time it is celebrated.
True, but it does mean that they're explicitly refusing to follow the rules, and denying the right of the Church of England to make such rules. Is there a good reason for it?

quote:
illegal or not, many other anglican churches do the same thing - even when there's a bish in attendance.
Many? Can you back this up? My best guess would be that you would only find this in an evangelical church in England, which chops it down to something like a third of the C of E to start with. My experience has been that a large portion of C of E evangelicals are low church traditional, where you would find low church vestments in use, and finally each new-style evangelical place I've been to (not many, admittedly) has had priests that decided to follow the rules in respect of alb + stole, even when the service was pushing the boundaries of what Common Worship allows for Holy Communion.

So, is this as common as LND thinks?

Posts: 5748 | From: North East England | Registered: Jul 2003  |  IP: Logged
Emma Louise

Storm in a teapot
# 3571

 - Posted      Profile for Emma Louise   Email Emma Louise   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I think we have a really early morning service where ts the formal liturgy thing. Maybe he robes for that?

I know quite a lot of anglican churches that dont robe tho, including some big ones, so i take it theres some way around it.

Posts: 12719 | From: Enid Blyton territory. | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
GreyFace
Shipmate
# 4682

 - Posted      Profile for GreyFace   Email GreyFace   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Sarkycow:
Apparently the bishop may grant permission for a vicar not to robe for a service. I believe it's ok 'on special occasions', which certain bishops may define as every Sunday if the vicar asks.

I would suggest that the definitions of acceptable vestments in the canon mean that a bishop should not do this, and that that provision is truly there to give the bishop discretion on special occasions, not to bypass the canon entirely.
Posts: 5748 | From: North East England | Registered: Jul 2003  |  IP: Logged
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460

 - Posted      Profile for ken     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Cosmo:
Funny how those clergy so blase about robes are those so hot on the authority of scripture

Eh? Are you really suggesting that one church's rules about vestments are as important as scripture?

--------------------
Ken

L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.

Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
dj_ordinaire
Host
# 4643

 - Posted      Profile for dj_ordinaire   Author's homepage   Email dj_ordinaire   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
As a minor point, no need to fuss about the Roman collar (as the dog collar is properly called) - it is a completely optional piece of TAT.

As to how you get around it... same way that churches at the other end of the spectrum get away with using the Novus Ordo - the assumption that the Ordinary has more important things to worry about than mere criminality.

--------------------
Flinging wide the gates...

Posts: 10335 | From: Hanging in the balance of the reality of man | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
Thurible
Shipmate
# 3206

 - Posted      Profile for Thurible   Email Thurible   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
It's interesting that in a certain diocese in a certain (North-Eastern) part of England a certain bishop seems keener to stamp out "abuse" of Canon B5a than he does to stamp out abuse of Canon B8. Interesting, isn't it, that it's the churches that ignore the latter canon have more money?

Thurible

--------------------
"I've been baptised not lobotomised."

Posts: 8049 | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
GreyFace
Shipmate
# 4682

 - Posted      Profile for GreyFace   Email GreyFace   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I'm sure that's sheerest coincidence, Thurible.

Actually I am pretty sure of that. Much as I disagree with the bishop in question on certain matters, I wouldn't go after him on a charge of insincerity.

Posts: 5748 | From: North East England | Registered: Jul 2003  |  IP: Logged
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460

 - Posted      Profile for ken     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:
Many? Can you back this up? My best guess would be that you would only find this in an evangelical church in England, which chops it down to something like a third of the C of E to start with. My experience has been that a large portion of C of E evangelicals are low church traditional, where you would find low church vestments in use, and finally each new-style evangelical place I've been to (not many, admittedly) has had priests that decided to follow the rules in respect of alb + stole, even when the service was pushing the boundaries of what Common Worship allows for Holy Communion.

Anecdotal eviodence from CofE evangelical churches I've attended enough times to have a good idea how they dress (i.e. more than just the occasional visit) & remember well enough. Roughly chronological order, going back some years.

1) Grey suit & dogcollar. Prayer-book Morning & Evening Prayer, once-a-month BCP Communion. 2 succesive priests dressed this way.

2) Cassock with dogcollar. Moving up the candle as I knew the place, the next priest and curate tended to surplices. and & the one after that was fully vested in alb & chasuble for Communion. And impressive he looked too. There were rumours of incense after I left...

3) Sometimes suit with dogcollar, occasional black cassock (& sometimes preaching tabs), sometimes surpliced. Big university church. Moved from BCP Morning & evening to Parish Communion while I was there - Communion was usually cassock & surplice IIRC, and albs and stoles were making an apprearance last time I attended which was some years ago.

4) Suit & collar sometimes, cassock & surplice at other times. Large downmarket ethnically mixed inner-city place, also moving from BCP offices to (then) ASB Communion as regular Sunday service. Vicar in question strongly charismatic & into Restoration/New Church stuff. These were the days of Toronto.

5) The full gear at all times. But he was strongly suspected of High Church yearnings. Smallish urban working-class church, often very intense charismatic services.

6) Large suburban middle-class team ministry, "team rector" tended to suit & collar, various other clergy wore anything they fancied. Services - held simultaneously in 3 different buildings - very informal and sometimes on the outer edge of what Common Worship would encompass. I believe there was a more formal BCP Morning Prayer which may have been more dressed-up. I don't remember a communion service at this church, even though I attended at least 10 times (& once was Christmas, so there must have been communion - I genuinely don't remember it)

7) Woman priests who always robed and had a tendency to rainbow stoles. A male curate who objected to robes & was more into jeans & T-shirts was leaned on a little and ended up with the full gear. Another one robed up from the start. (Same place as (4) above under new management - still evangelical/charismatic but now somewhat more socially & perhaps doctrinally liberal)

8) Suit and dogcollar usually, but could be anything from a flowerly Hawaian shirt to the default evangelical open-necked button-down collar and brown trousers. Well-attended church in a prosperous small town, some very upmarket parishioners, drew lots of people fromthe country round about. Usual services CW Morning Prayer, just about. Communion services rare, but those I saw were cassock and surplice usually, though I think I remember one done in a suit & one in shirtsleeves.

9) Suit and dogcollar, occasionally open-necked jacked & shirt. Another smallish urban working-class ethnically mixed congregation.

10) Woman priest, always dressed in cassock, robes for Communion. Charismatic/evangelical with Taize tendencies.

11) Woman priest, often dressed in cassock, robes for Communion. "Open evangelical" with Taize tendencies & Iona influences.

So my small & not very statistical sample seems to imply that female evangelical priests (4 in the list above) take great care to dress as priests, male ones don't so often, and that robing has become more common in the last couple of decades. Also that the traditional prayer-book evangelicals were less likely to enrobe than the Restoration/Charismatic/Open sorts.

--------------------
Ken

L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.

Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
Scholar Gypsy
Shipmate
# 7210

 - Posted      Profile for Scholar Gypsy   Email Scholar Gypsy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
When people become Anglican priests/vicars/ministers, do they have to promise to uphold canon law at all? Or is it just assumed?

I'm honestly asking, because I don't know, and if it were the case that they either promised and went back on it, or promised in the full knowledge that they wouldn't follow certain canons, that would be IMO a very different case from just not following 'one church's laws on vestments'.

I think it is fairly common in evangelical anglican churches for ministers not to be robed and/or dog-collared. I know of 3 churches in my area where they don't, and one in my home town where vestments are worn only when the bishop visits.

Posts: 822 | From: Oxford | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
Thurible
Shipmate
# 3206

 - Posted      Profile for Thurible   Email Thurible   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
You have to pledge your oath of Canonical Obedience to the Ordinary (the Bishop of the diocese - so +Oxford, rather than +Reading or +Ebbsfleet) at your ordination(s), and when your are licensed/inducted/installed/collated every time thereafter.

Thurible

--------------------
"I've been baptised not lobotomised."

Posts: 8049 | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Cosmo
Shipmate
# 117

 - Posted      Profile for Cosmo         Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Cosmo:
Funny how those clergy so blase about robes are those so hot on the authority of scripture

Eh? Are you really suggesting that one church's rules about vestments are as important as scripture?
No not necessarily. Merely that it depends on one's notion of ecclesiastical authority doesn't it? I find it odd that those clergy who call for the Church to be much tougher in disciplining those they see as flouting 'the clear teachings of scripture' are then willing to flout the Canons of that self-same church on things like vesture and Red Letter Day observance just because they don't see that the Church's authority in such a matter is important or relevant.

Cosmo

Posts: 2375 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Fiddleback
Shipmate
# 2809

 - Posted      Profile for Fiddleback     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
So my small & not very statistical sample seems to imply that female evangelical priests (4 in the list above) take great care to dress as priests.

I think the reason for this is that there are actually not many female evangelical priests. There are female priests in evo churches because the bishop can't find anywhere else to put them. In any case, to slightly paraphrase the Bishop of Fulham, real evangelical women wouldn't want to be priests.
Posts: 2034 | Registered: May 2002  |  IP: Logged
welsh dragon

Shipmate
# 3249

 - Posted      Profile for welsh dragon     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
There does seem to be an issue about different sorts of authority and their relative value surely.

One major difference between the RC church and the Anglo Catholic church is that the details of ritual - the clothes and utensils - seem to hold much more importance for Anglo Catholics than Romans, especially post Vatican II. Certainly, the attitude of my Dad, who was a very trad Catholic, was that in the Mass we had the Sacrament - and everything else, the length and style and language of the service and the clothes people were wearing - these were all incidental. Not that one would deliberately be disrespectful or foolish about these things, but they occupied a very small place in the overall scheme of things...(I may come back a bit later...)

Posts: 5352 | From: ebay | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Nightlamp
Shipmate
# 266

 - Posted      Profile for Nightlamp   Email Nightlamp   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:
I would suggest that the definitions of acceptable vestments in the canon mean that a bishop should not do this, .

so who are you to say how a bishop interprets the law? As I understand it on exception circumstances the vicar can do what he wants during a service.
What is interesting is that if a priest wishes to change the style of robes he/she has to consult the PCC before any permanent change comes about.

--------------------
I don't know what you are talking about so it couldn't have been that important- Nightlamp

Posts: 8442 | From: Midlands | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Cosmo
Shipmate
# 117

 - Posted      Profile for Cosmo         Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Canon B14 does not mean that the Bishop can allow a priest not to wear the appropriate vesture for the occasion. It merely means that he can exempt a place from their obligation to celebrate the Holy Communion on the Annunciation (for example) or on every Sunday (in the way that happens with many multi-parish benefices in the country). It does not mean that the Incumbent can wear a tasteful polyester suit and tie to celebrate the Holy Cummunion.

In practice, of course, many blind eyes are turned. I still think it's rather regretable.

Cosmo

[ 26. April 2005, 12:49: Message edited by: Cosmo ]

Posts: 2375 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
GreyFace
Shipmate
# 4682

 - Posted      Profile for GreyFace   Email GreyFace   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Nightlamp:
so who are you to say how a bishop interprets the law?

Well, yes, which is why it was merely a suggestion. But I'd have to ask, what the point is of the canon at all, if the intention of those who wrote it was to allow anyone who happened to have an evangelical bishop, to do what they liked.

So I deduce what it's there for, and suggest that a bishop who allows them to be dispensed with permanently for no reason other than that the vicar doesn't like them, is wrong to do so. I doubt any bishop doing this will lose much sleep over my opinion.

Posts: 5748 | From: North East England | Registered: Jul 2003  |  IP: Logged
Nightlamp
Shipmate
# 266

 - Posted      Profile for Nightlamp   Email Nightlamp   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Cosmo:
It merely means that he can exempt a place from their obligation to celebrate the Holy Communion on the Annunciation (for example)

which canon obligates a parish to celebrate communion on the Annunciation?

--------------------
I don't know what you are talking about so it couldn't have been that important- Nightlamp

Posts: 8442 | From: Midlands | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Elephenor
Shipmate
# 4026

 - Posted      Profile for Elephenor   Email Elephenor   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Nightlamp:
which canon obligates a parish to celebrate communion on the Annunciation?

I think it's the combination of B14(1):
quote:
The Holy Communion shall be celebrated in every parish church at least on all Sundays and principal Feast Days, and on Ash Wednesday and Maundy Thursday. It shall be celebrated distinctly, reverently, and in an audible voice.
and B6(2):
quote:
The principal Feasts which are to be observed in the Church of England are Christmas Day, Epiphany, the Annunciation of the Blessed Virgin Mary, Easter Day, Ascension Day, Whitsunday or Pentecost, Trinity Sunday and All Saints' Day.


--------------------
"Man is...a `eucharistic' animal." (Kallistos Ware)

Posts: 214 | From: UK | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
GreyFace
Shipmate
# 4682

 - Posted      Profile for GreyFace   Email GreyFace   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Nightlamp:
which canon obligates a parish to celebrate communion on the Annunciation?

B6 defines it as a principal Feast Day, and B14 says you have to have Communion on such days. (Same link as for B8 in my post above)
Posts: 5748 | From: North East England | Registered: Jul 2003  |  IP: Logged
Anselmina
Ship's barmaid
# 3032

 - Posted      Profile for Anselmina     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
While I've always loved the great variety of worship across the CofE, I have to admit to being a little bit surprized at the ministers who sign up to what is basically a liturgically-focused expression of being church, and yet then go on to do as much as they can to appear as if they're anything but.

If one doesn't want to be publicly and easily identifiable as belonging to the Anglican forms of worship, even on a Sunday morning, or to be recognizably and visibly the Church in the Community in that way, then wouldn't it be easier to simply not get ordained into the Anglican church in the first place?

Remembering that the presidential role of priest in the Anglican church is at least partly about representing the people - eschewing, to an extent, one's private Christian individualism - what's the point of taking on a conspicuous and clearly public role only to deliberately blur the message by giving off an 'it's only little old private me, here' vibe?

I'm not saying there aren't times when it's appropriate to dress down for a service; or that every Anglican clerge should go out, relentlessly collared up, come what may (I don't!). But I do think that Anglican worship should have some appearance of the Anglican pattern which low or high church is about the presentation of Church to God, not the personal wardrobe of the minister to his/her congregation.

Posts: 10002 | From: Scotland the Brave | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
Nightlamp
Shipmate
# 266

 - Posted      Profile for Nightlamp   Email Nightlamp   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I live and learn.

--------------------
I don't know what you are talking about so it couldn't have been that important- Nightlamp

Posts: 8442 | From: Midlands | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
luvanddaisies

the'fun'in'fundie'™
# 5761

 - Posted      Profile for luvanddaisies   Email luvanddaisies   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:
quote:
Originally posted by luvanddaisies:
not at the annunciation, not being RC

Eh? Please explain. Are you claiming the Annunciation is no longer celebrated by Anglicans, or any other non-RC churches for that matter?

quote:
what does wearing robes have to do with whether you celebrate Communion on particular special days?
I assume Cosmo was implying that a willingness to break the law on the question of vestments might indicate a willingness to break it on the question of feast days - both stemming, from, I assume, a rejection of anything that looks like Catholicism.

quote:
just because they don't dress up in strange outfits doesn't mean that the sacrament of Communion is not viewed as a very important event each and every time it is celebrated.
True, but it does mean that they're explicitly refusing to follow the rules, and denying the right of the Church of England to make such rules. Is there a good reason for it?

quote:
illegal or not, many other anglican churches do the same thing - even when there's a bish in attendance.
Many? Can you back this up? My best guess would be that you would only find this in an evangelical church in England, which chops it down to something like a third of the C of E to start with. My experience has been that a large portion of C of E evangelicals are low church traditional, where you would find low church vestments in use, and finally each new-style evangelical place I've been to (not many, admittedly) has had priests that decided to follow the rules in respect of alb + stole, even when the service was pushing the boundaries of what Common Worship allows for Holy Communion.

So, is this as common as LND thinks?

Annunciation
we tend towards just calling her Mary (dropping the whole 'Blessed Virgin' bit, being as how she had other kids after Jesus, so presumably wasn't a virgin for long after His birth) - maybe there's a little morning Communion service or something - but it's not an 'event' like Ascension or similar

Clothing-tat
don't know why not. Noone seems to complain. WHen people complain they do tend to take it seriously (eg. the musicians have recently been told not to put Bibles on the floor at all during a service as it offends some people from some SE Asian / Middle Eastern traditions). I think the whole robes thing is so it doesn't make people who drop in to see what the tourist-attraction-type church does in its services confused.

How Common?
most of the churches I've been in that are anglican are ones I've been playing in. I'm not an organist - so they would tend to be lower down the candle ones anyway. They would also predominantly be fairly hard-core evangelical. There are many of this type - not "most" of the anglican communion (as I may have unintentionally implied) but a large enough number to be called "many".

Would be interesting to have a surplus survey to see just what your 'average' anglican vicar steps out in for his(/her) usual Sunday services.

--------------------
"Twenty years from now you will be more disappointed by the things you didn't do than by the ones you did do. So throw off the bowlines, sail away from the safe harbour. Catch the trade winds in your sails. Explore. Dream. Discover." (Mark Twain)

Posts: 3711 | From: all at sea. | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
dj_ordinaire
Host
# 4643

 - Posted      Profile for dj_ordinaire   Author's homepage   Email dj_ordinaire   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I think the important thing to know is whether the people who bid for the Papal Sanctissima (remember that?) were vested correctly to do so.

As to the "average" anglican priest - is that average as in the mean (which would probably be a middling position of a sort that can prove surprisingly elusive in some regions) or average as in mode - the commonest choice?

--------------------
Flinging wide the gates...

Posts: 10335 | From: Hanging in the balance of the reality of man | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
GreyFace
Shipmate
# 4682

 - Posted      Profile for GreyFace   Email GreyFace   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by luvanddaisies:
Annunciation
we tend towards just calling her Mary (dropping the whole 'Blessed Virgin' bit, being as how she had other kids after Jesus, so presumably wasn't a virgin for long after His birth) - maybe there's a little morning Communion service or something - but it's not an 'event' like Ascension or similar

I assume you know that the Catholics, the Orthodox, and some high-profile Protestant theologians (Calvin, was it?) accept the perpetual virginity of Mary, and interpret the Greek differently? And that doesn't stop you calling Mary Blessed - as in Luke.

quote:
Clothing-tat
don't know why not.

Any evangelical care to comment? Exercise of sola scriptura? I think it's anti-Catholicism myself, not in a particularly negative sense I hasten to add.

quote:
I think the whole robes thing is so it doesn't make people who drop in to see what the tourist-attraction-type church does in its services confused.
I think not, because that would be a ridiculous reason. It would be more confusing to enter a church and find the vicar dressed in jeans. I don't mean to imply that I doubt your experiences - I believe you. But as you note yourself, you're self-selecting hard-core evangelical, less liturgical and so on.

quote:
Would be interesting to have a surplus survey to see just what your 'average' anglican vicar steps out in for his(/her) usual Sunday services.
It would be interesting to have precise figures, but I can tell you the answer for England, at least. See Canon B8.
Posts: 5748 | From: North East England | Registered: Jul 2003  |  IP: Logged
Amazing Grace*

Shipmate
# 4754

 - Posted      Profile for Amazing Grace*   Email Amazing Grace*       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by 103 (One-O-Three):
P.S. My G/F wouldn't be seen dead at my church, she goes to a certain Anglican Church which is on the complete opposite side of the spectrum, she asked me if my "vicar" wore robes during "The Lord's Supper"!

Oh my! The old saw about opposites attracting does come to mind. [Biased]

Charlotte

--------------------
.sig on vacation

Posts: 2594 | From: Sittin' by the dock of the [SF] bay | Registered: Jul 2003  |  IP: Logged
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460

 - Posted      Profile for ken     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Fiddleback:
I think the reason for this is that there are actually not many female evangelical priests. There are female priests in evo churches because the bishop can't find anywhere else to put them.

So the evangelicals, obedient to their bishops as always, take direction from them as to who is an acceptable priest? But those naughty and uncanonical Anglocatholicians go their own way regardless?

Such good boys and girls we are.

quote:

In any case, to slightly paraphrase the Bishop of Fulham, real evangelical women wouldn't want to be priests.

To slightly paraphrase Mandy Rice Davis, he would say that, wouldn't he?

The first generation of women priests ordained in the CofE included many older women who had been waiting for years or decades for ordination, mostly in their 40s or 50s. So obviously they were women who thought it was important to be a priest, else they wouldn't have waited.

And obviously there were proportionatly fewer evangelicals, because evangelical churches have been much readier than more catholic ones to give places of importance to lay people, including women. The superstars of the evengelical churches have been missionaries and evangelists, not (neccesarily) priests and bishops. And we had women preaching and teaching (in some churches at least) for a long, long time.

But we've mostly worked through the backlog now. The next generation of women being ordained are likely to be more representative of the CofE as a whole. I'd expect some increase in the relative lowness of the batch. (& a decrease in their age & general fitness - at the last few dos in the cathedral I couldn't help noticing larger numbers of babe-like deacons and new priests - quite distracting on occasion - though of course straight women & gay men have had such distractions in church for centuries)

--------------------
Ken

L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.

Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
John Holding

Coffee and Cognac
# 158

 - Posted      Profile for John Holding   Email John Holding   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Dear heavens, I'm agreeing with Cosmo. Does anyone else feel a chill breeze?

Anslemina - [Overused]

In this country, it would be a rare anglican priest indeed who didn't vest for SUnday services. Of course, we have very few churches in the English evangelical tradition. If you're anglican here, it's because you want to be part of a liturgical church -- there's no bias towards being part of a "national" church. And the bishops are obviously more effective, even without canons like those you lot have.

John

Posts: 5929 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Cosmo
Shipmate
# 117

 - Posted      Profile for Cosmo         Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by John Holding:
Dear heavens, I'm agreeing with Cosmo. Does anyone else feel a chill breeze?

That's right. Everybody comes over to the dark side eventually.

Cosmo

Posts: 2375 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Max.
Shipmate
# 5846

 - Posted      Profile for Max.     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Peronel:
Yeah. When normal teenagers are spending all their time in illicit furtling behind the bike sheds, or in dank and dark corners of the undergrowth, 103 and his lass are instead engaged in passionate discussions about the finer points of tat.

Ahhh well. At least it keeps them out of trouble [Biased]

Actually - we're campaigning for the Liberal Democrats in the College Mock election!
Go Lib Dems!

-103

--------------------
For the sake of His sorrowful Passion, have mercy on us and on the whole world.

Posts: 9716 | From: North Yorkshire | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
The Bede's American Successor

Curmudgeon-in-Training
# 5042

 - Posted      Profile for The Bede's American Successor   Author's homepage   Email The Bede's American Successor   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Cosmo:
Funny how those clergy so blase about robes are those so hot on the authority of scripture

Eh? Are you really suggesting that one church's rules about vestments are as important as scripture?
Lex orandi...

--------------------
This was the iniquity of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride of wealth and food in plenty, comfort and ease, and yet she never helped the poor and the wretched.

—Ezekiel 16.49

Posts: 6079 | From: The banks of Possession Sound | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged
jlg

What is this place?
Why am I here?
# 98

 - Posted      Profile for jlg   Email jlg   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Duo Seraphim:
Never mind Heck - this place is turning into Heccles.

Indeed. And having read the rest of this page, I have to keep reminding myself I'm not a host here. [Help] We even have all of the usual suspects.
Posts: 17391 | From: Just a Town, New Hampshire, USA | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Stephen
Shipmate
# 40

 - Posted      Profile for Stephen   Email Stephen   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Rather like the Mystery Worship of old then.... [Two face]
And having been away for a long weekend I come back to find this thread has grown to an inordinately long length but 103 has not become a Roman Catholic and I presume has not hissed at any more communicants.....
So nothing's changed then..!!!!
[teasing tag on]
He'd be a good parent though, as he'd make his offspring eat up all the greens....Eat it now!!!
[teasing tag off/] [Two face] [Killing me]

--------------------
Best Wishes
Stephen

'Be still,then, and know that I am God: I will be exalted among the nations and I will be exalted in the earth' Ps46 v10

Posts: 3954 | From: Alto C Clef Country | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460

 - Posted      Profile for ken     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by The Royal Spaniel:
been away for a long weekend I come back to find this thread has grown to an inordinately long length but 103 has not become a Roman

We're going to have to exchange him for Squirrel at midnight on the north side of the Clifton Suspension Bridge.

Come unarmed, and if you bring any archdeacons, the deal is off.

--------------------
Ken

L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.

Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged



Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  ...  18  19  20  21  22 
 
Post new thread  Post a reply Close thread   Feature thread   Move thread   Delete thread Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
 - Printer-friendly view
Go to:

Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement

© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0

 
follow ship of fools on twitter
buy your ship of fools postcards
sip of fools mugs from your favourite nautical website
 
 
  ship of fools