|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Pope announces plans for Anglicans to convert in groups
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
Spectral nags hover, but it is no argument to say that Roman Catholics allow 'parallel jurisdictions', any more than to say that TEC and the C of E have parallel jurisdictions in mainland Europe.
The reason for these jurisdictions being separate is not theological. I'm sure that the Pope wouldn't accept an 'Anglican rite' jurisdiction that insisted on allegiance to the 39 articles, or even the 1662 communion rite in its totality. If the PEVs were in agreement with the mainstream diocesan bishops on all except cultural issues, there would be no reason for them to exist.
--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
What Angloid just said (above).
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alt Wally
Cardinal Ximinez
# 3245
|
Posted
quote:
Finally, the Roman Catholic Church has been happy to operate all sorts of parallel jurisdictions.
True, and those parallel jurisdictions remain in full communion with each other and the bishops and priests of the various particular churches are mutually recognized as having valid ordinations. At times, the bishops of one particular church are given oversight over another particular church as the need arises.
Would that be the case with a third province?
Posts: 3684 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Carys
Ship's Celticist
# 78
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
Which is why I think the best (if painful for some) compromise would be to hold fire on women bishops, rather than set up a parallel church, provided that FinF and other opponents of women priests would accept unreservedly their (male) bishop. They don't have to accept the ministry of women priests, but to refuse to accept a validly consecrated male bishop just because of his views or actions doesn't seem very Catholic to me.
That's easy for you to say as bloke (I believe), but what about the generation of women priests affected by this? What if God is calling some of them to be bishops? Are we stifling the spirit if we ignore this call?
The problem is that it is not logically possible to be a church that both does and does not ordain women. We've managed for the last 15 years by finding a not very logical compromise, but the problems with that compromise are now being highlighted.
I worship at a church a moderately catholic CofE church with a female priest. We're growing slowly and have had some very good comments from recent visitors. God is, I believe, at work in this place and I think that is in danger of being forgotten in these discussion. I cannot deny the vocation of the female priests I have known.*
*And last time I counted, of priests I have known well, it's about 50:50 male:female. And growing up I had a lot more respect for our female curate than our male vicar.
Carys
--------------------
O Lord, you have searched me and know me
You know when I sit and when I rise
Posts: 6896 | From: Bryste mwy na thebyg | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
I know what you're saying, Carys, and I sympathise, bloke as I am. It can't be easy to see and welcome women as priests and to know that there is no likelihood of them becoming bishops. I think what I'm trying to say is that in the present situation they would not be bishops even if they were consecrated to that order and given mitres. Not because the sacrament 'wouldn't take', but because if a proportion of their flock refused to accept their authority their episcopal ministry would be at least flawed.
A separate jurisdiction would remove this element so that her diocese could function, but in what sense would that jurisdiction be 'Anglican'? I know these arguments have been rehearsed over and over again (and this is likely to get sent to the knacker's yard); I know that the present PEV system raises similar issues, but I think there is a sort of permeability between the two factions which would disappear with separate jurisdictions.
--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
seasick
...over the edge
# 48
|
Posted
What happened to the 'period of reception'? It seems to me that the Church of England needs to review that period and decide whether the development of female priests is to be received or not. It seems to me to be trying to run before you can walk to push forward to the consecration of female bishops before having that discussion. The period of reception cannot be indefinite IMO.
--------------------
We believe there is, and always was, in every Christian Church, ... an outward priesthood, ordained by Jesus Christ, and an outward sacrifice offered therein. - John Wesley
Posts: 5769 | From: A world of my own | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
Seasick wrote: quote:
What happened to the 'period of reception'? It seems to me that the Church of England needs to review that period and decide whether the development of female priests is to be received or not. It seems to me to be trying to run before you can walk to push forward to the consecration of female bishops before having that discussion. The period of reception cannot be indefinite IMO.
I think the problem with that one, Seasick, is that the period of reception is supposed to be the period of reception by the whole church here on earth*. So the period is not indefinite, but it is not in our hands only.
I don't think that on its own is a deal breaker. However, it probably does imply the need to accommodate those who are opposed until then.
(* naturally, many would say this is unrealistic. I'm only reporting my understanding, not advocating it)
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Carys:
... but what about the generation of women priests affected by this? What if God is calling some of them to be bishops? Are we stifling the spirit if we ignore this call?
Yes. That's why we should go ahead.
And (I am almost sure) will go ahead. I think its probably all over bar the shouting.
And it looks as if FiF won't get even what we were trying to give them a few weeks ago. It looks as if those who were trying to get the revision committee to move the new rule in the direction of provision that FiF might accept have been bounced out of court.
We won't know the details of what happened till next year (if we ever do learn them) but what seems to have happened is that some who might have changed their minds and voted for something more flexible, became persuaded that the core clergy of Fif were going to Rome anyway and so no longer needed to be taken into account. So the committee went for the deafult option as voted on by Synod (see this news item on the Fulcrum website and the press relese from the Committee)
If that is the case, then maybe the Pope's offer to TAC has come at what might be a disastrous time for some in FiF. The assumption, perhaps false, that CoE clergy opposed to women bishops will join a new RC Ordinariate may have tipped the balance against them on the committee and amongst the bishops. Which might be a tragedy.
It also seems (I mean "seems" I have no inside knowledge) that the evangelicals in Synod and the Hous of Bishops were trying the hardest to work with FiF - the hard-line opposition to them seems to come from the liberal catholic establishment in the CofE. (A group I know think I exempt Rowan Williams from being a member of - some of us used to think he was like that but he has done a lot better as Archbishop than they feared)
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras
Shipmate
# 11274
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I think it is Sweden where 'the period of reception' has led to a growth in FiF equivalent parishes i.e. opposition to women bishops has grown bigger, not diminished.
I agree with Angloid that the consecration of women should be postponed until the C of E finds a way to honour its promised to our FiF brothers and sisters.
I'm not sure you can compare the situations in the CoS and CoE in that way. I was told years ago by the late +Robert Terwilliger that outside of the two major cities, the Swedes were quite traditional and pious, very different to the stereotype of Swedes as ultra-progressive liberals. In any event, the liberals and AffCath types in the CoS clearly have had the upper hand for a long time and no doubt will continue to call the shots. I don't think that an increase in FiF types within the CoE will be catalyzed by the consecration of lady bishops.
Posts: 7328 | From: Delaware | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
It seems to be in Stockholm, Lund, Gothenburg and Uppsala.
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras
Shipmate
# 11274
|
Posted
I would think in any event that a better comparison might be to the situations in the USA and Canada, both of which have had OoW for quite a long time now. The dissidents left and haven't been replaced by any newly minted crop of FiF types. Do you really think the dear old CoE is so very different?
Posts: 7328 | From: Delaware | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
The CofE is indeed quite different to TEC, especially as the CofE has not only not shed its evangelical wing - it is getting stronger. That makes quite a difference, though that is not to say that it may not follow the same track as TEC. The point is that if it does, it may be for different reasons.
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
Yes, but most CofE evangelicals either support the ordination of women or don't regard it as a churchbreaking issue.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
Which is not to say that they necessarily feel the same about the other Dead Horse.
--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
Both points fully appreciated. The point in making it was exactly to note that the following in one matter may not be taken to infer others will follow after that, whether of the dead horse variety or not.
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
PaulTH*
Shipmate
# 320
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ken:
And it looks as if FiF won't get even what we were trying to give them a few weeks ago.
In which case the Church of England will have behaved disgracefully towards them, given the assurances of the past, that both integrities are to be regarded as being loyal Anglicans. Many members of FiF parishes, given that the Pope has called their bluff with his offer, will take the line of least resistance, stay in their parishes and take whatever crumbs of comfort the C of E is willing to throw at them. This will probably be a weak and unenforcible code of practice which will soon be swept away.
At the other end of the FiF spectrum are the ardent Anglo-Papalists who would have gone to Rome as soon as the Pope made any offer to receive them with some hope of retaining their identity. But for many, this will be a painful decision. They will have to leave their parishes with an uncertain future about where they can worship. We've all agreed that good will is likely to be thin on the ground with regards to the sharing of C of E resources. To many such people, worship is an obligation, not a Sunday hobby.
To join another church, especially the RC Church, which carries with it the obligation of obedience, it isn't a good enough reason just to have been unchurched and abandoned by one's own heritage. It is not too late for the Church of England to take measures to retain those who would want to stay. It can avoid this dishonouable and ignominious outcome which must result from its refusal to honour the promises of the past.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Paul
Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
I'm not a philosopher, but I would have thought it is logically impossible to respect the integrities both of a woman bishop and of those opposed to her very existence, within the same church. Which probably means that the original promise was pure fudge, but why was anyone taken in by it?
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
Ken, With quote:
Yes, but most CofE evangelicals either support the ordination of women or don't regard it as a churchbreaking issue.
you seem to have forgotten ++ Sydney and his followers. They oppose the OoW and also see it as a church-breaking issue. And it's hard to get more evangelical than they. Lay presidency yes, women priests no, is their motto.
++ Jensen seems to have quite a few non-evangelicals outside the UK in his entourage.
[ 19. November 2009, 08:21: Message edited by: Gee D ]
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
PaulTH*
Shipmate
# 320
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
I'm not a philosopher, but I would have thought it is logically impossible to respect the integrities both of a woman bishop and of those opposed to her very existence, within the same church. Which probably means that the original promise was pure fudge, but why was anyone taken in by it?
You are probably right, Father, that's how it will turn out, but I used to say the problems of Northern Ireland were insoluble because the two communities wanted mutually irreconcileable things. Here, what is lacking, is the will to find a structural solution which would, at the same time, allow women bishops to participate to the full, and also allow the dissidents their own episcopal space.
So why did anyone believe the fudge? because we have the right to expect integrity and honest speaking from our church leaders. Anglicans born and brought up at a time when this wasn't an issue don't become disloyal and worthy of being thrown to the wolves because they prefer the old ways.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Paul
Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leetle Masha
Cantankerous Anchoress
# 8209
|
Posted
PaulTH says:
quote:
To many such people, worship is an obligation, not a Sunday hobby.
quote:
To join another church, especially the RC Church, which carries with it the obligation of obedience, it isn't a good enough reason just to have been unchurched and abandoned by one's own heritage.
Could you unpack that a little more for me? What do you mean by "unchurched" and "abandoned by one's own heritage"? For those who see the Church as the community of believers, the Body of Christ...how can schism destroy what is indefectible? Surely whatever remnant is left by schism is still the Church? What is "the Anglican heritage"? The only "heritage" I could see, more than three decades ago, was, and still is, God's unchanging truth. The rest seems now to me to have been only externals.
Mary
--------------------
eleison me, tin amartolin: have mercy on me, the sinner
Posts: 6351 | From: Hesychia, in Hyperdulia | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
PaulTH*
Shipmate
# 320
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leetle Masha:
For those who see the Church as the community of believers, the Body of Christ...how can schism destroy what is indefectible?
Mary, this is very ecumenical of you. I wish all Christians saw it your way! I'll try to answer your question steering clear of dead horse territory. If a church makes a major innovation, as the C of E did in 1992, it can expect that some members feel unable to go with the change. Yet the Church of England assured those members that their integrity would be respected, and there was always an honoured place for their Christian witness within the church of their heritage.
If things proceed along the lines that the revision committee is now to recommend, that promise has been broken because some, and I don't say all, of those in FiF will have no choice but to leave the C of E due to that same integrity. If they join another Christian body believing, as you do, that the whole Christian movement is part of the Body of Christ, they are not "unchurched" in the true sense of the term. But they are expelled from their own cultural expression of that Body. This may cause a lot of pain to some people.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Paul
Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leetle Masha
Cantankerous Anchoress
# 8209
|
Posted
Paul, what I said was not
quote:
If they join another Christian body believing, as you do, that the whole Christian movement is part of the Body of Christ
.
What I said was a paraphrase of a short hymn of ours:
As many of you as have been baptised into Christ
have put on Christ, Alleluia!
When you became a Christian, your heritage was Christ.
When people put Christ down as a "Great Teacher" rather than as the only-begotten Son of God, where do you go?
That's all I was saying. But thanks for your answer--food for thought!
Best wishes,
Mary
--------------------
eleison me, tin amartolin: have mercy on me, the sinner
Posts: 6351 | From: Hesychia, in Hyperdulia | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leetle Masha
Cantankerous Anchoress
# 8209
|
Posted
In other words....
"When", by Leetle Masha, with apologies to Kipling
When one must keep God’s Truth while all about him,
Are changing that and offering theirs instead,
When one must trust the Lord when all men doubt Him,
And not succumb to doubt or lose one’s head,
When one must hope and not be disappointed,
When lies abound and one gets nought but fudge,
When God’s own Truth has been denied, disjointed,
And one still holds that Truth, and cannot budge;
When one believes in Truth, Truth is his Master.
When one thinks rightly, Right must be his aim,
When one must meet defeat, and then disaster,
One tends to see those two as just the same.
When one must bear to see the Truth one’s spoken
Twisted by some, to catch men in their net,
One cannot bear to let one’s God be broken
And crucified again, while they forget
That Jesus is the Way to man’s salvation,
The Truth to guide man to His home above,
But when one can’t find truth in innovation,
Nor see truth compromised, and call that love,
One cannot quench the Light and choose the shadow.
One cannot hide the Truth or bar the Way.
One cannot watch a faction’s sheer bravado
Detouring wandering pilgrims far astray.
When one has come to see that there’s no winning
A battle that was joined decades ago,
When one has come to see that what was sinning
Is now praiseworthy, to be put on show
For all the world to laud, and then to follow
The way that it is leading, what to do?
When one can see all present boasts are hollow,
There’s but the Cross of Christ, for me, for you.
With prayers for everyone on this thread,
Mary
[ 19. November 2009, 14:14: Message edited by: Leetle Masha ]
--------------------
eleison me, tin amartolin: have mercy on me, the sinner
Posts: 6351 | From: Hesychia, in Hyperdulia | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stephen
Shipmate
# 40
|
Posted
Why apologise? 'If' with the Pelagianism left out. Very good,LM - I like it...... ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
(being a Royal Spaniel both Catholic and Reformed......)
--------------------
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
|
|
Leetle Masha
Cantankerous Anchoress
# 8209
|
Posted
Thank you kindly, Royal Spaniel (the breed with the sweetest face God ever made!)....
That poem refers to nobody here in particular. It's about what happened to me, how I made up my mind, what I went through, and how it turned out for me 32 years later.
Any decision we make for the sake of our faith alone is going to be a wrench. That's why I keep praying for everybody, leaving nobody out! We can do what we have to do, and all the better if we aren't bitter when we do it!
Mary
--------------------
eleison me, tin amartolin: have mercy on me, the sinner
Posts: 6351 | From: Hesychia, in Hyperdulia | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
If a church makes a major innovation, as the C of E did in 1992, it can expect that some members feel unable to go with the change. Yet the Church of England assured those members that their integrity would be respected, and there was always an honoured place for their Christian witness within the church of their heritage.
I cannot now remember what was and wasn't said in 1992, but ISTM that if you were told, in effect, that the system of alternative oversight would be a permanent or long-term one, that was culpably dishonest. The PEV system could perhaps be justified as an illogical if pastorally sensitive transitional measure to allow those opposed to the measure time to see whether they felt that they could, after all, remain in the church to which many of them had contributed so much. But you simply couldn't institutionalise, long-term, a system in which one part of the church was allowed to assert, openly, the invalidity of the ordination of numbers of clergy in the other part of the church.
As I say, I cannot remember the detail of what went on, and I am prepared to be corrected on it, but I fear that this may have been an example of that bad Anglican (Christian?) habit of hoping that unpleasant choices would go away if we all pretended that they weren't there. So while, Paul, I disagree profoundly with you about the ordination (and consecration)of women, if you were given the assurances to which you refer, I think that you were shabbily and unfairly treated; worse treated in the longer term, indeed, than if no alternative provision had been made, because then the pain would have been faced at the time and could have started to heal sooner.
[ 19. November 2009, 21:14: 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
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Ken, With quote:
Yes, but most CofE evangelicals either support the ordination of women or don't regard it as a churchbreaking issue.
you seem to have forgotten ++ Sydney and his followers.
Sydney wasn't in England last time I looked.
quote:
They oppose the OoW and also see it as a church-breaking issue.
Except they don't because they are still in communion with Anglican provinces, even ones in Australia, that ordain women.
Like evangelicals in general they have no theory of taint. As long as they have no women priests in their own churches they have no doubts about the validity of their own churchces.
quote:
Lay presidency yes, women priests no, is their motto.
And when did they start licensed lay presidency in Sydney?
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spawn
Shipmate
# 4867
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
Spectral nags hover, but it is no argument to say that Roman Catholics allow 'parallel jurisdictions', any more than to say that TEC and the C of E have parallel jurisdictions in mainland Europe.
The reason for these jurisdictions being separate is not theological. I'm sure that the Pope wouldn't accept an 'Anglican rite' jurisdiction that insisted on allegiance to the 39 articles, or even the 1662 communion rite in its totality. If the PEVs were in agreement with the mainstream diocesan bishops on all except cultural issues, there would be no reason for them to exist.
Well you still don't seem to be able to offer me a reason why the principle of one bishop, one territory is to be upheld. It may be largely a good thing, but certainly not an essential thing - which is why I've offered examples of parallel jurisdictions. Why's geography so important to the church, when proximity has become much less important in society in general?
Posts: 3447 | From: North Devon | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leetle Masha
Cantankerous Anchoress
# 8209
|
Posted
Spawn asks:
quote:
Why's geography so important to the church, when proximity has become much less important in society in general?
Off the top of my head, two words: Carbon footprint.
That's why the idea of "flying bishops" is wasteful. O for the day when the Church is truly One again ![[Votive]](graemlins/votive.gif) . Just think of the time and fuel saved!
--------------------
eleison me, tin amartolin: have mercy on me, the sinner
Posts: 6351 | From: Hesychia, in Hyperdulia | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
Spectral nags hover, but it is no argument to say that Roman Catholics allow 'parallel jurisdictions', any more than to say that TEC and the C of E have parallel jurisdictions in mainland Europe.
The reason for these jurisdictions being separate is not theological. I'm sure that the Pope wouldn't accept an 'Anglican rite' jurisdiction that insisted on allegiance to the 39 articles, or even the 1662 communion rite in its totality. If the PEVs were in agreement with the mainstream diocesan bishops on all except cultural issues, there would be no reason for them to exist.
Well you still don't seem to be able to offer me a reason why the principle of one bishop, one territory is to be upheld. It may be largely a good thing, but certainly not an essential thing - which is why I've offered examples of parallel jurisdictions. Why's geography so important to the church, when proximity has become much less important in society in general?
That's not the point in dispute. Geographical jurisdictions are IMHO the best arrangement, but they are clearly not essential and overlapping ones don't necessarily jeopardise the unity of the Church, as the various examples quoted from the Catholic Church and the Anglican Communion prove.
What is however specious logic is to argue that a diocese can separate from the mainstream on theological grounds and still be accepted equally with the rest. Seems a bit like having your cake and eating it to me.
--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Qoheleth.
Semi-Sagacious One
# 9265
|
Posted
Useful summary here fro mthe Jesuits.
quote:
So far, no Ordinariates have been established, and our reflection must cease until they have.[...]
It is only then that those questions which remain can begin to be answered, questions such as: How many Anglicans will seek to enter full communion with the Catholic Church? How many of those will wish to join the Ordinariate? How willing will those Anglicans who join the Ordinariate be to integrate with the local Catholic community? Where and how will they worship? How willing will the Catholic community be to welcome them? How will the Ordinariate relate to the Diocese in practice? How will its priests relate to the diocesan priests? Bearing in mind the power of symbolism, what does allowing former Anglican bishops to wear episcopal insignia say about the Church’s teaching on the invalidity of Anglican orders?
--------------------
The Benedictine Community at Alton Abbey offers a friendly, personal service for the exclusive supply of Rosa Mystica incense.
Posts: 2532 | From: the radiator of life | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Sir Pellinore
Quester Emeritus
# 12163
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alt Wally:
quote:
Finally, the Roman Catholic Church has been happy to operate all sorts of parallel jurisdictions.
True, and those parallel jurisdictions remain in full communion with each other and the bishops and priests of the various particular churches are mutually recognized as having valid ordinations. At times, the bishops of one particular church are given oversight over another particular church as the need arises.
Would that be the case with a third province?
Raises the question of what 'full communion' with each other really means.
Similar to points raised by Gee D and Ken in different ways.
I tend to believe there is a de facto schism and limited communion between different dioceses in the worldwide Anglican Communion.
'Cosmetic unity' might be the only thing possible, both in England and the world.
Hypocritical or realistic? ![[Confused]](confused.gif)
--------------------
Well...
Posts: 5108 | From: The Deep North, Oz | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fr Weber
Shipmate
# 13472
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alt Wally:
quote:
Originally posted by Comper's Child:
Perhaps this will clarify what the ABC is thinking at this point:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article6923807.ece
Yes, blame the tree when the car runs in to it.
I especially like +Cantuar's contention that the Pope is stifling ecumenism by his insistence on the RC theology of the priesthood. There's more than one way to look at that, bub!
--------------------
"The Eucharist is not a play, and you're not Jesus."
--Sr Theresa Koernke, IHM
Posts: 2512 | From: Oakland, CA | Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
Ken : No reading of my post shows that at any stage have I said that any licensing for lay presidency has occurred. Indeed, ++ Jensen has said that it won't for the moment; indeed to do so would cost him most of his GAFCON support. I simply set out the motto.
++ Jensen has made it very clear that he does not regard himself as being in communion with + Robinson, and a reasonable reading of what he says suggests that he does not do so with the ECUSA as a whole.
Finally, I had completely missed the subtle use of 'CofE'. My error.
[ 21. November 2009, 04:52: Message edited by: Gee D ]
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spawn
Shipmate
# 4867
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
What is however specious logic is to argue that a diocese can separate from the mainstream on theological grounds and still be accepted equally with the rest. Seems a bit like having your cake and eating it to me.
Well if it's not geography, it seems to be about not being able to have your cake and eat it. Well I've never understood why you can't have your cake and eat it, so you're going to have to do better than that.
Posts: 3447 | From: North Devon | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
FreeJack
Shipmate
# 10612
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
I cannot now remember what was and wasn't said in 1992, but ISTM that if you were told, in effect, that the system of alternative oversight would be a permanent or long-term one, that was culpably dishonest. The PEV system could perhaps be justified as an illogical if pastorally sensitive transitional measure to allow those opposed to the measure time to see whether they felt that they could, after all, remain in the church to which many of them had contributed so much. But you simply couldn't institutionalise, long-term, a system in which one part of the church was allowed to assert, openly, the invalidity of the ordination of numbers of clergy in the other part of the church.
The PEV system was never intended to be permanent when discussed in 1993 (wasn't it after the 1992 vote itself). On the other hand, as I recall a counter-bid to limit it to a short term of years such as 10 or 15 failed as well.
The 3 PEVs plus Fulham have all been appointed and reappointed from the same constituency when vacant. Unlike Wales where they dropped the equivalent after a decade-ish(?) And the PEVs haven't been poor appointments (from the point of the recipients), nor have the Reform / cons. evos been given one which was a perfectly reasonable option.
So 16 years later and we still have much the same deal agreed in 1993 in place and working as well as it might do. We are only now talking about how the scheme needs to be changed once there are actual women territorial bishops, which can't happen before 2013 or so at the earliest - and is likely to be two or three suffragan bishops in liberal diocese to begin with.
Relative to the historic standard service of a pensionable stipendiary service of 37 years in orders, that is reasonable to me. There won't be many serving stipendiary priests left by 2013 who were ordained pre-1992. Most of them will be incumbents in their final parish who can be their own pope until they go themselves, as long as they can choose their own bishop for confirmations, which is all they really need a bishop for in visible terms.
I can't get so excited about the fate of those ordained post-1992, whatever 'promises' they think they were given they were not and never could have been eternal, or the CofE would have set up separate diocese at the time.
Posts: 3588 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Organ Builder
Shipmate
# 12478
|
Posted
Well, leo, it seems to me you have put your finger on the greatest unknown factor in the whole situation to start with--no one seems to know or even be willing to guess what the laity will do. From what I have seen and read (as an admittedly uninvolved outsider) the lay folk are not as overwhelmed by Rome's generosity as the clergy.
I have observed in the US (and you would be better placed than I to know if it holds true in the UK) that the laity are generally more attached to their building and their fellow congregants than they are to their cleric--many have seen priests come and go, and know that any particular incumbency is temporary. I suspect that is one reason those clerics considering the move to Rome are pushing for the buildings.
--------------------
How desperately difficult it is to be honest with oneself. It is much easier to be honest with other people.--E.F. Benson
Posts: 3337 | From: ...somewhere in between 40 and death... | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
It is not unknown in the C of E for a PCC to vote for the Resolutions, as an act of loyalty towards their current parish priest, and when he has left, to quietly drop them and eventually accept a woman priest as curate or vicar.
I think the proportion of lay people with strong views one way or the other on this issue is much smaller than amongst the clergy.
--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
Angloid wrote quote:
It is not unknown in the C of E for a PCC to vote for the Resolutions, as an act of loyalty towards their current parish priest, and when he has left, to quietly drop them and eventually accept a woman priest as curate or vicar.
I think the proportion of lay people with strong views one way or the other on this issue is much smaller than amongst the clergy.
I'm sure the generality of this is right. But I don't think it's just in one direction on this issue - it really is generally true I suspect. (I think I'm right in saying that the number of A/B/C parishes has actually risen slightly over the years, which would appear to indicate people taking opposite decisions).
This may well be a double-edged sword to both sides of course.
[ 21. November 2009, 16:36: Message edited by: Honest Ron Bacardi ]
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
FreeJack
Shipmate
# 10612
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
It's not just about clergy, though. What about the laity, when those vicars retire?
Well those who want a male vicar will go to a parish with one, just like they do now. Laity can ignore bishops even more than clergy do. There won't be that many women bishops for a long time. Avoiding them wouldn't be that difficult if you really wanted to. Laity don't usually have to make oaths of allegiance to a bishop, so there isn't the same theological problem as for clergy.
The extreme logical anglo-catholic opponents will go over to Rome or become reconciled to Affirming Catholicism or just become too small to matter in the grand scheme of things. There are all sorts of minority groups in the CofE.
Eventually, we would only be talking about a group of laity as yet unborn, and it is difficult to argue that any promises allegedly made by bishops in 1993 really apply to them.
Which does not mean that anglo-catholicism will die out. But anglo-papalism will do. The Pope has killed off that already.
Posts: 3588 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fr Weber
Shipmate
# 13472
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
What is however specious logic is to argue that a diocese can separate from the mainstream on theological grounds and still be accepted equally with the rest. Seems a bit like having your cake and eating it to me.
Well if it's not geography, it seems to be about not being able to have your cake and eat it. Well I've never understood why you can't have your cake and eat it, so you're going to have to do better than that.
The expression is more understandable if it's reversed : eat your cake and have it too. If you've eaten it, you don't have it anymore.
--------------------
"The Eucharist is not a play, and you're not Jesus."
--Sr Theresa Koernke, IHM
Posts: 2512 | From: Oakland, CA | Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Comper's Child
Shipmate
# 10580
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
What is however specious logic is to argue that a diocese can separate from the mainstream on theological grounds and still be accepted equally with the rest. Seems a bit like having your cake and eating it to me.
Well if it's not geography, it seems to be about not being able to have your cake and eat it. Well I've never understood why you can't have your cake and eat it, so you're going to have to do better than that.
The expression is more understandable if it's reversed : eat your cake and have it too. If you've eaten it, you don't have it anymore.
That's the point, Father - wanting to eat it and still retain it...
Posts: 2509 | From: Penn's Greene Countrie Towne | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
It is not unknown in the C of E for a PCC to vote for the Resolutions, as an act of loyalty towards their current parish priest, and when he has left, to quietly drop them and eventually accept a woman priest as curate or vicar.
I think the proportion of lay people with strong views one way or the other on this issue is much smaller than amongst the clergy.
indeed - have just come back from the pub with some FiF friends - all but one lay - they ain't going anywhere.
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leetle Masha
Cantankerous Anchoress
# 8209
|
Posted
[Slight tangent] I read back in the days when they published the "Unabomber Manifesto", that the Unabomber reversed the original expression "Eat your cake and have it too" so that it came out "Have your cake and eat it too", and the Unabomber's version became current then. [/tangent]
--------------------
eleison me, tin amartolin: have mercy on me, the sinner
Posts: 6351 | From: Hesychia, in Hyperdulia | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
PaulTH*
Shipmate
# 320
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
indeed - have just come back from the pub with some FiF friends - all but one lay - they ain't going anywhere .
I would agree with leo. I've had about 20 emails and phone calls on this subject since the news broke, mostly from friends and acquaintances in FiF. Only two priests I know have indicated that they will seriously take up this offer. Not one lay member seems interested.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Paul
Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ashworth
Shipmate
# 12645
|
Posted
I feel that there is a difference in attitude between clergy and laity. I also think that there is a difference between both priests and laity in the Northern and Southern Provinces. Most of the talk about leaving seems to be coming from a number of fairly high profile FinF priests in London and the south.
For me as a lay person the whole idea of leaving and going to Rome raises almost as many problems as the ordination of women. There certainly do seem to be more clergy talking about leaving than there are laity and that is what concerns me. I'm in a diocese where finf is very weak and there only a handful of finf clergy. If the laity don't feel they can leave who will support and minister to their needs if large numbers of finf clergy do go?
I think this is becoming a very sad situation where thousands of people are going to be left stuggling in the wilderness, perhaps unchurched, because of a lack of charity and compromise on both sides of the argument. It does seem that the C of E is going overboard to be an inclusive church where every minority are to be welcomed and encouraged with open arms except those people who cannot accept the ordination of women.
I am only in my early 50's and would like to think that there would still be a welcome in the C of E for me, with my views, for at least another 30 years. However, I greatly fear there will not be.
I did find the Bishop of Beverley's recent letter an encouragement. Is he saying that he will be staying to look after those of us who want to stay? Unfortunately he too must soon be coming towards retirement.
http://www.bishopofbeverley.co.uk/news.htm
Posts: 70 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
