|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Pope announces plans for Anglicans to convert in groups
|
Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras
Shipmate
# 11274
|
Posted
I hope that no one would consider it an insult if I were to suggest that the RC hierarchy doesn't operate with perfect consistent or uniformity and that Grahmam Leonard's conditional ordination may reflect a couple of things: a kindness extended to a very distinguished and sympathetic churchman, and the actual existance of different shadings or gradations of opinions about Anglican Orders, whereby as New Yorker stated, there can be some room for question about validity, I would say based on a total context of developments, rather than just the "Dutch Touch" alone (I doubt that these days the RCC could any longer regard Old Catholic orders as valid from an RC standpoint, due to developments in the OCC over the last 25 or 30 years).
Perhaps it's too much of a tangent for this thread, but it would be interesting to discuss the pros and cons of ordinations sub conditione for Anglican clerical converts, particularly as seen from the RC POV.
Posts: 7328 | From: Delaware | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
New Yorker
Shipmate
# 9898
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
Perhaps it's too much of a tangent for this thread, but it would be interesting to discuss the pros and cons of ordinations sub conditione for Anglican clerical converts, particularly as seen from the RC POV.
I would be very interested in reading such a thread and contributing to whatever limited degree I can.
Posts: 3193 | From: New York City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Organ Builder:
Although I suspect anyone reading this thread is already reading the "Act of Love" thread, I'm going to link to this post by ken.
Terribly flattered by the line but I feel honour-bound to say that in that post I used these phrases:
"No-one knows"
"I suspect "
"likely to be"
"I would guess"
"on very little hard evidence"
"I guess"
Tentative much?
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
Sounds about right to me too, ken.
I'll leave you to apply it to whichever bit you think it fits best...
![[Biased]](wink.gif)
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Organ Builder
Shipmate
# 12478
|
Posted
I did acknowledge that it was a guess...
Still, it's more than anyone else has had the chutzpah to do.
--------------------
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
|
|
rosamundi
Ship's lacemaker
# 2495
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by angelicum:
No one is suggesting that they can't worship there surely? I'm sure the ordinariate will still welcome these people.
Oh sure - just as long as they convert as well.
Or will the ordinariate be perfectly OK with unconverted Anglicans continuing to avail themselves of the Eucharist there?
I'm sure people with more Canon law than me will be able to advise if there is a problem with a church building being shared.
--------------------
Website.
Ship of Fools flickr group
Posts: 2382 | From: here or there | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sir Pellinore
Quester Emeritus
# 12163
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd):
Perhaps this article from the National Catholic Reporter's might clarify the matter supposedly under discussion on this thread?
http://ncronline.org/news/what-vaticans-welcome-anglicans-means
The article says pretty much what most people have been saying here. The discussion beneath it shows that there are a lot of paranoid loonies everywhere...
I'm not sure that anyone on this thread, which has continued for some time and has had some long, tenuous and irrelevant posts, has ever summed up what is actually happening so thoroughly, concisely and authoratively.
--------------------
Well...
Posts: 5108 | From: The Deep North, Oz | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716
|
Posted
Ah, I found a link...
quote:
"It is difficult … to make precise comment upon this until one has seen the actual text of what the pope is going to say," said the Rev. Robert Wright, professor of ecclesiastical history at General Theological Seminary in New York, in a telephone interview. "So far, all we have is a vague sort of press release. It leaves open a lot of questions. Does it mean that they are prepared to recognize the Anglican orders of priests who convert or not? … Anglican orders were called invalid in 1896 by a papal bull. Does this mean this invalidation is going to be lifted?"
Okay, so if a Professor of Ecclesiastical History at GTS doesn't know the answer yet, I suppose it really hasn't been spelled out yet.
--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity
Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sir Pellinore
Quester Emeritus
# 12163
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
Ah, I found a link...
quote:
"It is difficult … to make precise comment upon this until one has seen the actual text of what the pope is going to say," said the Rev. Robert Wright, professor of ecclesiastical history at General Theological Seminary in New York, in a telephone interview. "So far, all we have is a vague sort of press release. It leaves open a lot of questions. Does it mean that they are prepared to recognize the Anglican orders of priests who convert or not? … Anglican orders were called invalid in 1896 by a papal bull. Does this mean this invalidation is going to be lifted?"
Okay, so if a Professor of Ecclesiastical History at GTS doesn't know the answer yet, I suppose it really hasn't been spelled out yet.
In a word 'Yes' but I'm not sure he'll be first to hear. ![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
--------------------
Well...
Posts: 5108 | From: The Deep North, Oz | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
FreeJack
Shipmate
# 10612
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by rosamundi:
I'm sure people with more Canon law than me will be able to advise if there is a problem with a church building being shared.
There is no problem with a church building being shared in Canon Law of either church in these circumstances or others.
We have had threads passim on the Milton Keynes pleasure-drome [new build multi-ecumenical], St Andrew's Shared Church, Cippenham, Slough [CofE / RC rebuild], and St Stephen's, Gloucester Road, London [post 1994 CofE / RC church sharing.]
The St Stephen's example is the best template I can think of, engineered by previous +London and ++Westminster. The previous Vicar and half the congregation converted continued to use the old CofE building for RC eucharist, as an authorised RC mass centre within Our Lady of Victories, Kensington as tenants of the new PCC of St Stephen's with the consent of the new PinC at St Stephen's. All very friendly until eventually the RC tenants left a few years later.
So it can work. But legally in an ordinary CofE parish it is always the remaining CofE that retains the building, even if the entire old PCC leave - the bishop just makes a new appointment of a PinC and the PCC is reassembled according to the CW Measure and CRR within a few months.
The CofE might even sell-off a building that it no longer needs, but that would not be quick if it were the only church in a parish or benefice, as the parish would have to merged in a pastoral scheme as well as the Commissioners selling off a church, so it would be two years plus with goodwill.
Posts: 3588 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sir Pellinore
Quester Emeritus
# 12163
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd):
quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
Ah, I found a link...
quote:
"It is difficult … to make precise comment upon this until one has seen the actual text of what the pope is going to say," said the Rev. Robert Wright, professor of ecclesiastical history at General Theological Seminary in New York, in a telephone interview. "So far, all we have is a vague sort of press release. It leaves open a lot of questions. Does it mean that they are prepared to recognize the Anglican orders of priests who convert or not? … Anglican orders were called invalid in 1896 by a papal bull. Does this mean this invalidation is going to be lifted?"
Okay, so if a Professor of Ecclesiastical History at GTS doesn't know the answer yet, I suppose it really hasn't been spelled out yet.
In a word 'Yes' but I'm not sure he'll be first to hear.
The Vatican was extremely careful who was included in the information loop and when.
Virtually everything regarding the new ordinariates is work in progress.
The Vatican would not have anyone from GTS in the loop I fear.
Most of what is said is at least secondhand and much conjecture.
I thought the particular correspondent I linked from NCR might be as close to the source as anyone. Obviously the opinionati here ...
I think I'd like to quit now. ![[Help]](graemlins/help.gif)
--------------------
Well...
Posts: 5108 | From: The Deep North, Oz | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alt Wally
Cardinal Ximinez
# 3245
|
Posted
quote:
it hasn't yet been made clear what the status of ordaining or re-ordaining former Anglican clergy will be if they become RC under the new rules?
I don't think the new ones will reverse the old ones in regards to this. Dollars to donuts it will be ordination.
Posts: 3684 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716
|
Posted
I couldn't determine from your link what the decision would be on the whole validity-of-ordination issue, but I've been busy (well, okay, overwhelmed is a better word) and my noggin isn't working as clearly as it might otherwise... ![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif)
For me this is a somewhat... well, not critical issue, as I wasn't planning on going back to Rome any time soon, but since not many years ago I was wrestling with such issues, and have known various folks who also were, the whole situation definitely has my attention. I just can't understand, from the kind of Anglo-Catholic point of view that I have experienced, the desire to go to Rome if one must accept that one's whole previous Anglican sacramental experience (including ordination) has been, basically, "dressing up and playing 'church'" -- and unless Rome is going to throw out some pretty strict doctrines it's held for some time about who's in and who's out of sacramentality, then it seems to me that this would be the case. I would think that the sort of staunch Anglo-Catholic crowd I've known who would leave the Anglican Communion would be happier to be a smaller "continuing Anglican" group. firm in their conviction of Apostolic Succession and their doctrines, than join Rome and basically declare that all the time they were fighting ECUSA's hierarchy on the ordination of women, etc., they weren't real priests or bishops anyway. So I'm utterly baffled at the welcome reception Rome's offer seems to be getting -- but since I'm not exactly on good terms with the folks I've known with that point of view, I can't easily ask, and the websites for their churches just don't seem to be addressing these matters at all.
--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity
Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Forthview
Shipmate
# 12376
|
Posted
'dressing up and playing church' are your words,CM, and not those of the Catholic church.
The Catholic church cannot in normal circu,stances accept Anglican ordination as Catholic ordination,but it accepts the 'vocation' of the Anglican clergy ,that they have been called by God to minister to their Anmglican congregations adn that is one of the reasons why the Catholic church is prepared ,in some way to 'fast-track these men to Catholic ordination.
Posts: 3444 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
the coiled spring
Shipmate
# 2872
|
Posted
If there is a mass exodus from the Anglican church to the Vatican, how do we know if it is God's hand guiding. If it is God's calling does that mean the Anglican church is doomed to spend eternity in the burning pits of hell because of it's sinful and lusting ways and He is leading His children into a place of safety.
If God is calling, why do those being called needed to take their baggage with them and want holy positions. Do we need a position in a church to serve God.
It is not like have a job in one company and moving to another having same position or even a more exalted one. If it is what God wants, there could be chance that you are being called to be the lowest of the low and not standing in a spotlight.
Surely when one is called by God we have to make sacrifices, and as has been described on this thread how holy some are, that should not be a problem.
As a claim has been made that many want to nip across to Rome because of ordination of gay priests and gay bishops, would be interested in knowing what percentage of R.C. priests are gay.
Trust me as i have just had a kipper for breakfast
--------------------
give back to God what He gives so it is used for His glory not ours.
Posts: 2359 | From: mountain top retreat lodge overlooking skegness | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fuzzipeg
Shipmate
# 10107
|
Posted
That's irrelevant, isn't it. As Latin Rite RCC priests have to take a vow of celibacy sexual orientation isn't an issue.
--------------------
http://foodybooze.blogspot.co.za
Posts: 929 | From: Johannesburg, South Africa | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
PaulTH*
Shipmate
# 320
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by pete173:
But the CofE without them will also be poorer for the loss of part of its catholic heritage, and for the loss of credally orthodox and missional people.
This announcement by the Pope must focus the minds of the Revision Committee, the General Synod and the Church of England as a whole. The C of E would be much poorer in the way pete173 describes. There are only two courses of action which have any integrity. FiF has said this all along, and ++Rowan has always recognised that a structural solution is the best way forward.
The Church can either pass a one clause measure which makes no provision for dissenters. That would carry the integrity of taking full possession of its decision to ordain women bishops. The other is to provide a framework acceptable to the dissenters which will allow them to remain in the C of E in good conscience. There is no point in members of the Revision Committee beating its brains out in trying to find a compromise which will satify no one and will fail to achieve the objective.
A time honoured place for both integrities was promised in 1992. Rome has provided an escape. The Church of England must make good its earlier promise or admit that it has moved on and the promise no longer matters. A fudge, like a Code of Practice, will not do.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Paul
Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
So, is there any kind of consensus as to whether this will make the CofE more or less liberal/evangelical?
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
multipara
Shipmate
# 2918
|
Posted
If it all happens...
Maybe more liberal and more evangelical considering that if there is a lemming-like Tiber-swim ( and dear God, Im would say approach with caution) it might make the remaining Catholics appear to be more liberal in the matter of the OoW and the realistic acceptance of gay clergy) and also might dilate the Evangelical poo, so to speak.
Who knows? last of all my good self,being just another recalcitrant papist and all...
m
--------------------
quod scripsi, scripsi
Posts: 4985 | From: new south wales | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Forthview
Shipmate
# 12376
|
Posted
If a Reformed/Presbyterian/Baptist pastor were to decide tht his/her true spiritual home is really in the episcopal church and that he/she wised to continue to minister within this new community,what would happen ?
Presumably he/she would have to talk to the bishop about this desire to minister within the episcopal community.
He/she might say : I really like the liturgical services of the episcopal church,but I am not sure about your eucharistic theology,the bishop might say 'Well ,you'll find all sorts of shades of opinion here.Don't worry about that !
He/she might say What is your opinion or divorce and remarriage ? What is your opinion on gay rights ?
Possibly the bishop would say ;Well,you'll find all shades of opinion here.
He/she might then say : Good,when can I start to attend to the cure of souls ?
Here I think,and please correct me if I am wrong ,the bishop would say :Well,you cannot start to have the cure of souls ,to celebrate the eucharist,until you have received episcopal ordination. whatever else you may or may not believe you absolutely must have episcopal ordination.
Then the former Reformed/Presbyterian/Baptist pastor might say : But I have been working as a pastor for many years,I have regularly celebrated the Lord's supper and preached the Word of God.
What would the bishop then say ?
I hope that he wouldn't say :Well you have just been play acting and for us you really need to dress up and not dress down.
I think he would say,please correct me if I am wrong: We recognise your vocation and your ministry but if you want to be a member of the Episcopal church you simply have to have been ordained and commissioned by a bishop of an Episcopal community.
What is the difference in the Catholic church saying virtually the same thing to those who wish to minister in its name ?
Posts: 3444 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
Except it's not just saying that (the ecclesiastical discipline/'order' point): it's also talking about sacramental invalidity. However, presumably the Church of England would also be concerned about that vis a vis Bappoes and Presbies, so I guess your point still stands!
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
the coiled spring
Shipmate
# 2872
|
Posted
quote:
That's irrelevant, isn't it. As Latin Rite RCC priests have to take a vow of celibacy sexual orientation isn't an issue.
Is there any proof of this when there are reports of mateys and priests having a leg over and producing off spring.
One needs to be realistic that a priest or a matey gets a stiffy they can justify it being a gift from God and place where ever they feel guided.
--------------------
give back to God what He gives so it is used for His glory not ours.
Posts: 2359 | From: mountain top retreat lodge overlooking skegness | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
WTF?
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Forthview
Shipmate
# 12376
|
Posted
In the matter of 'stiffies' people can justify almost anything..that is to say that they can justify it to themselves.
The Church,here on earth ,is not a perfect society.We all have difficulties in keeping the various commandments and disciplines, not only of the Church but sometimes the civil law.
It doesn't help to use the language of the gutter press when talking about people's sexual feelings and urges.
For some people the demands of their sexuality conflict with the teaching of the Catholic Church. For the right reasons or sometimes for the wrong reasons some people simply cannot accept the teachings of the church. In my (limited) experience most of those who have abandoned the Catholic church have not done so because they cannot accept the doctrine of the Immaculate conception,but because of difficulties to do with interpersonal relationships ( of which 'stiffies' may be a part,but are they the be all and end all of intimate interpersonal relationships)
That some people transgress the teachings of the church,but still hope to remain within the church is a serious problem but it should not be made fun of -or am I being too stiff about this ?
Posts: 3444 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Edward Green
Review Editor
# 46
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
So, is there any kind of consensus as to whether this will make the CofE more or less liberal/evangelical?
Depends what you mean by those terms.
The departure of the 'traditionalists' will give the New Anglo-Catholics space to stretch their wings and fly. Affirming Catholicism has already had a makeover, and by getting involved in Fresh Expressions the NAC have made remarkable allies.
The Conservative Evangelicals will have lost an ally they were never really comfortable with. Just as FiF over time increasingly separated themselves and offended those who would have been their natural sympathisers I imagine the Con Evo's will do the same. Indeed they seem to be on that path already.
The Charismatic Evangelicals are undergoing some interesting stuff of their own. Firstly they are moving away from a 'Leaders and Wives' culture to 'Men and Women in Leadership', about 20 odd years after everyone else. Secondly they are re-engaging with what it means to be Anglican. Thirdly there are questions about how they engage with issues of sexuality pastorally. I think the New Wine bubble is less and less secure these days.
Open Evangelicalism has received a bit of a boost recently. The fact that the whole US based Emergent thing has headed in that direction, and begun to explore liturgy and sacraments is a real encouragement to the Open's.
Liberalism is something of a spent force in the Church of England. No-one knows what it means any more. If however it means mainstream sensible biblical scholarship then most of the CofE is pretty liberal. If you mean the vast majority of small churches that are central in tradition and struggling ... well it looks pretty bleak unless they can get good local leadership and functioning PCC's.
I think the Church of England is probably heading in a more mission focussed direction. In a way it will be more Catholic, more Evangelical and more Liberal than the past.
--------------------
blog//twitter//
linkedin
Posts: 4893 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
FreeJack
Shipmate
# 10612
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
So, is there any kind of consensus as to whether this will make the CofE more or less liberal/evangelical?
More liberal and more evangelical. Probably more young as well. But not by very much initially because not that many will go immediately. But some things make other things possible.
For instance a third of FiF going next year make women bishops much more likely. (General Synod HoL vote would increase from say 66% to 70%.)
That makes talks with the methodists more serious as an option. Which makes social gospel stuff more at the forefront. The younger evangelicals in the CofE are as in to fairtrade etc. as the liberals.
But in the short term, there would be a group of evo clergy (from open to charismatic, but perhaps not the most conservative) who would be the biggest clergy group in HoC in Synod, with AffCath only the second largest.
That would no doubt affect the business of Synod, the theological colleges, the appointment of bishops and much else besides.
I would expect that most of the CofE priests who go will either be retired or with one post left in them, and will take reduced CofE pension at 55+ to top up their RC stipend. A lot of priests want to die Catholic. So that would lower the age of clergy.
Posts: 3588 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Myrrh
Shipmate
# 11483
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
If a Reformed/Presbyterian/Baptist pastor were to decide tht his/her true spiritual home is really in the episcopal church and that he/she wised to continue to minister within this new community,what would happen ?
.............
He/she might then say : Good,when can I start to attend to the cure of souls ?
Here I think,and please correct me if I am wrong ,the bishop would say :Well,you cannot start to have the cure of souls ,to celebrate the eucharist,until you have received episcopal ordination. whatever else you may or may not believe you absolutely must have episcopal ordination.
Then the former Reformed/Presbyterian/Baptist pastor might say : But I have been working as a pastor for many years,I have regularly celebrated the Lord's supper and preached the Word of God.
What would the bishop then say ?
I hope that he wouldn't say :Well you have just been play acting and for us you really need to dress up and not dress down.
I think he would say,please correct me if I am wrong: We recognise your vocation and your ministry but if you want to be a member of the Episcopal church you simply have to have been ordained and commissioned by a bishop of an Episcopal community.
What is the difference in the Catholic church saying virtually the same thing to those who wish to minister in its name ?
Because that view isn't applicable to the RCC whose reasons for not considering Anglican ordinations valid are specific, the actual form, the words of ordination used, make the ordination valid or invalid.
This is from a pdf page arguing that the new rite of Ordination instituted by Paul VI is invalid for the same reasons the Anglican was defined invalid:
quote:
10. The New Rite of Ordination
In his famous Bull, Apostolicae Curae, Sept. 13, 1896, Pope Leo XIII solemnly declared that
Anglican Ordinations are invalid. This means that the Anglican sect doesn’t have valid priests or bishops.
Pope Leo XIII, Apostolicae Curae, Sept. 13, 1896: “… of Our own motion and certain
knowledge We pronounce and declare that Ordinations carried out according to the
Anglican rite have been and are absolutely null and utterly void.”4
In making this solemn pronouncement, it must be understood that Pope Leo XIII was not making
Anglican Ordinations invalid, but rather he was declaring that they were invalid due to defects in the rite. But what were those defects or problems which Leo XIII saw with the Anglican Rite, which contributed to its invalidity?
Pope Leo XIII, Apostolicae Curae, Sept. 13, 1896: “When anyone has rightly and seriously
made use of the due form and the matter requisite for effecting or conferring the
sacrament he is considered by that very fact to do what the Church does. On this principle rests the doctrine that a sacrament is truly conferred by the ministry of one who is a heretic or unbaptized, provided the Catholic rite be employed.[*] On the other hand, if the rite be changed, with the manifest intention of introducing another rite not approved by the Church, and of rejecting what the Church does, and what by the institution of Christ belongs to the nature of the sacrament, then it is clear that not only is the necessary intention wanting to the sacrament, but that the intention is
adverse to and destructive of the sacrament.”5
[*] This refers to the baptism into the RCC by non-RCC even by those not themselves baptised, even if Atheist, as long as it conforms to the practice of the RCC for this the baptism is valid.
Myrrh
Posts: 4467 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave Marshall
Shipmate
# 7533
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Edward Green:
Liberalism is something of a spent force in the Church of England.
Only if you think it's another party alongside the others you've listed. Doesn't the fact that there is this diversity within the Church demonstrate liberalism in action?
There is also the possibility that those who reject the factional allegiances that evangelical and catholic strands tend to value may be less attached to regular worship. Such people may still see value in and would identify with the national church if given the chance.
I suspect its more that theological liberalism is an unspent force, both in the country and in the Church, an unseen, mostly silent majority. But if the institution only promotes a 'missional' mentality derived from theological conservatism and a half-acknowledged desire to reverse the decline in numbers, it's no surprise there's little opportunity for non-worshippers to participate and little visibility for their perspective.
Posts: 4763 | From: Derbyshire Dales | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Forthview
Shipmate
# 12376
|
Posted
Myhrr Wouldn't anglicans say that any ordination which a Reformed/Presbyterian/Baptist may have had,was not an ordination which allowed that person to function as an anglican priest and to undertake the cure of souls in an anglican context?
I think that anglicans will occasionally allow non episcopally ordained clerics to take services (as opposed to participate in them) in anglican churches.Some anglicans,but presumably not all, would not accept on a regular basis the eucharistic ministrations of a non episcopally ordained cleric.
Perhaps some Anglican who knows more about this could let us know.
Posts: 3444 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
I think we just reordain, don't we? I certainly knew one curate who was an ex-URC minister in the 90s who was reordained, and met a Baptist minister in training for the CofE ministry in about the same time who was expecting reordination.
--------------------
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
|
|
pete173
Shipmate
# 4622
|
Posted
Yeah, we do. I wish we didn't, and that we just admitted Baptist and URC and Methodists who come over into the ordained ministry of the CofE. Perhaps that'll change one day and we'll stop staring over the Tiber and look the other way.
Posts: 1653 | From: Kilburn, London NW6 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Edward Green
Review Editor
# 46
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
Only if you think it's another party alongside the others you've listed. Doesn't the fact that there is this diversity within the Church demonstrate liberalism in action?
My big thing is post-tribalism. I work across party lines in my post. It is very exciting.
I only included the Liberals as a party because lots of people talk about 'the Liberals' in the church when I am not convinced they exist. What people mean is: 'More liberal than me on a particular issue'.
In terms of scripture, theology and pastoral care a huge chunk of the church is 'Liberal', including most Evangelicals and Anglo-Catholic's. We are widely read and draw from a wide range of theological sources.
What doesn't exist is a powerful Liberal lobby or agenda. There is no club for Liberals. Just as there is no club for Centrals. I would not object if there was. I would love to see more growing dynamic faith communities inspired by Radical Theology. It certainly inspired me, but back into a sort of Radical Orthodoxy. Which is quite ironic and humbling.
But as motivation Liberalism isn't as strong as some people would like to suggest. Many do not stand for Inclusivity because it is Liberal, but because they see it as a Kingdom issue.
quote:
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
There is also the possibility that those who reject the factional allegiances that evangelical and catholic strands tend to value may be less attached to regular worship. Such people may still see value in and would identify with the national church if given the chance.
I am very aware of these people. They read the Daily Mail and like to be visited.
quote:
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
I suspect its more that theological liberalism is an unspent force, both in the country and in the Church, an unseen, mostly silent majority. But if the institution only promotes a 'missional' mentality derived from theological conservatism and a half-acknowledged desire to reverse the decline in numbers, it's no surprise there's little opportunity for non-worshippers to participate and little visibility for their perspective.
I do wish I could agree. I really do. But I am not convinced any more. I believe passionately in religion, that is, faith practised. But I also believe in starting where people are and acknowledging their own faith journey.
Christianity like football is a team sport. You can't do it on your own isolated from any sort of community of faith. And no the Daily Mail does not count.
--------------------
blog//twitter//
linkedin
Posts: 4893 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alt Wally
Cardinal Ximinez
# 3245
|
Posted
Forthview
quote:
Wouldn't anglicans say that any ordination which a Reformed/Presbyterian/Baptist may have had,was not an ordination which allowed that person to function as an anglican priest and to undertake the cure of souls in an anglican context?
I think that anglicans will occasionally allow non episcopally ordained clerics to take services (as opposed to participate in them) in anglican churches.Some anglicans,but presumably not all, would not accept on a regular basis the eucharistic ministrations of a non episcopally ordained cleric.
The reasoning seems amazingly similar to the stance of the RCC. An exception in all of this is the one you noted; the ECUSA entered a pact of full communion with the major Lutheran body in this country. There is an allowance in it to for non episcopal ordinations in exceptional circumstances. In addition I believe there is joint celebration of the Eucharist and I know from first hand experience there is eucharistic presidency by Lutheran ministers in ECUSA parishes. Conceivably, and most probably, the last examples by ministers without ordination at the hands of a bishop. It seems inevitably this will lead to a further relaxation of rules in terms of ordination and in my own opinion simply confirms the Protestant character of the ECUSA.
The point of whether or not somebody accepts these ministrations is moot to me (though I know the "it doesn't happen here" congregational mentality is used as a bulwark against this kind of thing). A theology of communion, i.e. a "catholic" theology, means you share the faith of those in communion with you.
[ 27. October 2009, 14:58: Message edited by: Alt Wally ]
Posts: 3684 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave Marshall
Shipmate
# 7533
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Edward Green:
What doesn't exist is a powerful Liberal lobby or agenda.
True. But some of us are working on it.
quote:
as motivation Liberalism isn't as strong as some people would like to suggest.
You're probably right. But it's still the key defining characteristic of the fabric of the Church of England, because it allows the diversity of stuff that does strongly motivate people to be expressed. Anyone who sees the C of E as more than simply a means to further a sectarian cause relies on that liberal ethos. Maybe that needs more recognition.
quote:
I am very aware of these people. They read the Daily Mail and like to be visited.
Isn't that more a reflection of the kind of people who pester clergy than a measure of potentially church-disposed non-worshippers? Guardian readers might not feel the need to impose on you in quite the same way, for example. Or might express their interest contructively in ways worship-oriented parishes know nothing about.
quote:
Christianity like football is a team sport. You can't do it on your own isolated from any sort of community of faith.
Christianity is nothing like a team sport! That some groups within the Church might see it that way is a reflection of the breadth of the religion. It's at least equally a description of those who integrate its expression into their everyday lives yet rarely darken a worship club building's doors. At least, not when the team is playing at home.
Posts: 4763 | From: Derbyshire Dales | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Except it's not just saying that (the ecclesiastical discipline/'order' point): it's also talking about sacramental invalidity. However, presumably the Church of England would also be concerned about that vis a vis Bappoes and Presbies, so I guess your point still stands!
Yes, exactly; whether it's put in gentler words or not, the issue I'm concerned about has to do with doctrines of sacramental validity.
--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity
Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Organ Builder
Shipmate
# 12478
|
Posted
Whatever else comes out of this, the one thing I'm fairly certain of is that the Pope will NOT do anything which could be construed as recognizing Anglican orders to be or ever to have been sacramentally valid in the manner Anglo-Catholics have desired for years. I think it has been plain for decades that that horse will never leave the stable.
Another century might bring a lot of changes, but I won't be around to see them.
--------------------
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
|
|
Edward Green
Review Editor
# 46
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
True. But some of us are working on it
And 'Affirming Liberalism' too I see
I am very affirming of liberals my self as you know. It is part of my spiritual DNA. :-) I am excited to see what Liberals can bring to the table in terms of discipleship and mission.
I would agree with you that a form of Liberalism is a significant part of being 'Reformed Catholic'.
But all the Churches I know which are Liberal and growing are also evangelistic, centered in the tradition, and confessionally creedal, even if the individual is free to interpret as they wish. Indeed you might argue that they are actually Reformed Catholic ...
If the Liberals want a stronger voice in the Church then they need to demonstrate how they are part of Christ's plan 'to build my church'. I am not sure 'being the Church for people who don't go' will work unless some people actually do go in the first place.
--------------------
blog//twitter//
linkedin
Posts: 4893 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
teddybear
Shipmate
# 7842
|
Posted
Regarding ordination. I think one thing that might possibly be done, in order to avoid alienating those who are certain they have valid orders, is for Rome to refuse to say either way about the validity of orders and conditionally re-ordain everyone, unless they prove without a shadow of a doubt to have valid orders according to Roman standards. For example, if someone had been ordained by an Orthodox or Old Catholic bishop there would be no reason for even conditional ordination.
Posts: 480 | From: Topeka, Kansas USA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716
|
Posted
That's exactly the thing -- the people I've known who have left the Episcopal church have been precisely the ones who have been most firm and dogmatic about issues regarding ordination and its validity -- not only in their beliefs about women not being able to be priests at all, but in their convictions about the continuity of Anglican Apostolic Succession.
I just don't see how they'd be so eager to abandon the latter.
Is there anyone posting or reading here who is considering going to Rome in this situation -- who believes that Anglican ordinations have been valid but wishes to enter the RCC anyway? Can you fill us in on how this works for you?
--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity
Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
FreeJack
Shipmate
# 10612
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by pete173:
Yeah, we do. I wish we didn't, and that we just admitted Baptist and URC and Methodists who come over into the ordained ministry of the CofE. Perhaps that'll change one day and we'll stop staring over the Tiber and look the other way.
But it isn't quite the stumbling block on the protestant side that it is on the catholic side. There obviously has to be a process / service of reception. Given that not all free churches use the same language etc. for priest / presbyter and deacon then that reception has to be of a different type to that of converting lutherans / catholics / orthodoxen. As for some of the house church pastors their ordination could compose just about anything even if their calling and manifest gifts are very real.
I wouldn't have a problem say with conditional ordination for methodist presbyters or deacons. That is the sort of sensible step the CofE might be able to make if x% of FiF depart or withdraw into a clique.
Posts: 3588 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alt Wally
Cardinal Ximinez
# 3245
|
Posted
quote:
For example, if someone had been ordained by an Orthodox or Old Catholic bishop there would be no reason for even conditional ordination.
IIRC, it was the documentary proof that Graham Leonard supplied regarding Old Catholic (as opposed to Anglican) involvement in his consecration that led to his conditional ordination. So to Rome, even in that highly unique case, there was a reason.
Orthodox orders (and sacraments) are a different story.
quote:
That is the sort of sensible step the CofE might be able to make if x% of FiF depart or withdraw into a clique.
It would also push it further along in having a fully Protestant ecclesiology.
[ 27. October 2009, 18:18: Message edited by: Alt Wally ]
Posts: 3684 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pancho
Shipmate
# 13533
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
The thing to watch is really not so much the Anglican side, in my opinion. In addition to my point above about Catholic liturgy, it will be really interesting to see to what extent regular Latin rite Catholics, lay and ordained, can become part of this new rite.
Someone asked the pastor of Our Lady of the Atonement on his blog if one had to be a convert to join an Anglican Use parish. He answered:
quote:
...that issue was raised at the time our parish was established, and it was determined that since the new Code of Canon Law no longer required a person to fulfill his obligation at his territorial parish, but could be a member of any other Catholic parish, the same would be true for us. It's not as though ours is a different Rite, so there are no other canonical questions to be settled. So the short answer it -- no, you don't need to be a convert to be a registered parishioner in an Anglican Use parish.
So if the new ordinariates are like the existing Anglican Use in the U.S. a regular Latin Rite layperson could join an ordinariate's parishes just like any other Catholic parish. I assume it would be different for ordained Catholics.
The question was asked after the pastor wrote a history of his Anglican Use parish. You can read it at this link.
--------------------
“But to what shall I compare this generation? It is like children sitting in the market places and calling to their playmates, ‘We piped to you, and you did not dance;
we wailed, and you did not mourn.’"
Posts: 1988 | From: Alta California | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Organ Builder
Shipmate
# 12478
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alt Wally:
quote:
That is the sort of sensible step the CofE might be able to make if x% of FiF depart or withdraw into a clique.
It would also push it further along in having a fully Protestant ecclesiology.
...which wouldn't be an issue for the bulk of those who would remain. It might or might not be something the Pope would consider a "good thing", however--it might well be a unforeseen and undesirable consequence in his view.
It seems clear that Pope Benedict XVI is working to mend those cracks which can be mended--although I doubt he would have much success with the larger fractures even if he were twenty years younger. I think it is quite possible this really was intended to be just about the TAC. It wouldn't be the first time his actions and words led to unintended chaos in areas he had not considered.
For that reason, I'm not as convinced as Sir Pellinore that a Catholic reporter would have the best idea how this will play out in the Anglican world.
--------------------
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
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
If one puts aside and forgets about all the arguments about the nature of orders, it makes obvious sense that whatever role you held in your former denomination, if you change denomination, you go through whatever process is normal in that denomination before you exercise any official role.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alt Wally
Cardinal Ximinez
# 3245
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Organ Builder:
It might or might not be something the Pope would consider a "good thing", however--it might well be a unforeseen and undesirable consequence in his view.
I think what we're talking about is really inevitable, no matter what Rome does. In the end I think few will take up Rome on its offer for various reasons. I do think the deconstruction of the catholic consciousness of the Anglican world will continue unabated either way as a new order arises in its place.
Posts: 3684 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
PaulTH*
Shipmate
# 320
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by pete173:
Yeah, we do. I wish we didn't, and that we just admitted Baptist and URC and Methodists who come over into the ordained ministry of the CofE. Perhaps that'll change one day and we'll stop staring over the Tiber and look the other way.
On Sunday past I heard + Peter and + John Broadhurst on Radio 4 discussing the Pope's initiative. + John made the point that it is the culmination of ARCIC. + Peter said he had never seen ARCIC in that light. The position of FiF and the supporters of ARCIC is about something much greater than women's ordination. It is a question of ecclesiology. When Walter Cardinal Kasper addressed the General Synod, he said that the Church of England must decide if it sees itself as part of the undivided Church of the first millennium, or does it self-identify as a church of the Reformation. This is the crux of the issue.
The oow is very much a secondary issue, in that if the Magisterium were ever to allow women to be priests, all people having fidelity to Rome would accept it. Pete173 clearly sees himself as a bishop in a Reformation church, whose ecumenism is towards Methodists, URC and Baptists. + John sees himself as a bishop in the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church who has not the competance to agree to ordain women outside the framework of the One Church. In the past, the catholic/protestant split in the C of E has held together in uneasy tension, with the prods always in an overwhelming majority.
The present position with Synod and the revision committee makes it that the game is over for catholic Anglicans who believe that the threefold order or bishops, priests and deacons, and the reciting of the historic creeds of the undivided Church, makes the C of E part of that Church.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Paul
Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
The present position with Synod and the revision committee makes it that the game is over for catholic Anglicans who believe that the threefold order or bishops, priests and deacons, and the reciting of the historic creeds of the undivided Church, makes the C of E part of that Church.
Yikes (from my point of view)! So... you mean the C of E is formally abandoning that, or...?
--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity
Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alt Wally
Cardinal Ximinez
# 3245
|
Posted
I don't think anything is being formally abandoned. The compromise is falling apart. This is a good summary.
Posts: 3684 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
