|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Catholic and still Anglican?
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
Dear Paul
I knew such people in the CofE. They thought of themselves as Old English (Roman) Catholics finding a temporary home in the Church of England which they held to be of sufficient (just) ecclesiastical integrity in which to remain. Their reluctance to take the final step had nothing to do with residual Anglicanism but rather an Englishness which thought of the RC in Britain as slightly too Irish or culturally distinct. I suppose it's a distant grandchild of those tractarian sympathies that thought of RCism as "the Italian Mission." I can't see how they could possibly stay with the consecration of women to the episcopate except perhaps as a "faithful remnant" within a rigidly defined ecclesiastical enclosure where they could still dream of a collective deal with Rome. This will not happen.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
I have a suggestion. Many of the posts so far seem to be under the apprehension that people are considering leaving the CofE (or possibly other Anglican Churches) primarily because of the ordination of women.
Now I don't for a minute doubt that there are some people who would put up their hands and say it describes their position. But it has been known for a long time that there are many even within FiF who are not actually opposed to the ordination of women as priests. And FiF represents the pressure group founded on this premise! According to a recent survey it may describe about 40% of them. Many of those who left back in '92 declared themselves as possibilists in this. So far as I know most of them still do. I happen to know a couple of people who left then - one of them has absolutely no views on the matter at all. It would not have troubled him. And take a look here - we have Gunner who is actually in favour, considering leaving.
If you don't understand why this is - and it has nothing to do with being contrary - then all the indicators are that you are missing the point. Furthermore, the constant appeals to an idea of catholicity that has no basis in history or practice might just suggest that this might have something to do with it too.
Ian
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Merseymike
Shipmate
# 3022
|
Posted
Well, Ian, have a look at the FiF website, or new Directions - and the dominant issue is clear. It is the priesthood of women, and their likely acceptance into the episcopate.
Otherwise, the Church of England has always been a 'mixed bag', and it is over that issue that the conservative catholic wing wish to see schism - nothing else.
--------------------
Christianity is not a problem to be solved, but a mystery to be experienced
Posts: 3360 | From: Walked the plank | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
Merseymike - I'm not denying that it is the presenting issue before us - by no means. That's not what I meant at all. This deserves a longer post which I will try to put together. Meanwhile I would just reiterate that if you think this is the issue and this alone, then the statistics I cited do not bear out your supposition.
Ian
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Merseymike
Shipmate
# 3022
|
Posted
I would also say that the realm of 'possibility' extends only to the change being made also by the Orthodox and Roman Catholic churches.
Why can't Anglicans, being equal and valid with regard to apostolic succession, take the lead ? Do the Orthodox or Roman Catholics consider Anglican opinion before they make a statement which changes their position ? Of course not.
I think that those Anglicans who do not feel that Anglicanism cannot make the first move have a very negative view of their own denomination - as has been indicated in previous posts. Personally, I don't particularly want us to become RC or Orthodox. I think the Anglican tradition has much to offer to the catholic church
--------------------
Christianity is not a problem to be solved, but a mystery to be experienced
Posts: 3360 | From: Walked the plank | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Merseymike
Shipmate
# 3022
|
Posted
Are those statistics from the Cost-of-Conscience commissioned survey, Ian ? If so, I would regard them with a wheelbarrow or two of salt.
--------------------
Christianity is not a problem to be solved, but a mystery to be experienced
Posts: 3360 | From: Walked the plank | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
I would gently remind you MM that the Orthodox Church has had no ecumenical council after the Great Schism whereas Rome has had many (but not ecumenical in our view) and Protestantism has just done its own thing anyway, (nothing wrong with that according to its own self understanding). We have not done anything over which we would have had to consult. I'm talking about primary issues here of course.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Xavierite
Shipmate
# 2575
|
Posted
I hear Christmas in Florence is very pleasant...
But rather than baiting Father Gregory, I do actually have something I wanted to add. If the Anglican Church is valid (and one assumes that those who are members consider it to be such) then why shouldn't it press ahead with changes which might be antagonistic to non-Anglican Churches? Does branch theory allow for different branches having different theologies, or not? If it does, then no problem. If it doesn't...
well, that's the thing. I've never really understood branch theory anyway, given, say, dogmas specific to one branch, such as the dogma of papal infallibility. To what extent can the Catholic Church be a valid branch under the Anglican view if it is promulgating dogmas which are in error?
Posts: 2307 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bagpuss
Magical saggy cloth cat
# 2925
|
Posted
I've been really busy of late so come in on this a bit far down the line, but for what it's worth ......
I'm a female Anglo - catholic who is in favour of the ordination of women (and I would be if I was male!)
What really gets my goat is that when women were ordained those clergy who were against it were given the opt out package and there are people I know of who chose to ignore that knowing what the C of E was doing and chose to stay in a church where women were ordained despite being against it.
OK I know the laity didn't have the same choice and many walked but equally many are supportive. Perhaps I'm being a bit naive here but in my diocese the same form goes out to potential ordinands, both male and female - with the little tick box for those who want to be seen by an 'untainted' priest. At the Maundy Thursday renewal of ordination vows there is a separate service for the women haters.
What message does this actually send out? Well we've ordained the women but actually they are second class citizens.
I'm a trainee RE teacher and at the moment we're looking at prejudice and the work of Martin Luther King for short course GCSE. Next week we look at the teachings of the church. I'm looking forward to some really interesting responses to the question of does the modern chuch actually follow its own teachings? I'm throwing this open to the kids and not going to influence them in any way but it should make fascinating stuff.
Sorry aware I'm not too coherent tonight - shattered ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Posts: 473 | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Amanuensis
Idler
# 1555
|
Posted
Gunner, I'm sure you will ignore me again but this is tired stuff.
You said in your OP that you wanted to talk about whether your spiritual home is in the C of E (I paraphrase). ISTM that what you actually want to do is re-hash the arguments of 10 years ago.
Respect to your point of view, but you are not saying anything that was not said in the synod debates.
--------------------
What's new?
Posts: 547 | From: Cornwall | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sola Scriptura
Shipmate
# 2229
|
Posted
I suspect that many FinFers won't join Rome because they can't cope with discipline. In Rome one has to obey and stick to the Roman Rites whereas in Anglo-catholicism one can camp it up as much as you can. In fact one of the selling points in some Anglo-Cath shrines is how camp it can be.
To join Rome would have to be on the basis that one has come to the conculsion that this is where God is leading you to not because the CofE has become unpleasant.
--------------------
Used to be Gunner.
Posts: 576 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spong
Ship's coffee grinder
# 1518
|
Posted
On the question of the time taken to discern, no-one is suggesting that women will be consecrated as Bishops in the CofE tomorrow. GRAS points out that even if you start the process now it is going to take several years to complete.
If there was any sign that the ordination of women had made a lot of "don't knows" come down on the side of not ordaining women, then there would be a point to saying that the process of discernment has to continue. But I don't see any evidence of that. Again, unless we believe that there is a real possibility of the CofE now changing its mind and deciding that women's ordinations were invalid, we have to move towards regularising the current position which was specifically declared to be temporary. It will be at least five years from now before all the processes are gone through; I really don't see that 15 years discernment is too short a time before the final decision is taken.
--------------------
Spong
The needs of our neighbours are the needs of the whole human family. Let's respond just as we do when our immediate family is in need or trouble. Rowan Williams
Posts: 2173 | From: South-East UK | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SpO-On-n-ng:
If there was any sign that the ordination of women had made a lot of "don't knows" come down on the side of not ordaining women, then there would be a point to saying that the process of discernment has to continue. But I don't see any evidence of that.
Complete agreement on that. If anything the opposite. I've often met people who say that they were then opposed to women priests, but have changed their mind since, usually because they have seen them in action.
About ten people left our church when we got a woman vicar. Almost all of them came back again later, and at least one family that didn't are now members of a local Baptist church that has a woman minister.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jesuitical Lad:
I hear Christmas in Florence is very pleasant...
Tell that to Pope Honorius ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
quote:
Does branch theory allow for different branches having different theologies, or not? If it does, then no problem. If it doesn't...
The thing that enabled the ordination of women to the priesthood in the CofE was the Synod deciding that it wasn't a theological issue, but one of church government.
quote:
well, that's the thing. I've never really understood branch theory anyway, given, say, dogmas specific to one branch, such as the dogma of papal infallibility. To what extent can the Catholic Church be a valid branch under the Anglican view if it is promulgating dogmas which are in error?
There are, as far as I know, no dogmas specific to Anglicanism. We're not in the business of inventing new doctrine or promulgating it, and there is no-one in the Church of England who would claim the authority to do that anyway.
What we do claim to be able to do is to order our own church. We do have the right to appoint ministers, and to, if neccessary, change the rules by which we appoint them.
Of course all churches, including our own, will sometimes believe things in error. We are none of us perfect, and none of infallible.
Even the Pope of course - as they had to retrospectively decide for Honorius, about 13 centuries after the poor bloke was promoted to glory, he is only supposed to be infallible when pronouncing the belief of the whole church. If, and when, Rome rejoins with Constantinople in formal communion, then it will be obvious that the see of Rome could not have represented the whole church for most of its history, neatly getting over the theological ratchet, and openng the door to reform.
quote:
Article XIX. Of the Church.
THE visible Church of Christ is a congregation of faithful men, in the which the pure word of God is preached and the sacraments be duly ministered according to Christ's ordinance in all those things that of necessity are requisite to the same. As the Church of Jerusalem, Alexandria, and Antioch have erred: so also the Church of Rome hath erred, not only in their living and manner of ceremonies, but also in matters of faith.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Xavierite
Shipmate
# 2575
|
Posted
No-one ever claimed that popes were infallible in choosing not to define doctrine, which is what Honorius did, in choosing not to settle the questions around monotheletism. It was a bad decision, but that's hardly relevant to papal infallibility.
Thanks for the explanation of the branch thing, though. How does this idea of everyone being in partial error gel with Jesus' promise that the gates of Hell would not prevail against His Church (Matthew 16)?
Posts: 2307 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
FatMac
Ship's Macintosh
# 2914
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jesuitical Lad:
Thanks for the explanation of the branch thing, though. How does this idea of everyone being in partial error gel with Jesus' promise that the gates of Hell would not prevail against His Church (Matthew 16)?
God is in the business of using human error to his glory. Exhibit 1: The crucifixion.
--------------------
Do not beware the slippery slope - it is where faith resides.
Do not avoid the grey areas - they are where God works.
Posts: 1706 | From: Sydney | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hooker's Trick
Admin Emeritus and Guardian of the Gin
# 89
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jesuitical Lad:
If the Anglican Church is valid (and one assumes that those who are members consider it to be such) then why shouldn't it press ahead with changes which might be antagonistic to non-Anglican Churches?
This is the central point.
If you consider the Church of England to be a valid and SUFFICIENT expression of the Body of Christ in the world, and you trust the Church as empowered by the Holy Ghost, then the Church's decision to ordain women (or whatever) should pose no problem to you, because you believe in the Church's sufficiency and inspiration.
If you do NOT believe that the Anglican church is sufficient (ie she is only correct in that she is in accord with the practices of the Church of Rome) then why on earth would you remain in the Church of England whether or not women wore chasubles?
The question of conscience, it seems to me, is not about women priests at all. It is about the validity and sufficiency of the Church of England.
If I woke up and realised the only reason I was an Anglican was because it was an English-speaking approximation of Roman or Byzantine values, I would be forced, through the strength of my convictions and conscience, to remove myself to a sufficient Church inspired by the Holy Ghost.
If you don't feel the that the whole Church of England (not just your parish, mind -- we are catholic after all) is inspired by the Holy Ghost then how on earth could you remain. And if you believe that the Church is mistaken in the ordination of women, you must therefore conclude either that you are wrong or that the Holy Ghost has departed from the Church of England. If indeed you ever felt he was there in the first place.
One more question: is the Church suuposed to reflect our own individual, private and mortal views back to us in one great warm and cuddly love-fest, or is the Church meant to challenge and guide us, perhaps even unto things that make us uncomfortabel or uneasy?
HT
[by the way, how, in conscience, can you feel that the Church is valid or sufficient if you feel that the ministration of Holy Communion is EVER rendered invalid by the participation of ANY of the Church's own ministers? Haven't you de facto excommunicated yourself by the very suspicision that the Eucharist, as celebrated by the rites and rubrics of one's own church, is sometimes rendered invalid by that church's own rites?]
Posts: 6735 | From: Gin Lane | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
The thing that enabled the ordination of women to the priesthood in the CofE was the Synod deciding that it wasn't a theological issue, but one of church government.
Could you post a link to this? I really really want to see what arguments in favour of the O of W which are not rooted in "people were silly and dumb and mean in the Old Days but we are sensible and smart and nice now." Most of what I have heard in favour of women's ordination has been that kind of thing and it's really only been people on the Ship who have argued in any other way... ![[Help]](graemlins/help.gif)
David
on the verge, tentatively and potentially, of accepting women's ordination as valid; this must be a banner week or something
--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity
Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Hooker's Trick:
If you consider the Church of England to be a valid and SUFFICIENT expression of the Body of Christ in the world, and you trust the Church as empowered by the Holy Ghost, then the Church's decision to ordain women (or whatever) should pose no problem to you, because you believe in the Church's sufficiency and inspiration.
But what abour church decisions (C of E, RC, etc.) to approve of, say, burning heretics at the stake? Do we have to approve of that because the church once approved of it? Or are you arguing that the ordination of women is different, not only in degree but in kind, from things like that?
--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity
Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hooker's Trick
Admin Emeritus and Guardian of the Gin
# 89
|
Posted
If ordaining women strikes you as the same sort of thing as setting people on fire and burning them to death, I'm not sure what else I can say.
The analogy is not only faulty in that the difference in degree and implication is ludicrous, it is also a completely different issue.
Burning heretics does not affect the validity of the Sacrament. And ordaining women doesn't murder anybody.
And even if we WERE talking about judicial murder by torture, it comes down to the same thing. You either trust in the Church or you don't. You can bring up any counter-examples you want to and no matter how outrageous:
When the Synod of the Church of England votes that instead of celebrating Holy Communion we should instead sacrifice pregnant ladies on the altar whilst we sing Moody Blues songs in our underpants, I shall then decide that I have no confidence in the Church as the Body of Christ and leave it. And I wouldn't have to refer to the Church of Rome to make that decision.
Posts: 6735 | From: Gin Lane | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716
|
Posted
Hooker's Trick said:
quote:
If ordaining women strikes you as the same sort of thing as setting people on fire and burning them to death, I'm not sure what else I can say.
No, it doesn't, except insofar as it is something which several agreed-upon valid churches have, in the past, claimed was right, which they now don't. It was an example of "something the church used to be OK with but is not now." If we believe in the church's "validity and sufficiency" then it would, if I read you right, mean that it was perfectly right to do so in the past, unless (1) its validity and sufficiency are on-again off-again or (2) these are things of a different kind -- and if so, what kind?
quote:
The analogy is not only faulty in that the difference in degree and implication is ludicrous, it is also a completely different issue.
Burning heretics does not affect the validity of the Sacrament. And ordaining women doesn't murder anybody.
Well, that's what I'm asking: what is the distinction? Is it that one is a moral issue and the other is one of ecclesiology? Because if I read you right, then you seemed to be saying, "Whatever the church says, since it has sufficiency, must be right." Which didn't seem to make sense to me.
quote:
And even if we WERE talking about judicial murder by torture, it comes down to the same thing. You either trust in the Church or you don't.
So... if the church really did start approving of it again, faithful Anglicans would be obligated to agree with it or leave? ![[Confused]](confused.gif)
quote:
When the Synod of the Church of England votes that instead of celebrating Holy Communion we should instead sacrifice pregnant ladies on the altar whilst we sing Moody Blues songs in our underpants, I shall then decide that I have no confidence in the Church as the Body of Christ and leave it.
But does that mean it never had sufficiency, or that it lost it somehow? Did it lose this validity and sufficiency during dark times in its history, and then regain it?
quote:
And I wouldn't have to refer to the Church of Rome to make that decision.
I mostly agree with that, though my own reasoning re Rome and Orthodoxy (repeated elsewhere) still stands.
HT, I'm not trying to bait you -- I'm genuinely wanting to know. I've only recently become more seriously open to the idea of the validity of WO, and finding out better arguments than the ones I've heard is really important to me; it would make my own life, personally speaking, much easier to accept this -- which is why I have to be strenuously careful NOT to just jump in, lest I do so dishonestly just to make things easy on myself.
Hugs
David
--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity
Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
GeorgeAC
Apprentice
# 3521
|
Posted
I am becoming an Anglican and am still a Catholic. Choosing between the churches seems so last millenium.
I don't view Anglicanism as an alternative to Roman Catholicism. It is simply the largest English Church, and in my province in the U.S., has a mostly (but not entirely) Catholic manifestation.
Becoming an Anglican has made me appreciate the modern Roman Church even more, and I say that both with and without irony. Actually, it is much harder to be an American and Catholic than it is to be an Anglican and a Catholic.
Posts: 19 | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716
|
Posted
On a side note, the whole female-priesthood issue is debated at length down in Dead Horses on the "Priestly Genitalia" thread, so it might be better for all of that to move down there and the whole Anglican/Roman issue to stay here, lest someone decide this thread has gotten too sidetracked.
David
whatever he concludes, will still love "The Vicar of Dibley"
--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity
Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hooker's Trick
Admin Emeritus and Guardian of the Gin
# 89
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
something which several agreed-upon valid churches have, in the past, claimed was right, which they now don't.
"agreed-upon valid" by whom?
I am a communicant member of a church I believe to be valid. I don't feel the need to reference other churches that someone else agrees are valid.
If I did, would that not imply that I did not have faith in the sufficiency of my own tradition to decide its own ecclesiological governance?
And if I felt that way, why would I still be a member?
I don't see what these other (valid or not) people, or people in the past have anything to do with it.
I am an Anglican in the 21st century, and the ordination of women has not convinced me that the Church is in error, or had invalidated itself or compromised the efficacy of its rites. End of story.
Some people may well believe that the Church has done those things. I respect their belief (even if I think they misunderstand). What I do not respect is why the compromise their own integrity and mine by remaining in a Communion they believe to be flawed, compromised, or invalid.
And of course I wonder what they were ever in there for in the first place, if they felt that the validity of the Church of England as Christ's Body was so tenuous and fragile.
Posts: 6735 | From: Gin Lane | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716
|
Posted
I'm getting confused now.
HT said
quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
something which several agreed-upon valid churches have, in the past, claimed was right, which they now don't.
-----------------------
"agreed-upon valid" by whom?
My apologies for being unclear. Several churches -- both the RC and the C of E -- have done or approved of things in the past (both sides burned heretics, for example) which all concerned don't approve of now. "Agreed-upon valid" was a ghastly construction and should be struck from the record. ![[Embarrassed]](icon_redface.gif) What I should have said, and say now, is that the C of E did things we don't believe are right -- the RC has done things which modern RCs do not approve of (but which they do say were not ex cathedra issues, so does the C of E have something similar, i.e., a line above which things are analagous to "ex cathedra" and which other things are not?). (The "agreed-upon validity" thing was meant re those Anglicans, including me, who see the RC as valid as well, but it wasn't necessary for the discussion at all, so I retract it.)
quote:
I don't see what these other (valid or not) people, or people in the past have anything to do with it.
Apart from Rome -- I don't understand how "people in the past" DON'T have anything to do with it. What I hear you saying, and if I am wrong please tell me so because I'm mis-hearing you, is that the C of E -- because of being valid and sufficient -- can declare doctrinal and ecclesiastical things to be true -- and that to doubt that is to deny its validity/sufficiency -- but that if it did or said anything UNtrue or wrong in the past, then that doesn't matter because it's not what it's doing or saying now. So if it approved of burning heretics in the past, and does not now, -- well, in my view that shows that either (on the grounds that it was wrong to do so in the past) its beliefs are not intrinsically going to be always right, regardless of its validity/sufficiency -- or that matters of doctrine on certain levels, or of certain kinds, are going to be right always, while others are not as absolute -- somewhat like the RC idea of "ex cathedra" as opposed to lower levels of theological discourse. But if it could be wrong in the past on some matter, can it not be wrong now? Does it lose its validity if it makes a mistake?
I do not think that it does -- though my concerns over W.O. and what it might do (if they are not valid priests, not due to doctrinal errors) to Apostolic Succession, are posted on the P.G. thread in D.H.
I rather thought you might say, perhaps, that the approval of the burning of heretics was indeed a grievous error, but that the ordination of women was a different sort of matter -- that the church does and always has been able to determine such things as a matter of ecclesiology, possibly with some helpful web links , while burning 'orrible 'eretics was a moral matter which the church had no power to alter and therefore, while still retaining its validity as a church body, sacraments, etc., terribly incorrect in this matter, and able to change to a better view. (And, correspondingly, while able to ordain women or men or whomever, or free to change the order of the Communion service in various ways, that the church could still be right or wrong in its moral doctrine today.) It sounds to me as if you are saying, "whatever the church, as it is at the moment, says, is right, because it is valid and sufficient," which (if I hear you right) then leads me to ask how far that goes; we have a host of clergy, including bishops, all over the doctrinal landscape right now on many issues (apart from the "hot-button" ones like WO and gay issues; I'm thinking of the Resurrection of Christ, the Virgin Birth, the existence of Hell or lack thereof, etc.). If an act of Synod determined X, Y or Z, does that mean it's intrinsically going to be correct?
I can't help but think I misunderstand you, and my apologies for that but I'm genuinely trying to understand your position.
--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity
Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hooker's Trick
Admin Emeritus and Guardian of the Gin
# 89
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
If an act of Synod determined X, Y or Z, does that mean it's intrinsically going to be correct
The short answer (for me) is yes.
Obviously there are some pronouncements that one could imagine that I could not accept. That crisis would either be resolved by my deciding that I was the equal to the Holy Ghost and knew better than the Church, or by my deciding that the Church was bereft of the Holy Ghost and in error and I needed to leave.
It seems to me that people who remain in the Chruch of England (or the ECUSA for that matter) and do not like women priests, but still remain, are clearly saying that the Church is correct to ordain women but they personally don't like it. So it's not doctrinal or theolgical or even ecclesiological, or what Rome does or what they did in the past, it's a personal preference.
Posts: 6735 | From: Gin Lane | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Hooker's Trick:
quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
If an act of Synod determined X, Y or Z, does that mean it's intrinsically going to be correct
The short answer (for me) is yes.
Is it only acts of Synod? And (or) does this mean that the Anglican church -- as well as Rome -- was bereft of the Holy Spirit when it did wrong things in the past, and now has it again?
quote:
Obviously there are some pronouncements that one could imagine that I could not accept. That crisis would either be resolved by my deciding that I was the equal to the Holy Ghost and knew better than the Church, or by my deciding that the Church was bereft of the Holy Ghost and in error and I needed to leave.
My understanding of this issue is that (for example) the Church of Rome was in error to (for example) sell indulgences in the past, and that it rightly stopped doing so, but that it retained the presence of the Holy Spirit before, during and after that period. It seems that this isn't so much a difference (if I understand you rightly) over women's ordination, but of the nature of the church and the nature of its relationship with the Holy Spirit.
quote:
It seems to me that people who remain in the Chruch of England (or the ECUSA for that matter) and do not like women priests, but still remain, are clearly saying that the Church is correct to ordain women but they personally don't like it. So it's not doctrinal or theolgical or even ecclesiological, or what Rome does or what they did in the past, it's a personal preference.
I don't think they're saying that at all; many of them very clearly say that they are in genuine doubt over whether women can or ought to be ordained priests. Remaining in the Church doesn't mean that they agree with everything it does by a long shot. (Does it mean that, for example, before women's ordination, the women who were seeking to be priests were (because they remained within the Anglican churches) therefore in agreement with the denial of their ordination, and suddenly changed their view once the church changed its practice/position?)
I think it may be a matter of a different notion of "what church is" and of what its relationship to the HG is, as I am wondering above.
Why do you not see what the church has done in the past (and in the above case, not only a few centuries back, but a few decades) as relevant to whether it can be in error or not? If the church held a certain position and then reversed it (which has certainly happened in various cases, hasn't it?), would you argue that the Holy Spirit had changed His mind? Or that the church can indeed make mistakes?
David
--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity
Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hooker's Trick
Admin Emeritus and Guardian of the Gin
# 89
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
I think it may be a matter of a different notion of "what church is" and of what its relationship to the HG is, as I am wondering above.
No, actually what I am saying is that this is an issue of the individual's relationship to and conception of the Church.
As for all those deceptively simple counter-arguments from the "past": the Church changes. End of story.
The question remains, do you believe that the Church (in change as in stasis) is led by the Holy Ghost or not?
Posts: 6735 | From: Gin Lane | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716
|
Posted
HT said:
quote:
------------------------
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
I think it may be a matter of a different notion of "what church is" and of what its relationship to the HG is, as I am wondering above.
-----------------------------
No, actually what I am saying is that this is an issue of the individual's relationship to and conception of the Church.
What's the difference between "a different notion" (held, presumably, by individuals) of "what church is" and "the individual's ... conception of the Church"?
The "relationship to" part goes in, I believe, with "what church/Church is" in the first place.
quote:
As for all those deceptively simple counter-arguments from the "past": the Church changes. End of story.
Don't know why "past" is in quotes -- the events in question were definitely in the past, no question. And if they're "deceptively simple," well, they're certainly effective (if false) at deceiving me! Yes, the church does change -- but I thought what was at issue was whether or not its doctrines or practices could be in error. If it says "women are not able to be priests" one day and then says "women are able to be priests" another, the two mutually exclusive positions cannot both be right, can they?
quote:
The question remains, do you believe that the Church (in change as in stasis) is led by the Holy Ghost or not?
Do you then think it was the Holy Spirit leading the church to burn heretics in the past? ![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
It seems to me that for the Church to be led by the Holy Ghost is not the same thing as for all of its actions, or even all of its doctrines at a given moment, to be controlled by the Holy Ghost.
--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity
Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
Apologies for having been away after threatening to post something earlier.
HT - just a query about your line of argument. Are you saying that in some way that deciding to do something as a church makes it right because it is the church doing it? ( and presumably must therefore be inspired?). Different churches seem to have come to opposite conclusions about quite a few things. If the Holy Ghost is indeed the Spirit of Truth, how does your view cope with this?
Ian
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Carys
Ship's Celticist
# 78
|
Posted
ChastMastr wrote, quote:
If we believe in the church's "validity and sufficiency" then it would, if I read you right, mean that it was perfectly right to do so in the past, unless (1) its validity and sufficiency are on-again off-again or (2) these are things of a different kind -- and if so, what kind?
This seems to me to confuse authority with rightness, and that appears to me to be at the heart of the misunderstanding between you and HT. It's not whether burning heretics was right, but whether the Church had the authority to decide that it was (or wasn't).
Similarly, leaving aside the question of whether it is right to ordain women or not, the CofE (and ECUSA and various other churches in the Anglican Communion) have decided that it is. Either we believe that the Church has the authority to do this, or we don't. But if we don't, what are we doing in this Church? Not respecting the authority of the Church doesn't strike me as very Catholic.
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
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
Unfortunately it's messier than that, Carys. What you have posted (in part at least) is how things should be, not how they are. The official agreed view at the level of the Anglican communion is expressed in the Eames Report, to which all the Anglican Churches have assented. Which is that the ordination of women to the presbyterate may be allowable, and is in a period of discernment. So technically it is those who attempt to assume a foreclosure in advance of the communion definitively accepting it who are being unanglican. Crazy? - of course. But thats the way it is.
Re authority. In practice we are not only supposed to reject episcopal authority but also separate ourselves from a bishop who is a false shepherd, in the event of their defection from the catholic faith (cf The Robber Council of Ephesus) - which is what genuine reception is supposed to be about. Not the sham variety we have cooked up. Arianism was definitively accepted by a council, and rejected by the faithful.
Ian
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
Dear IanB
One of the more unfortunate aspects of the ordination of women when mandated under receptionist principles is that it is immediately injurious to the unity of the Church. It is more likely that an Arian bishop could become Orthodox in his teaching than a woman priest be stripped of her ordination should the Church (however defined) subsequently reject her ministry. The stakes are raised even further of course with the consecration of women bishops. This is why receptionism as applied to this issue always seemed (and seems) rather bogus and dishonest to me.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Neil Robbie
Shipmate
# 652
|
Posted
This thread has made fascinating reading. I wish to help clarify the evangelical position on women in the episcopate, which has been touched on but not expansively on this thread. Ken mentioned that : quote:
there isn't the pressure to secede if you don't have a "high" doctrine of episcopacy or apostolic succession. :
It is certainly true that evangelicals do not hold a "high" position on three fold ministry, but a "high" doctrine of creation puts pressure on evangelicals.
For a full treatment of the evangelical perspective on this matter, I commend the paper submitted to the Anglican Commission on Women in the Episcopate by Michael J. Ovey.
Carys said: quote:
Either we believe that the Church has the authority to do this, or we don't
Mike Ovey argues that it is not by the authority of the church that we should decide either for or against the consecration of women bishops but primarily by the doctrine of creation.
It is impossible to properly summarise a 17,000 word paper, necessitating its reading in full. The following extract from the conclusion gives the main thrust of the biblical position: quote:
8.2.3. The proposal for the consecration of women to the episcopate tends to violate both conditions of 8.2.1. above, for it sanctions what God through his Scriptures has forbidden, the exercise of decisive control of the teaching function by women in the context of a local congregation of believers which includes adult males. It is then female episcopacy which manifests not redeemed and recreated humanity, but fallen humanity. It is thus female episcopacy which denies the re-creative work of the Gospel.
8.2.4. The proposal is doubly serious for a primary concern in the episcopal office is the preservation of true teaching and obedience to it, whereas a female bishop will be a visible symbol of a church's disobedience.
Neil Robbie
Posts: 228 | From: Wolverhampton | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sola Scriptura
Shipmate
# 2229
|
Posted
Is the only way to remian catholic and Anglican to be party to a 3rd Province? Or should the next step be Rome and then retain the catholicity but at the price of losing my home as an Anglican. But has Anglicanims ceased to be and has it merely become one of the many sectarian splinter groups of Prostestantism?
--------------------
Used to be Gunner.
Posts: 576 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
doctor-frog
small and green
# 2860
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gunner:
While I am pro-women ordination I did feel the haste to which we have gone about this without the full mind of the catholic church is problematic. Can one still be a catholic in the CofE without necessarily joining FinF?
1. The RC and the Orthodox don't recognise our male orders.
2. The RC and the Orthodox, were they to ordain women, would do so on the principle that it is right, and that they have the authority. They would make a few ecumenical noises. But the wouldn't let the question of "what will Canterbury think?" influence their decision in the leas.
"Waiting till we can ascertain the mind of the Church Catholic" does not portend the simple humility that it purports to be. It's a complete and utter cop-out that portends a complete and utter abdication of the Christian duty to boldly proclaim Christ's Gospel.
What it really means is: "We shouldn't ordain women till Rome and Constantinople do it first". Which in turn means that we end up handing over the authority to teach and enact doctrine to the Romans and the Orthodox, who themselves will have no compunction about whatever they feel is right and good, because they *do* believe they have the authority, with or without reference to anyone else.
Truth is, if we're a true iteration of the OHC & A Church, then we do have the authority to make decisions on doctrine and practise. If we don't have that authority in this area, then how do we justify our claims to authority in any area? (After all, the "Church Catholic" can't even agree on the proper wording of the Nicene Creed, for God's sake!) And if we don't have authority in any area, then what are we up to claiming to be the Church in the first place?
The question we have to ask ourselves is whether we're here to proclaim Good News, or to sit in our Churches meekly with our bells and smells, waiting for the Pope to do it for us.
Truth is, if we're a true iteration of the OHC & A Church, then we have an obligation to truth and to Christ's will, as we can best discern it. And in that case, if "the mind of the Church Catholic" is an important issue (as I think it is), then why aren't we happy to be setting an example for Rome and Constantinople, rather than wait for them to set one for us? The process of reception means that someone sometimes has to take the first step in standing up for what's right and good, and I don't see why we Anglicans shouldn't be the one's doing that sometimes.
And if someone really thinks that muddles up our Apostolic Succession, then let them refer back to Point 1, above.
Posts: 981 | From: UK | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
doctor-frog
small and green
# 2860
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fr. Gregory:
It is more likely that an Arian bishop could become Orthodox in his teaching than a woman priest be stripped of her ordination should the Church (however defined) subsequently reject her ministry.
Correct me if I'm wrong, Fr. G, (and I may be) but it's my understanding that the Russian Orthodox under persecution in the 20th C. occasionally, out of sheer necessity, did in fact ordain women on the sly ... and then went on to ignore those women as priests once marxism fell and pretend that it never happened.
Posts: 981 | From: UK | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
FCB
Hillbilly Thomist
# 1495
|
Posted
I think you are probably thinking of the Czech RC bishop who ordained several women, and several married men as well, during a period of persecution. When this was revealed, after the break up of the Eastern bloc, the Vatican declared that the ordination of the women was invalid and the ordination of the married men was irregular. The men were given the option of continuing in ministry as Eastern Rite Catholic priest (who do have married clergy). I don't know if any chose that option. The women, of course, we simply told, "We presume you meant well, but you are not now, nor were you ever, priests."
FCB
--------------------
Agent of the Inquisition since 1982.
Posts: 2928 | From: that city in "The Wire" | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Neil Robbie
Shipmate
# 652
|
Posted
Gunner, you asked quote:
Is the only way to remian catholic and Anglican to be party to a 3rd Province?
What other options exist? As Ovey states, the church either imposes majoritarian principles and forces members to submit to this authority, thus exerting a sub-Christian power and marginalising strong Anglo-Catholics and Conservative Evangelicals, or it retains the current pluriform nature of the communion by allowing doctrinal structures within the communion outside those that are presently geographically defined.
If a third province is not introduced in conjunction with women in the episcopate then the church is guilty of neglecting the needs and beliefs of some of its members. This may be intentional and, if so, then the church must be honest about the plans to limit the doctrinal breadth of the communion by the gradual elimination of FinF and Reform.
Neil Robbie
Posts: 228 | From: Wolverhampton | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sola Scriptura
Shipmate
# 2229
|
Posted
The Church of England and the Anglican Communion has no authority what so ever on the matters of doctrine. If we claim to be catholic christians then we surely must submit to the teaching of the faith which the vast majority of catholics believe. To do our own thing makes Anglicans protestant and if we are we should abandon any pretence to be catholic. At the moment Anglicans do what they like: to parady a scripture: In those days there was no Authority in the land and every church did as it liked.
As for a 3rd Province this may be a safety raft for those who are sailing on a leaky boat. But is it really a lasting solution? Won't an honest solution be to go to Rome or Orthodoxy?
--------------------
Used to be Gunner.
Posts: 576 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
doctor-frog
small and green
# 2860
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gunner:
The Church of England and the Anglican Communion has no authority what so ever on the matters of doctrine. If we claim to be catholic christians then we surely must submit to the teaching of the faith which the vast majority of catholics believe.
Phooey.
If you're saying that we don't have authority and Rome does, then by that reckoning the best way to submit to them is to join them and actually be in communion with them. (After all, they don't recognise our Eucharist as anything but juice and cookies.) Why would you want to be in a Church that has no authority? Why would you want to be in a Church that you feel should do nothing and doesn't even have the right to do till Rome tells it to?
And if you're saying that they also don't have authority till we all get back together, then what are any of us doing playing Church when the Church to whom Christ delivered the Keys to the Kingdom no longer exists?
Posts: 981 | From: UK | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
doctor-frog
small and green
# 2860
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gunner:
To do our own thing makes Anglicans protestant and if we are we should abandon any pretence to be catholic.
The problem with Anglo-Catholicism (and I say this as an Anglo-Catholic) is that great Elephant in the Room That No One Ever Talks About: secretly, most of 'em are scared that Rome is right and that we really are an invalid Church with invalid orders and invalid sacraments.
Never occurs to them that, if they must see it in those terms, then maybe we're the ones who have the true faith (whatever that means) and everyone else has got it wrong. Certainly, Rome and Constantinople claim that. I'd contend that if we really want to be Catholics, we need not to jump every time Rome says so, nor beg them for recognition that's not forthcoming anytime soon, but rather to get a pair of cojones and see ourselves on a level with them, and conduct our ecumenical affairs accordingly.
Posts: 981 | From: UK | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Merseymike
Shipmate
# 3022
|
Posted
Problem is that FiF and Reform cannot accept the direction of the Church of England, in very different ways.
I don't think that it is possible to allow them to have what they want within the Church of England, so on the whole I think it best if they go - if you want my honest view. A broad church has to consist of those who can live with breadth. They cannot : their solutions would deny it.
--------------------
Christianity is not a problem to be solved, but a mystery to be experienced
Posts: 3360 | From: Walked the plank | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
PaulTH*
Shipmate
# 320
|
Posted
Very well put texas veggie. I agree with Gunner that however catholic we may feel as Anglicans, our freedom of thought puts us in the protestant camp of world churches. I read last week that ++Rowan is sympathetic to the idea of a Third Province as a means of keeping the C of E together. While it isn't an ideal situation, in which part of the church is out of communion with another part, it's the only way a major schism can be prevented. If he finds a way to make it work, good luck to him and I admire him for it.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Paul
Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
doctor-frog
small and green
# 2860
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH:
Very well put texas veggie. I agree with Gunner that however catholic we may feel as Anglicans, our freedom of thought puts us in the protestant camp of world churches.
Paul -- I actually agree with the idea that we are fundamentally catholic ... although I'm also plenty comfortable with those who think we're not so much. But my point was that, Catholic or no, our first duty is to truth, and that's what makes us catholic. in the absence of a united Church*, we have to have the authority, competence, remit, and duty to judge theology and proclaim truth. If we do not have such authority, remit, and duty, then we are not even the Church, making catholic or protestant a moot point.
--
* footnote: I don't buy the idea of an "invisibly united" Church to which we must always cede authority whenever the Church proposes a doctrine that we and our mates don't happen to like. Churches are pure material WYSIWYG: to whatever partial extent we're in communion, yes, we have an obligation to listen to the other guy and seek unity. But until the unity is there, we must still make decisions -- just like regional synods commonly made decisions throughout history and still make decisions -- confident in the basic understanding that God has made us a microcosm (not a fragment) of the Church universal and has therefore given us the grace, tools, and obligations to do so.
Posts: 981 | From: UK | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sola Scriptura
Shipmate
# 2229
|
Posted
I really do believe that Anglicans have No authority to change matters of doctrine. What are you saying that if the Church of England decides that her catechism should say that we believe in the non-literal resurrection, the non-virginal conception, that one God who is neither Father, son or spirit then we have the authority to do so? I don't we Anglicans have a problem with submitting to authority partly because we're not used to submitting to authority. Take the example of Anglo-catholics and evangelics. Both priests say the same ordinal but both break this when they use illegal uses of worship and a lack of church discipline. And do they get bollocked for this - no - so long as they pull in the bums on pews their leaders ignore their practices.
I guess this is one reason why some Anglo-catholics who went to Rome came back. They couldn't cope with Church discipline they had been so used to getting their own way, camping up their liturgy and mincing their words to please their audience. Perhaps I am out of touch and need to really review my position.
--------------------
Used to be Gunner.
Posts: 576 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Merseymike
Shipmate
# 3022
|
Posted
Then who does, Gunner ?
And when was the last time either catholics or orthodox asked Anglicans their view on doctrine ?
I honestly feel that those who think we can only move when Rome moves should think seriously about whether they believe in their heart of hearts, that Rome is the 'true church'. That seems the onle logical reason for not being able to make doctrinal statements without Rome's approval. And if that is the case, then surely Rome is where they should be - there's nothing wrong with being a Roman Catholic!
You are right though : many returnees to anglo-catholicism not only disliked the discipline, but also the very different culture which exists in the RC church in the UK. Personally, I do not agree with the discipline and authority of Rome, and would not be attracted by Roman Catholicism. In my view, anglo-catholicism is actually a very different beast.
--------------------
Christianity is not a problem to be solved, but a mystery to be experienced
Posts: 3360 | From: Walked the plank | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
doctor-frog
small and green
# 2860
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gunner:
I really do believe that Anglicans have No authority to change matters of doctrine. What are you saying that if the Church of England decides that her catechism should say that we believe in the non-literal resurrection, the non-virginal conception, that one God who is neither Father, son or spirit then we have the authority to do so?
I think we're probably speaking from different definitions of "change doctrine".
I'm not suggesting in the least that we could or should re-define the Trinity, etc., and remain Christian. But the Church has always had the authority to interpret the dogma of the Church and enact eternal truth anew in every generation. This is not Platonism we're dealing with, but the God of the Hebrews, who performed and performs his mighty acts in the material world and indeed acts to redeem it.
If we do not have that authority, we are not the Church.
Posts: 981 | From: UK | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Neil Robbie:
This thread has made fascinating reading. I wish to help clarify the evangelical position on women in the episcopate
But this isn't "the" evangelical position on women in the episcopate, it is just an evangelical position.
The idea that there can be no legitimate teaching ministry or, leadership over a teaching ministry, for women in a church with adult male members is not held by the majority of evangelicals, or even very many of us.
Inside the CofE it is probably held by a minority even of those churches who subscribe to the Reform group, and almost no others.
Outside it has not followed by any of the other mainstream Protestant groups. It is kept up by some of the independants and the Restoration/New churches - but by no means all of them.
In practice, all but a tiny number of evangelicals have recognised the teaching ministry of women for a long time now, first and most obviously in foreign missions, where they've been at it for a century and a half at least.
But the general point still remains. Even that minority who reject any leadership of women in the church are much less likely than anglo-catholics to want to leave the CofE, because their doctrine of authority in the church doesnt; depend on apostolic succession, and they won't feel the "taint" that some ACs report.
I'm not saying that nobody will leave - of course they will. Individual evangelicals join and leave the CofE all the time, for independent churches or the Baptists or Methodists or other places. And of course it goes the other way as well - many individuals move from other churches to Anglican churches.
For many evangelicals the decision to go to an Anglican or a Baptist church or whatever hasn't been a matter of "conversion" so much as a personal decision made on much the same grounds as deciding which Anglican or Baptist church to go to. One tends to relate to the local church, to a congregation, to ones friends, or to a particular preacher, rather than to the denomination as a whole. At least early in Christian life, later on ways of doing things might get habit-forming.
Larger groups, and even whole congregations, leave sometimes as well. In fact all the time. Where else did the Baptists and the Methodists and the Brethren and the Restoration churches come from in the first place?
The large amount of individual mobility between churches is something of a safety-valve which makes it less likely that whole congregations would secede in one go, because the people with the strongest feelings on any point are likely to have already left.
For example, those (very few) members of our church who objected to women priests on theological grounds didn't argue that we shouldn't have women priests when we got one. They just left. Most of them came back later, and at least one family that didn't ended up in an independant church with a women minister.
My guess is that in most, probably almost all, evanglical Anglican churches, the lay people who would object most strongly to women bishops have already left. Even if a vicar wanted to try some sort of seccession on those grounds they would get little support. A continuation of AES & the provision of an evangelical flying bishop would probably nip the whole thing in the bud entirely.
I would be surprised to see more than one or two churches in the whole country try to leave in those circumstances - and I suspect that for them women bishops would just be a headline to attach to a decision made on many other grounds.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
Of course the decisive moment in the move to ordain women in England was the Synod accepting that it wasn't a matter of theology but of order.
More akin to deciding what vestments to wear, or how many parishes there should be in a deanery, than to attempting to redefine the holy and undivided Trinity.
The die was cast at that point, and the process will continue until we have women bishops.
There are, in a very real sense, no arguable grounds against it any more. I mean arguable within the framework of the CofE as it now exists.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
