|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Catholic and still Anglican?
|
doctor-frog
small and green
# 2860
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
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.
Actually, even as a "pro-", i think that was the right thing done for all the wrong reasons. The ordination of women is nothing if not fundamentally to do with Incarnational and Soteriological theology. (Which is precisely why we should be taking the lead if Rome and Constantinople will not. It's fulfilling the law, not destroying it.)
Posts: 981 | From: UK | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sola Scriptura
Shipmate
# 2229
|
Posted
When Anglicans go their own way, when they make decisions without the full ascent of the Catholic OC church we make the progress to unity that much harder to achieve. When the CofE ordained women to the priesthood, no matter what I think personally, was wrong without the full backing of the whole of Catholic Christendom.
The results are that we have set back the ecumenical movemnt by decades undoing all the good work achived by Michael Ramsey and the Popes in between.
The haste to elevate women to the episcopate seems to have more to do with political correctness rather than any desire to look for truth. Seeking truth may take time and we should do this together not alone. One fear I have is that the motivation to elevate women to the episcopacy is to make the talks between Anglicans and Methodists that much more easier for Methodists to accept.
I have been blamed for defering to RC on mater of authority. If thats what it sounds like then tough. We can't ignore a church which is universal, has all the sacraments and valid orders and 2000 years of exploration and mature theological reflection. Anglican should be in partnership with RC and OC not trying to pull in the opposite direction.
--------------------
Used to be Gunner.
Posts: 576 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Carys
Ship's Celticist
# 78
|
Posted
quote:
The haste to elevate women to the episcopate seems to have more to do with political correctness rather than any desire to look for truth. Seeking truth may take time and we should do this together not alone. One fear I have is that the motivation to elevate women to the episcopacy is to make the talks between Anglicans and Methodists that much more easier for Methodists to accept.
Well it will make it easier for the Methodists to accept - they are quite clear, this one is non-negotiable - they believe it to be of God and something which they are to share with the rest of the Church.
And if we believe it to be true, then why should we wait?
quote:
I have been blamed for defering to RC on mater of authority. If thats what it sounds like then tough. We can't ignore a church which is universal, has all the sacraments and valid orders and 2000 years of exploration and mature theological reflection. Anglican should be in partnership with RC and OC not trying to pull in the opposite direction.
If you view the RC in this way, why not become a RC?
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
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gunner:
One fear I have is that the motivation to elevate women to the episcopacy is to make the talks between Anglicans and Methodists that much more easier for Methodists to accept.
<Austrian shrink mode ON>
Tell me, Gunner, how long have you had this fear of Methodism?
<Austrian shrink mode OFF>
quote:
We can't ignore a church which is universal, has all the sacraments and valid orders and 2000 years of exploration and mature theological reflection. Anglican should be in partnership with RC and OC not trying to pull in the opposite direction.
Not only can't we ignore it, we are part of it. As are the Methodists, the Lutherans, the Presbyterians and so many other denominations.
Why should every part of the Church on earth have the same rules and regulations and church government? When did God tell us that to be a Real Bishop you had to have a pointy hat and a purple shirt and live in a palace?
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Amos
Shipmate
# 44
|
Posted
When the Church of Rome goes its own way--establishing the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary as dogma, for instance, it also does injury to the possibility of unity within the Church. And do you think that gives Rome pause for even half a minute if she believes herself to be right?
--------------------
At the end of the day we face our Maker alongside Jesus--ken
Posts: 7667 | From: Summerisle | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Merseymike
Shipmate
# 3022
|
Posted
But, Gunner, if we are simply followers, 'junior' to Rome and the Orthodox churches, then why be Anglican at all. Why not simply rejoin Rome ?
--------------------
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 Merseymike:
But, Gunner, if we are simply followers, 'junior' to Rome and the Orthodox churches, then why be Anglican at all. Why not simply rejoin Rome ?
Precisely. The Orthodox hardly worry about sizes and percentages when they proclaim they're right and the Romans are wrong.
If we truly believe we have the same 2000-year apostolically succeeded pedigree, then why don't we have every bit as much right, through God's grace, to make the same claim. Or is God's grace only effective when we're in communion with Rome?
No one's suggesting we ignore Rome -- at least I'm not. Nor are we suggesting that the Body of Christ doesn't extend beyond our jurisdiction. But if the Churches, even in the absence of unity, can't make some kind of judgement calls on what's right and what's wrong, what's true and what's not, then what's the point of proclaiming anything? What Good News is there if we -- in the power of the Spirit -- still don't have the wherewithall to name what news it is?
Gunner suggests our responsibility is to truth, not PC-ism and rightly so.
I submit (as I did before), that this is precisely why we may ordain women without Rome and Orthodoxy to stroke us and tell us we've done good.
I further submit that the ordination of women fundamentally concerns Incarnational theology and Soteriology: specifically, if (as JP-II et al. claim) the priest needs to be male to represent the Christ-figure of the Eucharist, that means that Christ's masculinity was far more important to the Incarnation than his humanity per se. Consequently, that casts into grave doubt Christ's basic ability to offer salvation to women in the first place. Because Christ's humanity is paradigmatic humanity, then in effect an over-emphasis on his masculinity therefore transforms humans into two species, with women getting the short end of the soteriological stick (as 't were).
if our obligation is to truth, then that is the matter to respond to. Christ defines truth, not the Pope, Vatican I notwithstanding.
Posts: 981 | From: UK | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Carys
Ship's Celticist
# 78
|
Posted
Texas.Veggie quoth quote:
specifically, if (as JP-II et al. claim) the priest needs to be male to represent the Christ-figure of the Eucharist, that means that Christ's masculinity was far more important to the Incarnation than his humanity per se. Consequently, that casts into grave doubt Christ's basic ability to offer salvation to women in the first place. Because Christ's humanity is paradigmatic humanity, then in effect an over-emphasis on his masculinity therefore transforms humans into two species, with women getting the short end of the soteriological stick (as 't were).
Precisely. If a woman cannot represent Christ in this way because there is such a gulf between women and men, how can Christ (a man) have died for women? If there is no male, no female in Christ how can we make such a distinction amongst priests.
Although having said that, I do regard ordaining women as a matter of Church discipline rather than theology.
Carys
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
|
|
doctor-frog
small and green
# 2860
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Amos:
When the Church of Rome goes its own way--establishing the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary as dogma, for instance, it also does injury to the possibility of unity within the Church. And do you think that gives Rome pause for even half a minute if she believes herself to be right?
What Amos said.
Posts: 981 | From: UK | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anselmina
Ship's barmaid
# 3032
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by texas.veggie:
I further submit that the ordination of women fundamentally concerns Incarnational theology and Soteriology: specifically, if (as JP-II et al. claim) the priest needs to be male to represent the Christ-figure of the Eucharist, that means that Christ's masculinity was far more important to the Incarnation than his humanity per se. etc etc.... {with apologies for truncating this! Ansel.}
I'd like to add to this that part of Jesus' mission as the Christ was to impart to the Church the Holy Spirit of God in the pursuance of God's kingdom; and that it is this Holy Spirit who is the active agent in our communication and celebration of all Sacrament and prayer, and the receiving of the Word.
And principally so at the Holy Communion table where (whether we call it 'Real' presence or not) we eat and drink the spiritual body and blood of Christ, made so by the work of the Holy Spirit, and as stated within the prayer of Consecration itself. To say that this action of Holy Spirit activity is only valid when restricted to men-only because Jesus was a man does not make sense theologically or scripturally.
The harder argument to combat is the one of church discipline because, in theory at least, it allows adherents to this line to admit the (maybe) truth of the above, but then goes on to say 'no thanks' or 'not yet'. Thus giving the impression that the thing to be taken into consideration is not whether it's true, but only whether or not it contradicts the system of authority and tradition that has grown up around the structures of the Church.
--------------------
Irish dogs needing homes! http://www.dogactionwelfaregroup.ie/ Greyhounds and Lurchers are shipped over to England for rehoming too!
Posts: 10002 | From: Scotland the Brave | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lou Poulain
Shipmate
# 1587
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Amos:
When the Church of Rome goes its own way--establishing the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary as dogma, for instance, it also does injury to the possibility of unity within the Church. And do you think that gives Rome pause for even half a minute if she believes herself to be right?
Exactly. Thank you, Amos!
Posts: 526 | From: Sunnyvale CA USA | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lou Poulain
Shipmate
# 1587
|
Posted
What texax.veggie and Carys said!
Lou
Posts: 526 | From: Sunnyvale CA USA | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Neil Robbie
Shipmate
# 652
|
Posted
Gunner, you said quote:
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.
I agree with you that the weight of tradition and universal belief/practice are important considerations when considering issues, with the caveat that the issue must primarily be weighed against scripture.
The majority of Anglicans, however, will argue that they need not look outside the denomination, and so proceed regardless. At this point in time, the majority is not the majority of the church catholic but the majority within the CofE and ECUSA, neglecting the minorities and the communion in other parts of the world.
Ken, when you said quote:
The idea that there can be no legitimate teaching ministry (for women)
have you not expanded the issue? Mike Ovey nowhere says that in his submission to the commission. There is most definitely a legitimate teaching ministry for women. Indeed many evangelical men and women do not see preaching as authoritative...that is that if someone says jump, I need not agree to jump (unless I'm a Catholic). On the basis of no-individual having authority over me (in a kind of Immanuel Kant sort of way) I am content to sit under the preaching of a man or a woman with my Bible open to check if I agree with their exposition.
So, the question put more accurately is this: is preaching the same as exercising episcopal oversight?
Regarding your arguments from a sociological observation of Anglican evangelicals and other denominations, can the de facto existence of women leaders (bishops) be held-up as evidence for the truth of that position? I could argue that the lack of women leaders in SE-Asia and Africa is evidence against the practice, which is right?
I suggest that observations of a sociological nature are flawed on the basis of our sin. Churches of all denominations will naturally tend to disobedience on account of our rebellion against God. Ovey argues that female episcopacy denies the re-creative (ie return to creation order) work of the gospel and female leaders (bishops) are a visible symbol of a church's disobedience.
Neil
Posts: 228 | From: Wolverhampton | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
But bishops aren't "leaders" in that sense any more than preachers are. We're still checking them against that open Bible. They aren't like officers in an army or managers in a corporation. They aren't our bosses.
Of course human leadership in the Church is ultimately male. It resides in Jesus Christ.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Edward Green
Review Editor
# 46
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Of course human leadership in the Church is ultimately male. It resides in Jesus Christ.
Are you suggesting that Jesus is still Male?
--------------------
blog//twitter//
linkedin
Posts: 4893 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
doctor-frog
small and green
# 2860
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Of course human leadership in the Church is ultimately male. It resides in Jesus Christ.
human leadership in the Church is ultimately human. that's the real point.
Male? Female? Whatever. He had to be one or another. 50-50 shot, I'd have thought.
Posts: 981 | From: UK | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Amos
Shipmate
# 44
|
Posted
And by the same token the Church's leadership (not quite sure why you distinguish 'human' leadership) is ultimately Jewish, since Jesus Christ is a Jew.
We know very little of Our Lord's distinguishing features (his particularities, if you want to be particular). And yet I suppose we would all find them of incredible importance if we did. I believe it was Augustine who believed that we would rise in his likeness--all of us 33 years old, all of us bearded. Few persons believe this today. The question is, to what degree ought those ordained by the church to ministerial priesthood to resemble Jesus? Is it enough for them to be human? Should they be fully male (no monorchidism here, mate!)? What if they're missing a finger? Does this still make ordination impossible for a Roman Catholic, or have the rules been changed? Of course Gentiles get ordained--the apostolic succession would have ended centuries ago otherwise. And the clergy, unlike Our Lord, are not without sin.
--------------------
At the end of the day we face our Maker alongside Jesus--ken
Posts: 7667 | From: Summerisle | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Amos
Shipmate
# 44
|
Posted
Cross-posted with you there, Texas Veggie. Agree about the humanity. There are some horridly funny medieval fablieaux in which the Christian clerk seduces the Jewish girl and persuades her that he is an angel and that she is going to bear the Messiah. She then persuades her parents of the same, and everything is fine until the baby is born AND IT'S A GIRL ![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
--------------------
At the end of the day we face our Maker alongside Jesus--ken
Posts: 7667 | From: Summerisle | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Neil Robbie
Shipmate
# 652
|
Posted
Ken, are you suggesting that having the authority to appoint priests or revoke licences, select or refuse ordinands, grant or suspend livings is the same as preaching?
Neil
Posts: 228 | From: Wolverhampton | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Neil Robbie
Shipmate
# 652
|
Posted
I'm sorry for the double post.
Gunner, you view the consecration of women into the episcopate as something which goes against the authority of Rome, which, given the Anglican church's roots in the Reformation, its subsequent doctrinal drift to the present reality of a broad church and Article XIX "the Church of Rome hath erred...in matters of faith" (and hath not repented) this seems a difficult position to hold.
You also said that quote:
I really do believe that Anglicans have No authority to change matters of doctrine.
Article XX disagrees with that statement. The church does have authority, but that authority is limited, not as you suggest by submission to Rome (which hath erred), but... quote:
The Church has...authority in Controversies of Faith; And yet it is not lawful for the Church to ordain any thing that is contrary to God's Word written, neither may it expound one place of Scripture, that it be repugnant to another
Submission to Scripture in matters of authority is doctrinally based and established because:
- mankind by his fallen nature can not trust himself on matters of doctrine
- elevating the church's authority over Scripture places fallen man above God's self-disclosure
- Fallen mankind will be inconsistent in time and place on matters of doctrine according to cultural and philosophical trends of that time and place
and so on...
It is from the authority of scripture (God's self-revelation) that evangelicals make God's position known, not by their own authority. It is possible, due to the fallen nature of mankind, that evangelicals have grasped the wrong end of the stick and so this complex issue needs full exegesis and synthesis (Mike Ovey's paper has begun this process). But to argue against female episcopacy on the grounds of the fallen authority of Rome, or fallen sociological grounds, or from a fallen anthropocentric position, or from a fallen post-modern, post-feminist position, or any other position of fallen mankind are, as far as Article XX and the doctrine of Scripture are concerned, invalid positions.
Neil
Posts: 228 | From: Wolverhampton | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
FCB
Hillbilly Thomist
# 1495
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Amos:
When the Church of Rome goes its own way--establishing the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary as dogma, for instance, it also does injury to the possibility of unity within the Church. And do you think that gives Rome pause for even half a minute if she believes herself to be right?
Well, yes, it does -- at least these days. Recently a lot of highly placed folks have been agitating for Mary to be proclaimed "co-redemptrix" (the theology is not quite so screwy as it sounds, once your look into how the term is explained, but that's not my point here). However it doesn't look like it's going to happen any time soon, and the big hold up in Rome is over how this would affect ecumenical relations: mainly with the Orthodox, but also with protestants. So, yes, at least these days, Rome does care what other churches think.
FCB
--------------------
Agent of the Inquisition since 1982.
Posts: 2928 | From: that city in "The Wire" | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
doctor-frog
small and green
# 2860
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by FCB:
quote:
Originally posted by Amos:
When the Church of Rome goes its own way--establishing the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary as dogma, for instance, it also does injury to the possibility of unity within the Church. And do you think that gives Rome pause for even half a minute if she believes herself to be right?
Well, yes, it does -- at least these days. Recently a lot of highly placed folks have been agitating for Mary to be proclaimed "co-redemptrix" (the theology is not quite so screwy as it sounds, once your look into how the term is explained, but that's not my point here). However it doesn't look like it's going to happen any time soon, and the big hold up in Rome is over how this would affect ecumenical relations: mainly with the Orthodox, but also with protestants. So, yes, at least these days, Rome does care what other churches think.
FCB
And yet caring and forswearing the authority are really two different kettles of fish. Surely the issue here is that in holding back Rome understands itself either (a) to be exercising a pastoral economy or (b) not to have got to a point where it believes this doctrine constitutes an appropriate expression of Christian dogma. The Holy See is not in any sense divesting itself of the acutal authority to pronounce on this matter, which seems to be what some Anglicans suggest of their own Church. (I.e., it's not a case of "lets hold off on this till we get more churches on side". It's a case of "we can't do this till Rome says its all right". Which strikes me as a fundamental misunderstading of the authority that any Church should be claiming for itself -- or, more precisely, for the Holy Spirit working in it.)
Posts: 981 | From: UK | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Amos
Shipmate
# 44
|
Posted
There are lots of good Catholic systematicians who oppose the doctrine of Mary as co-redemptrix for good Catholic reasons (I know, FCB, you never said there weren't), one being that it puts a bullet in Vatican II. To some degree 'Mary as co-redemptrix' is part of the battle between old-fashioned liberal Catholic theology and new-fashioned post-liberal (i.e. reactionary) Catholic theology. The issue of the effect of the promulgation of the doctrine upon ecumenical matters seems to be brought up as a kind of 'brake' for the question, since all people of good will are agreed in desiring the unity of the Church. And yet I still say, when Rome believes herself to be right, she does not hesitate for a moment at the thought that the Anglicans and the Orthodox might disagree.
--------------------
At the end of the day we face our Maker alongside Jesus--ken
Posts: 7667 | From: Summerisle | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Neil Robbie:
Ken, are you suggesting that having the authority to appoint priests or revoke licences, select or refuse ordinands, grant or suspend livings is the same as preaching?
Of course not. They are different ministries to which members of the church are appointed. So?
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
It just occured to me, while looking at another thead here, that the rules say that all Church of England bishops must be appointed by the Queen (or King)
By law, the King or Queen of England has to be a member of the Church of Scotland. They swear an oath to that efect at their coronation. When in Scotland they are just an ordinary parishioner at their local church - and our present Queen does, as far as I know, attend her local Kirk & take communion.
So the Church of England is really Presbyterian, as its "head" submits to Presbyters of another church ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
anglicanrascal
Shipmate
# 3412
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
So the Church of England is really Presbyterian, as its "head" submits to Presbyters of another church
HEAD??? We have one head, Christ. (We also appear to have a Supreme Governor, but that is QUITE a different matter ![[Wink]](wink.gif) )
Posts: 3186 | From: Diocese of Litigalia | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
FCB
Hillbilly Thomist
# 1495
|
Posted
I hope the anglicans don't mind a RC interloper barging in on the discussion.
Amos, though I'd consider myself a "post-liberal" Catholic (though not a reactionary), I'm not too keen on the promulgation of Mary's staus as co-redemptrix as dogma. For one thing, it has nowhere near the witness in the tradition or the base of popular piety that the Immaculate Conception did.
And, yes, obviously Rome thinks it has the authority to promulgate new teachings that demand assent from the faithful. But couldn't an Anglican think that Anglican's have such authority, and still think that they ought not to use it because of the harm it would do to Christian unity? (And then a lot would depend on which group of Christians you care about unity with.)
Of course, what odd in this is that many liberal and many conservative Anglicans would seem to agree that the Anglican church has no dogmatic authority. It's just that conservatives (of the anglo-catholic variety) think that the Church as a whole does possess this authority, and liberals think that nobody does. . . indeed, that dogma is a bad idea.
FCB
--------------------
Agent of the Inquisition since 1982.
Posts: 2928 | From: that city in "The Wire" | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tom Day
Ship's revolutionary
# 3630
|
Posted
Amos said
quote:
And yet I still say, when Rome believes herself to be right, she does not hesitate for a moment at the thought that the Anglicans and the Orthodox might disagree.
Does that matter - As we all have Christ at the head of the church, whatever we believe or think on certain issues shouldnt matter.
If Rome decides that it is going to believe, or change something in their doctrine and it is 'out-of-cync' with the CofE should it matter.
All churches have their own idiosyncrasies, and because we agree with most from one church, we go there.
I personally agree with women priests, and hiopefully soon we'll get women bishops and so on. As people have alrea ysaid Jesus was Human before he was Male. Was Jesus Male because if he was female then he wouldnt of been able to do what he did?
--------------------
My allotment blog
Posts: 6473 | From: My Sofa | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by anglicanrascal:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
So the Church of England is really Presbyterian, as its "head" submits to Presbyters of another church
HEAD??? We have one head, Christ. (We also appear to have a Supreme Governor, but that is QUITE a different matter )
I never did get the hang of this Erastian jargon.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by FCB:
Of course, what odd in this is that many liberal and many conservative Anglicans would seem to agree that the Anglican church has no dogmatic authority. It's just that conservatives (of the anglo-catholic variety) think that the Church as a whole does possess this authority, and liberals think that nobody does...
... and the evangelicals think that God does ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Merseymike
Shipmate
# 3022
|
Posted
no, Ken, the evangelicals think that the Bible does! ![[Snigger]](graemlins/snigger.gif)
--------------------
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
|
|
Neil Robbie
Shipmate
# 652
|
Posted
And as the Bible is God's Word written (Article XX) to despise God's word is equivalent to despising God.
Is it possible to respect someone, to obey them, to revere them, to love them but to disrespect their words, to disobey their words, to dishonour and to hate their words? No, because our words are the product of our character and so God's word reveals his character.
God has authority and, therefore, his word is authoritative.
Sorry, that was tangential.
Ken, so...you said quote:
They aren't like officers in an army or managers in a corporation. They aren't our bosses.
My response regarding the role of a bishop as 'manager' of ordinands, 'boss' (hirer and firer) of priests, 'leader' of a diocese, was designed to contrast the role of church leadership with preaching. Bishops are authoritative leaders in a very real sense, whereas preachers are not excercising authority but sharing.
This is where the CofE's prospective consecration of female bishops denies the re-creative work of the gospel.
Neil
Posts: 228 | From: Wolverhampton | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Merseymike
Shipmate
# 3022
|
Posted
But the Bible isn't'God's word ' :it was written by men in the first century and before. It may well have been inspired by God, but that doesn't make it 'God's word' in a literal sense : neither should you assume that those who do not agree to your formula 'despise' it.
We just don't worship it, thats all
--------------------
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
And the bar on female leadership in the Bible is purely cultural : even those who oppose female ordination accept that there is no logical reason why it should not be extended to the episcopate now that priesting has been accepted by the 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
|
|
Neil Robbie
Shipmate
# 652
|
Posted
Merseymike, you said quote:
But the Bible isn't'God's word '
Jesus said quote:
"Whoever has seen me has seen the Father"
How do we know that Christ incarnate is the full revelation of God? God had it written down in John 14:9. How else could we, who live 2000 years after Christ, be party to that revelation of Christ?
Jesus said quote:
“These are my words that I spoke to you while I was still with you, that everything written about me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled.”
How do we know Jesus is the fulfillment of the Law, the Prophets and the Psalms (the Old Testament)? God had the Old Testament written down and Jesus' words written down in Luke 24:44. How else could we, who live 3400ish years after Moses, 3000ish years after the writing of the Psalms, 2700ish years after the prophets and 2000 years after Christ, be party to Christ's revelation?
Jesus said quote:
“Heaven and earth will pass away but my words will not pass away”
He said this at the end of a lengthy explanation of Old Testament prophecy about the end times (Isaiah, Ezekiel, Daniel). If Christ is God, and we Anglicans believe he is, and Christ is quoting the Old Testament, and Christ is saying "these are my eternal words", then these words are God's words. "God Word written".
You said quote:
it was written by men in the first century and before. It may well have been inspired by God
Yes, it was men who freely put pen to paper, but then what is divine inspiration? It is not dictation (with the exception of chunks of Leviticus and Revelation). Inspiration is exactly what it says it is, that God inspired men to write exactly what he wanted them to write.
This is unless you are saying that the God who made this wonderful universe by the power of his word; who could calm storms and conceive his Son in the womb of Mary by the power of His Holy Spirit; who some claim turns wine and water into something different Sunday by Sunday, or day by day, could not by the same power or Holy Spirit inspire, influence, enlighten a few men to write exactly the words He wanted.
Now, as God's inspired word in the ways outlined above, the bible has self-authenticating authority over fallen humans. It is not evangelicals who give it authority, because that would place fallen man over the bible. And liberals deny its authority, but they do so only by elevating themselves to a position of critique above the bible, and use fallen human faculty to deny its authority.
You said quote:
We just don't worship it, thats all
I don't worship the bible. I need the bible to be able to worship God. God has chosen to reveal himself only through the incarnate Christ and the written record of Christ. As he has chosen to do this then there is no other way to know God and therefore no other way to worship him.
It is from this basis of careful exegesis of God's word that the church's choice whether to consecrate women bishops should be made, and not from the fallen sociological observation or fallen cultural accident that there are women priests and therefore we should have women bishops.
Neil
Posts: 228 | From: Wolverhampton | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sola Scriptura
Shipmate
# 2229
|
Posted
The 3 legged stool of Anglicanism has been totally ignored by liberal modernisers.
They claim to be Anglican but ignore
Scripture
Tradition and
Reason.
Scripture in that there is sufficent doubt about whether Our Lord and God chose women to be his apostles.
Tradition it has not been the practice to ordain women to the priesthood until recently
Reason: There is the reason in that the priest is seen as the ikon of Christ.
You may say that these reasons are flimsy but they are still there. We too have scripture , tradition and Reason which applies to the subject of practicing homosexuality but once more the modernisers have gone the way of the world and have accepted a world view and normalised what had traditioinally been thought of as a sin and a deviation.
Given this constant move to do as you want in theology I can't see how Anglicans can claim they abide with any authority. We certainly don't abide to scripture, neither to tradition and as for reason that went long ago.
What I am saying many may disagree with but this has been the teaching of the church for almost 2000 years. It is now up to the modernisers to convince tradtionalist that this is the will of God and is acceptable by the whole church not just a few members of a divided communion.
--------------------
Used to be Gunner.
Posts: 576 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anselmina
Ship's barmaid
# 3032
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Edward Green:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Of course human leadership in the Church is ultimately male. It resides in Jesus Christ.
Are you suggesting that Jesus is still Male?
Eight days after his birth Jesus proved just how male he was (ouch!). Then St Paul goes and messes us all up with Galatians 3:28 telling us that in Christ there is neither male nor female! Confused or what? ![[Ultra confused]](graemlins/confused2.gif)
--------------------
Irish dogs needing homes! http://www.dogactionwelfaregroup.ie/ Greyhounds and Lurchers are shipped over to England for rehoming too!
Posts: 10002 | From: Scotland the Brave | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Merseymike
Shipmate
# 3022
|
Posted
No, Neil, self-authentication is not adequate, and inspiration is being inspired by onne's faith to write - you have summised the rest because it fiots with your preconceived, self-authenticating view of the Bible.
You don't need the Bible to worship God. And God has revealed Himself through the everyday lives of people, and has continued to do so for the past 2000 years - the world did not stop in the first century.
If the Church does not learn from knowledge and experience, then it deserves to be regarded as nothing but an irrelevant relic
--------------------
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
|
|
Ley Druid
Ship's chemist
# 3246
|
Posted
Sadly the views espoused by Neil Robbie are not very original. I believe they belong to a 19th heresey known as fideism. He says quote:
God has chosen to reveal himself only through the incarnate Christ and the written record of Christ. As he has chosen to do this then there is no other way to know God ...
Curiously, this idea is quite un-biblical insomuch as Romans 1:20 continues a very Jewish tradition of natural theology with the physical universe as a source of general revelation.
Turn your brain off, read the bible, I wonder where such nasty stereotypes of evangelicals ever came from?
Posts: 1188 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
doctor-frog
small and green
# 2860
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Neil Robbie:
the bible has self-authenticating authority over fallen humans.
The problem with saying it self-authenticates is that, once you've got that as an operational assumption, then any theological case you can make from the Bible suddenly attains legitimacy. And if two contradict, there's precious little way of determining which is really more indicative of God's revelation.
Arianism, for example, the proponents of which found with all integrity ample support in scripture for their beliefs for the utter unity of God (the Father) and subsidiarity and createdness of Christ the Son.
And yet Trinitarianism became the accepted norm because it was finally felt that the Church's experience of God's Logos/Word (Christ) in worship (sacramental worship especially) and in Scripture was far more consonant with the idea that the Son and Spirit were one-in-being with the Father yet three persons.
Which is to ask (using Christianity's most basic doctrine of God as the illustration) that surely it's safer and truer to suggest that the Holy Spirit authenticates the scripture. And, hopefully, more specifically, that the Holy Spirit in God's People (Christ's Body) authenticates the scripture.
Posts: 981 | From: UK | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Neil Robbie
Shipmate
# 652
|
Posted
Gunner said quote:
What I am saying many may disagree with but this has been the teaching of the church for almost 2000 years. It is now up to the modernisers to convince tradtionalist that this is the will of God and is acceptable by the whole church not just a few members of a divided communion.
Neil said, Amen.
Texas.veggie, thank you for adding that quote:
surely it's safer and truer to suggest that the Holy Spirit authenticates the scripture
. You'll be very much aware that a post on the doctrine of scripture, Christ and the Holy Spirit would be too long to be reasonable. The Spirit's inspiration, illumination, assurance, testimony to Christ and so on are essential. I did not mean to neglect the work of the Spirit in revelation, but wish to demonstrate that the bible is reliable because it testifies with the Spirit about Christ, and that Christ is also the fulfilment and authenticator of Scripture, and that we can know this by reading the bible because we haven't invented a time machine yet.
Merseymike and Ley Druid, thank you for your comments about general revelation. Romans 1 is a very helpful place to emphasise my point. Is general revelation enough to know God completely? Paul argues that the invisible qualities of God are known through what God has made (general revelation) Romans 1:18-20.
But if we were left with general revelation, would we know God's character fully and his plan of salvation? Clearly not, unless we'd been around to meet Jesus "if you have seen me, you have seen my father" how do we know that Jesus is the exact imprint of the father, it's in the Bible. Where else can we know Jesus today?
Neil
Posts: 228 | From: Wolverhampton | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Merseymike
Shipmate
# 3022
|
Posted
In our hearts, Neil ?
--------------------
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
|
|
Neil Robbie
Shipmate
# 652
|
Posted
Yes, in our hearts, by the illumination of scripture and the regeneration of our hearts by the Holy Spirit or the bright morning star...
quote:
2 Peter 1:19 And we have the the word of the prophets made more certain, and you will do well to pay attention to it, as to a light shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star (ie Jesus) rises in your hearts.
quote:
2 cor 4:6. For God, who said, "Let light shine out of darkness," made his light shine in our hearts to give us the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Christ.
Or do you mean in our hearts gnostically?
Neil
Posts: 228 | From: Wolverhampton | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Merseymike
Shipmate
# 3022
|
Posted
I certainly don't mean in the pages of a book, inspired by God, but written by men, with all the limitations of culture, history, translation, and so on, which that implies, and makes claims of inerrancy totally unconvincing.
This is turning into a rather perfunctory liberal vs conservative discussion on biblical interpretation, which I am sure may be confined to the home of expired equines - so think we should return to the topic of the thread!
--------------------
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
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Merseymike:
This is turning into a rather perfunctory liberal vs conservative discussion on biblical interpretation, which I am sure may be confined to the home of expired equines
Indeed, eight pages of it here
Alan
Purgatory host
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Manx Taffy
Shipmate
# 301
|
Posted
Whilst the details of this scriptural authority argument may indeed be a nag that has shuffled off it's mortal coil,the bacic concept is not entirely irrelevant to this thread.
If a section of Anglicanism believe the bible to be the sole source of authority, I find this hard to reconcile with the communion being fully catholic.
Scripture and tradition have always been joint sources of authority in all branches of the catholic church. I've always accepted that there are different degrees of emphasis but can any catholic actually deny one element entirely?
If anyone doubts for instance Rome's belief in the importance of scripture then they should read the relevant part of the catechism or some of the words of his holiness John Paul II on the authority of scripture.
People who look to scripture and tradition to decide on such issues as women's ordination can end up with different views currently - over to the Holy Spirit to do its work ultimately. Anyone who approaches the issue solely from a scriptural or solely from a tradition argument is in my mind not being very catholic. Anyone who approaches the issue from a purely socio-political viewpoint is way off target!!
Posts: 397 | From: Isle of Man | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Neil Robbie:
Ken, so...you said quote:
They aren't like officers in an army or managers in a corporation. They aren't our bosses.
My response regarding the role of a bishop as 'manager' of ordinands, 'boss' (hirer and firer) of priests, 'leader' of a diocese
But (sticking to subject of the original post) in the Church of England as at present established bishops are not the hirers and firers of priests, nor are they in any real sense the leaders of their dioceses.
The appointment of parish priests is mostly in lay hands, requiring the agreement and co-operation of the patrons (mostly church charities these days, sometimes bishops, more rarely secular corporations, and still on occasion individuals) of the PCC (or churchwardens in some cases), and of the bishop. Any one of those three has an effective veto.
(Of courser you could say - quite accurately - that in this case the churchwardens and lay patrons are excercising a minstry of eldership & so are in a New Testament sense presbyters, and I'd agree with you, but that still doesn't make them bishops )
Bishops of course are subject to lay appointment, in the person of the Prime Minister, and when we get rid of that Erastian stain on the Church of England I hope and pray that the appointment of bishops will still be largely or partly in lay hands.
quote:
This is where the CofE's prospective consecration of female bishops denies the re-creative work of the gospel.
And that is where (straying off the topic ![[Frown]](frown.gif) ) I disagree with you. To be honest I find this approach so infected with Gnosticism that it is hardly Christian at all, let alone evangelical. It gets very near attributing gender to God. But that is another dead horse.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sola Scriptura
Shipmate
# 2229
|
Posted
Does the Scripture used so often to prop up the aegument in favour of womens ordination that "There is enither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male or female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus" Gal 3.28 really stand up to scrutiny? Was Paul talking about women being priests at all? I don't know, I'm not sure.
Of course both male and female have been redeemed and saved by the life and work of Christ. Both are equal in the sight of God. But was Paul here in Gal about Baptism and salvation, not Ordination?
In Scripture we see God incarnate only chose men to be his apostles. Do we know why God wouldn't go the extra mile and select women to be among his apostles? Jesus was God and he could and did turn the tables upside down - why not on this issue? Why was he so quiet? Was it because women have a dignity and honour which is only theirs in ministry and that SOME men where chosen to follow a different path?
I don't know for sure not being a scholar. But we have had 2000 years of witness and tradition. The Church of England has in this brave/mad experient, potentially put back the cause for Christian unity decades. We in the church of England have to remeber we are still in a period of reception 'discernment' whatever you want to call it. Surely less than 10 years of women priest is hardly enough time to race blindly on to women bishops. Doing what you think is right in haste can lead to many dangers. It may be that in the fullness of time that RC comes to accept women's ordination to the priesthood. I would suggest that until that happens we shouldn't go further on this troublesome and divisive matter.
--------------------
Used to be Gunner.
Posts: 576 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
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.
It was finding this out recently which (as readers of "Priestly Genitalia" in Dead Horses have seen) permitted me to accept female priests (and bishops). It's a wholly different argument than the (unconvincing) ones I had been familiar with, and I'd even come up with something similar but didn't know anyone had actually argued for it, much less the C of E, till a good conversation with a friend of mine.
--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity
Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anselmina
Ship's barmaid
# 3032
|
Posted
JFTR, following on from Gunner's post above, my little reference to the Galatians scripture was simply to highlight that Jesus, the man was obviously a bloke, whereas according to St Paul's interpretation of the Christ, the efficacy of the ministry of the Holy Spirit (arguably genderless, tedious though that would be to argue) was not gender-related.
Is it on this thread or another? I've already suggested that the work that is mediated by priests - as indeed work mediated by any member of the church - including celebration of communion, exercise of authority etc, are all functions of Holy Spirit ministry; if you like, or as St Paul might debateably describe it 'in Christ' ministry. IMHO this removes our rather sad, but understandably human need to obsess over reproductive mechanics, and concentrate on the building of the kingdom, through the work of Christ's Spirit regardless of the externals.
It's all been said a million times. Either we are convinced or not. Though speaking as someone whose mind was gradually, almost imperceptibly changed through the course of the early 90's, neither stance need be petrifyingly static! ![[Yipee]](graemlins/spin.gif)
--------------------
Irish dogs needing homes! http://www.dogactionwelfaregroup.ie/ Greyhounds and Lurchers are shipped over to England for rehoming too!
Posts: 10002 | From: Scotland the Brave | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
