|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Catholic and still Anglican?
|
John Holding
Coffee and Cognac
# 158
|
Posted
Gunner --
The C of E has been ordaining women for only 10 years, fine.
But Anglican churches in Canada, the US, New Zealand, Australia, at a minimum, have been doing so for over 25 years. Now unless you believe that those churches are not real, please, please stop limiting your vision of Anglicanism to what happens in England and Rome.
I work on the, possibly naive, assumption that the C of E and the Anglican Church of Canada (for example) are sisters, with rather more in common than they have with other churches (for example the Swedish Lutherans or Rome). Sisters listen to each other, and consider each other before they worry about those with whom they are more remotely connected. And, as for Rome, you may consider her the mother of us all, but that is an image of limited historical but no theological merit.
My reaction to your comments is that you seem to consider the C of E as an entity unto itself, and focus on Rome to the exclusion of the other churches of the Anglican communion. From my perspective, that suggests a very narrow and (if you will forgive me) warped focus on Anglican practice and belief.
John Holding
Posts: 5929 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
And continuing John Holding's metaphor, for those of us in the CofE our nearest sisters, after the other members of the Anglican Communion, are of course the Methodists here in England, then maybe the Scottish Kirk and perhaps other Reformed national churches, then the Scandinavian & German Lutherans - who of course we are (mostly) technically in communion with.
Among that sisterhood of churches there is pretty much agreement about the ordination of women. The CofE has been one of the slowest to recognise it.
We have been dragging our heels...
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Amos
Shipmate
# 44
|
Posted
My old systematics prof (RC) used to remind us that Jesus did not ordain *any* priests. And then he would say, with a twinkle in his eye, "Do you think that Jesus intended the Pope? Do you really think so?"
On the other hand, last month's edition of the Parish Magazine of the Church of St. Augustine of Hippo (Victorian Anglo-Catholic shrine in Birmingham) contained a nice little prayer by St. Augustine in which the Blessed Virgin is praised as, not merely the mother of our Lord, but the first of His disciples.
--------------------
At the end of the day we face our Maker alongside Jesus--ken
Posts: 7667 | From: Summerisle | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sola Scriptura
Shipmate
# 2229
|
Posted
Other Anglican churches arcoss the world may have ordained women for 20-30 years. But and it is a big but this is a very breif period of time to make such conclusive judgements. Jusgements which could endanger reuinion with our Roman brothers and sisters. The question we have to ask ourselves is whether we have the authority to do that. I am unsure.
--------------------
Used to be Gunner.
Posts: 576 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Neil Robbie
Shipmate
# 652
|
Posted
John, you said quote:
But Anglican churches in Canada, the US, New Zealand, Australia, at a minimum, have been doing so for over 25 years.
And the Diocese of Singapore, Malaysia, Nigeria, Rwanda, and many more who have never ordained women? What thought was given to the effect North American unilateral action would have on them and the communion as a whole?
What voice will the fast growing parts of the Anglican communion, the 2/3rds world church, have in the debate regarding the consecration of women bishops?
How will moving from parochial female ministry to provincial female ministry affect the unity of the communion let alone ecumenical relationships?
This needs serious thought before further damaging unilateral action, unless the pro-women lobby intends dismantling the communion and, if it does, it ought to be open and honest about it.
Neil
Posts: 228 | From: Wolverhampton | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Merseymike
Shipmate
# 3022
|
Posted
I'd be in favour of dismantling the communion. I think it is largely a pointless network whose fundamentalist membership has little in common with the approach taken by Anglicans in the West. I see little reason for it to stay together, and as I don't take a view that things ashould be 'respected' simply because they originate from the third world, the sooner we can detatch ourselves from what are pre-modern sects, the better.
--------------------
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
|
|
Anselmina
Ship's barmaid
# 3032
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Neil Robbie:
John, you said quote:
But Anglican churches in Canada, the US, New Zealand, Australia, at a minimum, have been doing so for over 25 years.
And the Diocese of Singapore, Malaysia, Nigeria, Rwanda, and many more who have never ordained women? What thought was given to the effect North American unilateral action would have on them and the communion as a whole?
It's an issue of truth and justice not numbers; it's about what is right, not how many people need to think it's right before someone has the balls to do something about it (or the ovaries?).
quote:
What voice will the fast growing parts of the Anglican communion, the 2/3rds world church, have in the debate regarding the consecration of women bishops?
The same that it's always had since Lambeth was constituted, also remembering the degree of autonomy each member church of the Communion has over its own affairs?
quote:
How will moving from parochial female ministry to provincial female ministry affect the unity of the communion let alone ecumenical relationships?
It really is too hard to see the ministry of the Body of Christ as 'Holy Spirit' ministry, isn't it? We've just got to prove our lack of imagination and vision, and our lack of understanding of Incarnational theology, by dividing everything into 'his and hers'.
quote:
This needs serious thought before further damaging unilateral action, unless the pro-women lobby intends dismantling the communion and, if it does, it ought to be open and honest about it.
Neil
Please explain to me what the 'pro-women lobby' is? When that has been clarified, then by Neil's own defintion we shall know who the anti-women people are (not that that isn't already becoming apparent ![[Wink]](wink.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
|
|
doctor-frog
small and green
# 2860
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gunner:
But was Paul here in Gal about Baptism and salvation, not Ordination?
why would all but one of the sacraments be open to both genders?
Surely if Baptism establishes us once-for-all into the fullness of the God's creative/salvific economy, then that (together with the eschatological life lived eucharistically) becomes normative for all further expression of Christian life.
Why then take a step backwards and return to distinguishing between male and female when it comes to Ordination?
quote:
Originally posted by Gunner:
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?
No more than we know why God wouldn't go the extra mile to select any black gentiles -- though undoubtedly there were a few within reach of Israel at the time.
Shhh, though ... let's don't let Desmond Tutu know that, by your logic, his ordination is on dodgy grounds! ![[Paranoid]](graemlins/paranoid.gif)
Posts: 981 | From: UK | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
doctor-frog
small and green
# 2860
|
Posted
<broken record mode>
quote:
Originally posted by Gunner:
The question we have to ask ourselves is whether we have the authority to do that.
'Course we do. Otherwise we're not the Church. The Church has the authority of the Holy Spirit. Therefore, a group of people who do not have the authority of the Holy Spirit are not the Church. QED.
</broken record mode>
Posts: 981 | From: UK | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Neil Robbie
Shipmate
# 652
|
Posted
Merseymike, you said quote:
the sooner we can detach ourselves from what are pre-modern sects, the better
Two questions immediately spring to mind:
1. I am interested in your sociological analysis of the culture of Singapore and Kuala Lumpur if it is not modern.
2. I am also interested in your understanding of the effect modernity has had on belief in God in western culture.
Sorry, 4 questions:
3. Is the marginalisation of Christianity in western society a symptom of a modern culture or of a church which sold out to modernism?
4. Why should the church seek to modernise (i.e. conform to the patterns of this world and reject scripture and tradition) when a) no one outside the church cares b) modernism has failed and post-modernism is failing?
Anslemina, I agree entirely that the issue is about truth and not numbers which is why western majorities do not count.
I apologise for my unfortunate use of the word 'lobby'. It was a careless way of grouping North American, British and Kiwi liberals who wish to move the rest of the communion (strong anglo-catholics, conservative evangelicals and 2/3rds world church) into something which goes against their convictions. To neglect the convictions of other members of the communion, and to act unilaterally is tyranny.
Posts: 228 | From: Wolverhampton | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
doctor-frog
small and green
# 2860
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Neil Robbie:
Is the marginalisation of Christianity in western society a symptom of a modern culture or of a church which sold out to modernism?
Actually, fundamentalism and conservative evangelicalism are modern developments in their own right. They're not, as they claim, a return to a purer faith that people believed pre-science and pre-modern-period. (Because, in fact, people in those periods had a far broader approach to both scripture and tradition than your average fundamentalist.) Fundamentalism and Conservative Evangelicalism are, rather, a modern reaction to modern science. Indeed, their lineage is quite easily traced to a handful of important turning-points in the 1920's.
Posts: 981 | From: UK | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
doctor-frog
small and green
# 2860
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by texas.veggie:
Acutally, I'd go so far as to say that it wasn't even possible to hold fundamentalist tennets before modernism came along.
Posts: 981 | From: UK | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Merseymike
Shipmate
# 3022
|
Posted
I am in favour of modernism, Neil.If the church cannot survive in that context and resurrects premodern notions as a reaction to modernity, as does fundamentalism, it only has itself to blame.
--------------------
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
|
|
Sola Scriptura
Shipmate
# 2229
|
Posted
How is God the Holy Spirit telling one small part of the Church to be divise and ordain women and homosexuals and the other part of the church, the vast majority not? Can a house divided apart stand?
As for ignoring the largest growing part of the Anglican communion well that is arrogance. It is arrogant to assume that we in the West have such superiority over those other Anglicans who have held to the traditional faith, practice and teaching of the faith are some how wrong. It is the West who have the fastest declining church numbers not the otherway round. Why should the Western Anglican tail shake the whole of the dog? It just won't do. Why don't the modernisers come clean and tell us that they want faith on their terms, with its pick and mix attitude and lax sexual ethics. Why don't they say that they have sold out to humaism and feminism and every ism they can think of. These folk want to be balnd not the salt of the earth which is distinct and unpopular with the world. They want to sleep with the world, bask in its comfort and hope that they won't look irrelevent in this post-secular, post-modern world. But when we do something like this we merely sell out.
--------------------
Used to be Gunner.
Posts: 576 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anselmina
Ship's barmaid
# 3032
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gunner:
How is God the Holy Spirit telling one small part of the Church to be divise and ordain women and homosexuals and the other part of the church, the vast majority not? Can a house divided apart stand?
It takes two points of view to constitute a division, Gunner. Just because it's not your point of view that prevails in a certain area doesn't mean it's the 'others' alone who are being divisive. This is a non sequitur.
quote:
As for ignoring the largest growing part of the Anglican communion well that is arrogance. It is arrogant to assume that we in the West have such superiority over those other Anglicans who have held to the traditional faith, practice and teaching of the faith are some how wrong. It is the West who have the fastest declining church numbers not the otherway round. Why should the Western Anglican tail shake the whole of the dog? It just won't do.
It's already been noted a few times on this thread that might (numbers, quantity, majority) isn't necessarily right. The quantity of people holding a particular opinion doesn't, alone, validate that opinion, regardless of their interpretation of how the faith should be lived.
As has already also been noted, other member churches of the Anglican Communion have a significant and powerful degree of autonomy - and practice it. The members which do not wish to experience women's ordination don't because they have control over their own church's government. So the 'West's' superiority over the non-Western majority is a myth; and not even a powerful myth at that.
Incidentally, my geography is poor, can someone confirm how 'Western' the Australian and New Zealand Anglican churches are, as churches which ordain women?
quote:
Why don't the modernisers come clean and tell us that they want faith on their terms, with its pick and mix attitude and lax sexual ethics. Why don't they say that they have sold out to humaism and feminism and every ism they can think of. These folk want to be balnd not the salt of the earth which is distinct and unpopular with the world. They want to sleep with the world, bask in its comfort and hope that they won't look irrelevent in this post-secular, post-modern world. But when we do something like this we merely sell out.
Who are these 'modernizers'? If I read this correctly it seems you mean Christians like myself - or specifically Christians who are not like you - and that you are saying I, and these others are immoral, faithless and not at all the disciples of Jesus that we claim to be. Is this what you meant to say? This is how your post reads; and it makes me very angry indeed.
I've not been on the Ship long enough to know when someone is entitled to ask for an apology, but when I read judgemental, hypocritical, ignorant and insulting crap like this I realize there's little point in requesting one, as clearly you have no real knowledge, understanding of - let alone respect for - any other Christian who does not believe precisely what you happen to believe.
(And just for the record, the only salt that is unpopular with the world is salt that has lost its flavour and is therefore useless and bland; if you think about it, salt is very popular because it gives taste, and lifts the flavour. If you must manipulate and misuse a scriptural metaphor in order to abuse fellow Christians, then at least read your Bible properly, think a little and get it right.)
--------------------
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
|
|
John Holding
Coffee and Cognac
# 158
|
Posted
WEll, Neil, I listed Canada and the US (and Australia and New Zealand, which are not so far as I know part of a North American plot) simply because it was too difficult to list them all.
Women were ordained priests in Hong Kong 50-60 years ago, and although they agreed not to function as priests because the larger church said the time was not right, they did not renounce their orders and I believe one of them, by now in her 80s, presided at a celebration in Canada before she died.
WOmen are now being ordained in Wales, Scotland and Ireland ( though more recently, of course) as well as in some African countries -- I believe I read that there are 12 preparing for ordination in Kenya. African and Asian church do not deny that women can be ordained, but are going slow for cultural reasons (and perhaps respecting the availability of qualified women who do not have other calls on their talents). This is fair.
It is only in the minds of a few ACs that the question is still being asked -- most of the communion has long since accepted the theology, and the practice is growing. Evangslical objections (at least in Canada), where they exist are not about ordination, but about the appointment of ordained women to positions of authority.
Finally, at least 5 female bishops from three countries participated in the last Lambeth, and they were accepted as such by those who attended. So I have to conclude that the bishops as a body (not of course every individual bishop) are also cool with the theology.
John Holding
Posts: 5929 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
doctor-frog
small and green
# 2860
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gunner:
How is God the Holy Spirit telling one small part of the Church to be divise and ordain women and homosexuals and the other part of the church, the vast majority not? Can a house divided apart stand?
Careful with the numbers games:
1. the Churches are not "parts" of the OHC & A Church in the sense of "fractions". They are microcosms. This is highly relevant to whether our authority has a wholeness to it or not (in which case, it has a nothingness to it).
2. there was a time when Arianism was the majority belief. Thank God the Trinitarians had the courage to be divisive and not wait for someone with authority to tell them what to believe. Perhaps God the Spirit was telling them to do it? (Or maybe not, since they weren't in the vast majority.)
You've said your obligation is to truth at one point. At numerous others, you've said it's to the majority, as exemplified by Rome in particular.
Which is it?
Posts: 981 | From: UK | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
doctor-frog
small and green
# 2860
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Merseymike:
resurrects premodern notions as a reaction to modernity, as does fundamentalism, it only has itself to blame.
As i said earlier, it doesn't resurrect pre-modern notions. It just wrongly supposes that it does.
Fundamentalism is, in its own way, quite post-modern.
Posts: 981 | From: UK | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
FCB
Hillbilly Thomist
# 1495
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Merseymike:
I think it is largely a pointless network whose fundamentalist membership has little in common with the approach taken by Anglicans in the West. I see little reason for it to stay together...
How about "The glory that you have given me I have given them, so that they may be one, as we are one, I in them and you in me, that they may become completely one, so that the world may know that you have sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me."
Of course, if I think Christinaity is all about me and having a community that I am happy with, then the Africans can go screw themselves; who needs 'em.
FCB
--------------------
Agent of the Inquisition since 1982.
Posts: 2928 | From: that city in "The Wire" | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Merseymike:
the sooner we can detatch ourselves from what are pre-modern sects, the better.
What's wrong with pre-modern? Is God "modern"? If you think "modern" or "post-modern" is in any way privilieged over "pre-modern" ("non-modern"? "a-modern"?) you are stuck in a little village of your own language, culture and time. Almost by accident you happen to be right about the ordination of women though ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Neil Robbie:
Why should the church seek to modernise (i.e. conform to the patterns of this world and reject scripture and tradition) when a) no one outside the church cares b) modernism has failed and post-modernism is failing?
We ordain women because it is right, not because it is modern.
quote:
I apologise for my unfortunate use of the word 'lobby'. It was a careless way of grouping North American, British and Kiwi liberals who wish to move the rest of the communion (strong anglo-catholics, conservative evangelicals and 2/3rds world church) into something which goes against their convictions. To neglect the convictions of other members of the communion, and to act unilaterally is tyranny.
Many - probably most - conservative evangelicals in the CofE accept with the ordination of women. And few of them take your Roman line on the Apostolic Succession, as if it was bishops that united the church, rather than the Holy Spirit.
And plenty of "2/3 world" churches ordain women, not just Anglican ones. Do you reject all the Bapists and the Presbyterians as not churches? Or only those who refuse to ordain women?
And, as so many others have pointed out, Rome acts unitlaterally on doctrine all the time, not just on matters of church government and church order (which, like every other particular church, she has every right to do) but on matters of Christology and systematic theology
We get yelled at for changing the rules about who we will ordain in our own congregations - they try to make acceptance of the Immaculate Conception as part of Christian teaching a pre-requisite for orthodoxy.
Like, duh?
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
anglicanrascal
Shipmate
# 3412
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by texas.veggie:
[QUOTE]Why would all but one of the sacraments be open to both genders?
Ummm... as far as I know of in the Anglican Communion, both sacraments - Holy Baptism and the Lord's Supper - are open to both men and women. ![[Confused]](confused.gif)
Posts: 3186 | From: Diocese of Litigalia | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
doctor-frog
small and green
# 2860
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by anglicanrascal:
quote:
Originally posted by texas.veggie:
[QUOTE]Why would all but one of the sacraments be open to both genders?
Ummm... as far as I know of in the Anglican Communion, both sacraments - Holy Baptism and the Lord's Supper - are open to both men and women.
referring also to the 5 minor ones: marriage, unction, absolution, confirmation/chrismation, and ordination.
point still stands, though, even in a 2-sacrament taxonomy (perhaps even more so): baptism and eucharist transfigure us into redeemed eschatological humanity (persons-in-communion in the life of the Godhead); thus, if as Gunner says, Paul was referring "only" to baptism (i.e., "only" to the basic existential act of christendom) in the Jew-or-Greek passage, then it still follows logically that to step back from said redemption in executing the act of ordination is severely problematic.
We wouldn't say that Gentiles can't be ordained, precisely because in baptism Christ has obliterated that distinction.
Posts: 981 | From: UK | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Neil Robbie
Shipmate
# 652
|
Posted
I'm not sure that throwing the debate communion wide was helpful to this debate. Merseymike, your response to my question regarding modernity was valid, that anti-intellectualism was at the root of fundamentalism (of the red-neck variety). John Holding's remarks should be taken in the light of a colonial church, not cuturally adapted (the bishop was white).
Of more concern is the effect at local diocesean level. Mike Ovey has identified the issue as this: quote:
8.1.4. To this extent the effect in terms of churchmanship will be to eliminate progressively strong anglo-catholics and conservative evangelicals from various areas. This effect is not difficult to predict. It is perhaps true that some do not foresee this result, but such people should be acutely aware that this is the perceived likely result by those constituencies mentioned. Some in them feel that they are facing not just marginalisation, but elimination, albeit over a period. Faced with that, some will perhaps simply leave, as happened in 1992. Others perhaps will feel that they cannot faithfully accept female oversight, and will accordingly look for male oversight from bishops in the Communion who feel able, or even obliged, to provide it.
8.1.5. Naturally, the progressive elimination of strong anglo-catholicism and conservative evangelicalism might actually appear to be an incentive in some minds. If so, that agenda needs to be honestly and openly stated, and the church must weigh quite how pluriform it is prepared to be.
8.1.6. If, on the other hand, such elimination is not an intentional result of the present proposal, then the majority needs to give extremely careful thought as to how it can dispel the suspicions that currently exist. The Act of Synod at least points the way here. Suspicions might be dispelled by a process of differential oversight, which is not designed to phase out, although even here there would need to be an ability not just to ordain and discipline, but also to consider and adopt ordinands for training, as would happen with a geographically defined bishop.
8.1.7. The objection to the foregoing is that this would represent a significant rupture in Anglican church polity. The answer is that the current proposal will produce this in any event. The question facing us is what kind of rupture is least damaging. This at least has the merit of maintaining episcopal oversight within the overall frameworks of the Provinces of Canterbury and York, rather than the oddity of an Anglican Missionary Province to Britain.
Neil
Posts: 228 | From: Wolverhampton | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Merseymike
Shipmate
# 3022
|
Posted
No chance, Neil.I'm looking for the Act of Synod to be abolished, not extended to allow conservative evangelicals to pretend they are still in the Church of England when they don't accept the authority of the Archbishop of Canterbury.
They have a choice : accept that decision, or leave.
--------------------
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
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
Bollocks, Mike. Being Anglican has never been about accepting the authority of bishops.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
Originally posted by Ken:
quote:
Bollocks, Mike. Being Anglican has never been about accepting the authority of bishops.
That's probably a slight oversimplification. Whilst the precise extent of the authority of the bishop is slightly vague, the clergy take an oath to obey the bishop in all things honest and lawful. We don't just keep them for confirmations, you know. However:
quote:
No chance, Neil.I'm looking for the Act of Synod to be abolished, not extended to allow conservative evangelicals to pretend they are still in the Church of England when they don't accept the authority of the Archbishop of Canterbury. They have a choice : accept that decision, or leave.
Is just plain wrong. The Church of England and the Anglican communion have two integrities on the ordination of women, at present. This is a difficult position both for women priests (and as far as I am concerned they are priests) and for traditionalists. However within the Church of England, until the position changes no one has any obligation to leave. If the position does change (and frankly I don't advocate it) it won't be at the fiat of the Archbishop of Canterbury but through an Act of Synod and, unless things have changed since the last one, through an Act of Parliament. Whilst I am in favour of the ordination of women, for what little it is worth, as a communion I think that we would be poorer for the loss of the traditional anglo-catholic wing and I would certainly object to seeing them (and the conservative evangelicals, he muttered through gritted teeth, it is Christmas) drummed out by some kind of liberal inquisition labouring under the misapprehension that the AB of C has become an Anglican Pope.
Anyway, on the issue of women priests conservative evangelical parishes can pass resolutions AB&C as well if they prefer the ministry of a flying bishop. No extension of the Act of Synod is necessary.
Of course, if Neil is hinting at a Third Province then "No Chance" is the correct answer. Whilst it's ignominious implosion would add greatly to the gaiety of the nation (pun not intended) I don't see why the mainstream C of E should foot the bill.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ley Druid
Ship's chemist
# 3246
|
Posted
Ken said quote:
Bollocks, Mike. Being Anglican has never been about accepting the authority of bishops.
This really is quie a shame. As Ken pointed out above, every papist knows that it is quote:
bishops that united the church, rather than the Holy Spirit
Posts: 1188 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
John Holding
Coffee and Cognac
# 158
|
Posted
Uh, Neil -- "only a colonial bishop" who was not acculturated because he was white? To what, on earth, are you referring in any of my posts?
If, by some stretch of the imagination, you are talking about the Hong Kong ordinations, the fact that it took place in a colony at the hands of a white bishop has nothing to do with the fact that it happened, several decades ago, and its validity has not been questioned. We were not talking about acculturation, we were talking about the ordination of women. I introduced cultural norms as valid reasons for some churches to delay ordination of women.
What I do detect in your post is a most unpleasant and offensive attitude that the only part of the Anglican Church that matters is the C of E, a sort of religious imperialism that is offensive because it is so clearly unrelated to any facts.
John Holding
Posts: 5929 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Merseymike
Shipmate
# 3022
|
Posted
Hmmm..perhaps I worded that last post badly.
I'm not suggesting that there should be slavish agreement with the AofC. Do you honestly think that liberal and catholic CofE mambers agreed with much of what George Carey said, or rated him as an AofC. I did neither. to be honest.
But I still respected his position, and did not mount campaigns against him - which is what is happening now, in ever more shrill and unpleasant tones. Yes, I do think if they are not prepared to accept that he is the AofC and simply agree to differ, then they should consider their position. And I am afraid that I have come to the conclusion that the CofE would be considerably better without them.
In terms of the other matters, though...yes I agree that the Third Province is a non-starter, but I also think that the flying bishops solution is only one that can exist on a temporary basis, and when women are made Bishops, it will no longer be appropriate in any case. I am totally opposed to extending it to conservative evangelicals, and as their main reason for wanting it would be to separate themselves from the current AofC, I can't see how they could legitimately call themselves 'CofE'. If they wish their separate grouping have a continuing relationship with the Anglican Communion, then they can do, as I don't regard it as a meaningful organisation in any case.
--------------------
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 ken:
Bollocks, Mike. Being Anglican has never been about accepting the authority of bishops.
I don't buy that. For better or worse, and regardless of whatever implications people may or may not wish to read into it, episcopacy-as-a-simple-fact has been at the heart of what it means to be Anglican since the Elizabethan Settlement. Given the ever-present disagreements about theology, Anglicanism has always chosen to unite around worship and praxis, specifically the BCP (though modern liturgies bring new issues to that point) and the historic episcopate (with little final conclusions, but much debate, on the esse/bene-esse/plene-esse question).
In fact, as any protestant Church that's ever had an ecumenical agreement scuppered by the Anglicans at the 11th hour will tell you -- and there are myriad examples -- the death-knell issue is invariably the historic episcopate and its implementation.
This is not my opinion. This is just how it's always worked out in practise.
Posts: 981 | From: UK | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sola Scriptura
Shipmate
# 2229
|
Posted
Yes I agree that plenty Reformed Churches in the 2/3 world have women ministers. However, with all due repect to my Baptist and Reformed brothers and sisters they would admit that they are NOT ordaining men or women to the priesthood. Their notion of ministry is differnt to that of the catholic church and they wouldn't want to be consiered priests.
--------------------
Used to be Gunner.
Posts: 576 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
anglicanrascal
Shipmate
# 3412
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Merseymike:
No chance, Neil.I'm looking for the Act of Synod to be abolished....
quote:
They have a choice : accept that decision, or leave.
Umm Mike, you want others to leave because they don't accept the decisions of the Church of England.
Yet you aren't going to leave - even though you disagree with the Act of Synod... which is itself a decision of the Church of England?
Sauce? Goose? Gander?
Posts: 3186 | From: Diocese of Litigalia | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sola Scriptura
Shipmate
# 2229
|
Posted
I am not too sure whether we do ordain women because it is right. I suspect that we ordain women because of the sell-out to a secular wold view. We sell out not in favour of Chritsinaity and truth but rather to pander to the North American and Western Liberal agenda. It may be right that women should be ordianed but lets not pretend that the motives on either side are pure.
--------------------
Used to be Gunner.
Posts: 576 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Merseymike
Shipmate
# 3022
|
Posted
Amazing how you can choose to misread what I have said by cut-and-pasting, isn't it.
I repeat again : Reform et al have every right to personally disagree with Rowan Williams' theology.
But if that extends to saying ' we will not accept his authority', along with the stuff printed on their website - where they call him a false teacher and instruct their members to 'keep away from him' - well, to me, I can't see how that can be commensurate with being part of the Church of England. The AofC is not the Pope, but if that sort of thing is being said, it seems to me incompatible with any sort of integration within a church led by the AofC.
Thus, I think they should continue to disagree if they must, but that if they still cannot accept that the choice has been made and should be accepted, then they should go.
--------------------
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
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
Originally posted by Gunner:
quote:
I am not too sure whether we do ordain women because it is right. I suspect that we ordain women because of the sell-out to a secular wold view.
In my darker moments I wonder if opposition to the ordination of women is based soley upon misogyny or hidebound conservatism. Both sides can chuck these kind of arguments around. Neither should as they are grossly uncharitable and unfair. Both on this thread, and the thread in Dead Horses, serious arguments for and against the ordination of women are advanced. I cannot really see that either side are arguing in bad faith.
Quite simply Gunner, the elevated view of the See of Rome which you have defended on this thread is not one which is shared by most Anglicans. You are entitled to your view, but not to accuse those of us who differ of intellectual dishonesty.
Whilst we are here I have a question. Why is the Church of England not allowed to ordain women without Rome's say so, but allowed to differ on Papal infallibility, validity of Anglican orders, contraception and clerical celibacy?
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gunner:
Yes I agree that plenty Reformed Churches in the 2/3 world have women ministers. However, with all due repect to my Baptist and Reformed brothers and sisters they would admit that they are NOT ordaining men or women to the priesthood. Their notion of ministry is differnt to that of the catholic church and they wouldn't want to be consiered priests.
But it is the traditional view of the ministry held by almost all of the CofE from Hooker to Newman, and by evangelicals today...
The Presbyterians don;t want to be called "priest", (which is of course just presbyter writ small) to distance themselves from the confusion between Christian elders and sacrificial heirarchs that is rife in some parts of the church.
But they are priests, because all a priest is really is an elder of the congregation.
Of course I don't expect those who think that the catholicity of the CofE is due to its supposed connection with the Apostolic Succession derived from Rome to agree with this....
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Professor Yaffle:
In my darker moments I wonder if opposition to the ordination of women is based soley upon misogyny or hidebound conservatism.
You are obviously a very nice person. I tend to think that quite a lot of the time. In my darkest moments I wonder if opposition is due to a sort of anti-Christian demon-possessed Manicheism or Catharism that lives on in the church of Rome and its protestant imitators, hating sex, hating women, hating the material world, run by a a kind of elitist perfectionist clique of male priests and religious who regard themselves as the true and only church and all married folk, all laymen and all women and children as at best sheep to be led around, at worst as a kind of distraction to the true business of religion which is to carry on getting the magic words right until the world goes away.
But those are only my darkest moments. I know it isn't true really.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Merseymike
Shipmate
# 3022
|
Posted
I certainly don't. I think the Church of England ordains priests, and it is only the protestant evangelicals who don't see this - most liberal Anglicans I know have a high view of priesthood and would view it as something far more than you suggest. Of course, catholic Anglicans would totally disagree.
If we don't have apostolic suceesion, then we are not part of the one catholic church - are we?
--------------------
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
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Merseymike:
If we don't have apostolic suceesion, then we are not part of the one catholic church - are we?
As we are part of the one catholic church, then if we don't have apostolic succession, obviously apostolic succession is not neccessary to be part of the catholic church.
Silly question - if a group of catholic Christians who had no bishop among them found themselves isolated on a desert island, cut off from their home church, were to appoint one of their number to be a bishop, would they thereby cease to be catholic Christians?
You seem to imply that they would cease to be Christians. I know that back in the 19th century Newman and Manning would have said that, which is the reason they gave for going to Rome. ![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
I know that a lot earlier Hooker would not have said that, he would have agreed that they had the right to appoint priests and bishops from amongst themselves.
(Hey - a totally on-topic post on the 4th page of a thread! Wow! ![[Yipee]](graemlins/spin.gif) )
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ley Druid
Ship's chemist
# 3246
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ken: quote:
Originally posted by Merseymike:
If we don't have apostolic suceesion, then we are not part of the one catholic church - are we?
As we are part of the one catholic church, then if we don't have apostolic succession, obviously apostolic succession is not neccessary to be part of the catholic church.
Silly question - if a group of catholic Christians who had no bishop among them found themselves isolated on a desert island, cut off from their home church, were to appoint one of their number to be a bishop, would they thereby cease to be catholic Christians?
What would catholic Christians have to do to cease to be catholic? As long as they keep calling themselves such, is that not enough? Perhaps if they adopted quote:
a sort of anti-Christian demon-possessed Manicheism or Catharism that lives on in the church of Rome
perhaps then they would cease to be catholic and deserve to be thrown into the lake of fire?
Posts: 1188 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Panda
Shipmate
# 2951
|
Posted
Ley Druid said
quote:
What would catholic Christians have to do to cease to be catholic? As long as they keep calling themselves such, is that not enough?
I think we're on shaky ground with that one. If you have a look at several of the groups listed here at Anglicans Online a lot of them consider themselves catholic (or Catholic), and thus consider that anyone who disagrees with them is not.
It seems to me (speaking only personally, please don't jump on me) that while you shouldn't necessarily play the numbers game where Might Makes Right, but if there is an established and authoritative arrangement of the beliefs you hold, and you choose to belong, which makes it your church, then you're going to have to go along with them when they make these desicions if you want to continue to belong. If you truly feel they have erred, you cannot go criticising those members who disagree with you as being less members, or less inspired or less holy than you.
Ah, someone says, but who or what says it's authoritative? We'll be here all night....
Posts: 1637 | From: North Wales | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Neil Robbie
Shipmate
# 652
|
Posted
John, the debate was centred on modernism versus the rest of the world and the Rt Rev Hall was expatriate modern Brit not the rest of the world.
So the question remains.
But the debate on modernism and its substantial influence on liberal theological thought is well documented and we don't need to explore it any further on this thread.
SO, on what basis would you say the ordination and consecration of women being postulated? Ability and equality? Everyone acknowledges that there are many women who are naturally gifted and able in leadership and are therefore well suited as ministers, vicars, priests, bishops etc. Recent statistics on American start-up businesses support this fact.
But the wider question for the church must surely be; is the fact that women are able to lead a good reason for them to lead?
Rather than argue it from a traditional or biblical basis, which restricts the debate to an ugly moralism, we should ask wider sociological questions.
What is happening in the post-feminist west concerning male-female relationships? Are male-female relationships functional? Has the post-feminist divorce rate got anything to do with female ascendancy in the work place? Has the one female parent family with serial boyfriends got anything to do with female bread-winning? Closer to home, in the church. Is the single Christian women's complaint of the Bridget Jones syndrome (the inability of thirty-something women to find a strong, loving, caring man, as most modern men are spineless, weak-kneed, limp-wristed wets) got anything to do with men not taking responsibility?
Neil
Posts: 228 | From: Wolverhampton | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Neil Robbie
Shipmate
# 652
|
Posted
Sorry...in conclusion, do women in church leadership reinforce the cultural male-female dysfunctionality or provide an alternative model of God's ordained functionality, love, respect and order?
Neil
Posts: 228 | From: Wolverhampton | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sola Scriptura
Shipmate
# 2229
|
Posted
Given that ++ Rowan has made his private opinions public surely these will ineveitably become policy? If that is the case, how can Rowan claim to be a catholic and an archbishop if he is promoting beliefs which are opposed to scripture, tradtion and reason. Isn't he furthering the breakup of the Anglican Communion?
It may be for some that this isn't a bad thing and is desirable. But for those of us who claim to be catholic or indeed evangelicals, where does that leave us?
--------------------
Used to be Gunner.
Posts: 576 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Louise
Shipmate
# 30
|
Posted
quote:
how can Rowan claim to be a catholic and an archbishop if he is promoting beliefs which are opposed to scripture, tradition and reason.
This seems to actually translate as 'promoting views which Gunner doesn't like'.
I'd like to see you demonstrate that Williams views are anything of the sort.
Why don't you move over to the correct thread for discussing Williams views Rowan Williams new Archbishop of Canterbury and attempt to prove your assertion?
Constantly repeating it doesn't make it true.
L.
--------------------
Now you need never click a Daily Mail link again! Kittenblock replaces Mail links with calming pics of tea and kittens! http://www.teaandkittens.co.uk/ Click under 'other stuff' to find it.
Posts: 6918 | From: Scotland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
Louise wrote:-
quote:
This seems to actually translate as 'promoting views which Gunner doesn't like'.
Whilst I think Gunner overshot the mark with that one - I suspect ++Rowan would find it rather easy to prove that he is an Archbishop - I nevertheless think there is a point lurking in there somewhere, though I don't think personalising it in our new ABC is the best way to look at it. Perhaps a more radical review of what we mean by "catholic"? It's not really been probed, even though the question was pointedly put by Fr. Philip early on.
I suspect though that that too would be better off in a separate thread.
Ian
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Neil Robbie:
John, the debate was centred on modernism versus the rest of the world and the Rt Rev Hall was expatriate modern Brit not the rest of the world.
Li Tim Oi was Chinese, not British. Her congregation were Chinese. Why are you focussing on the bishop so much? Is it because he was a man, or because he was British? (Or was he an Ozzy? I forget). If God had wanted to call her to the priesthood, as I think was the case, if Hall hadn't done it, maybe another bishop would have been provided.
quote:
SO, on what basis would you say the ordination and consecration of women being postulated? Ability and equality? Everyone acknowledges that there are many women who are naturally gifted and able in leadership and are therefore well suited as ministers, vicars, priests, bishops etc. Recent statistics on American start-up businesses support this fact.
But the wider question for the church must surely be; is the fact that women are able to lead a good reason for them to lead?
Rather than argue it from a traditional or biblical basis, which restricts the debate to an ugly moralism, we should ask wider sociological questions.
I think the debate about women's ordination - which is over, in an Anglican context - should have been on a Biblical basis, not about society at large.
quote:
What is happening in the post-feminist west concerning male-female relationships? Are male-female relationships functional? Has the post-feminist divorce rate got anything to do with female ascendancy in the work place?
How can we be "post-feminist" when we never really have been feminist?
What do you think a functional relationship is? One that produces children?
Why is the divorce rate in so many Muslim countries so high?
quote:
Has the one female parent family with serial boyfriends got anything to do with female bread-winning?
More likely the other way round. The cost of getting somewhere to live is now so high that a single person can't afford to raise children any more. As millions did in the past, including both my grandmothers, as well as the wives of the millions of men killed in the wars of the 20th century. So not only do mothers have to go out to work, mothers sometimes in effect recruit more than one man to pay their way for them. A woman living with one man, who has a child being paid for by another, is making the maximum use of the available resources.
quote:
Closer to home, in the church. Is the single Christian women's complaint of the Bridget Jones syndrome (the inability of thirty-something women to find a strong, loving, caring man, as most modern men are spineless, weak-kneed, limp-wristed wets) got anything to do with men not taking responsibility?
I probably ought not to go on about "Bridget Jones syndrome" as I will just get cross. But yes, I guess it has to be true that women these days aren't finding what they want from men. There are a lot of single men around - more than single women in the area I live in - but obviously we don't have what it takes, whatever that is.
And what do you mean by "taking responsibility". How should a fine upstanding single Christian man like me "take responsibility" for a woman? Should I club her unconscious and drag her back to my cave? I think we should be told.
And what about the "perfect wife" in Proverbs chapter 30. She does property deals in order to fund her husband's unpaid political career. Where's my perfect wife then? Should there be some woman taking responsibility for me, so that I don;ty ahve to go out to work any more? That's what it says in the Bible.
quote:
Sorry...in conclusion, do women in church leadership reinforce the cultural male-female dysfunctionality or provide an alternative model of God's ordained functionality, love, respect and order?
Both, of course. Just exactly the same as men in church leadership.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
John Holding
Coffee and Cognac
# 158
|
Posted
Neil
The debate was not about modernism -- it was about the ability of the Anglican church to move on the ordination of women without Rome's consent. It had been alleged that because the C of E had only been ordaining women for a few years, there was insufficient experience for anyone to come to a conclusion about whether ordination of women was valid.
I suggested that we have nearly 60 years of experience, not just the few years alleged -- and it really does not matter who did the ordaining, or whether it happened in Hong Kong. I also pointed out, in response to a criticism that this was a "western" thing ignored in most of the church, and that it was happening in a lot of branches of the Anglican church, not to mention in a number of churches with whom we are in communion (and which preserve the historic epsicopate). I am grateful for the confirmation that the first female priests in the communion were both chinese and ministered in chinese parishes.
Finally, I suggested that those members of the C of E who are concerned only about what happens in a portion of a small island off the west coast of Europe -- and Rome, of course -- for their definition of Anglicanism, are at best indulging in ignorant antiquarianism and at worst, less charitably, in willful blindness.
John Holding
Posts: 5929 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
