|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Catholic and still Anglican?
|
HenryT
Canadian Anglican
# 3722
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gunner:
...While I am pro-women ordination I did feel the haste to which we have gone about this without the full mind of the catholic church is problematic....
I started to write this, and tossed it as unhelpful. I read the rest of the first page of the thread and decided I had to jump right in.
I'm posting from Canada. It's been over 25 years since the Anglican Church of Canada started ordaining women, and sixty since the ordination of the first woman in the Anglican communion.
Religious Tolerance page on history of ordaining women
shows it's been 150 years for the Protestants.
You know, that's a long time, in human terms. What exactly did you mean by haste?
For five years, the Anglican Church of Canada has had bishops who happen to be women.
Why not just get over it, and tell the Flying whatevers to take a flying leap, right back into the witch-burning Middle Ages. ![[Devil]](graemlins/devil.gif)
Recently in Canada, we celebrated the seventieth anniversary of the "Persons Case", a legal challenge where the Law Lords of the House of Lords ruled that women were persons in the eyes of the law.
We have to make two things very distinct:
- The Church, The Mystical Body of Christ and
- The Church, a legal and temporal entity created and administered by human beings
Actually, we don't. In both, women are equal. In the second one, for many years, the law was an ass. Now, the law is no longer an ass on that subject, the former meaning of Church in which there is neither Jew nor Greek, ... male nor female ... having intruded into the temporal world.
My two cents in...l
--------------------
"Perhaps an invincible attachment to the dearest rights of man may, in these refined, enlightened days, be deemed old-fashioned" P. Henry, 1788
Posts: 7231 | From: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
HenryT
Canadian Anglican
# 3722
|
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.
And, I think it not unreasonable that you could strong argue a need to circumsize priests... and I'm likely to get remanded to Dead horses on that one.
If one part of the priestly genitalia matters that much, where to draw the line?
The contrary position, which has a name I've forgotten, says that since Christ's incarnation was the taking of God into man, no human can be a priest (in the proper sense of the word.) So we're just deciding who presides at the table, and that is not genitally determined.
--------------------
"Perhaps an invincible attachment to the dearest rights of man may, in these refined, enlightened days, be deemed old-fashioned" P. Henry, 1788
Posts: 7231 | From: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
HenryT
Canadian Anglican
# 3722
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Neil Robbie:
...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.
Yup, and rabbits do not chew the cud, no matter that the Hebrew Testament says that they do.
--------------------
"Perhaps an invincible attachment to the dearest rights of man may, in these refined, enlightened days, be deemed old-fashioned" P. Henry, 1788
Posts: 7231 | From: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
HenryT
Canadian Anglican
# 3722
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
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.
ken is obviously a nicer person than me. I believe it almost all the the time.
--------------------
"Perhaps an invincible attachment to the dearest rights of man may, in these refined, enlightened days, be deemed old-fashioned" P. Henry, 1788
Posts: 7231 | From: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
HenryT
Canadian Anglican
# 3722
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Neil Robbie:
...
[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.
Methinks we're close to the heart of the matter here. If men were notably good at representing Christ (in the function of ordained clergy) there would be room for discussion of women's fitness at it. But face it, no one can do that of their own strength without the Spirit's guidance.
--------------------
"Perhaps an invincible attachment to the dearest rights of man may, in these refined, enlightened days, be deemed old-fashioned" P. Henry, 1788
Posts: 7231 | From: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sola Scriptura
Shipmate
# 2229
|
Posted
"Why not get over it".
When it concerns whether we are doing right or wrong I think we have to examine the case carefully and slowly. Given that it is the western church (protestants and Anglicans) who have moved the goal posts on the issue of women's ordination, I think it is therefore incumbent upon such folk to convince the vast majority of catholic christendom that this move is from God and not merely a concession to humanism, feminism and other ideological gods of our age.
--------------------
Used to be Gunner.
Posts: 576 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Merseymike
Shipmate
# 3022
|
Posted
That still places Anglicans as subservient to Rome : what, Gunner, keeps you from Rome if you feel that we cannot act without their agreement ?
--------------------
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
Merseymke,
thanks for your concern,
just wanted to remind you of what Geoffrey Fisher, Archbishop of Canterbury said of the Church of England " the Church of England has no creeds of it's own, only those of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, undivided between East and West." Need I stress the point further?
--------------------
Used to be Gunner.
Posts: 576 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anselmina
Ship's barmaid
# 3032
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gunner:
on the issue of women's ordination, I think it is therefore incumbent upon such folk to convince the vast majority of catholic christendom that this move is from God and not merely a concession to humanism, feminism and other ideological gods of our age.
However, there are many people who do not wish to be convinced on the issue of women's ordination, or other changes, because that conflicts with their own 'gods' of authoritarianism, traditionalism, anti-feminism, anti-intellectualism, anti-change. Indeed, for many such folk, there would be a resistance right to the end of anything that would seriously set up a challenge to the comfortable and acceptable conformity they enjoy, in a church that does not wish to creatively engage with incarnational theology, for fear of the consequences.
There are enough women priests in the field for it to be clear that the work that is carried out by them is largely done with integrity and with observable Holy Spirit fruitfulness (I believe, some kind of Biblical touchstone for genuine and authoritative ministry?). When this 'kingdom' work is rubbished and attacked - usually and sadly by Christians - it denies God the glory and praise due to him for this work.
To undermine the Spirit-filled ministry of someone because they are a priest who is also a woman, with accusations of how impure her motivations are, and how she's only doing it as a sop to the evils of this age, is, IMHO an evil it iself. I can honestly say I haven't yet met a woman priest who places the 'gods' of feminism, and, even more impossibly, humanism, above the three-personned 'God' of the Trinity.
I'm sure that within the pro-women's ordination lobby there have been highly politically motivated people who have allowed some political affiliation to a 'cause' to influence their work. Just as I'm sure it's true to make this statement about the anti-women's ordination lobby. But it's wrong to dismiss as perjoratively feminist (and 'feminist' is not a bad word, whatever some may think) what God is doing as a result of women's ordination. This is an easy argument which can be used by those who don't wish to confront the reality of how God is building his kingdom equally through the use of women, whether lay or ordained, or men.
The argument of 'numbers' and 'majorities' is, for some people (though not all opponents of women's ordained ministry, or change in the church) a strategy for avoiding having to make a decision about the truth: is it right, is it wrong. This is saying, in effect, when the clapometer gets to the red section of the scale, then the issue will suddenly become 'right'. Utter nonsense.
--------------------
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
But, Gunner, that would also be the same for Rome - so why don't they follow our example instead ?
I do think the logic of your position is that Rome remains the 'mother church',perhaps even the 'true church' which we Anglicans may one day rejoin.I hope i am not misrepresenting you.
And I wasn't being sarecastic - I seriously feel, from reading all what you have said, that you would love to be Roman Catholic. Look, there's nothing wrong with being RC : if thats where your heart leads you, then do it ! A friend of mine converted earlier this year and I encouraged him all the way, because thats what was right for him.
--------------------
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
I thank you both for the above replies. Yes, I agree that political motivation can colour our view and that includes anti-as well as pro-women's ordination. If I was sloppy in presenting my case then I apologise. But and it is a real one, not all those who have doubts as to whether the CofE has any authority to makes such moves as ordination of women are bigots. Some do have genuine doubts. And yes, I can agree that the vast mumbers of women in the ministry Anglican and other denominations do a wonderful job and do bring people to a closer relationship with God.
But as I keep arguing that as Catholic Christians we can't have it all ways round: claiming to be catholic and then making innovations without the agreement of the vast majority of Christndom. And I know that sounds like the crap-o-meter but being a catholic means submitting to authority.
As for whether we should do things because Rome in moments of her madness did things which we don't agree with shouldn't invalidate the oignial argument. Rome has tried to bend over backwards of recent decades to accommodate Anglicans and other protestant groups. Rome has furthered the cause of the ecumenical dialouge with the ARCIC and the World Lutheran and has come to some remarkable conclusiuons - see the debate on Justification with the Lutherans. And the Gift of Authority with the Anglicans.
As for why I am not a Roman that is because I am a memeber of the CofE a catholic worshiping in the English Church. For me to go because the CofE has made decisions through a vote rather the full will of the catholic church is not for me to say whether it is right or wrong - just plainly uncatholic.
To move to Rome would be to go for the wrong reasons. I love my home albeit it is uncomfortable to be in at times. And while I have great sympathy with the RC it would only make sense to go to them because there was no longer work or a place for me here.
Orthodoxy is so far from my western experience I would feel alienated and isolated. So, no, for now, I remain an Anglican and will work to descern God's will. But we must do that together within the framework of our catholic neighbours. And while some steps have been taken we must halt and see where this will lead us and Rome. To act further will endanger any chance of re-union.
--------------------
Used to be Gunner.
Posts: 576 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
doctor-frog
small and green
# 2860
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gunner:
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?
I truly believe that comments such as these arise from a fundamental misunderstanding of Rowan Williams.
In the very first press-conference he gave when announced as ABC-designate, he clearly indicated that he does not view the episcopate as a bully pulpit to force his own views in isolation from the Church's larger consensus-building mechanisms. He said that he's excercising a collective leadership and entrusted with a responsiblity to the Church's mind ... and that although he's prepared to express his thoughts, he's happy to defer to the mind of the Church as a collective body. From my limited experience, I'd say he means just what he says, and that his history backs him up. Yes, he's willing to ask awkward questions that should be asked -- and that the Church should not be afraid of, regardless of what answer they come up with.
This view is consistent with his scholarship. And more importantly, it's what he's done in Wales.
Fr. Rowan has consistently worked well with those of different opinions and ecclesiological stripes. He's made a point of including as much as possible the widest variety of Anglicanisms in the policy-making and governance of both Monmouth and the Church in Wales. And he's shown that he can work well with them all ... and they with him.
I see no reason why he should do anything different now that he's in England. In the end, if the FiF and Reform whingers would just quit whinging about the "good story" copy they find most readily available in the papers (inevitably the copy that gets the most hackles up) and do a little deeper reading and some real research, they'd find a man who has no interest in threatening them, and who would gladly encourage them to play a role in his leadership.
Posts: 981 | From: UK | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
doctor-frog
small and green
# 2860
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gunner:
just wanted to remind you of what Geoffrey Fisher, Archbishop of Canterbury said of the Church of England " the Church of England has no creeds of it's own, only those of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, undivided between East and West." Need I stress the point further?
two points to submit:
1. The "No Special Doctrine" claim is itself, paradoxically, a special doctrine that Anglicans make on behalf of themselves and applicable to no other Church. I.e., the very act of making an NSD claim undermines the very point the NSD posits. Stephen Sykes (former Diocesan of Ely and now principal of Cranmer Hall) makes a very well-argued case for this in "Unashamed Anglicanism".
2. The 39 Articles do suggest a distinctive set of doctrines that, in many places, distinguish themselves flatly from both Rome and Constantinople. If you want to argue NSD (particularly in tandem with a disclaimer of any substantial authority), it's important to recognise that NSD is not (as it claims to be) a factual historical background-statement, but is rather itself a 19th-C. innovation created by people who wanted to have a certain sanitised view of Anglicanism -- and also had an axe to grind: namely, gettin the recognition from Rome and Constantinople that has never, in fact, been forthcoming. Prior to that time, Anglicanism had precious little problem claiming that it was distinctive, that it had the authority to be so, and that it had moral right on its side in making the reforms it did. (And, as the 39 claim "Rome hath erred".) To suggest that Anglicans have always held to an NSD position is to fight a very uphill battle indeed.
Posts: 981 | From: UK | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
doctor-frog
small and green
# 2860
|
Posted
Sorry for multi-posts; but just went to look up a few of Anglicanism's special doctrines as defined by the
Point being, again: you might be able to make a case for NSD, but it is inherently revisionist; therefore the case must be made not because of Anglicanism's historical self-understanding, but rather despite that historical self-understanding. NSD was not what the reformers were about.
And, yes, I know how people love to declare the 39 Articles non-binding whenever they don't suit a particular need. Indeed, I make no claim to agree with all of them. (I can leave cassock-buttons open with the best of 'em.)
But the point is that, when discussing Anglican authority, the 39 must be dealt with, for indeed, they're a/the prime example of Anglicanism having assumed authority from the outset, as the very basis for the English Church's existence as a separate entity from Rome. It's messy, yes. But it's nothing if not real.
So, without further ado: special doctrines
(rejection of medieval systems of indulgences) 14. Voluntary works besides, over, and above God's Commandments, which they call Works of Superrogation, cannot be taught without arrogancy and impiety . . .
(affimation of Calivinist doctrine): 17. Predestination to Life is the everlasting purpose of God (before the foundations of the world were laid). . . . As the godly consideration of Predestination, and our Election in Christ, is full of sweet, pleasant, and unspeakable comfort to godly persons . . .
(Lutheran, not Catholic, marks of the Church, with statement that even the "Church of the 7 Counils" is doctrinally in error): 19. The visible Church of Christ is a congregation of faithful men, in which the pure Word of God is preached, and the Sacraments be duly ministered . . .
. . . As the Church of Jerusalem, Alexandria, and Antioch have erred; so also the Church of Rome hath erred, not only in their living and manner of Ceremonies, but also in matters of faith. (emphasis mine)
(authority ascribed to scripture, not scripture and tradition): 20. The Church hath power to decree Rites and Ceremonies, and authority in Controversies of Faith: And yet it is not lawful for the Church to ordain anything that is contrary to God's Word . . .
21. General Councils . . . may err, and sometimes have erred, even in things pertaining unto God, wherefore things ordained by them as necessary to salvation have neither strength nor authority, unless it may be declared that they be taken out of holy Scripture.
(on Purgatory, despite "majority" adherence by the world's Christians, then and now) 22. The Romish doctrine of Purgatory . . . is a fond thing, vainly invented, and grounded upon no warranty of Scripture, but rather utterly repugnant to the Word of God.
(number of sacraments - and you will note that I actually believe in 7): 25. . . . There are two Sacraments ordained of Christ our Lord in the Gospel, that is to say, Baptism and the Supper of the Lord. Those five commonly called Sacraments . . . are not to be counted for Sacraments of the Gospel, being such as have grown partly out of the corrupt following of the Apostles . . .
(efficaciousness of Sacraments; Protestant position going against tradition and ecumenical councils): 29. The Wicked, and such as be void of a lively faith, although they do carnally and visibly press their teeth . . . with the Sacrament . . . yet in no wise are they partakers of Christ. . . .
(of Traditions, and particularly relevant to Gunner's arguments about women's ordination) 34. It is not necessary that Traditions and Ceremonies of the Church be in all places one, or utterly like; for at all times they have been divers, and may be changed according to the diversities of countries, times, and men's manners, so that nothing be ordained against God's Word . . . Every particular or national Church hath authority to rodaine, change, and abolish ceremonies or rites of the Church ordained only by man's authority, so that all things be done to edifying.
In sum: if the Anglican Church does not have the authority to interpret true faith and doctrine and practise apart from the authority of Rome and Constantinople, then it's not primarily (or even especially importantly) in ordaining women that Anglicanism has gone wrong. No, in this instance there are far bigger issues which would suggest that Anglicanism is, in fact, rotten to the core, because it's very being has hinged precisely on taking the kind of authority that NSD revisionism decries.
Best to get out post haste if that's how you really feel and get thee to a real Church.
Posts: 981 | From: UK | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Neil Robbie
Shipmate
# 652
|
Posted
Henry
Good to have you pitching your 'two cents' in.
I have a couple of questions for you about your treatment of scripture:
1. When Jesus said, "This is what I told you while I was still with you: Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms." Which Hebrew texts was he referring to that he would fulfil? How do you think he fulfilled them? What authority was Jesus giving to the Hebrew text and how does this compare to your example/belief?
2. When Paul wrote " there is neither Jew nor Greek, ... male nor female ... " what specific prayer of the Pharisees was he contradicting (cf Luke 18:11)? In this context, what was Paul teaching by this statement?
Would you agree that much of the rift in the church could be mended when we let Jesus' speak for himself in his word, rather than finding ways of neglecting him, twisting his words and imposing our own agenda on them? Or would you like to propose an alternative authority to that of the Lord Jesus?
Neil
Posts: 228 | From: Wolverhampton | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Merseymike
Shipmate
# 3022
|
Posted
quote:
Would you agree that much of the rift in the church could be mended when we let Jesus' speak for himself in his word, rather than finding ways of neglecting him, twisting his words and imposing our own agenda on them? Or would you like to propose an alternative authority to that of the Lord Jesus?
I think you already have, Neil.
Its called Bibliolatry
--------------------
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
|
|
Spong
Ship's coffee grinder
# 1518
|
Posted
clip-clop, clip-clop, clip-clop
--------------------
Spong
The needs of our neighbours are the needs of the whole human family. Let's respond just as we do when our immediate family is in need or trouble. Rowan Williams
Posts: 2173 | From: South-East UK | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Neil Robbie
Shipmate
# 652
|
Posted
Merseymike and Spong
I'm sorry if my questions about Jesus' attitude to scripture offend you. I do not wish this discussion to break down into a liberal-evangelical slagging match, which it is danger of becoming. I do wish to point out that I am offended by the persistent reference to Bibliolatry on this thread, I've said it before "I do not worship the bible".
As an Anglican evangelical, I believe that the answer to the issue of women in the episcopate is to be found in scripture, but that is not to say this is not a complex issue nor that we already know all the answers. What I am also offended about is the reluctance of some to take the biblical debate seriously by simply writing the bible off because it doesn't suit one's theological position. This is exactly the sort of liberal tyranny which I tried emphasise earlier in the thread, that if the CofE is truly pluriform, we need to listen to and accommodate all theological positions within the church. By simply ignoring the likes of Gunner and me, and pressing on with their own agenda, liberals are exercising intolerance and narrowness in the extreme.
Regarding your accusation of bibliolatry, I take that as a smoke-screen, a convenient excuse not to engage with the serious questions I asked about the nature of Hebrew scripture and Christ's attitude and relationship to them.
Evangelicals acknowledge that the bible witnesses to the reality of the triune God. This presupposition is a circular argument, that the triune God has written the words of scripture because the words of scripture tell us that it is so. But, what other way is there to know God's character, the work of Christ and the Holy Spirit? I am genuinely interested to know what presupposition do you work from?
If you establish some presupposition that the bible is not the word of God, even though it says it is, then how can you be sure of knowing the true Jesus? Rather than continuing to squabble over things, I would love to know your understanding of the person of Christ, please don't reply to this post with criticism of my theology but let me know how you know Jesus.
Neil
Posts: 228 | From: Wolverhampton | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Merseymike
Shipmate
# 3022
|
Posted
Through worship, through the Sacraments. through everyday life experiences, through the work of the Holy Spirit, through reason and consideration, through the insights of modernity, science and progress, through the work of liberal theologians helping me to make sense of things, through the eyes of the Church Fathers and the Saints of History, through my own past and history.
And through the Bible too. But all of those things make me feel that the conservative interpretation is very limiting. It is through those eyes that the Bible can live for today.
One thing though. Lets just say that all Bibles were pulped tomorrow. Would Christianity still exist ? Would the personhood of Jesus exist without the four books which were written directly about His life ? Of course!
--------------------
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
Thanks Merseymike, now tell me more.
Taking all the sources of knoweledge of Jesus which you listed, tell me about the character of Christ as you know him.
Not only am I genuinely interersted in the way the character of Christ has developed for you, but I think this may lead us to us understanding each other regarding the issue of this thread. I do not think that our (Catholic, Liberal or Evangelical)understanding of the natures and person of Christ can be seperated from the role of women in the episcopate. We'll see as this goes on...
Neil
Posts: 228 | From: Wolverhampton | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Merseymike
Shipmate
# 3022
|
Posted
Jesus is Love. I can't really say very much more profound than that - I see Jesus as a way which we can start to glimpse the greatness and glory of God, by His example and message
--------------------
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
Neil,
I have to agree with you on this one. Being an Anglican and Catholic it can appear that when one holds up Tradition and Scripture up in any argumen these are often knocked down or merely disregarded for some sense of perverse reasoning.
It is often a pity that Scripture, Tradtion and Reason aren't used as tools in equal measure to discern the will of God. At the end of the day we have to have the humility to say we may have it wrong, no matter which position we take.
--------------------
Used to be Gunner.
Posts: 576 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Neil Robbie
Shipmate
# 652
|
Posted
Merseymike,
Yup, then we're in agreement...Jesus is love.
Do you think there is any merit in a new thread..."Jesus is..." or "Would the real Jesus please stand up?" or something along these lines. We can come back to the divisive stuff later, once Jesus has united us all.
Neil
Posts: 228 | From: Wolverhampton | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mrgrumble_au
Shipmate
# 3611
|
Posted
Atlast!
Something we can all agree on!
Jesus is love!
(Thinks 'but what is love?')
Oh well!
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
Posts: 139 | From: Sydney | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sola Scriptura
Shipmate
# 2229
|
Posted
Yes Jesus is love and more much more!
If ACs and Evangelicals press for a 3rd Province and get it, how will they work together? Will this have become in effect the Broad Church of England?
--------------------
Used to be Gunner.
Posts: 576 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
John Holding
Coffee and Cognac
# 158
|
Posted
Further on the Geoffrey Fisher quote -- can I note that it only applies in England, it appears. It certainly does not apply anywhere else in the Anglican communion.
But then, I have already on this thread pointed out how inappropriate but typically English it is to look only at England (and Rome) for a definition of Anglicanism.
John Holding
Posts: 5929 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Merseymike
Shipmate
# 3022
|
Posted
In reply to Gunner : no, it would be a very argumentative body indeed, given that Reform and Forward in Faith actually agree on very little except dislike of the more liberal incarnations of their respective 'wings' of the Church, and dislike of women's ministry.
--------------------
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 Gunner:
Yes Jesus is love and more much more!
If ACs and Evangelicals press for a 3rd Province and get it, how will they work together? Will this have become in effect the Broad Church of England?
Only if they have enough respect, humility and Christlikeness to welcome, embrace and include their liberal brothers and sisters in Christ... ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.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
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
I think we are at cross purposes about the NSD.
Fisher - as quoted here, I have no idea what else he might have said on the matter - was talking about credal doctrine.
And that is true - the Anglican churches (including but not limited to the Church of England ![[Smile]](smile.gif) ) have never introduced any new creeds, any Christological definitions or new statements of belief that all members are required to assent to. There's no new or specifically Anglican theory of the atonement, or doctrine of the Trinity.
Of course the Anglicans must have some distinctive doctrines on other matters, at any rate on eccesiology, because otherwise, (at least outside England), they'd all be Lutherans or Roman Catholics or Presbyterians or whatever.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Thurible
Shipmate
# 3206
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Merseymike:
In reply to Gunner : no, it would be a very argumentative body indeed, given that Reform and Forward in Faith actually agree on very little except dislike of the more liberal incarnations of their respective 'wings' of the Church, and dislike of women's ministry.
Merseymike,
We in Forward in Faith don't dislike women's ministry; indeed, we're strong advocates of it. We don't believe in women's ordination which is a very different thing.
Thurible
--------------------
"I've been baptised not lobotomised."
Posts: 8049 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Merseymike
Shipmate
# 3022
|
Posted
I think that is semantics : ask the women who have, for years felt utterly marginalised by FiF. Its like 'here and no further' - and it clearly places limits on women's ministry which are not placed on men.
FiF also believe all gays should be celibate, but many who preach that in public or sit on their hands whilst others fight the battles certainly don't practice it in reality.
Frankly, I have little time for FiF.
Posts: 3360 | From: Walked the plank | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Divine Outlaw
Gin-soaked boy
# 2252
|
Posted
It's good to finally have access to an on-line PC again, after a prolonged period of Shiplessness!
The topic on this thread is close to my heart, and I must confess to only having skim-read the foregoing pages, so forgive me if I repeat something that's already been said.
I'm sure there must be a mediating position between "CofE can do what the hell it likes without taking Rome's view into account" and "CofE can't cough unless the Pope clears it first". My problem is that I'm not sure where to draw the line - I'm certain, for example, that we can't unilaterally define Trinitarian dogma. I'm equally certain that we can allow clergy to marry post-ordination unilaterally.
What is the difference? I suspect that we have liberty on matters of practice, but not on matters of doctrine. I dislike a lot of what the current papacy stands for, but we cannot ignore Rome if we claim to be Catholics (if for no other reason than the sheer number of baptised Christians who owe their allegiance to it), nor can we stop praying and working for unity - whatever the pitfalls. John Macquarrie once made the point that any ecumenism which ignores Rome is merely a pan-Protestantism. I'd qualify this with a nod in the direction of Orthodoxy, but the general point is sound.
Anyway, happy New Year.
--------------------
insert amusing sig. here
Posts: 8705 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
Why only a nod in the direction of Orthodoxy?
Why is there any reason to pay more attention on doctrinal matters to Rome than to any other ancient church?
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
