|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Anglican Women Bishops soon?
|
ChristinaMarie
Shipmate
# 1013
|
Posted
Fr Gregory,
I think you're playing with loaded dice?
How can liaising with the Orthodox on the issue of womens' ordination, produce anything but a 'No! Don't do it!' response?
In my opinion, you are appealling to the Anglicans to be reasonable, in a way that can only produce one outcome.
If one cannot take a position that one's interpretation of Scripture, or Tradition can be wrong, then how can anything be negotiated with those who differ?
Christina
Posts: 2333 | From: Oldham | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Laura:
Not that I'm unwilling to listen to the opposing view, by the way, just that I don't think the Anglican Communion ought to be making decisions on whether it might annoy the Orthodox or not.
Why start now? ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
(just trying to lighten things up a bit...)
Reader ALexis
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
PaulTH*
Shipmate
# 320
|
Posted
Newman's Own gave a very sensible answer, as she always does in saying that this is more about ecclesiology and sacramental theology than it is to do with mysogony or rights. When I became an active member of the C of E in 1994, I was a supporter of women priests, believing that old fashioned attitudes were the only obstacle. Over the years I've become much more catholic, and while I think women are doing a great job in priesthood, I think Fr. Gregory in his OP is right.
As one who believes in the One Holy Cattholic and Apostolic Church, I question the C of E's right to go it alone on this issue, in antagonism to sister churches. There is now growing a body of "traditionalists" my regular church being an example, where we are increasingly dissatisfied with and rebellious to mainstream C of E practice in matters such as liturgy, and who maintain catholic sacramental theology. The issue of women bishops along with all the other farcical attempts by the C of E to appear relevant is going to cause a schism within a decade.
Unless arrangements can be made, as they were by the Act of Synod, to preserve the integrity of traditionalist within the church, there will be a wholesale exodous, of which I will probably be part.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Paul
Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Rossweisse
High Church Valkyrie
# 2349
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by daisymay:
And if it's not appropriate for the Anglican ordinations to be dissed by RC or orthodox, then it's also not appropriate for other denominations (Methodist/Elim etc.) to be dissed by the Anglicans. All are part of the Church.
"Dissed" how, daisymay? Yes, they're part of the Church -- absolutely. But they're not a part of the Church Catholic. I don't think it's "dissing" specify that part.
--------------------
I'm not dead yet.
Posts: 15117 | From: Valhalla | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
I've got a theory that I would be interested in hearing shipmates' views on, and it does have some bearing on this matter.
Basically, it says that most people don't primarily leave a communion (eg in this case the Anglican communion) over a single issue like this, though they may well leave a local church. An individual issue may more likely be the straw that breaks the camel's back.
Evidence? - I suppose the developing dustup in Canada over same-sex unions is as good as any. The bishop there, to judge by his publications, seems to be a syncretist. I would care far more passionately about that, but it seems that most people actually blow a fuse over more concrete outcomes, the so-called "presenting issues", though there has been mounting unease expressed in various anglican discussion forums for some time on the possible syncretism issue.
Also, I always used to conceive of organisations like FiF as being full of people implacably opposed to the priesting of women - for ever. There are such people of course, but it was only when I got round to talking to people from FiF parishes that I discovered that many were "possibilists". Quite a few of the the high-profile departures last time round were - and remain - possibilists, and some have said so in public. So clearly they were moved by other things.
It's been pointed out elsewhere that historically, it makes little sense to consecrate women to the priesthood and not the episcopate. If my theory is correct, if there are to be departures, then this may be a "presenting issue". In other words you won't be able to predict what happens just by trying to correlate it with numbers of people in FiF parishes etc etc. It will depend on many other things.
Views?
Ian
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Weslian
Shipmate
# 1900
|
Posted
Who says they are not part of the Church Catholic? Roman Catholics and Orthodox do, but not the rest of Christendom. I believe I am part of the Church catholic. I am bound by the doctines of the historic creeds under the Methodist deed of Union, whatever any Orthodox or Roman might say, I believe I am an ordained presbyter in that church.
In the end I think it is about the kind of God you believe in. I believe he answers my prayer when I pray that throught the power of the Holy Spirit the bread and wine become to us the body and blood of Christ, and His real presence dwells in them and those who receive them in faith. I get the feeling that Orthodox and Romans believe God can only answer that prayer if it is said by someone within their traditions, thus limiting the freedom of God. I do not believe God is bound by the rules of the Church in that way.
--------------------
Sex, Shopping, Work, Christian Doctrine, Entertainment, Art, Sport.
Posts: 563 | From: somewhere too posh for my own good | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Weslian:
I get the feeling that Orthodox and Romans believe God can only answer that prayer if it is said by someone within their traditions, thus limiting the freedom of God. I do not believe God is bound by the rules of the Church in that way.
I am truly sorry you have that feeling. I assure you that it is not something I was ever taught as an Orthodox, nor held by any of the Orthodox whom I know personally.
Reader Alexis
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fr.Philip
Shipmate
# 2801
|
Posted
quote:
I would be interested in hearing the views of a member of one of the Orthodox churches who had not left the Anglican Communion over the ordination of women.
Im an ex Anglican Priest who didnt leave the Anglican Church over the Ordination of Women. I always felt that I was (rather more positively) joining the Orthodox Church (for reasons explicit in the name). As a matter of fact I was a "Director of Ordinands" in the C. of E. and was very involved in furthering (if that be the correct word) the vocations of a number of very splendid women. I was also a Bishop's Chaplain and worked very happily with all the other clergy.
Validity: I think Orthodox have always affirmed that all Anglican Bishops, priests etc. (male or female)are Anglican Bishops etc. but tend to remain mute as to whether they are the same as Orthodox priests. Lay people, Bishops, priests and deacons as well as ministers of other Christian groups are treated with great respect. Generally no judgement is given (even secretly) as to validity. The individual would be required to ask themselves if their orders are valid (Bp, Pr, Dn, Sdn, R, A, D, lay)and act accordingly. Oddly the question of validity of orders is one Anglican clergy always ask me about and other protestants and Roman Catholic clergy never ask. Therem is a certain confidence about Orthodox Sacraments within the Orthodox Church but only a brave person would say that Divine Grace was withheld from the sacraments of other churches.
Someone noted (Im sorry Ive been working since 6.30am and it is now 11pm!!) that Orthodox seem to have gone off Anglicans. Yes... Orthodox were much confused by meeting Anglicans who were VERY Orthodox in outlook ... however those who were not were hidden from view. With closer aquantance came the realisation that in many ways Anglicans were really very different and a certain cooling has taken place. There is nothing frightening about that. Orthodox tend to think in hundreds of years and if things appear to be slow at least they are sure! A certain "stand offishness" is also meant lovingly!
--------------------
Yours in Christ,
Fr. Philip.
Posts: 138 | From: Brigg | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
.... added to which (Fr. Philip) I will only add from a personal point of view that many of us Orthodox DO care what happens in the other churches insofar this brings other Christians closer or further away from us. I hope that this concern is reciprocated by otyer churches. In the end, each church has to act in accordance with its collective conscience. I don't think though that this collective conscience should be uninformed by the reactions of other churches. This seems to be an act of despair.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rossweisse
High Church Valkyrie
# 2349
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Weslian:
Who says they are not part of the Church Catholic? Roman Catholics and Orthodox do, but not the rest of Christendom....
The Church Catholic, that's who, of which Anglicans are also (obviously) a part. To be in the CC, one must have maintained the historic episcopate, the three orders of clergy, and the primacy of the sacraments, including a belief in the Real Presence. The Prots have obviously done none of the above. (And the Wesley boys, I believe, would agree!) This doesn't mean they're not a part of the Church (and lovely people in many cases), but Catholic? Nope. Sorry!
--------------------
I'm not dead yet.
Posts: 15117 | From: Valhalla | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fr.Philip
Shipmate
# 2801
|
Posted
Fr. Gregory: quote:
I will only add from a personal point of view that many of us Orthodox DO care what happens in the other churches insofar this brings other Christians closer or further away from us.
Absolutely. The Orthodox Church prays for the unity of all Christians at virtually every service. One cannot do that and be unconcerned about something that makes the tear larger.
Weslian:
quote:
I am bound by the doctines of the historic creeds under the Methodist deed of Union, whatever any Orthodox or Roman might say, I believe I am an ordained presbyter in that church.
Quite right. And I suspect that you would agree that I am clearly NOT an ordained presbyter in the Methodist Church. I suspect you might also think you are not an Orthodox or RC priest either.
quote:
I get the feeling that Orthodox and Romans believe God can only answer that prayer if it is said by someone within their traditions, thus limiting the freedom of God. I do not believe God is bound by the rules of the Church in that way.
If someone has given you that feeling then the Orthodox church (at any rate) has been disasterously misrepresented to you. It the prophets left in the camp story: Orthodox are always delighted to see goodness where goodness is. (We are not ones to think that what ever is not baptised may only have the appearance of good.) We tend to notice similarities rather than differences too. Having said that we are inflexible over what has been passed down to us. "Guard the Deposit" (As it used to say on a certain Anglican Theological College's Chamber pots!)runs through the Church like the letters through seaside rock.
--------------------
Yours in Christ,
Fr. Philip.
Posts: 138 | From: Brigg | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chapelhead*
Ship’s Photographer
# 1143
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Rossweisse:
The Church Catholic, that's who, of which Anglicans are also (obviously) a part. To be in the CC, one must have maintained the historic episcopate, the three orders of clergy, and the primacy of the sacraments, including a belief in the Real Presence.
On your definition of CC, which is not necessarily the CC's definition (because what you believe to be the CC is not necessarily the CC).
quote:
Originally posted by Rossweisse:
This doesn't mean they're not a part of the Church (and lovely people in many cases), but Catholic? Nope. Sorry!
And many others would say that we/they are part of the catholic church, and would continue to be so, even with women bishops (which the Anglican Communion, of which the CofE is part and in full communion with). Yes. Sorry!
--------------------
Benedikt Gott Geschickt!
Posts: 7082 | From: Turbolift Control. | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chapelhead*
Ship’s Photographer
# 1143
|
Posted
sorry - that last sentence should have read "the Anglican Communinn already has".
The title of the thread seem somewhat inaccurate.
--------------------
Benedikt Gott Geschickt!
Posts: 7082 | From: Turbolift Control. | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Weslian
Shipmate
# 1900
|
Posted
quote:
I get the feeling that Orthodox and Romans believe God can only answer that prayer if it is said by someone within their traditions, thus limiting the freedom of God. I do not believe God is bound by the rules of the Church in that way.
If someone has given you that feeling then the Orthodox church (at any rate) has been disasterously misrepresented to you. [/QB][/QUOTE]
I am sorry if my response was too generalist. It was really to Rossweisse, (whose denomination I know not), implying that I am not a part of the Church Catholic.
I could not say 'I believe in one, holy, Catholic and apostolic Church,'in the creed if I felt I didn't belong to it. We might express our holiness, Catholicity and apostolicity differently than those with an historic episcopate, but we believe they are evident in our denomination in a way that is acceptable to God, if not to Rossweisse.
Interestingly, in the inteterests of ecumenism Methodists are prepared to accept the historic espicopate, and have set up a working party to devise a model that would work in our system. This committee can discuss many things: how big should a diocese be, how do they work collegially etc, but one thing is not up for discussion, the episcopate must be open to women. From some of the comments on this thread, that means that it will never be part of the historic episcopate in many people's eyes whatever else we agree to. It makes me wonder whether it is worth the effort for us.
--------------------
Sex, Shopping, Work, Christian Doctrine, Entertainment, Art, Sport.
Posts: 563 | From: somewhere too posh for my own good | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
Rossweise:
quote:
The Church Catholic, that's who, of which Anglicans are also (obviously) a part. To be in the CC, one must have maintained the historic episcopate, the three orders of clergy, and the primacy of the sacraments, including a belief in the Real Presence. The Prots have obviously done none of the above. (And the Wesley boys, I believe, would agree!) This doesn't mean they're not a part of the Church (and lovely people in many cases), but Catholic? Nope. Sorry!
So the meaning of "Catholic" has changed from "Universal" to mean its opposite?
And the Methodists were lying to me those times I've said the apostles Creed with them?
To be in the Catholic Church one must have maintained the doctrines defined in the ecumenical councils and the historic Creeds. That isn't the same thing at all.
I think I'm falling for a troll again... the oft-repeated claim that the CofE is "not Protestant" is, and always was, nothing but a troll.
(It calls itself Protestant and even collaborates with laws preventing anyone but a Protestant from marring the King. Totally off-topic - the complete inanity of the popular press when it comes to anything to do with the church was shown up this week by the drivel about Prince Charles now being able to marry Camilla Parker-Bowles. Any legal problem with that has never been anything to do with divorce but with her being, or having been, a Roman Catholic. To marry him either she has to give up her religion publically, or Parliament, not the Synod, has to change the Act of Settlement)
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
I think the etymology of the word "catholic" is important if only because so many people of all religious traditions try to hijack it.
It means "(thrown) / towards the whole." I suppose we might render it "fullness." It can't mean "universal" in the mathematical sense of that word, (the whole set) because that begs the question as to what is included in the set and what is not. "Catholic" therefore can never be considered in isolation from what makes one "catholic."
I have said before that merely enshrining certain aspects of catholicity in a church's formularies, (eg., creeds, Scripture, 3 fold ministry etc), is not enough. Those aspects have to be understood and practised in line with the catholic witness of the Church across space and time. This witness is neither selective (haeresis - choice) nor idiosyncratic .... including novel / suspect elements as necessary or determinative.
One of the problems with women bishops (as indeed women priests) is that you either ordain or you don't. It's not a teaching that can be assessed, refined, moulded .... it's a binary act, on or off. Bearing in mind what is at stake here, decisions in this area must be prosecuted with even more care.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Astro
Shipmate
# 84
|
Posted
quote:
The Church Catholic, that's who, of which Anglicans are also (obviously) a part. To be in the CC, one must have maintained the historic episcopate, the three orders of clergy, and the primacy of the sacraments, including a belief in the Real Presence. The Prots have obviously done none of the above. (And the Wesley boys, I believe, would agree!) This doesn't mean they're not a part of the Church (and lovely people in many cases), but Catholic? Nope. Sorry!
To me what you are saying reminds me of teh following story:
A man dies and goes to heaven, St Peter shows him around. Over there are the Methodists, and over there the Baptists, and round this corner are the Pentecostals.
The man then asks Peter who are behind that great big wall, to which Peter replies
"They are the church catholic, they like to think that they are the only ones here"!
--------------------
if you look around the world today – whether you're an atheist or a believer – and think that the greatest problem facing us is other people's theologies, you are yourself part of the problem. - Andrew Brown (The Guardian)
Posts: 2723 | From: Chiltern Hills | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Saint Osmund
Pontifex sariburiensis
# 2343
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Rossweisse:
The Church Catholic, that's who, of which Anglicans are also (obviously) a part. To be in the CC, one must have maintained the historic episcopate, the three orders of clergy, and the primacy of the sacraments, including a belief in the Real Presence. The Prots have obviously done none of the above. (And the Wesley boys, I believe, would agree!) This doesn't mean they're not a part of the Church (and lovely people in many cases), but Catholic? Nope. Sorry!
I'm not sure I'd be so rigid about the threefold Orders thingy, and so would probably include the Methodists. But yes, I am in agreement with everything else you have said, and I admire your courage in being able to say it here.
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
So the meaning of "Catholic" has changed from "Universal" to mean its opposite?
I mentioned over on page one of this thread that we do need to distinguish between non-recognition because of 'up-our-own-a***'ness and non-recognition because churches have chosen to exclude themselves.
'Catholic' has not changed its definition. I suppose I am saying that universality DOES have boundaries. To reject basic precepts of the Christian Faith clearly puts one without those boundaries.
Rossweisse has said nothing un-Catholic.
Posts: 2965 | From: here | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Panda
Shipmate
# 2951
|
Posted
Santiago said:
quote:
The 'damage' (if damage there be) is done.
Very true.
As I read in the Times' article about this famous '50% object to women bishops' survey, one particular priest was quoted as saying (if I remember it correctly - sorry, no time to go dig it up on the site) 'It's easy enough to pretend that women priests don't exist, but you can't ignore a woman bishop.'
It seems to me that the problem for most who are opposed (I'm loath to say traditionalist - Merbecke being my favourite mass setting!) is that they will finally have to stop pretending, as this priest apparently is, that they are the only Anglicans on the planet, and that there are wider views than those in the British Isles.
Otherwise, what is the point of there being a Communion?
Posts: 1637 | From: North Wales | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rossweisse
High Church Valkyrie
# 2349
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
So the meaning of "Catholic" has changed from "Universal" to mean its opposite?...
I think I'm falling for a troll again... the oft-repeated claim that the CofE is "not Protestant" is, and always was, nothing but a troll.
[/QB][/QUOTE]
I'm sorry, but I disagree with you on all counts. Upper-case "Catholic" does in fact mean what I said. Lower-case "catholic" means universal.
I'm not sure of what you mean by "a troll" in this context; in most online places, it's an unpleasant terms that indicates an anonymous, egregious troublemaker. If this is what you mean, it is not only inaccurate but highly insulting, and, as such, probably belongs in Hell.
Anyway, the Anglican Communion is NOT "Protestant" -- it is REFORMED. ("Fully Catholic and fully Reformed," as the saying goes.) There is a huge difference.
Methodists are Protestants, and if that makes them happy, fine. They are indeed members of the Church catholic. But we have the historic episcopate and all the rest of it, and we are Catholic. Deal with it.
--------------------
I'm not dead yet.
Posts: 15117 | From: Valhalla | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rossweisse
High Church Valkyrie
# 2349
|
Posted
Gracious. We do seem to have some very prickly Protestants hereabouts. I had no intention of insulting anyone, but I do not agree with Humpty Dumpty on the subject of language: words do not simply mean what people want them to mean. The Protestants don't feel the need for Catholic authority (fine! their choice!), but they should look at the entire picture.
If anyone is genuinely unclear as to my own denomination, I am an Anglican -- a High Church Episcopalian with a strong preference for traditional language and the principles of the Royal School of Church Music. I don't have a problem with women bishops; I just wish that more of those I've encountered were concerned with matters of faith and spirituality as well as of secular politics and other unChristlike pursuits.
By the way, Chapelhead, I really like your avatar.
--------------------
I'm not dead yet.
Posts: 15117 | From: Valhalla | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Paul Careau
Shipmate
# 2904
|
Posted
Goodness me - pedantic denominational differences are go! As a Gnostic I daresay I could find some more substantial denominational differences with just about everyone here.
But - I thought this was supposed to be about women bishops? I see no problems with women bishops or even Archbishops. There was once a woman Pope I believe & she was considered quite a good Pope until her sex was discovered.
If I might poke a Gnostic oar in I'd say:
Whoever is inspired by the spirit is divinely ordained to speak - whether man or woman.
--------------------
Bye for now. Paul.
Posts: 92 | From: London | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Paul Careau:
There was once a woman Pope I believe & she was considered quite a good Pope until her sex was discovered.
An urban legend that has long since been disproved. The Catholic Encyclopedia has a great article on it here: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08407a.htm
Reader Alexis
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
I don't know about that, Father G., but in the Gospel of Thomas, Jesus says that he will make Mary a man so she can go to heaven.
Reader Alexis
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Paul Careau
Shipmate
# 2904
|
Posted
Fr Greg, I think you are referring to a comment in the Gospel of Thomas perhaps - where some challenges Jesus saying that surely only men can enter the Kingdom of Heaven. Jesus replies that he will make women like men - so that that they too can enter the Kingdom of Heaven. It is a comment that is of limited relevance today however as the C1st AD represented more misogynistic times. It is however a fact that the Gnostics had many women Priests - either Tertullian or Irenaeus (I can't remember which one) once criticised Gnostics in a sermon that began with the statement "those wretched women..." (or something like that).
--------------------
Bye for now. Paul.
Posts: 92 | From: London | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Paul Careau
Shipmate
# 2904
|
Posted
I've found it, it was Tertullian. This is what he had to say about the Gnostic Church:
“These heretical women – how audacious they are! They have no modesty; they are bold enough to teach, to engage in argument, to enact exorcisms, to undertake cures, and, it may be, even to baptise!”
The naughty girls!
--------------------
Bye for now. Paul.
Posts: 92 | From: London | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
This of course coming from a early church theologian who joined the Montanists .... a heretical pentecostal sect that believed that Christ had come again in various forms ... including a woman. They had a highly developed ministry of women. It seems that old Tertullian was a might bit confused so I don't think you can use him as a punch bag.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Carys
Ship's Celticist
# 78
|
Posted
quote:
Methodists are Protestants, and if that makes them happy, fine.
Are they? Non-conformists, yes, but Protestants? I would say that Protestant really denoted those denominations formed at the Reformation - with the exception which you have already noted of the Church of England. Given that Methodism is a later of shoot of Anglicanism I can't see how that can be said to be Protestant if Anglicans aren't.
I know a number of Methodists who do not consider themselves Protestant - although I'm don't know if any of the others I know do consider themselves Protestants, it's never come up.
quote:
one must have maintained the historic episcopate, the three orders of clergy, and the primacy of the sacraments, including a belief in the Real Presence. The Prots have obviously done none of the above. (And the Wesley boys, I believe, would agree!)
I think you'd be wrong about the Methodists (not Wesley boys - it's derogatory and inaccurate). Admittedly they do not have the historic episcopate but as Weslian has mentioned they are prepared to accept it. As to Real Presence Weslian has already stated his belief in it (before you made this statement) and were seasick here he'd assure you of his. Read Wesley's Communion hymns, they are full of the real presence and Wesley was strong on frequent Communion - something which was very uncommon in the CoE in his time - one bishop had to write to a vicar to make him celebrate Communion on a third occasion in the year. I'm not quite sure whether I agree with Wesley's logic that in the NT presbyter and bishop were interchangeable and thus he as a presbyter could ordain, but on the other hand he only took that move after the bishop of London had refused to ordain ministers for America. I (an Anglican) certainly regard Methodism as being part of the Church Catholic.
Carys
--------------------
O Lord, you have searched me and know me
You know when I sit and when I rise
Posts: 6896 | From: Bryste mwy na thebyg | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
doctor-frog
small and green
# 2860
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Carys:
Read Wesley's Communion hymns, they are full of the real presence and Wesley was strong on frequent Communion
also a little-publicised fact: Wesley prayed the rosary.
Posts: 981 | From: UK | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ce
Shipmate
# 1957
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Carys:
I think you'd be wrong about the Methodists (not Wesley boys - it's derogatory and inaccurate).
I assumed that "Wesley boys" referred to the brothers Wesley rather than the Methodist Church in the sense that they were fairly high, (sacramental even) anglicans of their time and remained so throughout their illustrious lives.
--------------------
ce
Posts: 376 | From: Middlesex, U.K. | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rossweisse
High Church Valkyrie
# 2349
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Carys:
Given that Methodism is a later of shoot of Anglicanism I can't see how that can be said to be Protestant if Anglicans aren't...I know a number of Methodists who do not consider themselves Protestant...
It's very simple: Anglicans retained the historic episcopate (Apostolic Succession); the Methodists dumped it, along with the Catholic understanding of the nature of the sacraments.
I don't understand how a Methodist could NOT be considered Protestant!
As for "the Wesley boys" being "derogatory" -- no, it's an attempt to be light-hearted. Some posters here seem to be a tad humor-impaired. Most unfortunate.
--------------------
I'm not dead yet.
Posts: 15117 | From: Valhalla | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rossweisse
High Church Valkyrie
# 2349
|
Posted
<< also a little-publicised fact: Wesley prayed the rosary. >>
I would be very much surprised indeed to learn that any significant proportion of their followers do so. I remember the Kansas Methodists of my not-so-distant youth: they thought wine was of the Devil, and that Episcopal priests who wore clerical collars were Popish. I can just imagine that lot faced with a rosary! (Oh, but they're NOT Protestants...? cognitive dissonance alert!)
Incidentally, when speaking of "the Wesley boys" I didn't mean Methodists in general -- I would hardly be so gender-exclusive. I was talking about Sam, Charlie, et al.
--------------------
I'm not dead yet.
Posts: 15117 | From: Valhalla | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sean
Shipmate
# 51
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Rossweisse:
quote:
Originally posted by Carys:
Given that Methodism is a later of shoot of Anglicanism I can't see how that can be said to be Protestant if Anglicans aren't...I know a number of Methodists who do not consider themselves Protestant...
It's very simple: Anglicans retained the historic episcopate (Apostolic Succession); the Methodists dumped it, along with the Catholic understanding of the nature of the sacraments.
I don't understand how a Methodist could NOT be considered Protestant!
As for "the Wesley boys" being "derogatory" -- no, it's an attempt to be light-hearted. Some posters here seem to be a tad humor-impaired. Most unfortunate.
Um, but there are plenty of low-church anglicans who don't believe in the real presence, and pleanty of high church methodists who do.
--------------------
"So far as the theories of mathematics are about reality, they are not certain; so far as they are certain, they are not about reality" - Einstein
Posts: 1085 | From: A very long way away | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
I'm not a Methodist, but I have the impression that American Methodism may be significantly different from British Methodism.
Moo
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
And I don't understand how the CofE could not be considered Protestant!
All that guff for centuries about a Protestant succession and a Protestant wind. Being Protestant was the defining category of the CofE for most of its history.
Anyway, Protestant and Catholic aren't mutually exclusive. Protestant and Roman Catholic might be, but we aren't talking about them, are we?
And you know what I mean by "troll" and you know it isn't meant to be derogatory, however humour-impaired you may be this week.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Saint Osmund
Pontifex sariburiensis
# 2343
|
Posted
Doesn't 'Protestant' refer to any group/individual who protests against Catholic belief/practice?
This refers not necessarily to those who did so at the Ref, surely. If you protest against articles of the Faith as handed down by the Apostles , than you're a protestant.
There are indeed protestant Anglicans, who, though in communion with said Communion, do not reflect the foundations and theology of Anglicanism. We are an Episcopal Church, holding to the Apostolic Succession, and we have Sacraments.
We are NOT a protestant Church.
Posts: 2965 | From: here | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Degs
Friend of dorothy
# 2824
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Anyway, Protestant and Catholic aren't mutually exclusive. Protestant and Roman Catholic might be, but we aren't talking about them, are we?
I am a catholic. Which means that I hold dear beliefs, traditions, rites etc., etc. that have their roots waaaaaay back in the history of the Church.
But that doesn't mean that I don't want to 'protest' about what is corrupt, or unjust or irrelevant and seek to 'reform' them.
That is why I am an Anglican, because I belive this is where I can blend all those things, and find a home.
Do I believe in the historic (catholic)threefold ministry of bishops, priests and deacons? YES ![[Cool]](cool.gif)
Do I believe i that these orders are only open to men as they were in the beginning? NO ![[Mad]](mad.gif)
I 'protest'. Time for a 'reformation'! ![[Yipee]](graemlins/spin.gif)
--------------------
The preest when he hath sayd and red all: he gyueth the benedyccion upon all those that be there present and then he doth tourne hym from the people retournynge thyther from whens he came.
Posts: 2388 | From: a land that I heard of once in a lullaby | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
Originally posted by Angelus Domini:
quote:
This refers not necessarily to those who did so at the Ref, surely. If you protest against articles of the Faith as handed down by the Apostles, than you're a protestant.
I think that protestants were protesting against articles of the faith which hadn't been passed down by the Apostles but but which were corruptions which had entered the Church in the Middle Ages, at least in their opinion. They were attempting to get back to the early Church in the same way that the Renaissance was an attempt, in part, to get back to Classical Antiquity. Neither attempt succeeded entirely but it is not terribly fair to Luther and co. to suggest that the Church inherited doctrines, structures and beliefs from the Apostles which it then passed on until the sixteenth century when Luther promptly changed things.
--------------------
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
|
|
Spong
Ship's coffee grinder
# 1518
|
Posted
A quote from an essay by John S Pobee in 'The Study of Anglicanism' sums it up for me:
quote:
Anglicans everywhere love to appropriate the phrase 'the via media - the middle way. It is a phrase that captures Anglicanism as an institution that is at once Catholic, episcopal and Protestant. As originally enunciated, the Anglican divines claimed Anglicanism to represent the middle ground between the extremes of medieval Roman Catholicism and Anabaptism.'
ken is right, a defining characteristic of the CofE at least up to the Oxford Movement was that it was protestant. Ask any Church of England priest between say 1650 and 1750 whether he was protestant and he would have said 'yes'. That is the heritage that the whole Anglican Communion also takes with it.
But we are also episcopal, and in later centuries when some of the wounds have healed we have come to accept and welcome our Catholic heritage.
It's messy and uncomfortable. Tough - live with it. I might want to define Anglican as meaning liberal MOR, but I have to accept that I can't do so. Ditto anyone who wants to define it as being Catholic but not Protestant, or Protestant but not Catholic. It's not ours to define, we just inherit it, look after it, and pass it on...
--------------------
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
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Professor Yaffle:
it is not terribly fair to Luther and co. to suggest that the Church inherited doctrines, structures and beliefs from the Apostles which it then passed on until the sixteenth century when Luther promptly changed things.
It certainly is true of the OT canon. ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
Reader Alexis
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Saint Osmund
Pontifex sariburiensis
# 2343
|
Posted
But many Lutheran Churches did hold to Catholic beliefs and practices, the Apostolic Succession, the Real Presence.
Because of their origins, do we brand them all protestant?
What does it mean to be a protestant today, in light of what you believe with regard to Catholicism? Put aside, for the timebeing what happened all those years ago.
quote:
I think that protestants were protesting against articles of the faith which hadn't been passed down by the Apostles but but which were corruptions which had entered the Church in the Middle Ages, at least in their opinion.
Well they were wrong, weren't they?
They did do some good however, and that was to open up ways of exploring the Faith, which Christianity overall has benefitted from.
Posts: 2965 | From: here | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Newman's Own
Shipmate
# 420
|
Posted
Laura,
I believe that those within the Church of England (particularly Forward in Faith) who do not accept the ordination of women generally take the position that this stance is based on ecclesiology, and that its not being accepted by Rome or the Orthodox would rule out its being Christ's will for his universal Church. That, I suppose, is why the Orthodox are often mentioned in such discussions. (Lots of precedent for that - during the Oxford Movement, many of the fathers defended positions considered too papist by appealing to the Orthodox practise.)
In general -
I think we need to be careful about assuming that everyone who opposes the ordination of women is "anti woman." (That I accept women's ordination does not matter - and I do not see Rome or the Orthodox as misogynist because of their position.) There are solid arguments, related to ecclesiology or sacramental theology, for either position. It can be possible in individual cases, of course, but assuming that those who espouse positions against women's ordination are using the theological positions to cloak misogyny.
I must admit that, strange bedfellows though they are, I find it rather annoying at times that both Affirming Catholicism and Forward in Faith sometimes act as if the only two issues in the church were women's ordination and homosexuality.
--------------------
Cheers,
Elizabeth
“History as Revelation is seldom very revealing, and histories of holiness are full of holes.” - Dermot Quinn
Posts: 6740 | From: Library or pub | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Saint Osmund
Pontifex sariburiensis
# 2343
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Santiago:
quote:
Originally posted by angelus domini':
But many Lutheran Churches did hold to Catholic beliefs and practices, the Apostolic Succession, the Real Presence.
Because of their origins, do we brand them all protestant?
I think they would want to brand themselves as Protestant.
Then we must inform them otherwise. They've been in Communion with us since Porvoo. They cannot be protestant. Surely that was the basis of the agreement establishing full communion.
quote:
And the continental reformers were certainly not wrong to 'protest' about the corruption of the mediaeval church.
The sale of Indulgences was something on which Martin Luther had particular views - and rightly so.
This was, as you say, corruption of the mediaeval church, which was not founded upon Catholic Faith. This was the way certain elements (and many they were) within the church made a few bob (or euros?) under the guise of opening the treasures of the Saints' prayers.
I maintain my original statement.
xxx
Posts: 2965 | From: here | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Chapelhead*
Ship’s Photographer
# 1143
|
Posted
As far as I am concerned, I am a member of the Church of England, which is both Protestant and Catholic. I do not believe in the real presence, but if that is a test of Catholicity (?), then I think a whole can of worms is opened. It suggests that membership of the Catholic church depends on right belief, which sounds far too evangelical for many Catholics (can an infant be Catholic, if it is not old enough to have any comprehension of 'real presence'?).
But I'm not sure where this gets us on the subject of women Anglican priests. Or have we deicided that as Anglicanism has had women priests for decades the subject is just too much of a dead horse and we should just get used to it?
quote:
Originally posted by Rossweisse:
By the way, Chapelhead, I really like your avatar.
My nice shiny new one, that Simon has so kindly provided. Thank you. I think it shows where I am coming from rather well. ![[Wink]](wink.gif)
--------------------
Benedikt Gott Geschickt!
Posts: 7082 | From: Turbolift Control. | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Saint Osmund
Pontifex sariburiensis
# 2343
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chapelhead:
As far as I am concerned, I am a member of the Church of England, which is both Protestant and Catholic. I do not believe in the real presence, but if that is a test of Catholicity (?), then I think a whole can of worms is opened.
It isn't entirely. But I do feel that somebody ought to reach for a can-opener if this thread continues in this direction.
quote:
It suggests that membership of the Catholic church depends on right belief, which sounds far too evangelical for many Catholics (can an infant be Catholic, if it is not old enough to have any comprehension of 'real presence'?).
An infant brought up in the Faith is Catholic until (s)he rejects doctrines such as the Real Presence. Since, as you have pointed out, an infant is incapable of doing if not old enough, then yes, an infant can be Catholic.
quote:
But I'm not sure where this gets us on the subject of women Anglican priests. Or have we deicided that as Anglicanism has had women priests for decades the subject is just too much of a dead horse and we should just get used to it?
Yes.
Posts: 2965 | From: here | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
![[Paranoid]](graemlins/paranoid.gif)
