|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Anglican Women Bishops soon?
|
Saint Osmund
Pontifex sariburiensis
# 2343
|
Posted
Chapelhead, I just had a double take. I took a look at your avatar mentioned above, and misread the text beneath as 'ship's pornographer'. I'm sorry.
Perhaps I need to sleep and get rid of these obsessions that I've ben plagued with lately.
x
Posts: 2965 | From: here | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Chapelhead*
Ship’s Photographer
# 1143
|
Posted
Doh! ![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
In my previous post, for "women priests" please read "women bishops".
quote:
Originally posted by angelus domini':
Chapelhead, I just had a double take. I took a look at your avatar mentioned above, and misread the text beneath as 'ship's pornographer'. I'm sorry.
And the difference is....? ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
[Which is one way of saying, "Absolutely no need to apologise"].
--------------------
Benedikt Gott Geschickt!
Posts: 7082 | From: Turbolift Control. | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
quote:
angelus domini we're also in communion with the Protestant Episcopal Church in the USA (its full title) and have been for a lot longer than the Porvoo churches.
The Episcopal Church of America used to be named the Protestant Episcopal Church, but the word 'protestant' was dropped at least thirty years ago.
Moo
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Carys
Ship's Celticist
# 78
|
Posted
quote:
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 see, well that makes your original post less clear. Did you mean that the Wesleys would agree that you needed the Historic episcopate, threefold ministry and primacy of the sacraments (including the Real Presence) to not be Protestant? Or that the Wesley's like the protestants rejected those things - in which case you'd be wrong as John and Charles were both very high in their sacramental understanding. And BTW Samuel is later than John and Charles (grandson I think) and was an Anglican and not a Methodist.
Whether or not Methodism is Catholic I still think using Protestant of it is an anachronism if you do not regard Anglicanism as Protestant.
Anyway, as has been pointed out we've wandered somewhat from the OP. Personally I'm with the Methodists on this one - they state in the Anglican-Methodist Covenant that they regard the principle of the episcopate being open to women as well as men 'as something that the Methodist Church has received from God and wishes to share with the wider Church'. I like the fact that they are seeing it in positive terms and of God - rather than the all to frequent 'equal ops' arguments. To me, if a woman cannot represent Christ at the Eucharist than how can Christ's death be effectual for women (unless women are incomplete men of course, which I'm incapable of believing) and once you've allowed women priests I cannot see a logical argument against women bishops - whether the CoE is yet ready for it - or whether in fact there are any women priests ready for the episcopate is a separate question.
Carys
Carys
--------------------
O Lord, you have searched me and know me
You know when I sit and when I rise
Posts: 6896 | From: Bryste mwy na thebyg | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Chapelhead*
Ship’s Photographer
# 1143
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Santiago:
I know that the 'P' word wasn't in everyday usage in ECUSA, but didn't know that it had been formally dropped.
I don't think it has been.
From part of the ECUSA website.
quote:
Since 1837, efforts have been made to remove the word "Protestant" from the name of the church--mostly at the request of Anglo-Catholics. In 1964, General Convention added a preamble to the Constitution, which states the name of the church is "The Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America, otherwise known as The Episcopal Church (which name is hereby recognized as also designating the Church)."
Clearly, though, there are both internal and external wranglings over the name.
My two penn'orth
They're Anglican
They're Protestant
They're Catholic
They're here (or there)
They're proud
They have women bishops
I'm dealing with it.
How about you?
--------------------
Benedikt Gott Geschickt!
Posts: 7082 | From: Turbolift Control. | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
doctor-frog
small and green
# 2860
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
The Episcopal Church of America used to be named the Protestant Episcopal Church, but the word 'protestant' was dropped at least thirty years ago.
[/QUOTE]
Are you sure? I know it has been dropped on publications and the like; but legally i think the PECUSA title still has binding force.
Posts: 981 | From: UK | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
doctor-frog
small and green
# 2860
|
Posted
oh, never mind. silly me. didn't read the following posts.
first time ever for that, y'know? ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Posts: 981 | From: UK | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rossweisse
High Church Valkyrie
# 2349
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
And I don't understand how the CofE could not be considered Protestant!...
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.
No, Ken, I don't know what you mean by "troll," but if all you can do is throw my own phrase back at me ("humor-impaired," copyright Rossweisse) and pretend you're being original, then there is probably no point in attempting to banter with you.
Where I come from, to call someone a troll (as in "Who's that walking on my bridge?") is a gross insult. I also know the meaning "to troll," as in fishing. But to say a CONCEPT is a "troll" is unknown to me. It may be your own personal usage, it may be an idiom wherever you live, but you can hardly expect everyone to understand you when you use obscure slang.
And for a long time "Protestant" in Anglicanism simply meant "not Roman Catholic." But I find that the word is simply inaccurate in terms of what we believe. Whatever some low church types may or may not believe is unimportant. Anglicanism itself affirms the Real Presence. I am aware that some Protestants may also endorse that, but it's not the rule.
The whole notion of Methodists who don't want to be called Protestants is just too surreal. Humpty Dumpty lives!
--------------------
I'm not dead yet.
Posts: 15117 | From: Valhalla | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rossweisse
High Church Valkyrie
# 2349
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by texas.veggie:
Are you sure? I know it has been dropped on publications and the like; but legally i think the PECUSA title still has binding force.[/QB]
The title has been dropped, no question about it. It is no longer used; we're ECUSA. But the Church still owns the copyright, to keep others from appropriating it in a potentially confusing manner. (And an attempt to do just that happened a couple of years ago.)
--------------------
I'm not dead yet.
Posts: 15117 | From: Valhalla | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rossweisse
High Church Valkyrie
# 2349
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Carys: To me, if a woman cannot represent Christ at the Eucharist than how can Christ's death be effectual for women (unless women are incomplete men of course, which I'm incapable of believing) and once you've allowed women priests I cannot see a logical argument against women bishops - whether the CoE is yet ready for it - or whether in fact there are any women priests ready for the episcopate is a separate question. [/QB]
And there we find ourselves in complete agreement. I have equally scant patience for those who present this as a "civil rights" issue and those whose arguments basically amount to, "But we've never HAD women in those roles and so we CAN'T ever have women in those roles!"
The former don't understand the sacramental nature of Catholic orders. The latter are either unaware, or building firewalls in their heads to avoid knowing, that there certainly were ordained women in the Early Church, as demonstrated in both ecclesiastical and secular sources.
The biggest problem I've seen with women clergy in the US is the unfortunate tendency toward "affirmative action:" "Oh, we really OUGHT to have a WOMAN," instead of "We need to ascertain and follow God's will." That leads to messes like the Harris and Dixon situations, and that is destructive to the Church -- NOT the fact that they are women per se.
--------------------
I'm not dead yet.
Posts: 15117 | From: Valhalla | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chapelhead*
Ship’s Photographer
# 1143
|
Posted
Since there seems to be more to say on this thread about whether the Anglican Church is Protestant, Reformed, Catholic, some combination thereof (no-one has yet suggested that it is Orthodox) than about the long-standing tradition of women Bishops in Anglicanism, I have started a thread on the nature of Anglicanism.
--------------------
Benedikt Gott Geschickt!
Posts: 7082 | From: Turbolift Control. | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Louise
Shipmate
# 30
|
Posted
quote:
Where I come from, to call someone a troll (as in "Who's that walking on my bridge?") is a gross insult. I also know the meaning "to troll," as in fishing. But to say a CONCEPT is a "troll" is unknown to me. It may be your own personal usage, it may be an idiom wherever you live, but you can hardly expect everyone to understand you when you use obscure slang.
hostly *cough*
Ken and Rossweisse,
If you want to take this personal argument about trolling forward can you do so in Hell, please?
Thanks!
Louise
host mode off
--------------------
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
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
Those who have read through the posts on PECUSA may or may not be interested in the story (perhaps an urban legend) of the organization of the pre-revolutionary Chinese church, the name of which translates as Holy Catholic Church in China. We are informed that the initial proposed name of the Protestant Episcopal Church translated into Chinese came back into English as the Assembly of Bickering Overseers. Perhaps an alternative name for houses of bishops???
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Rossweisse:
The biggest problem I've seen with women clergy in the US is the unfortunate tendency toward "affirmative action:" "Oh, we really OUGHT to have a WOMAN," instead of "We need to ascertain and follow God's will." That leads to messes like the Harris and Dixon situations, and that is destructive to the Church -- NOT the fact that they are women per se.
The biggest problem I've seen with attitudes toward women clergy in the US is the unfortunate tendency for people on rector search committees to claim that they're all for women's ordination, but that their church "isn't ready for a woman rector".
Go here (same page I linked to before) and scroll down a ways to see how women priests are doing in the Episcopal Church. Just below the pictures of the women bishops are a graphic and a table of stats which show the "average parish size of selected subgroups" - women rectors have the smallest parishes.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spong
Ship's coffee grinder
# 1518
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
[QUOTE]The biggest problem I've seen with attitudes toward women clergy in the US is the unfortunate tendency for people on rector search committees to claim that they're all for women's ordination, but that their church "isn't ready for a woman rector".
Interesting; the good old CofE with all its muddles about women's ordination does make this one more difficult. Due to our arcane system, we can't choose our own vicars, we can only reject the ones offered to us. Churches may pass A&B and therefore say 'we're against women's ordination', but if they don't then (in this diocese at any rate) it is made clear that it is not possible to reject a candidate simply on grounds of gender.
I'm not naive enough to think it doesn't go on under the guise of other reasons, but at least it's more difficult...
--------------------
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
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
Originally posted by Angleus Domini:
quote:
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?
Sancta Simplicitas !
--------------------
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
|
|
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Rossweisse:
The latter are either unaware, or building firewalls in their heads to avoid knowing, that there certainly were ordained women in the Early Church, as demonstrated in both ecclesiastical and secular sources.
That would be me, and the former -- please can you point me to the evidence for women ordained to the priesthood or the episcopate? Someone was going to send me a book on this but they never did... if it does, in fact, date back to the early catholic and Apostolic church then it changes a lot for me...
David
often anxious about whether his own church, presently with an interim priest, will select a woman sometime between now and September, thus forcing him to find a new church, because he's yet to be convinced of the validity of their ordination to the priesthood
--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity
Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rossweisse
High Church Valkyrie
# 2349
|
Posted
Chastmastr asks: * please can you point me to the evidence for women ordained to the priesthood or the episcopate? *
I agree that it is more slender than for the diaconate, which I think most scholarly types accept by now -- it's pretty hard to talk one's way around Phoebe. However, Junia was an apostle; Prisca was a missionary and is widely thought to be an apostle too. Pliny's correspondence with Trajan concerning those pesky Christians makes mention of "female ministers." Other women's names occur in ways that can be taken in various ways, but they are certainly leaders, in worship as elsewhere in the life of the Church.
Once one removes the interpolation about "women remaining silent in church" (which occurs in different places in different early manuscripts) and recognizes that the Pastor is not Paul and thus lacks Paul's authority, I think it becomes more difficult to justify denying women the priesthood.
I do recognize the power of tradition, but I don't think we should be bound by that when it comes to denying calls. I understand and respect that others will disagree with me on this.
--------------------
I'm not dead yet.
Posts: 15117 | From: Valhalla | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chapelhead*
Ship’s Photographer
# 1143
|
Posted
Which of the Ecumenical Councils was it that forbad women priests and bishops?
--------------------
Benedikt Gott Geschickt!
Posts: 7082 | From: Turbolift Control. | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
Dear Chapelhead
No Ecumenical Council forbade abortion ... no Christian Church allowed it. I don't understand what point you are making.
--------------------
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
Fr G
I think Chapelhead is making a good point. As some of the early heretical groups had women priests, these were defined as heretical but I do not recall one of the reasons for this was that they had women priests.
I am not aware of anything until 17th century England when the Quakers and General Baptists were considered hetrodox because they allowed women to minister (but of course these women were not priests except in teh sense of teh priesthood of all believers)
--------------------
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
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
Nah, the "priesthood" of all believers is corporate participation in the sacrificial priesthood of Christ, in succession to the temple priests. Heiros/Cohen - different in the NTb from the ordained ministry of individuals, the presbytership, which is more like a Jewish rabbi than like an Aaronic priest in the temple.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sarkycow
La belle Dame sans merci
# 1012
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chapelhead:
Which of the Ecumenical Councils was it that forbad women priests and bishops?
quote:
Fr. Gregory replied:
Dear Chapelhead
No Ecumenical Council forbade abortion ... no Christian Church allowed it. I don't understand what point you are making.
Umm, huh? Didn't Chapelhead ask which Council forbade women priests and bishops, not which forbade abortion?
Or was Fr. G. responding to a post Chapelhead made earlier?
Viki
--------------------
“Just because your voice reaches halfway around the world doesn't mean you are wiser than when it reached only to the end of the bar.”
Posts: 10787 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
I think that Father Gregory is making the point that one doesn't have to point to a decree of an ecumenical council to say that something is precluded by/ has no precedent in Holy Tradition.
--------------------
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
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
Indeed, Professor, you have spoken truly. Indeed there are no overt sacramental references in St. John's Gospel. As Oscar Cullmann pointed out ... there doesn't have to be ... the Fourth Gospel is sacramental through and through.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Basket Case
Shipmate
# 1812
|
Posted
quote:
Chapelhead
Ship's photographer
# 1143
Posted 16 July 2002 07:07
Which of the Ecumenical Councils was it that forbad women priests and bishops?
quote:
Fr. Gregory
Posted 16 July 2002 13:40
Dear Chapelhead
No Ecumenical Council forbade abortion ... no Christian Church allowed it. I don't understand what point you are making.
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Fr.G - Chapelhead asked a question about women priests, and you answered a question about abortion
Are the 2 possibly linked in your mind??
Posts: 1157 | From: Pomo (basket) country | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chapelhead*
Ship’s Photographer
# 1143
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fr. Gregory:
No Ecumenical Council forbade abortion ... no Christian Church allowed it. I don't understand what point you are making.
That's because I wasn't making a point - I was asking a question. I am aware that some people ask questions where they know what the answer will be in order to make a point, and thus give a spurious impression of dialogue where there is none. However, I asked the question in order to elicit information.
Now that an answer has been provided, I can move on.
Fr Gregory - I take it that you regard abortion as wrong. Indeed, I am fairly sure that you have expressed this opinion on these boards. If someone takes this view (and I'm not saying that I do) abortion would seem to be a moral question, rather than a theological one (the moral and the theological may be linked, but they are hardly the same). Do I take it, then, that you regard the issue of women priests and bishops as a moral issue - that it would be morally wrong to allow them?
Secondly. One of the arguments against women priest in the Anglican Communion is that they were introduced without ecumenical agreement. The implication is that if an ecumenical council accepted women priests then they would be 'acceptable' and valid. Do you take the view that if an ecumenical council decided that abortion was acceptable that it would thus be acceptable? (Again I would stress that I am making no comment on my own view of the issue).
Thirdly, no ecumenical council has ever forbidden Japanese priests, and for the first fifteen hundred years of its history (if one discounts certain Urban Myths) no Japanese priests were ordained. Do you think an ecumenical council should have judged the issue before the Roman Catholic Church began to ordain Japanese Priests? (I am making the assumption that the RCC was the first to do so, I hope someone will correct me if I am wrong).
--------------------
Benedikt Gott Geschickt!
Posts: 7082 | From: Turbolift Control. | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chapelhead*
Ship’s Photographer
# 1143
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by sarkycow:
Umm, huh? Didn't Chapelhead ask which Council forbade women priests and bishops, not which forbade abortion?
Or was Fr. G. responding to a post Chapelhead made earlier?
No, I certainly did not introduce the subject of abortion into a thread about women bishops. I suspect that any attempt to connect the two is spurious, but perhaps Fr Gregory might enlighten us.
--------------------
Benedikt Gott Geschickt!
Posts: 7082 | From: Turbolift Control. | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Basket Case
Shipmate
# 1812
|
Posted
Fr.G's Freudian slip (as I interpret it) got me to thinking (dangerous, I know!):
Certainly no male priest will EVER have an abortion - that, I think, we can count on.
On the other hand, no male priest will ever hold so much responsibility for another human life, as a woman who carries a DIFFERENT human life for 9 months.
Of course, that is irrelevant to the issue - or is it??
Posts: 1157 | From: Pomo (basket) country | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
Good grief folks ... this has already been explained! Simply and bluntly ... not everthing has to be subject of an Ecumenical Council to be binding on the Church. I used abortion as an example. There is no other question.
And no ... abortion is not simply a moral question ... it is a deeply theological issue to do with the creation of human life. How theological do you want to get?
And no ... the ordination of women is not simply a moral issue either ... gender relations and identity are deeply theological issues to do with creation.
All these contributions just tend to confirm me in my prejudice that many Protestant Christians like to be "theology-lite" and tend to divorce theology from ethics, dismissing the former and embracing the latter as more consonant with the "simple message of Jesus." Prove me wrong do!
Fr. Gregory in feisty mood. ![[Snigger]](graemlins/snigger.gif)
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fr. Gregory:
All these contributions just tend to confirm me in my prejudice that many Protestant Christians like to be "theology-lite" and tend to divorce theology from ethics, dismissing the former and embracing the latter as more consonant with the "simple message of Jesus." Prove me wrong do!
Actually, it's up to you to back up such sweeping statements.
This is what Chapelhead actually said:
quote:
If someone takes this view (and I'm not saying that I do) abortion would seem to be a moral question, rather than a theological one (the moral and the theological may be linked, but they are hardly the same).
Not at all what you implied.
I for one am not at all mollified by the modification of "Protestant Christians" by the word "many," and am tired of your swipes at Protestants.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chapelhead*
Ship’s Photographer
# 1143
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fr. Gregory:
Simply and bluntly ... not everthing has to be subject of an Ecumenical Council to be binding on the Church
And how are we to know what is and what is not binding?
quote:
Originally posted by Fr. Gregory:
I used abortion as an example. There is no other question.
("Connection" substituted for "question" in the next post).
A question on one subject was asked (in general, not of any particular person). It was answered with a reference to another subject. I don't think others can be blamed for assuming some connection, rather than jsut a random choice of example.
quote:
Originally posted by Fr. Gregory:
All these contributions just tend to confirm me in my prejudice that many Protestant Christians like to be "theology-lite" and tend to divorce theology from ethics, dismissing the former and embracing the latter as more consonant with the "simple message of Jesus." Prove me wrong do!
Thank you for sharing your prejudices with us Fr Gregory.
Perhaps we could have a little more answering of questions, though.
Chapelhead, in 'not pleased with patronising swipes at his Christian tradition mood'.
--------------------
Benedikt Gott Geschickt!
Posts: 7082 | From: Turbolift Control. | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chapelhead:
Thank you for sharing your prejudices with us Fr Gregory.
Is this appropriate for Purgatory?
Reader Alexis
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
quote:
And how are we to know what is and what is not binding?
A very important question. I will answer it straightforwardly without allusive examples.
To be a part of Holy Tradition is to be a part of the checks and balances built into the Church's ongoing discernment. It's not what Bishop "X" says or prominent Professor "Y" teaches or what Mrs. "Z" thinks. It is the coming together of several different sources and their sifting in the mind of the Church. It is not simply a vote or a definition at a synod. It is a process which you have to be part of to understand experientially.
On the other matter .... this and the "Theology and Ethics" thread do offer clues as to why I think that contemporary Protestantism (outside fundamentalism) tends to be theology-lite and driven by semi-autonomous ethical concerns. I don't base this judgements on these threads of course but it does concern me when the same agenda keeps popping up.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Louise
Shipmate
# 30
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Chapelhead:
Thank you for sharing your prejudices with us Fr Gregory.
Is this appropriate for Purgatory?
Reader Alexis
host comment
It looks to me like a fair comment on Father Gregory's.
quote:
All these contributions just tend to confirm me in my prejudice that many Protestant Christians like to be "theology-lite" and tend to divorce theology from ethics, dismissing the former and embracing the latter as more consonant with the "simple message of Jesus." Prove me wrong do!
where he actually uses the word prejudice himself.
I think his comment is pretty near breaching commandment 3 (insulting generalisations about others). But I'll give Father G the benefit of the doubt this time - if people are very offended with it would they take it to Hell please?
Louise
host mode off
--------------------
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
|
|
|
|
Nightlamp
Shipmate
# 266
|
Posted
quote:
Fr G said that many Protestant Christians like to be "theology-lite"
Are you admitting this statement is wrong and can not be supported or providing evidence to back it up?
--------------------
I don't know what you are talking about so it couldn't have been that important- Nightlamp
Posts: 8442 | From: Midlands | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
A retraction of what I have said has not been required of me by the Host Nightlamp. If it had been I would have had to reconsider and reassess my position. This is not the position as I now read it although the Host may wish to correct me on that perception.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
I should clarify Nightlamp that I, of course, know that you are also a Host. I was referring to the Host Louise who had made the adjudication with "Host mode on" (which you did not use).
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Paul Careau
Shipmate
# 2904
|
Posted
You orthodox Christians (and by orthodox I mean non-Gnostic) are all theology-lite! You're all children of the demiurge. ![[Razz]](tongue.gif) ![[Wink]](wink.gif)
Jesus says its OK to ordain women (in the Gospel of Thomas) - so whats the problem?
--------------------
Bye for now. Paul.
Posts: 92 | From: London | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
Oh. It would be a pity if debate on this was stifled. Personally I have no problems with people discussing their prejudices. Everyone has them. I worry far more about people who have convinced themselves they don't have any.
I wasn't intending to participate in the discussion at this point but I am interested in what people have to say - I think Louise is right to let it run. Please continue if you can.
Thanks
Ian
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nightlamp
Shipmate
# 266
|
Posted
I am not in host mode and can't be in purgatory I was simply speaking as some who reads these kinds of threads.
I realise my question was not clear, so do you stand by your opinion about protestant christians being theology lite or not and if you do how do you support it?
[The hostly intervention seemed to me to mostly over the use of the word prejudice. It is possible though after re-reading the hostly intervention that depending on your response we may need a new thread in hell or purgatory, personally I would rather it stayed here, I want a serious debate.]
--------------------
I don't know what you are talking about so it couldn't have been that important- Nightlamp
Posts: 8442 | From: Midlands | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
Dear Nightlamp
Right, well let us have a serious debate and keep this in Purgatory and I shall try and not breach Commandment 3. I referred to my view as a "prejudice" knowing that many here would see it precisely as that, a "prejudgement not based on a rational assessment of the evidence." Do I see my view as a prejudice or an insight based on evidence? See the new thread:- "Reductionist trends in contemporary Protestantism."
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chapelhead*
Ship’s Photographer
# 1143
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fr. Gregory:
To be a part of Holy Tradition is to be a part of the checks and balances built into the Church's ongoing discernment. It's not what Bishop "X" says or prominent Professor "Y" teaches or what Mrs. "Z" thinks. It is the coming together of several different sources and their sifting in the mind of the Church. It is not simply a vote or a definition at a synod. It is a process which you have to be part of to understand experientially.
I find it interesting how apparently quite different groups can have similar ideas. This sounds to me remarkably like the Quaker approach (as I understand it), although possibly less rigorous.
Would the Orthodox, then, be prepared to sit down with the Anglicans to discuss this issue?
I'm sure the CofE would want to listen to others with whom it is in Communion (and who are in Communion with the CofE) on this issue. But I suspect that many of these are the groups who already have women bishops. Perhaps if the debate were widened...
--------------------
Benedikt Gott Geschickt!
Posts: 7082 | From: Turbolift Control. | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
Dear Chapelhead
quote:
Would the Orthodox, then, be prepared to sit down with the Anglicans to discuss this issue?
Last week our Dean, Fr. Michael Harper, sat down with Abp. Rowan Williams, Met. John Zizoulas and others to do precisely this sort of thing.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Printer-friendly view
