homepage
  roll on christmas  
click here to find out more about ship of fools click here to sign up for the ship of fools newsletter click here to support ship of fools
community the mystery worshipper gadgets for god caption competition foolishness features ship stuff
discussion boards live chat cafe avatars frequently-asked questions the ten commandments gallery private boards register for the boards
 
Ship of Fools


Post new thread  Post a reply
My profile login | | Directory | Search | FAQs | Board home
   - Printer-friendly view Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
» Ship of Fools   » Ship's Locker   » Limbo   » Dead Horses: Women Bishops - what now? (Page 8)

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.  
Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  ...  5  6  7  8  9  10  11 
 
Source: (consider it) Thread: Dead Horses: Women Bishops - what now?
Imersge Canfield
Shipmate
# 17431

 - Posted      Profile for Imersge Canfield   Email Imersge Canfield   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Carys:
How do you give an honoured place to sexism? We didn't create an honoured place for slave owners.

Carys

Absolutely.

And after the first two Votes (if memory serves) went against ordaining women, no 'honoured place', no 'provision' whatsoever was provided or even mooted.

The so-called Traditionalists drive me mad with their narrowness and failure to 'Only Connect'.

(I hope I'm alllowed to say that, i still unsure what can or can't be said on this website without censure).

--------------------
'You must not attribute my yielding, to sinister appetites'
"Preach the gospel and only use jewellry if necessary." (The Midge)

Posts: 419 | From: Sun Ship over Grand Fenwick Duchy | Registered: Nov 2012  |  IP: Logged
Oscar the Grouch

Adopted Cascadian
# 1916

 - Posted      Profile for Oscar the Grouch     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
One aspect of this that hasn't had much attention so far is the implications for the election of a new GS in 2015.

I think the Powers That Be will want to get this matter resolved before then. If they do not, the elections for a new House of Laity are likely to become an ecclesiastical bloodbath. That in itself will be unpleasant enough, but the net effect will be that elections to GS will become an effective referendum on women bishops - ie it will become a single issue voting matter. And that makes for a poor GS.

IF the elections are dominated by the women bishops issue, then two things will follow. Firstly, all those "Traditionalists" who want to serve on GS will be blown away. And they will no doubt conclude that - regardless of any provisions that may be in the revised measure - there is no longer a place for them in the C of E. And that loss of diversity will probably not be good for the C of E.

Secondly, GS will end up with a lot of people who are there just for the women bishops issue and who may not be interested or equipped to deal with all the other stuff that GS has to deal with. There is likely to be a whole raft of newbies who don't know how GS operates and who end up either clogging up the works or else simply rubber stamping anything that the Archbishops' Council puts forward. Neither of these are good options!

So, in the wider and long-term interest of the C of E, the Bishops will need to sort this thing out promptly and not leave any major decision hanging over for the new GS to deal with.

--------------------
Faradiu, dundeibáwa weyu lárigi weyu

Posts: 3871 | From: Gamma Quadrant, just to the left of Galifrey | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged
Chapelhead

I am
# 21

 - Posted      Profile for Chapelhead     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
One aspect of this that hasn't had much attention so far is the implications for the election of a new GS in 2015.

I think the Powers That Be will want to get this matter resolved before then.

And that won't be easy, even if there is a high degree of agreement about the way forward.

If people get a move on in the new year, an outline of the 'shape' of legislation can come before GS in July 2013. To get the proposal through all the stages will require 4 sessions of GS and GS normally meets twice a year (it could meet three times a year if necessary).

The proposals will also have to back to the dioceses, a process that would normally take a year. However, at the bishops' meeting at the beginning of last week there was support for the idea that, if necessary, diocesan synods could fit in an additional meeting on this subject and, at a push, this stage could be completed in perhaps as little as three months (if the dioceses play ball).

So getting the business finished in GS before 2015 could be tricky, even with general cooperation and a following wind.

[ 20. December 2012, 07:10: Message edited by: Chapelhead ]

--------------------
At times like this I find myself thinking, what would the Amish do?

Posts: 9123 | From: Near where I was before. | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
SyNoddy
Shipmate
# 17009

 - Posted      Profile for SyNoddy     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
When casting my votes in the last elections for GS my fellow PCC deanery reps and I attended a local husting to listen to the candidates. We all voted for those who explicitly stated support for W bishops.So I think it was already the deciding issue for us back in 2010. btw I did check how our GS reps voted and they all did what they promised.
Posts: 53 | From: Somewhere near the Middle | Registered: Mar 2012  |  IP: Logged
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356

 - Posted      Profile for Albertus     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
just a bit of blue sky thinking: I know that the Canon Law of the CofE is part of the law of the land, but it's been stated upthread (or on a similar one, by I think Carys) that there is no explicit bar in CofE Canon Law to the consecration of women Bishops.

If this is correct, what- apart from pissing some people off and pleasing a lot of others- would happen if the Archbishops and some of the other senior bishops just said 'sod Synod' (or more accurately 'sod the minority of the House of Laity') and consecrated some women as Bishops- not a diocesan or even a suffragan, so no worries about going through the Crown appointments process, just non-stipendiary Assistant Bishops in some dioceses?

[ 20. December 2012, 08:40: Message edited by: Albertus ]

--------------------
My beard is a testament to my masculinity and virility, and demonstrates that I am a real man. Trouble is, bits of quiche sometimes get caught in it.

Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged
Vulpior

Foxier than Thou
# 12744

 - Posted      Profile for Vulpior   Author's homepage   Email Vulpior   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
If the decision is to be made by the 2015-20 General Synod, then it won't make only the General Synod elections a single issue campaign; it will have an impact on Parish elections to Deanery Synod in 2014 (same date everywhere?) and the composition there.

If I were still in England I would be asking very pointed questions about the views of candidates for Deanery Synod within my church.

--------------------
I've started blogging. I don't promise you'll find anything to interest you at uncleconrad

Posts: 946 | From: Mount Fairy, NSW | Registered: Jun 2007  |  IP: Logged
leo
Shipmate
# 1458

 - Posted      Profile for leo   Author's homepage   Email leo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Carys:
How do you give an honoured place to sexism? We didn't create an honoured place for slave owners.

Carys

They say it is about theology and ecclesiology.

The provision mooted in the past by the pro-women bishops' camp was sexist because it was based on gender rather than apostolic succession 'pedigree'

--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com

Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159

 - Posted      Profile for Angloid     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:

The provision mooted in the past by the pro-women bishops' camp was sexist because it was based on gender rather than apostolic succession 'pedigree'

Can you unpack that for us, leo?

--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!

Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Fifi
Shipmate
# 8151

 - Posted      Profile for Fifi   Email Fifi   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Accusations of 'sexism' would seem to fly in the face of the well-attested fact that the overwhelming majority of those unable in conscience to receive this innovation are women.
Posts: 591 | From: Here | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
Imersge Canfield
Shipmate
# 17431

 - Posted      Profile for Imersge Canfield   Email Imersge Canfield   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Fifi:
Accusations of 'sexism' would seem to fly in the face of the well-attested fact that the overwhelming majority of those unable in conscience to receive this innovation are women.

Hi do you have a source for this pleae ?

Thank you.

--------------------
'You must not attribute my yielding, to sinister appetites'
"Preach the gospel and only use jewellry if necessary." (The Midge)

Posts: 419 | From: Sun Ship over Grand Fenwick Duchy | Registered: Nov 2012  |  IP: Logged
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159

 - Posted      Profile for Angloid     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Fifi:
Accusations of 'sexism' would seem to fly in the face of the well-attested fact that the overwhelming majority of those unable in conscience to receive this innovation are women.

And women can't be sexist? Since when?

--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!

Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Caissa
Shipmate
# 16710

 - Posted      Profile for Caissa     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
There are lots of sexist women who have been conditioned by hegemonic patriarchy.
Posts: 972 | From: Saint John, N.B. | Registered: Oct 2011  |  IP: Logged
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472

 - Posted      Profile for Augustine the Aleut     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
just a bit of blue sky thinking: I know that the Canon Law of the CofE is part of the law of the land, but it's been stated upthread (or on a similar one, by I think Carys) that there is no explicit bar in CofE Canon Law to the consecration of women Bishops.

If this is correct, what- apart from pissing some people off and pleasing a lot of others- would happen if the Archbishops and some of the other senior bishops just said 'sod Synod' (or more accurately 'sod the minority of the House of Laity') and consecrated some women as Bishops- not a diocesan or even a suffragan, so no worries about going through the Crown appointments process, just non-stipendiary Assistant Bishops in some dioceses?

IIRC, in the CoE bishops cannot be consecrated without a royal licence and to engage in wildcat or uncanonical consecration opens the door to small groups of bishops doing the same thing with their own protégé(e)s of all sorts of parties and inclinations.

If they wish to bring in women bishops by the back door (as it were), then it would be simplest to simply incardinate or license a woman bishop from Canada or New Zealand or wherever, as I do not think that there is a formal gender bar in the Colonial Clergy Act.

I have yet to be surprised at all by the course of events. It was long clear that a Code of Practice would not bring the necessary majorities, and wishing that it would does not work. I spent some time in the political sphere and was oft astonished by colleagues who equated a wish for a result with the result itself-- count the votes, I would often urge them, only to be told that I was not on programme.

Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
leo
Shipmate
# 1458

 - Posted      Profile for leo   Author's homepage   Email leo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:

The provision mooted in the past by the pro-women bishops' camp was sexist because it was based on gender rather than apostolic succession 'pedigree'

Can you unpack that for us, leo?
I am fairly sure that you now what i meant - but others clearly don't.

The code of practice merely offered a MALE priest. He may have been ordained by either a male or a female bishop.

The code was, thus, assuming that it was the 'male' that mattered, regardless of who ordained him.

'Pedigree' is a convenient, though probably insulting, shorthand term for describing what the so-called traditionalists are concerned about - tracing her lineal descent of who ordained whom - Peter, Linus, Cletus, Lawrence..... Fred, Paul, Mike... It sees apostolic succession as being passed on, like a baton in a relay race, through tactile laying-on-of-hands. Break the chain, so to speak, and any sacramental act performed by a 'priest' isn't valid. Bread and wine remain bread and wine, sins aren't absolved etc.

Of course, most of us know, or think we know, that the term 'apostolic succession' has not always been understood as tactile. There have been broken links. The succession has been seen as faithfulness to apostolic teaching etc. However, the bigger Western church and the Eastern Orthodox both regard tactile succession as important/essential. So if we have bishops whose orders are in doubt, we distance ourselves even further ecumenically.

The argument starts top break down when one points out that Rome regards our orders are invalid anyway.

It breaks down even further when one tells a 'traditionalist' that 'valid' is not an Anglican concept. We have the notion of 'authorised. instead.

--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com

Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356

 - Posted      Profile for Albertus     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Yes, it'd probably be unwise becaue there'sd be a free for all- not very nice prospect.

On the point about overseas bishops, I suppose (form a bit opf quick digging) it would depend on the interpretation of the Overseas and Other Clergy (Ministry and Ordination) Measure 1967, which replaced most of the Colonial Clergy Act. The measure talks about 'clergymen' but that would presumably now be interpretde to include women priests and deacons: the bit about the ministry of Bishops ordained overseas doesn't use a pronoun, as it happens, except in the last scetion where it deals with what happens if 'he' (and overseas bishop) officiates without permission. So there might be an arguable case but I fear it'd be quite a weak one as things stand.

--------------------
My beard is a testament to my masculinity and virility, and demonstrates that I am a real man. Trouble is, bits of quiche sometimes get caught in it.

Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984

 - Posted      Profile for Doublethink.   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:

The provision mooted in the past by the pro-women bishops' camp was sexist because it was based on gender rather than apostolic succession 'pedigree'

Can you unpack that for us, leo?
I am fairly sure that you now what i meant - but others clearly don't.

The code of practice merely offered a MALE priest. He may have been ordained by either a male or a female bishop.

The code was, thus, assuming that it was the 'male' that mattered, regardless of who ordained him.

'Pedigree' is a convenient, though probably insulting, shorthand term for describing what the so-called traditionalists are concerned about - tracing her lineal descent of who ordained whom - Peter, Linus, Cletus, Lawrence..... Fred, Paul, Mike... It sees apostolic succession as being passed on, like a baton in a relay race, through tactile laying-on-of-hands. Break the chain, so to speak, and any sacramental act performed by a 'priest' isn't valid. Bread and wine remain bread and wine, sins aren't absolved etc.

Of course, most of us know, or think we know, that the term 'apostolic succession' has not always been understood as tactile. There have been broken links. The succession has been seen as faithfulness to apostolic teaching etc. However, the bigger Western church and the Eastern Orthodox both regard tactile succession as important/essential. So if we have bishops whose orders are in doubt, we distance ourselves even further ecumenically.

The argument starts top break down when one points out that Rome regards our orders are invalid anyway.

It breaks down even further when one tells a 'traditionalist' that 'valid' is not an Anglican concept. We have the notion of 'authorised. instead.

Would traditionalists be happy with a male priest in a male line of apostolic succession - but ordained by a bishop who had also ordained women ?

--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell

Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
Chesterbelloc

Tremendous trifler
# 3128

 - Posted      Profile for Chesterbelloc   Email Chesterbelloc   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Well, they're currently happy with having bishops (the PEVs, etc.) ministering to them who were consecrated by bishops who have also ordained women. They're certainly not doubting their validity.

[ 20. December 2012, 17:58: Message edited by: Chesterbelloc ]

--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."

Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
leo
Shipmate
# 1458

 - Posted      Profile for leo   Author's homepage   Email leo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Indeed - when it gets to discussing 'tainted hands', I lose patience with the inconsistency of Forward in Faith, who claim not to believe in the concept but refuse to receive communion from or concelebrate with those who have ordained women.

FiF have my 'sympathies' because i used to be one of their ilk (a very, very long time ago) but i genuinely don't understand their stance on this.

--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com

Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984

 - Posted      Profile for Doublethink.   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
So some traditionalists would and some wouldn't and they are loosely grouped by a title ? What percentage of those ant-OoW need to be satisfied for the compromise to be acceptable ? (Likewise what percentage of those pro-OoW need to be satisfied for the compromise to be acceptable ?)

--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell

Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
Chesterbelloc

Tremendous trifler
# 3128

 - Posted      Profile for Chesterbelloc   Email Chesterbelloc   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I think we probably have to distinguish between a couple of things.

I actually believe that the doctrine of "taint" is vanishingly rare if what is meant by that is that any bishop or priest who has had anything at all to do with the ordination of women (ordaining them, or concelebrating with them, or whatever) has thereby compromised the validity of their orders. I never once met anyone as a Trad Anglo-Catholic who believed that.

I think leo above is mistaken. When FiF - of which I was once a Council-attending member - refrain from concelebration with priests who have acted as alternates for or have concelebrated with women priests, etc. they are not doing so because they think such priests' orders are thereby nullified by "taint". If they believed that, they would not accept the orders of the PEVs - who have themselves been consecrated by bishops who have ordained and concelebrated with women. Why that isn't more obvious to people I just don't know.

It instead is a decision not to give the impression by their participation in such concelebrations, etc., that the orders of men and women are effectively interchangebale, the whole point of their position being to proclaim their doubt about that. Their point is that the CofE, by ordaining people about the validity of whose orders there is a large measure of genuine doubt in the church, has effectively impaired the sacramental communion between all the members of the church which hitherto more or less pertained - and that this has and should have real consequences. This being the case, they do not feel it is right to act as if this internal obstacle to the mutual recognition of orders had not been erected. This is why this position is called one of the two "integrities".

But given I've no dog in this fight any longer, all this would be much more appropriately voiced by Thurible or some other current FiFer.

--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."

Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159

 - Posted      Profile for Angloid     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
[relevantish tangent] I concelebrated recently at a Requiem Mass for a devout but strongly anti-OoW layman (though not a member, AFAIK, of F in F). The service had been meticulously planned by him some while ago and three women priests were among the concelebrants. He knew them as friends and respected their vocations although he would never have received communion from them as sole celebrants.

--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!

Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Ender's Shadow
Shipmate
# 2272

 - Posted      Profile for Ender's Shadow   Email Ender's Shadow   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Carys:
How do you give an honoured place to sexism? We didn't create an honoured place for slave owners.

Carys

OK - so you are prepared to break off all relations with the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches? That's the implication of your logic. You cannot have a principle applied within your own church that excludes faithful members of the body of Christ from your communion, but continue to pretend that all's well with Rome and Constantinople. So unless you're prepared to kick the Roman Catholics in your 'Churches Together' organisation out the door, you're being a hypocrite.

--------------------
Test everything. Hold on to the good.

Please don't refer to me as 'Ender' - the whole point of Ender's Shadow is that he isn't Ender.

Posts: 5018 | From: Manchester, England | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged
sebby
Shipmate
# 15147

 - Posted      Profile for sebby   Email sebby   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
quote:
Originally posted by Carys:
How do you give an honoured place to sexism? We didn't create an honoured place for slave owners.

Carys

OK - so you are prepared to break off all relations with the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches? That's the implication of your logic. You cannot have a principle applied within your own church that excludes faithful members of the body of Christ from your communion, but continue to pretend that all's well with Rome and Constantinople. So unless you're prepared to kick the Roman Catholics in your 'Churches Together' organisation out the door, you're being a hypocrite.
Indeed.

To Carys: I am a supporter of the ordination of women. The CofE got it wrong in not asking the question 'can women be ordained to the episcopate?' and then working down logically. It was an ecclesiological nonsense to work from deacon upwards, and smacked of ignorance or bad theological education.

but to suggest as you do, that to oppose it is 'sexism', is precisely the response that does the cause for women's ordination such harm. It is notable how many women themselves oppose women's ordination - amongst them most vociferously, consistently and vigorously, my mother.

The only valid objection can be theological or ecclesiological. I would do my opponents the courtesy of assuming charitably, that their objections were such.

--------------------
sebhyatt

Posts: 1340 | From: yorks | Registered: Sep 2009  |  IP: Logged
Imersge Canfield
Shipmate
# 17431

 - Posted      Profile for Imersge Canfield   Email Imersge Canfield   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
' instead is a decision not to give the impression by their participation in such concelebrations, etc., that the orders of men and women are effectively interchangebale, the whole point of their position being to proclaim their doubt about that. Their point is that the CofE, by ordaining people about the validity of whose orders there is a large measure of genuine doubt in the church, has effectively impaired the sacramental communion between all the members of the church which hitherto more or less pertained - and that this has and should have real consequences. This being the case, they do not feel it is right to act as if this internal obstacle to the mutual recognition of orders had not been erected. This is why this position is called one of the two "integrities".'

If this approach quoted above, but not held by the writer him / her self, I believe, is not taint then what ? Pompous ? Patronising ?

'Integrity' is not a word I would use for such a position. Those described above seem so up themselves.

It does nt feel Chritian and would nt succeed in converting me.

--------------------
'You must not attribute my yielding, to sinister appetites'
"Preach the gospel and only use jewellry if necessary." (The Midge)

Posts: 419 | From: Sun Ship over Grand Fenwick Duchy | Registered: Nov 2012  |  IP: Logged
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38

 - Posted      Profile for Honest Ron Bacardi   Email Honest Ron Bacardi   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Imersge Canfield wrote:
quote:
If this approach quoted above, but not held by the writer him / her self, I believe, is not taint then what ? Pompous ? Patronising ?

Explicit theories of taint exist certainly, but I would not call that one of them. If it is, then anyone who goes to a church other than their local parish church (make suitable adjustment to terminology for denominational differences) is similarly guilty. Likewise anyone who does not consciously mix with people unlike themselves.

--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic

Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460

 - Posted      Profile for ken     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
It is almost unreadably badly written. But yes, it looks like what I mean by the theory of taint. Maybe its deliberatly written in such a complex and over-florid style to make it deniable.

We've been through this over and over again on this forum. About three times in this thread probably. Someone says "thory of taint" someone else comes up and says "no they don't think that at all, its like this..." and goes on to describe exactly that, in all but name.

quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
OK - so you are prepared to break off all relations with the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches? That's the implication of your logic. You cannot have a principle applied within your own church that excludes faithful members of the body of Christ from your communion, but continue to pretend that all's well with Rome and Constantinople.

As for abandoning the Roman Catholics and Orthodox, well, poor diddums, I think they can take it. And they cut off all interchangeability of ordained ministry with us nearly five hundred years ago, so what is it that we are breaking? They don't think any of our bishops are bishops anyway, whatever sex they are.

quote:


So unless you're prepared to kick the Roman Catholics in your 'Churches Together' organisation out the door, you're being a hypocrite.

I genuinely don't see how that follows.

[ 21. December 2012, 19:30: Message edited by: ken ]

--------------------
Ken

L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.

Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
Chesterbelloc

Tremendous trifler
# 3128

 - Posted      Profile for Chesterbelloc   Email Chesterbelloc   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
It is almost unreadably badly written. But yes, it looks like what I mean by the theory of taint. Maybe its deliberatly written in such a complex and over-florid style to make it deniable.

I was trained as a philosopher and my style has never recovered. I think you'll find, though, that it makes perfect grammatical sense. You could always address the content rather than the expression. But if you're going to start criticising my prose you might want to start spelling and punctuating properly in the very sentences in which you do so. Finally, if you want to insinuate that I'm deliberately being slippery, take it straight to Hell.
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
We've been through this over and over again on this forum. About three times in this thread probably. Someone says "thory of taint" someone else comes up and says "no they don't think that at all, its like this..." and goes on to describe exactly that, in all but name.

Bullshit. What happens is that someone - not infrequently yourself - suggests that FiFers do not consider the orders of bishops and priests who ordain or concelebrate with women to be valid, and I or someone else points out that this is provably false. You have never once addressed the most obvious proof against this insinuation, despite it having been pointed out repeatedly. I notice that you have not done so here either, and I repeated that proof just a few posts back:
quote:
When FiF - of which I was once a Council-attending member - refrain from concelebration with priests who have acted as alternates for or have concelebrated with women priests, etc. they are not doing so because they think such priests' orders are thereby nullified by "taint". If they believed that, they would not accept the orders of the PEVs - who have themselves been consecrated by bishops who have ordained and concelebrated with women. Why that isn't more obvious to people I just don't know.

Shit or get off the pot.

[ 21. December 2012, 20:13: Message edited by: Chesterbelloc ]

--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."

Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Carys

Ship's Celticist
# 78

 - Posted      Profile for Carys   Email Carys   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by sebby:

but to suggest as you do, that to oppose it is 'sexism', is precisely the response that does the cause for women's ordination such harm. It is notable how many women themselves oppose women's ordination - amongst them most vociferously, consistently and vigorously, my mother.

The only valid objection can be theological or ecclesiological. I would do my opponents the courtesy of assuming charitably, that their objections were such.

Theological and ecclesiological objections can be sexist. I suppose the 'Rome don't do it so, we can't' crowd aren't inherently sexist, as it is rooted in authoristy but I genuinely do not understand why they remain in the CofE especially since the creation of the Ordinariate when they give more weight to the authority of a church that doesn't recognise Anglican orders than to their own church. It's not that I'm saying I want them to leave, but that it seems to me that the logic of their own position is to follow Newman to Rome.

However, most of the people I have been arguing with on this are also impossibilists (i.e. it is impossible to ordain a woman because she isn't proper matter). That to me is inherently sexist. They may be correct and male and female are very distinct categories and so discrimination on gender grounds is ok, but in common parlance that discrimination is sexist. I've yet to have an answer to 'what, other than biological motherhood, can women do that men can't?' other than 'be a mother'.

One person arguing for greater provision for those unable to accept the ministiry of women as priests and bishops likened them to vegetarians invited to Christmas dinner and them being the one's who could say whether the proposed menu was suitable provision. Having been in these sorts of situations (as a veggie), I thought hard about it and have come to the conclusion that the situation is more that a group has decided that eating meat is morally wrong, but a subgroup is demanding their right to carry on eating meat.

As to the RCs and Orthodox, yes I disagree with them on this issue and think that they are missing what God is doing now (in the way that the party of the circumcision was missing what God was doing then), but I disagree with them on various other points, and other Anglicans would on more. But they have their own authority systems and Churches Together is about working on them. So like Ken I don't get the charge of ypocrisy.

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
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472

 - Posted      Profile for Augustine the Aleut     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I must note that, although I have sat at table with, or heard far too much from, OWP opponents at length, nobody has yet articulated as their opinion or position anything like the so-called doctrine of taint. Maybe they do someplace, but I haven't encountered it. Any sexism I have heard is marginal-- your kilometrage may vary.

I am beginning to think that taint as doctrine is a bit of a straw dog....

Certainly, among Anglicans opposing OWP, the main notion expressed in my hearing is uncertainty that these are Catholic orders. A very few will say that there is an ontological barrier as J2P2 says, but that's as extreme as I've heard. Crtainly in Canada, opposition to OWP has become quite marginal. One of them told me that he feels a bit like a Sioux chieftain after Custer, just hoping for a reservation to finish out his days.

Of course the RCC holds that Anglican orders are not (either really not, or probably not) Catholic orders, and the Orthies hold that orders operating outside Orthodox belief are invariably flawed, but some heretodox clerics need to be re-ordained and others don't, so the debate will be academic for them, and possibly or possibly not of interest-- but that is for other threads.

Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Oscar the Grouch

Adopted Cascadian
# 1916

 - Posted      Profile for Oscar the Grouch     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Chapelhead:
...getting the business finished in GS before 2015 could be tricky, even with general cooperation and a following wind.

It is interesting that the latest bulletin released by the C of E about this (which can be found here) says this:

quote:
It would, therefore, be possible for legislation introduced in 2013 to complete all its stages in the lifetime of this Synod, which ends in July 2015.
OK - there are plenty of caveats. But that seems to be the direction that the Bishops are taking. A bold move - but I think the right one.

--------------------
Faradiu, dundeibáwa weyu lárigi weyu

Posts: 3871 | From: Gamma Quadrant, just to the left of Galifrey | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged
Oscar the Grouch

Adopted Cascadian
# 1916

 - Posted      Profile for Oscar the Grouch     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
What happens is that someone - not infrequently yourself - suggests that FiFers do not consider the orders of bishops and priests who ordain or concelebrate with women to be valid, and I or someone else points out that this is provably false.

I'm not going to try to answer for ken. But I just want to point out the fallacy in this statement.

The complaint of "taint" is not that I (or ken) believe that FiFers consider "the orders of bishops and priests who ordain or concelebrate with women" to be invalid. It is that FiFers clearly consider such people's ministry to be valid but inexplicably (and fatally) tainted. To refuse to even receive communion from (for example) a bishop who has previously ordained a woman makes no sense at all without some concept of "taint".

If you (and FiFers) cannot comprehend that, then I suspect it is because you haven't properly comprehended what it is you are trying to do. I will repeat what others have said many many times before. There have been innumerable attempts to explain this position. NONE of them have EVER succeeded in dispelling the accusation of "taint".

It remains a baffling and insulting practice which (IMHO) does great damage to all concerned.

Disagree about women priests (and bishops) as much as you like. But I wish people would stop acting in such a crass and offensive manner.

--------------------
Faradiu, dundeibáwa weyu lárigi weyu

Posts: 3871 | From: Gamma Quadrant, just to the left of Galifrey | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047

 - Posted      Profile for Arethosemyfeet   Email Arethosemyfeet   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Carys:
One person arguing for greater provision for those unable to accept the ministiry of women as priests and bishops likened them to vegetarians invited to Christmas dinner and them being the one's who could say whether the proposed menu was suitable provision.

I actually think this analogy is reasonable, with the caveat being that the "vegetarians" in question are demanding that their meal be prepared in a separate kitchen by a cook who never cooks meat. I know of no vegetarian who is that awkward.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012  |  IP: Logged
Chapelhead

I am
# 21

 - Posted      Profile for Chapelhead     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
quote:
Originally posted by Chapelhead:
...getting the business finished in GS before 2015 could be tricky, even with general cooperation and a following wind.

It is interesting that the latest bulletin released by the C of E about this (which can be found here) says this:

quote:
It would, therefore, be possible for legislation introduced in 2013 to complete all its stages in the lifetime of this Synod, which ends in July 2015.
OK - there are plenty of caveats. But that seems to be the direction that the Bishops are taking. A bold move - but I think the right one.

Ye gods and little fishes. Something I wrote on these boards is later shown to be correct. Perhaps the world has ended after all!

It is, I agree, a bold move. The first very telling stage will be whether some proposal can be found in early 2013 that meet with wide approval (God in heaven above only knows how, and I suspect that even he is probably bored with the subject by now).

Without that sort of wide agreement, getting the legislation through GS by 2015 looks very doubtful, and arguably it might be better to go for the 'nuclear option' of dissolution of synod now so the new synod is seen to have a mandate to resolve this matter, has the time to do so in one five-year synodical period, and whatever that synod decides is 'it'. I suppose we will know in a few months whether an ecclesiological rabbit can be pulled out of this particular hat.

--------------------
At times like this I find myself thinking, what would the Amish do?

Posts: 9123 | From: Near where I was before. | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Chesterbelloc

Tremendous trifler
# 3128

 - Posted      Profile for Chesterbelloc   Email Chesterbelloc   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
What happens is that someone - not infrequently yourself - suggests that FiFers do not consider the orders of bishops and priests who ordain or concelebrate with women to be valid, and I or someone else points out that this is provably false.

I'm not going to try to answer for ken. But I just want to point out the fallacy in this statement.
If you think it's fallacious, you just haven't been following the relevant threads. I could give you a link to where folks have accused FiFers or rejecting the orders of such priets if you like. Alas, I can't provide you with any link to where they have backed down when disproven.

Also, I've given the argument that FiF use to justify their decision in general not to recieve communion from or to concelebrate with priests who concelebrate with/act as alternates to women priests. Whether you choose to believe it or not is up to you. But throwing a moral tantrum about its perniciousness is not identical to showing that it is reasonably contrued as "insulting, crass and offensive". If you choose to disregard their reasoning that's no skin off my nose. But it's always best to take your co-religionist opponents at their word to begin with, I always find.

--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."

Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Ender's Shadow
Shipmate
# 2272

 - Posted      Profile for Ender's Shadow   Email Ender's Shadow   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Carys:
As to the RCs and Orthodox, yes I disagree with them on this issue and think that they are missing what God is doing now (in the way that the party of the circumcision was missing what God was doing then), but I disagree with them on various other points, and other Anglicans would on more. But they have their own authority systems and Churches Together is about working on them. So like Ken I don't get the charge of ypocrisy.

Carys

OK - let's try and expand my point. You are claiming that the opponents of OoW are sexist, and that their sexism is as wrong as the behaviour of slave owners, for which there should be no acceptance in the CofE. Anyone opposed must leave. Therefore this is an insurmountable barrier to membership of the church of God - because the CofE is an inclusive church that doesn't seek to exclude anyone who is a genuine Christian. Therefore other denominations that are opposed to the OoW are equally unacceptable within the church of God. Therefore we should treat them as we treat our Anglican ex-brethren whom we have cast into the outer darkness because of their rejection of the OoW. And that means no longer indulging the idea that these denominations are acceptable in 'Churches Together'. Would you accept a racist church in 'Churches Together'? Or one that supported slavery? Therefore why accept one that is 'sexist'?

It's taking your delegitimation of opposition to OoW to its logical conclusion. The logic is impeccable AFAICS. Which is why the CofE needs to provide properly for its members who oppose the OoW - or be consistent and withdraw from contact with Rome and Constantinople.

--------------------
Test everything. Hold on to the good.

Please don't refer to me as 'Ender' - the whole point of Ender's Shadow is that he isn't Ender.

Posts: 5018 | From: Manchester, England | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460

 - Posted      Profile for ken     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Oh be serious. The whole posing about "valid" or not is empty whinging. If they refuse to celebrate with them or take communion alongside them then they really don't recognise them as genuine ordained ministers. And whatever they mean by "valid" is irrelevant. Not a useful word in this context.

I mean, lets try an analogy. If I was running a pub and you came to the bar and tried to pay for your beer with a Scottish fiver and I said it was "valid" money but refused to accept it because I didn't like it for some other reason you would correctly think that "valid" means nothing. Just as it means nothing here. Its a word that is useless wank.

--------------------
Ken

L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.

Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
leo
Shipmate
# 1458

 - Posted      Profile for leo   Author's homepage   Email leo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Carys:
However, most of the people I have been arguing with on this are also impossibilists
Carys

I am surprised by that.

The vast majority of my FiF friends are not. Their view is that we have no authority to go it alone and change the sacraments we received from the Western Church. It is for the wider Western Church to decide rather than for two isolated provinces of it.

--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com

Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Chesterbelloc

Tremendous trifler
# 3128

 - Posted      Profile for Chesterbelloc   Email Chesterbelloc   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
[x-post with leo]

I'm going to try this once more then I'm giving up.

The PEVs themselves get their orders from bishops who also ordain women. They are (some of them, anyway) suffragans of the Archbishop of Canterbury. He ordains/has ordained most of them. He also ordains women. The PEVs are cornerstones of the whole FiF set-up. What would be the point of them if they were not really bishops because they were ordained/consecrated by bishops who ordain women too? How much more evidence do you need that they do not think that the orders of bishops are tainted by having laid hands on women?

Either you just don't understand the point, just don't want to concede it or are just jerking me around. Whichever, I've just about had it.

[ 22. December 2012, 09:12: Message edited by: Chesterbelloc ]

--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."

Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153

 - Posted      Profile for Eliab   Email Eliab   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
The PEVs themselves get their orders from bishops who also ordain women. They are (some of them, anyway) suffragans of the Archbishop of Canterbury. He ordains/has ordained most of them. He also ordains women. The PEVs are cornerstones of the whole FiF set-up. What would be the point of them if they were not really bishops because they were ordained/consecrated by bishops who ordain women too?

So what is the point of them?

That's a serious question, not a piss-take. If other male-and-ordained-by-men bishops are in no way invalid, or tainted, or whatever word you want to use, why were PEVs needed at all? Why are they the cornerstone of the FiF set-up? You seem to be arguing towards a position that they aren't really different from other bishops at all, and are a sort of administrative convenience for anti-OOWers. But you also seem to be saying that they are fundamental to the whole FiF identity. I don't see how you reconcile those two things.

--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"

Richard Dawkins

Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged
Oscar the Grouch

Adopted Cascadian
# 1916

 - Posted      Profile for Oscar the Grouch     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
What happens is that someone - not infrequently yourself - suggests that FiFers do not consider the orders of bishops and priests who ordain or concelebrate with women to be valid, and I or someone else points out that this is provably false.

I'm not going to try to answer for ken. But I just want to point out the fallacy in this statement.
If you think it's fallacious, you just haven't been following the relevant threads. I could give you a link to where folks have accused FiFers or rejecting the orders of such priets if you like. Alas, I can't provide you with any link to where they have backed down when disproven.

Also, I've given the argument that FiF use to justify their decision in general not to recieve communion from or to concelebrate with priests who concelebrate with/act as alternates to women priests. Whether you choose to believe it or not is up to you. But throwing a moral tantrum about its perniciousness is not identical to showing that it is reasonably contrued as "insulting, crass and offensive". If you choose to disregard their reasoning that's no skin off my nose. But it's always best to take your co-religionist opponents at their word to begin with, I always find.

Right. So we are back to the standard position of "you don't agree with me either because your tiny little brain makes it impossible for you to understand this, or because you're so lazy you can't be arsed to do any reading/thinking."

You know what? I may not be bleeding Einstein but I know I'm not thick. And actually, I HAVE done a lot of reading in this matter. And the standard FiF line still comes down to "taint".

But perhaps we need to understand better how FiF et al came to this sorry position.

When women were first ordained as priests, those in charge of FiF had the equivalent of a hissy fit. Without actually thinking it through, they announced this policy of not receiving communion (or anything else) from any Bishop who had ordained women. It was intended as a smart alec gesture. It played to the gallery and made them feel good. "That'll show 'em!"

It was only after they had painted themselves into a corner with this gut-reaction decision that anyone stopped to think about the theology (or lack of it) behind it. This has ALWAYS been a decision that went looking for a theological rationale to cover its arse.

Basically, the thought process went along the lines of "We've made this stand. We can't back down now without losing face. So we've got to come up with a rationale."

I can accept 100% that no-one who made the original decision had any concept of "taint" in their minds at the time. Because they didn't actually have ANYTHING in their minds at the time. They made a grandstanding gesture which subsequently came back to haunt them.

In fact, FiF have a long history of doing things like this. They make grand statements which paint themselves into a corner and then - because they cannot consider the possibility of losing face - they find that they cannot shift an inch. The "Third Province" was NEVER a realistic possibility. Again, it made no ecclesiastical or theological sense whatsoever. But having pinned their hopes on it so publicly, FiF has subsequently found it impossible to negotiate seriously on anything less.

I've said it before and I will continue saying it. FiF leadership has been disastrously poor on a consistent basis. Time after time they have proved stubborn when they ought to have bent a little. They have used up the good will that they had in the wider C of E, to the point where most rational, reasonable people are now saying "screw 'em. Just make women bishops - full stop." If a single clause measure were introduced now, the majority of the C of E would take it willingly. And FiF leadership should acknowledge their part in this sea-change of opinion.

--------------------
Faradiu, dundeibáwa weyu lárigi weyu

Posts: 3871 | From: Gamma Quadrant, just to the left of Galifrey | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged
leo
Shipmate
# 1458

 - Posted      Profile for leo   Author's homepage   Email leo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
I'm going to try this once more then I'm giving up.

Thank you for explaining it with considerable clarity.

The anti-FiF group have posted their comments over several boards and over several years.

That they aren't listening/understanding is the problem we have in the C. of E.

I see entrenched positions digging themselves in even further.

--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com

Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Carex
Shipmate
# 9643

 - Posted      Profile for Carex   Email Carex   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:

Either you just don't understand the point, just don't want to concede it or are just jerking me around.

As an outsider, it is clear that the reason the two sides keep going round and round repeating the same arguments is because they are debating different questions.

Not to pick on Chesterbelloc: this just happened to be the latest such response to quote. It is equally true of both sides.

Focusing specifically on the FiF position on male bishops who ordain women priests to simplify matters, it seems that there are several different ways to see it.

1) Because they ordain women priests, their orders are somehow tarnished, and they can't do bishopy things properly.

2) That they are "valid" bishops, but because they ordain women priests their ability to "bishop" to FiF is somehow:
  • ineffective,
  • less effective, or
  • of questionable effectiveness
3) That their bishopness would still be effective, but FiF don't want to have anything to do with them because they ordain women priests.


(I'm sure there are many other variations, but these seem to be the main ones that I've seen in this thread.)

#1 appears to be the definition of "taint" that Chesterbelloc that arguing against.

#2 appears to be what Ken and others mean when they use the phrase "taint".

So neither side is really addressing the arguments of the other. No wonder it keeps going in circles and nobody appears to be listening, because nobody is hearing any arguments against the position they hold.

Meanwhile, #3 appears to be the position of Oscar the Grouch.


As an outsider I'm not going to many any suppositions about who believes what, but the difference in what the two sides mean by the word "taint" seems to have generated a lot of frustrations on this thread.

Posts: 1425 | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
leo
Shipmate
# 1458

 - Posted      Profile for leo   Author's homepage   Email leo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Only a third province will end this.

--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com

Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Chesterbelloc

Tremendous trifler
# 3128

 - Posted      Profile for Chesterbelloc   Email Chesterbelloc   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Carex, thank you for being a little ray of sanity and clarity!
quote:
Originally posted by Carex:
Focusing specifically on the FiF position on male bishops who ordain women priests to simplify matters, it seems that there are several different ways to see it.

1) Because they ordain women priests, their orders are somehow tarnished, and they can't do bishopy things properly.

2) That they are "valid" bishops, but because they ordain women priests their ability to "bishop" to FiF is somehow:
  • ineffective,
  • less effective, or
  • of questionable effectiveness

3) That their bishopness would still be effective, but FiF don't want to have anything to do with them because they ordain women priests.

[...]

#1 appears to be the definition of "taint" that Chesterbelloc that arguing against.

#2 appears to be what Ken and others mean when they use the phrase "taint".


Thing is, I have been entirely explicit about which argument of taint I have been arguing against - a combination of 1 & 2. But ken has been just as explicit that he has been arguing that FiF really do believe in 1 and/or 2 - as made clear here:
quote:
If they refuse to celebrate with them or take communion alongside them then they really don't recognise them as genuine ordained ministers.
My proof that they do in fact consider women-ordaining bishops to be really bishops is that they take their own episcopal orders from them. How much more explicit a recognition that they think of them as "genuine ordained ministers" could there be?

My problem is that ken has never once acknowledged this proof and continues to insist that FiF don't "really" think the other bishops are bishops. And I'm afraid I can't put this down to ken not understanding the point I'm making. He's too clever to miss that, and I've made it all too bleedin' obvious all too many times. This is serious head-against-wall territory.

--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."

Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356

 - Posted      Profile for Albertus     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
But you'll see that to those of us who aren't FiF there is an apparent inconsistency that we can't understand. You aren't ready to accept the episcopal ministry of a bishop who ordains women, but you are ready to accept the ministry of bishops consecrated by bishops who ordain women (and who consecrate other bishops who ordain women). Maybe I'm a bit dim but I find this hard to make sense of. ISTM that there are at least two possible positions: (i) Women can't be priests and when a Bishop ordains a woman this has no effect but that doesn't mean that when he ordains a man it has no effect (ii) Women can't be priests and when a Bishop ordains a woman as a priest [or later, if the CofE finally agrees it, consecrates a woman as a bishop] this shows that his understanding of Catholic orders is so objectively disordered as to make all his episcopal actions invalid (if intention matters here). But resolution C people presumably don't subscribe either to the first position (because if they did, why seek alternative oversight?) or to the second (because if they did they would surely not accept the episcopla ministry of a bishop consecrated by an ordainer of women). And if resolution C people are happy to accept the ministry of ++Cantuar or ++Ebor at one remove through a PEV consecrated by and acting as a deputy for the Archbishop, why aren't resolution C people in the dioceses of Canterbury and York happy to accept the episcopal ministry of their Archbishop as their diocesan?

No doubt there are good answers to these questions, but perhaps you can see why some of us are puzzled.

Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159

 - Posted      Profile for Angloid     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Isn't it something to do with collegiality? As in, priests are in a relationship with their bishop and hence all in communion with each other. FinF don't accept women as priests so wouldn't see themselves in communion with a bishop who did.

It all seems very high-flown and tenuous for me, and makes a lot of the Maundy Thursday Chrism Mass, which since that hardly existed in the C of E until late last century seems a shaky basis for such theological definiteness. But very probably I have misunderstood their position: it would be helpful if a FinF shipmate, or a sympathiser, could explain it.

I just can't understand, when F in F say that there is 'no certainty' that women can be priests or bishops, how they can be so certain that their male priests are priests of the Catholic Church. The RCC does not accept any Anglican orders, male or female.

They must live with uncertainty anyway. Certainly they live with compromise. Why can't we all accept that compromise is necessary for us to live together?

--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!

Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Ender's Shadow
Shipmate
# 2272

 - Posted      Profile for Ender's Shadow   Email Ender's Shadow   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
One of the reasons for seeking 'C' status is the fact that bishops have sent male proponents of OoW into 'A' and 'B' parishes - i.e. they've not really respected the parishes' choices. However that's not a theologically valid position, merely a sign that bishops can't be trusted...

--------------------
Test everything. Hold on to the good.

Please don't refer to me as 'Ender' - the whole point of Ender's Shadow is that he isn't Ender.

Posts: 5018 | From: Manchester, England | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472

 - Posted      Profile for Augustine the Aleut     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
@Albertus-- the circles in which I have had heard this discussed hold a very different opinion entirely from i) or ii) as he describes-- that the question is about the certainty of the orders conferred on account of the Anglican church not having the authority to make the decision, or the licitness of the orders on the same grounds. Of Anglican anti-OWP folk, I do not know personally of any who hold the impossibilist position, although I have heard of them, and I think that they are a fringe element on the fringe. The licitness/authority discussion might be arguably more Anglican than the validity question, which has a more Thomist tinge to it, but that is perhaps another thread.

As far as Angloid's point about the lack of certainty of Anglican orders as being Catholic, those who hold that generally stop being Anglican and go elsewhere. The remainder of the objecting minority seems happy enough with compromise; in the CoE case, they are seeking terms of compromise which do not depend on the perhaps uncertain goodwill or integrity of an individual bishop. While not being of their gang, I'm not sure that I would blame them on this.

Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Carex
Shipmate
# 9643

 - Posted      Profile for Carex   Email Carex   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
@Albertus-- the circles in which I have had heard this discussed hold a very different opinion entirely from i) or ii) as he describes...

And that is part of the puzzlement, Augustine. For those of us who are distant enough not to know members of either party, there seems to be a lack of clarity on exactly what the difference is. (And allowing that there will be a fair amount of variation in personal views.)

So perhaps we need to expand on ii) a bit: it appears that at least some bishops who ordain women as priests are not acceptable to FiF types (which is why they want alternative oversight), and I'm trying to understand what the impediment is, because clearly there is a difference. The arguments that there is nothing wrong or different about such bishops only then begs the question of why alternative oversight is needed.

Now with Ender's Shadow's comment, I've seen 3 possible reasons given:

a) There is something different about a bishop who ordains a woman as a priest that makes them unacceptable. (Though perhaps there is a less pejorative term for this than "taint".)

b) They don't trust bishops to take their preferences into account.

c) They don't want to associate with people who don't share their views.

Again, there may be other explanations, but these are the ones most recently presented on this thread.


So, the real question is, why would a bishop be an acceptable Episcopal Visitor one Sunday but not the next, if, in the meantime, he had ordained a woman as a priest? What has changed?

Is it about the action of ordaining a woman as priest, or the belief that women can be priests?

Posts: 1425 | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
Ender's Shadow
Shipmate
# 2272

 - Posted      Profile for Ender's Shadow   Email Ender's Shadow   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
Of Anglican anti-OWP folk, I do not know personally of any who hold the impossibilist position, although I have heard of them, and I think that they are a fringe element on the fringe.

Given that traditional conservative Evangelicals are very thin on the ground within the Episcopal church, that's not a surprise. But they are a significant minority in the CofE, and for them women in overall leadership of a church or diocese is 'impossible'. Perversely however at least some of them are willing to have them ordained to do the magic bits, and to form part of the leadership team of churches. So their position is more nuanced than the true impossibilist...

--------------------
Test everything. Hold on to the good.

Please don't refer to me as 'Ender' - the whole point of Ender's Shadow is that he isn't Ender.

Posts: 5018 | From: Manchester, England | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged



Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  ...  5  6  7  8  9  10  11 
 
Post new thread  Post a reply Close thread   Feature thread   Move thread   Delete thread Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
 - Printer-friendly view
Go to:

Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement

© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0

 
follow ship of fools on twitter
buy your ship of fools postcards
sip of fools mugs from your favourite nautical website
 
 
  ship of fools