|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Flipping Synod - especially the Lay People!
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
As far as I'm aware, there isn't a single thing that the laity are allowed to do that a priest cannot also do.
Well, Catholic and Orthodox priests cannot marry. Catholic priests cannot stand for election to state legislatures or become combatant members of the armed forces.
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ThunderBunk
Stone cold idiot
# 15579
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:
Originally posted by Chapelhead:
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Even when I was one - and was deeply involved in FiF - I never once met an anglo-catholic who believed that the orders of a bishop who has ordained women were somehow thereby "invalidated". That is simply not an argument that any anglo-catholics I knew ever used, even amongst themselves.
Then why are the PEVs needed? If all the CofE Bishops, who are all male, are fully, properly, validly, whateverly Bishops, why is another Bishop needed. If the relationship is impaired, what has impaired it if it isn't the 'taint' of ordaining women?
I am not defending any of this, by the way, and have been out of the running to make what I say about the reasons for PEVs unreliable. But as I understand it, it is precisely because the relationship between a bishop and opponents to women priests had been impaired - the bishop ceased to be the symbol of unity within the dicoese for such people, and his pastoral authority was compromised for them. I think that was the gist of it.
But I can fully assure you that it has nothing to do with thinking the bishop's orders no longer valid. Proof of that? FiF (for example) had full priest members who were ordained by diocesans who had already ordained women priests too.
So can we drop the accusation that the trads think that bishops have validity-zapping cooties from having touched girls?
It may not be common, but I have seen in action.
--------------------
Currently mostly furious, and occasionally foolish. Normal service may resume eventually. Or it may not. And remember children, "feiern ist wichtig".
Foolish, potentially deranged witterings
Posts: 2208 | From: Norwich | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by FooloftheShip:
It may not be common, but I have seen in action.
What does that mean?
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ThunderBunk
Stone cold idiot
# 15579
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:
Originally posted by FooloftheShip:
It may not be common, but I have seen in action.
What does that mean?
It means (poorly proof-read though it was), that I have been a member of the congregation of a church in which the parish priest ceased concelebration on the basis that the hands of the other priest may be "tainted" by his acceptance of the priesthood of women. On closer inspection, it's not quite the same thing, but it is closely related. I think I associated the two because I remember feeling the same about that as I did about the "classical" version of the "tainted hands" concept.
--------------------
Currently mostly furious, and occasionally foolish. Normal service may resume eventually. Or it may not. And remember children, "feiern ist wichtig".
Foolish, potentially deranged witterings
Posts: 2208 | From: Norwich | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Presumably, there is great reluctance to get tough, and say to those objecting to women priests/bishops, look, either stay and lump it, or leave.
Is this considered to be very non-Christian?
"Getting tough" was probably considered to be very un-CofE. The "England" and "Church" are both significant in that body's name, so some of the CofE's virtues and vices are those of England.
Vatican II enforced far more radical and bitterly opposed changes to the RCC. Different cultures and structures.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by FooloftheShip:
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:
Originally posted by FooloftheShip:
It may not be common, but I have seen in action.
What does that mean?
It means (poorly proof-read though it was), that I have been a member of the congregation of a church in which the parish priest ceased concelebration on the basis that the hands of the other priest may be "tainted" by his acceptance of the priesthood of women. On closer inspection, it's not quite the same thing, but it is closely related. I think I associated the two because I remember feeling the same about that as I did about the "classical" version of the "tainted hands" concept.
It is not remotely the same thing I am talking about, unless you have evidence that the parish priest though the other priest no longer a priest at all because he accepted the ordination of women. Even then, a few outlying loonies do not make it ok to smear the whole of the FiF crowd with the a theory that they officially reject on paper and in practice.
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chorister
Completely Frocked
# 473
|
Posted
Sometimes humour can be the best way of dealing with a tough situation, and not playing into the hands of those who would like people to get stressed up about it, reducing the arguments to a slanging match. I particularly liked this new, digitally remastered version of an old poem: When I am ordained I shall wear purple.
--------------------
Retired, sitting back and watching others for a change.
Posts: 34626 | From: Cream Tealand | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
As far as I'm aware, there isn't a single thing that the laity are allowed to do that a priest cannot also do.
Well, Catholic and Orthodox priests cannot marry. Catholic priests cannot stand for election to state legislatures or become combatant members of the armed forces.
In church I mean.
I suppose I could give you the marriage one there, but then that might be buying into the idea that the church 'owns' marriage.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spike
Mostly Harmless
# 36
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Thurible:
We would not regard the orders of any bishop or priest ordained by a bishop invalid because that bishop had ordained women.
So why do some priests insist on being ordained by a bishop who hasn't dirtied his hands on women?
--------------------
"May you get to heaven before the devil knows you're dead" - Irish blessing
Posts: 12860 | From: The Valley of Crocuses | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Thurible
Shipmate
# 3206
|
Posted
Because they don't want to be part of a presbyterium whose orders aren't fully interchangable.
Thurible
--------------------
"I've been baptised not lobotomised."
Posts: 8049 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
['nother cross-post]
Presumably, as I suggested above: quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
it is precisely because the relationship between a bishop and opponents to women priests had been impaired - the bishop ceased to be the symbol of unity within the dicoese for such people, and his pastoral authority was compromised for them.
In addition, it might be to avoid the awkwardness of compromising their (officially protected) beliefs about women in the priesthood by being ordained alongside women in the same ceremony. All of this is perfectly consistent with believing the bishop still to be a bishop and the male priests he ordains to be priests.
If it were - as you insist - that they no longer think such bishops to have the sacrmental wherewithal to ordain, why would the orders of men they subsequently ordained be accepted by them? Some of FiF's own priest members are such men. If you can't see that suppers your contention, then I guess nothing will.
[ 24. November 2012, 12:30: Message edited by: Chesterbelloc ]
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Thurible:
Because they don't want to be part of a presbyterium whose orders aren't fully interchangable.
Thurible
According to whom? There only one Synod, and one church. The orders only fail to be interchangable on the say so of an intransigent minority who can see that their time is running out.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
quote:
Chesterbelloc: In addition, it might be to avoid the awkwardness of compromising their (officially protected) beliefs about women in the priesthood by being ordained alongside women in the same ceremony. All of this is perfectly consistent with believing the bishop still to be a bishop and the male priests he ordains to be priests.
But why on earth would you want to be ordained into a church that is ordaining women if you feel their orders are not sacramentally valid?
I have no problem with providing for those people who were members of the Church of England before 1992, who find women priests difficult to accept. Life long members of the Church of England for whom we still need to make provision, where they still exist. In my experience the majority who have remained within the church have seen women priests in action and accept their orders.
I have a huge problem with those men who cannot accept women as sacramentally valid priests and then chose to be ordained into a church that ordains men and women equally. That's stretching and twisting promises for that there will be a place within the church into knots.
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dark Knight
Super Zero
# 9415
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
As far as I'm aware, there isn't a single thing that the laity are allowed to do that a priest cannot also do.
Well, Catholic and Orthodox priests cannot marry. Catholic priests cannot stand for election to state legislatures or become combatant members of the armed forces.
Orthodox priests can marry.
As you were.
--------------------
So don't ever call me lucky
You don't know what I done, what it was, who I lost, or what it cost me - A B Original: I C U
----
Love is as strong as death (Song of Solomon 8:6).
Posts: 2958 | From: Beyond the Yellow Brick Road | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ender's Shadow
Shipmate
# 2272
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Knight:
Orthodox priests can marry.
As you were.
No - men who are married at the time of ordination can be ordained, but a priest cannot enter into marriage after ordination. If his wife dies, he's stuck with being celibate. If he's not married when he's ordained, he is required to remain unmarried.
Orthodox BISHOPS cannot be married, so the pool for them is unmarried priests.
--------------------
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
|
|
k-mann
Shipmate
# 8490
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Knight:
Orthodox priests can marry.
As you were.
No - men who are married at the time of ordination can be ordained, but a priest cannot enter into marriage after ordination. If his wife dies, he's stuck with being celibate. If he's not married when he's ordained, he is required to remain unmarried.
Orthodox BISHOPS cannot be married, so the pool for them is unmarried priests.
Yes, and most often they are monks.
--------------------
"Being religious means asking passionately the question of the meaning of our existence and being willing to receive answers, even if the answers hurt."
— Paul Tillich
Katolikken
Posts: 1314 | From: Norway | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
I've seen this argument advanced against opponents of OoW so often on these boards and then refuted by others just as often - most recently yesterday, by Thurible in Purgatory - but back it comes again and again.
But it wasn't refuted! What Thurible said was exactly what Spike and me are saying FiF do. He just called it something else.
The problem is not that we falsely think you do bad things you don't do. It is that you do things we think are bad and you think are good. And one of those things is rejecting the ministry of men who ordain women.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Well, Catholic and Orthodox priests cannot marry.
I don't know what the Orthodox position is (I have a vague idea that some Orthodox posters here took the position that Christian marriage is something different from civil marriage and so only the Orthodox Church can conduct a valid Christian marriage). And I am certainly not a canon lawyer. But I'm pretty sure the Catholic position is that a priest who gets married has broken his vows to the church and so has to stop working as a priest. But they would be validly married, so in that sense at least a priest can marry.
And I guess they would still be an ordained priest in the eyes of the church as well, at least in some sense. In Anglican terms they've lost their licence to function as a priest, but they haven't lost their ordination. So if a married priest was reconciled to the church some time later (presumably after being widowed, I assume that they no longer lock women away in nunneries to compel them to celibacy) they could resume serving as a priest without having to be ordained again. Not that I'm at all sure of that. And the only such case I can think of was Abelard and Heloise, which was quite a long time ago.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Thurible:
My background is one of traditional Anglo-Catholicism where the priest, robed in vestments and on his way to the altar, is bowed to by the congregation, as a sign of the fact that he is in persona Christi. Thurible
Same here but I don't see it in quite the same way - we bow to thurifers before and after they cense us. And when the priest reaches the quite he bows to left and right and they bow back.
Both priest and thurifer are acting as Christ to us.
--------------------
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
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by sebby:
quote:
Originally posted by PataLeBon:
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
quote:
Originally posted by pimple:
Suck it up.
Most of us probably will, in the end. We'll continue to apologise for the Church. We'll continue to explain. So, suppose someone asks me, "Why did Synod vote against women bishops?" Is "Because they're a bunch of brainless troglodytes who wouldn't know the will of God if it bit them on the arse" a sufficient explanation?
As someone sitting on the sidelines, but has had to answer similar questions about their own church...
Hell, yes!
Although as a lay person (not church, but sorry -Lay) said in the pub a moment ago:
'but it wasn't a vote against women bishops was it? It was the wording of the legislation and the media ran with it, and stupid people who couldn't or wouldn't be prepared to analyse believed them'
Quite interesting from a random unbeliever who couldn't care either way.
That's exactly right and how I see 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
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
quote:
Chesterbelloc: In addition, it might be to avoid the awkwardness of compromising their (officially protected) beliefs about women in the priesthood by being ordained alongside women in the same ceremony. All of this is perfectly consistent with believing the bishop still to be a bishop and the male priests he ordains to be priests.
But why on earth would you want to be ordained into a church that is ordaining women if you feel their orders are not sacramentally valid?
That's an entirely different question, and not one I'm competent to answer on their behalf.
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
I've seen this argument advanced against opponents of OoW so often on these boards and then refuted by others just as often - most recently yesterday, by Thurible in Purgatory - but back it comes again and again.
But it wasn't refuted! What Thurible said was exactly what Spike and me are saying FiF do. He just called it something else.
For a smart chap, you don't seem to read too well. Here's how the last bit of the exchange went over in Purg:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Thurible:
I'd appreciate it, though, if you would accept that you are wrong on the issue of whether or not we accept the orders of those ordained by women-ordaining bishops.
e
If you will not have those people as ministers in your churches and you will not accept communion when they preside what can it possibly mean to say that you do accept them as priests?
Thurible's answer was that he thought they validly and efficaciously said the Eucharist. I have pointed out that FiF accept the priesthood of men ordained by bishops who have also ordained women to the extent that they have them as full priest members, and as celebrants at their masses.
If that's not a refutation, what would be?
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Well, Catholic and Orthodox priests cannot marry.
[...] I'm pretty sure the Catholic position is that a priest who gets married has broken his vows to the church and so has to stop working as a priest. But they would be validly married, so in that sense at least a priest can marry.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif) As I said, Catholic priests cannot marry. Just how does being forbidden to marry on pain of laicisation (i.e., abandoning the exercise of priesthood) not count as something a priest cannot do, in the sense relevant to Marvin's complaint?
But not only are you splitting hairs, if not outright equivocating, but you're also wrong. A priest who married without the necessary dispensation would find that his marriage was invalid in canon law: i.e., that he wasn't married at all.
IANACL, so will have to chow down on my word-pie if one should come along and refute me. But I'd like to think I will have the decency to admit I'm wrong rather than bluster on. ken.
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Both priest and thurifer are acting as Christ to us.
As the congregation is to them.
--------------------
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
|
|
Trisagion
Shipmate
# 5235
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
As I said, Catholic priests cannot marry. Just how does being forbidden to marry on pain of laicisation (i.e., abandoning the exercise of priesthood) not count as something a priest cannot do, in the sense relevant to Marvin's complaint?
But not only are you splitting hairs, if not outright equivocating, but you're also wrong. A priest who married without the necessary dispensation would find that his marriage was invalid in canon law: i.e., that he wasn't married at all.
IANACL, so will have to chow down on my word-pie if one should come along and refute me. But I'd like to think I will have the decency to admit I'm wrong rather than bluster on. ken.
IAACL and can confirm that you are correct. Canon 1087 says, in translation: "Those who are in Sacred Orders invalidly attempt marriage." Doing so doesn't immediately result in laicisation but incurs the penalty of suspension, which, in the event of a failure to reform can, eventually, lead to dismissal from the clerical state (can.1394.1).
--------------------
ceterum autem censeo tabula delenda esse
Posts: 3923 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
Thank you, Trisagion.
Now I'll have to rustle up something else for supper.
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Both priest and thurifer are acting as Christ to us.
As the congregation is to them.
Exactly.
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zacchaeus
Shipmate
# 14454
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chapelhead:
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Even when I was one - and was deeply involved in FiF - I never once met an anglo-catholic who believed that the orders of a bishop who has ordained women were somehow thereby "invalidated". That is simply not an argument that any anglo-catholics I knew ever used, even amongst themselves.
Then why are the PEVs needed? If all the CofE Bishops, who are all male, are fully, properly, validly, whateverly Bishops, why is another Bishop needed. If the relationship is impaired, what has impaired it if it isn't the 'taint' of ordaining women?
A curate at an A+B parish near where I used to live, did not attend the pre-ordination retreat with his curate cohort and would not be ordained in the same service. In fact he was ordained in a seperate service in his own church by the PEV, obviousley I am not party to the ins and outs of what went on, but he refused to participate in chapter meetings as well, with the females clergy..
Posts: 1905 | From: the back of beyond | Registered: Jan 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
I'm perfectly prepared to believe all of that, Zachaeus. But I think you'll find that none of it has anything to do with the point I was making.
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zacchaeus:
quote:
Originally posted by Chapelhead:
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Even when I was one - and was deeply involved in FiF - I never once met an anglo-catholic who believed that the orders of a bishop who has ordained women were somehow thereby "invalidated". That is simply not an argument that any anglo-catholics I knew ever used, even amongst themselves.
Then why are the PEVs needed? If all the CofE Bishops, who are all male, are fully, properly, validly, whateverly Bishops, why is another Bishop needed. If the relationship is impaired, what has impaired it if it isn't the 'taint' of ordaining women?
A curate at an A+B parish near where I used to live, did not attend the pre-ordination retreat with his curate cohort and would not be ordained in the same service. In fact he was ordained in a seperate service in his own church by the PEV, obviousley I am not party to the ins and outs of what went on, but he refused to participate in chapter meetings as well, with the females clergy..
I live in a FiF parish. Its curates get ordained by the PEV but they attended the retreats and even the ordinations (though not communicating) of their fellows.
The vicar takes a full part in chapter (indeed, chapters plural since he has 3 churches in 2 different deaneries) and is unfailingly collegial to women clergy and rates their ministry at all points except when it comes to offering mass.
He invites clergy from 'the other integrity' to preach on special occasions and also to concelebrate.
--------------------
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
|
|
Thurible
Shipmate
# 3206
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
I've seen this argument advanced against opponents of OoW so often on these boards and then refuted by others just as often - most recently yesterday, by Thurible in Purgatory - but back it comes again and again.
But it wasn't refuted! What Thurible said was exactly what Spike and me are saying FiF do. He just called it something else.
In the years we've been on the Ship together, I've never thought of you as unintelligent. Or illiterate. My only conclusion can be, therefore, that you're being deliberately stupid.
Thurible
--------------------
"I've been baptised not lobotomised."
Posts: 8049 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spike
Mostly Harmless
# 36
|
Posted
Forgive me for being stupid, but why do you need PEVs? Please explain in simple language that stupid people like ken and I can understand.
[ 24. November 2012, 20:00: Message edited by: Spike ]
--------------------
"May you get to heaven before the devil knows you're dead" - Irish blessing
Posts: 12860 | From: The Valley of Crocuses | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
comet
Snowball in Hell
# 10353
|
Posted
You anal little freaks are making my eyes bleed. Cut the drunken bird-walking and find your way back to a point, or take this fascinating* discussion elsewhere; somewhere where the hosts might actually give a half fuck about ... Whatever this is.
Poor Jesus. I know he didnt intend everything to get this convoluted.
*aka boring as watching snot freeze on my windshield
--------------------
Evil Dragon Lady, Breaker of Men's Constitutions
"It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of lightning.” -Calvin
Posts: 17024 | From: halfway between Seduction and Peril | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Spike:
Forgive me for being stupid, but why do you need PEVs? Please explain in simple language that stupid people like ken and I can understand.
Maybe you'd be more likely to get an answer to that if either you or ken were to retract or attempt to substantiate your debunked assertion, and thus demonstrate that you're not just jerking us around.
To give comet her due pinch of incense, I'd be happy to hear you do so on a new thread, to which I would certainly consider contributing. Forgive me if I don't start one myself - I feel Thurible and I have done our bit already.
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
If that's not a refutation, what would be?
That would be a theoretical distinction without a practical difference.
A real refutation would be a theoretical distinction that actually led, in practice, to not turning away people because they've expressed the view that female priests are okay.
[ 24. November 2012, 21:15: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:
Originally posted by Spike:
Forgive me for being stupid, but why do you need PEVs? Please explain in simple language that stupid people like ken and I can understand.
Maybe you'd be more likely to get an answer to that if either you or ken were to retract or attempt to substantiate your debunked assertion, and thus demonstrate that you're not just jerking us around.
As someone who didn't know anything about this particular question until this thread started, I can assure you that the assertion of Spike and ken hasn't been debunked.
What's happened so far is that you and Thurible have nicely demonstrated that in principle everyone acknowledges the spiritual authority of male bishops who have ordained female priests. They just never get invited by the FiF types, because then that would mean there was a risk of bumping into an ordained woman and having her say "oh, you were ordained by Bishop X? ME TOO!"
And then people might risk their brains going "oh look, her ministry has the exact same basis as mine". And that would never do.
The fact is, the male-only crowd don't want to have anything to do with a more senior authority that doesn't agree with them. It's all very well to continue to say that the bishop still has authority 'in principle', so long as there's no risk whatsoever of that bishop having an opportunity to pull people into line.
[ 24. November 2012, 21:23: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
Orfeo, you're just plain wrong. Take it to another thread and I'll explain why.
In the meantime, check (as everyone else here can) what I have actually been saying on this thread and you may save yourself the bother. At the moment, it just looks like you're widening the goalposts to make it seem as if ken and Spike have scored.
[ 24. November 2012, 21:34: Message edited by: Chesterbelloc ]
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
I did check what you said. You said stuff about relationships being broken and bishops no longer being a symbol of unity.
The idea that a bishop who doesn't agree with you is no longer a symbol of unity, but a bishop who DOES agree with you is still okay, is quite fascinating.
And there's nothing wrong with this thread, for saying that the whole situation with women's ordination in the Anglican church is a crazy illogical mess.
[ 24. November 2012, 21:53: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I did check what you said. You said stuff about relationships being broken and bishops no longer being a symbol of unity.
Actaully, if you had checked, you'd have seen that my point was to challenge ken and Spike about a specific allegation: that the opponents of women priests generally hold that bishops who had ordained women and priests who had been ordained by such bishops have thereby invalid orders. Which is - provenly - bullshit. All the stuff about unity, and broken relationships I submitted to those who know better than me about it for potential correction.
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
And there's nothing wrong with this thread, for saying that the whole situation with women's ordination in the Anglican church is a crazy illogical mess.
Uhuh. And what did that have to do with my specific point, and your challenge of it? You might want to check with comet about what she was saying upthread. Sounded to me as if she wanted to knock the whole taint/invalidity discussion on the head or take it somewhere else.
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
Nah, mostly she wanted everyone to stop wittering on about marriage.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
Huh. This is interesting. Ebbsfleet are a bunch of liars - and I've just had to slap down Thurible in the other thread for being taken in by them.
On the Ebbsfleet website under the heading Resources/Legislation relevant to the See of Ebbsfleet they have what they claim to be the Act of Synod. A simple glance shows that the act starts with the word "Proposed".
The Church of England website has the actual act (which starts with the word "Passed"). Notably the Ebbsfleet version starts with the declarations
quote:
1. There will be no discrimination against candidates either for ordination or for appointment to senior office in the Church of England on the grounds of their views about the ordination of women to the priesthood.
the real version starts
quote:
Except as provided by the Measure and this Act no person or body shall discriminate against candidates either for ordination or for appointment to senior office in the Church of England on the grounds of their view or positions about the ordination of women to the priesthood.
Ebbsfleet are outright lying about the Act of Synod that brought them into existance - what they claim to be legislation isn't. This goes some way to explaining the differences in what was supposedly promised that people are claiming.
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
Justinian, could you make up your mind where you're going to post. It's already in DH (to which you allude), and there are a couple of places it could go in Purgatory. If the hosts there are willing I'm sure we could make a game of "posting the same crap in the most places".
Alternatively we could pray that posts appear in one(1) place only.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
comet
Snowball in Hell
# 10353
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Nah, mostly she wanted everyone to stop wittering on about marriage.
Bingo.
--------------------
Evil Dragon Lady, Breaker of Men's Constitutions
"It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of lightning.” -Calvin
Posts: 17024 | From: halfway between Seduction and Peril | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
I just emailed the Ebbsfleet "email enquiries" address, politely.
It will be interesting to see what response, if any, I get.
It's one thing for people to have disagreements about matters of opinion and interpretation. It's quite another to be having those disagreements on the basis of different facts. And the final text of a legal document is a fact. I should know.
[ 25. November 2012, 02:29: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Triple Tiara
Ship's Papabile
# 9556
|
Posted
Except, Justinian, you are quoting two different pieces of legislation: you are quoting from the Priests (Ordination of Women) Measure 1993, which was the legal bit that passed through parliament. This legislation was added to by the General Synod in the Episcopal Ministry Act of Synod 1993, which is what Thurible was quoting.
Two different things.
--------------------
I'm a Roman. You may call me Caligula.
Posts: 5905 | From: London, England | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
Except, Justinian, you are quoting two different pieces of legislation: you are quoting from the Priests (Ordination of Women) Measure 1993, which was the legal bit that passed through parliament. This legislation was added to by the General Synod in the Episcopal Ministry Act of Synod 1993, which is what Thurible was quoting.
Two different things.
BZZT. WRONG.
Fuck me, just follow the link, would you? It it is quite clearly headed as the Act of Synod, not as the Measure, and makes reference to the Measure as being a different document.
It's not fucking hard. I don't even know the first thing about Church of England legislation, and it took me all of 5 minutes to check what Justinian was saying and confirm it.
[ 25. November 2012, 02:31: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Triple Tiara
Ship's Papabile
# 9556
|
Posted
My bad - it's flipping between threads that confused me. On DH he quoted the Measure.
But I get what he's saying about the slight difference between the versions.
--------------------
I'm a Roman. You may call me Caligula.
Posts: 5905 | From: London, England | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
Excellent.
Now, I don't know whether the people responsible for that site are liars, wilfully blind or just incompetent. I'll wait to find out.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Triple Tiara
Ship's Papabile
# 9556
|
Posted
actually, I'm not sure what the issue is and how there are grounds for such a strong accusation of "wilful liars" as if they are distorting the Act.
The "proposed" version says "There shall be no discrimination against" whereas the final Act passed says "no person or body shall discriminate against".
How is that such a major distortion as to warrant labelling them wilful liars? It seems more like Justinian has gone a-hunting in the hopes of finding some evidence - but that's all he comes up with? Not convincing.
Also not my fight, so I'd best just keep out of it.
--------------------
I'm a Roman. You may call me Caligula.
Posts: 5905 | From: London, England | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spike
Mostly Harmless
# 36
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Actaully, if you had checked, you'd have seen that my point was to challenge ken and Spike about a specific allegation: that the opponents of women priests generally hold that bishops who had ordained women and priests who had been ordained by such bishops have thereby invalid orders. Which is - provenly - bullshit. All the stuff about unity, and broken relationships I submitted to those who know better than me about it for potential correction.
So I ask again, what are PEVs for?
--------------------
"May you get to heaven before the devil knows you're dead" - Irish blessing
Posts: 12860 | From: The Valley of Crocuses | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
