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   »   » Oblivion   » Bishops of Chichester, Fulham and now Beverley (Page 2)

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.  
Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  4  5  ...  9  10  11 
 
Source: (consider it) Thread: Bishops of Chichester, Fulham and now Beverley
AngloCatholicDude
Shipmate
# 16476

 - Posted      Profile for AngloCatholicDude   Email AngloCatholicDude   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by pete173:
Now that the Area Scheme review has been agreed by London Diocesan Synod, the aim is to promulge an updated version of the London Plan. That can then make it possible for an appointment of a new Bishop of Fulham, if the Bishop of London thinks that such an appointment should be made.

When you say if +Richard Londin thinks that such an appointment should be made, he said exactly a year and a bit ago that
quote:
"After consultation with the Archbishop of Canterbury, I intend with the assistance of representative figures in the Diocese, to appoint a successor to the Suffragan See of Fulham. I envisage that any new Bishop of Fulham will be more closely related to me as the Bishop of London in serving the Two Cities Area.
So surely he can't now go back on his word and say that he doesn't want to appoint anybody. Wouldn't it be easier in a sense of rather him appointing a new Bishop of Fulham, he moves Bishop Peter Wheatley over to Fulham and appoints a new bishop to the London Suffragan See of Edmonton

I know advertising isn't really a common practice within Fulham but would Bishop Richard possibly accept suggestion of possible names or criteria.

In a sense I don't believe there is a rush to appoint a new Bishop of Fulham but I do feel that maybe a year's vacancy is overly long so now is there really a point of a new bishop for fulham?

The only importance I feel is the necessity for a new Bishop of Fulham is that we have uncertain times coming up for all of us, not only those who don't believe in the Ordination of Women but those who are also in support of it.

I believe that it's essential that those Parishes that have seeked extended episcopal oversight from Motion A,B,C have their own Bishop to lead them through this time.

In a sense although +Peter Edmonton could do both for unity sake I don't believe it's wise for a Bishop who in his area has quite a few female clergy to take up a Flying Bishop type role, which clearly doesn't support female ministry

--------------------
Trusting and Believing in the Catholic Tradition within the Church of England

Posts: 85 | From: London | Registered: Jun 2011  |  IP: Logged
pete173
Shipmate
# 4622

 - Posted      Profile for pete173   Author's homepage   Email pete173   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Well, that may be your view. But that's not how we operate in the Diocese of London. We don't do "purity" or woman free zones.

Bishop Peter's position on the ordination of women is quite clear. The fact that he has women priests within his episcopal area doesn't disqualify him from giving appropriate episcopal care to the clergy and parishes who have asked for extended oversight.

If you want sanitised zones where there are no women priests, you're in the wrong church. There's another place for that. What we do in London is live together in mutual respect, recognising the boundaries. But the more I hear people moaning that they haven't got a Bishop of Fulham, the more I want to ask them "Have you recognised the quality of pastoral care and oversight that you now have with the Bishop of Edmonton? Have you not noticed the sea change (see change??) from what was going on before?"

You'll get a Bishop of Fulham - but it won't be someone who will hermetically seal you in a little box, away from the rest of the CofE in London.

--------------------
Pete

Posts: 1653 | From: Kilburn, London NW6 | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159

 - Posted      Profile for Angloid     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I wish more bishops would speak as honestly as that. I am very reluctant to worship in one nearby church because they insist on praying for the Flying Bishop as 'our Bishop' and virtually ignore the diocesan.

--------------------
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
The Man with a Stick
Shipmate
# 12664

 - Posted      Profile for The Man with a Stick   Email The Man with a Stick   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by pete173:
But the more I hear people moaning that they haven't got a Bishop of Fulham, the more I want to ask them "Have you recognised the quality of pastoral care and oversight that you now have with the Bishop of Edmonton? Have you not noticed the sea change (see change??) from what was going on before?"

I worry most about the added strain on the poor man, actually. Though +Pete is probably the wrong person to say this to, having pretty much run 2 episcopal areas for several months recently (with a few weeks off in the middle... [Devil] )
Posts: 335 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007  |  IP: Logged
Thurible
Shipmate
# 3206

 - Posted      Profile for Thurible   Email Thurible   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
I wish more bishops would speak as honestly as that. I am very reluctant to worship in one nearby church because they insist on praying for the Flying Bishop as 'our Bishop' and virtually ignore the diocesan.

As a matter of interest, do you think that PEVs should celebrate chrism Masses?

Thurible

--------------------
"I've been baptised not lobotomised."

Posts: 8049 | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159

 - Posted      Profile for Angloid     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Thurible:
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
I wish more bishops would speak as honestly as that. I am very reluctant to worship in one nearby church because they insist on praying for the Flying Bishop as 'our Bishop' and virtually ignore the diocesan.

As a matter of interest, do you think that PEVs should celebrate chrism Masses?

Thurible

It's more complicated than that of course. My understanding is that they do this because they believe that they are in 'impaired communion' with the diocese (is that the correct term?) If that were the case it is a perfectly logical thing to have a separate Chrism mass. But as +Pete suggests, you are either in or out. Now that the Ordinariate is a possibility I don't think there is any justification for a separate semi-papalist sect within the C of E. But maybe we're getting near the horses' graveyard.

--------------------
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
Anselmina
Ship's barmaid
# 3032

 - Posted      Profile for Anselmina     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
'Catholic' (rather than catholic) is already a label which is widely used and understood to define a particular Church,

That would be the Church in which we profess our faith whenever we say the Nicene and Apostles' Creeds. Maybe it's different in some parts of the world, but last time I looked in the TEC BCP (either current or 1928), the adjective was capitalized. What is the authority for considering a low-c catholic with a different meaning?
The word 'catholic' - in the creeds or outside it - is not capitalized in The Book of Common Prayer for the Church of Ireland; nor in the Church of England's Common Worship liturgy. Catholic and apostolic are both lower-case and spelt without the 'k'.

True, in the 1928 rem-mix of the 1662 BCP (CofE) you get both the old spelling and the capitalization - along with the capitalizing of a number of other words, including 'Scriptures, 'Prophets', 'Apostolick', 'Baptism', 'Resurrection' and a handful of 'Ands' at the beginning of sentences [Big Grin] .

But I don't feel compelled, as a result of this, to either capitalize those words every time I come across them, or revert to obsolete spelling of them. This liturgy represents the Protestant movement of the age towards a reformed Church - Catholic or catholic, I grant you. But nevertheless the Catholic Church as it was known, remained in its original Roman form. And I'm pretty sure few users of the original prayer books would have labelled themselves 'Catholics' at the time, unless they actually were Roman Catholics!

I'm pointing out that, generally, if someone describes themselves as 'Catholic' followed by whatever word they choose to put after that, most people would assume they are a Catholic - a member of the Roman Catholic Community, under the authority of the Pope.

I really do appreciate that some people have very definite and personal ideas in mind when they use phrases with that word (big or little c!). And I wouldn't for the world want them to compromise whatever sensibility it is they have for making whatever that point is. I shall happily refer to someone as a 'Catholic Anglican' if that is how they wish to be known. Though I still don't understand what is wrong with the phrase 'Anglo-catholic' or even 'Anglo-Catholic'. Or even Anglo-Catholick, if we're going to be strict about BCP usage!

But then I consider myself an Anglican (Christian first, of course), a protestant affirming the faith of the catholic Church. This, to me, seems to be the reason why the reformations were taking place - to enable a true catholicity of faith to continue but not necessarily within the Roman Catholic jurisdiction, nor dependant on the authority of a Pope.

A bit like acknowledging that the ocean covers the planet but the Atlantic Ocean only occupies a particular territory. I wouldn't go to the stake for it, Alogon, though. It just seemed a needlessly awkward and obscure phrase to use. But that's just what I think, which is certainly not gospel!

Posts: 10002 | From: Scotland the Brave | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
AberVicar
Mornington Star
# 16451

 - Posted      Profile for AberVicar     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
PEVs and Chrism Masses will continue to be an issue as long as (a) they are allowed to happen; (b) there is an insistence that all clergy be able to concelebrate.

IM not at all HO the Chrism Mass should aim to display what unity we still have.

This issue arose when my Curate (a female FiF permanent deacon) asked which Chrism Mass she should attend. I asked her whose Deacon she was - if the diocesan Bishop's, then his Chrism Mass, if the PEV's, then she should consider how honestly she held the diocesan's licence. The situation is not helped in that the PEV is in a different Province (Canterbury) from ours (Wales).

She comes to the Chrism Mass as a member of the team, and we all sit together in the congregation. It isn't very easy for her, and it isn't very easy for the rest of the team, but it's where we are, and it's honest. I like to think it might be godly as well...

--------------------
Before you diagnose yourself with depression or low self-esteem, make sure you are not, in fact, just surrounded by assholes.

Posts: 742 | From: Abertillery | Registered: May 2011  |  IP: Logged
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356

 - Posted      Profile for Albertus     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by AberVicar:
PEVs and Chrism Masses will continue to be an issue as long as (a) they are allowed to happen; (b) there is an insistence that all clergy be able to concelebrate.

IM not at all HO the Chrism Mass should aim to display what unity we still have.

This issue arose when my Curate (a female FiF permanent deacon) asked which Chrism Mass she should attend. I asked her whose Deacon she was - if the diocesan Bishop's, then his Chrism Mass, if the PEV's, then she should consider how honestly she held the diocesan's licence. The situation is not helped in that the PEV is in a different Province (Canterbury) from ours (Wales).

She comes to the Chrism Mass as a member of the team, and we all sit together in the congregation. It isn't very easy for her, and it isn't very easy for the rest of the team, but it's where we are, and it's honest. I like to think it might be godly as well...

How does that work- a CofE PEV having some sort of responsibility for/ oversight of/ mission to people in the CinW? I thought I was reasonably clued up on the CinW but I hadn't heard of this happening.

--------------------
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
PaulTH*
Shipmate
# 320

 - Posted      Profile for PaulTH*   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by pete173:
If you want sanitised zones where there are no women priests, you're in the wrong church.

Yet the Episcopal Act of Synod, the creation of the PEV's and Resolutions A,B and C did indeed provide such sanitised zones. With + Londin's recent pastoral letter, and his comments on a new + Fulham, we see the C of E preparing to sweep away all the "benefits" if that is one's view, of the provisions for dissenter to the OoW made in the 90's. Those parishes which still live under the resolutions, are indeed going to see that they are in the wrong church, notwithstanding the promises made, that both integrities have a time honoured place, and can call themselves faithful Anglicans. The London bishops are leading the way in showing us the Church of England of the future.

--------------------
Yours in Christ
Paul

Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
pete173
Shipmate
# 4622

 - Posted      Profile for pete173   Author's homepage   Email pete173   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
This shouldn't really focus on the ministry within one diocese, but I am quite clear that the way in which we operate in London is entirely consonant with all that legislation. Nobody is forced into compromising their sacramental principles about what they call impaired communion. The Bishop of Edmonton does not ordain women, and his pastoral care to Fulham clergy is entirely uncompromised in your terms. But it's not an option for anyone in the CofE to ignore, be rude to, or ridicule the woman incumbent in the next door parish, even if you don't believe them to be a priest. That's been true from the beginning. You can have separate Maundy Thursday communions, separate ordinations, and all the stuff for your comfort zones. But you can't opt out of the parochial system, the deanery, or the Archdeaconry. If you want to do so, then off to the Ordinariate. End of.
Posts: 1653 | From: Kilburn, London NW6 | Registered: Jun 2003  |  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 The Man with a Stick:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
They cooked their own geese when they started pretending to have dioceses like 'The See of Ebbsfleet'...

Ebbsfleet is a See. See is not a synonym for Diocese.

See (no pun intended) for example:
http://www.number10.gov.uk/news/suffragan-see-of-lynn/

or more appropriately...
http://www.number10.gov.uk/news/suffragan-see-of-ebbsfleet/

You may have many reasons to criticise the former Incumbent of that particular See, but this isn't one of them.

I am glad to stand corrected - though my point about praying for a PEV as 'X our bishop' still stands.

--------------------
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 
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
The London bishops are leading the way in showing us the Church of England of the future.

If so, it's not before time.

--------------------
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
AberVicar
Mornington Star
# 16451

 - Posted      Profile for AberVicar     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
How does that work- a CofE PEV having some sort of responsibility for/ oversight of/ mission to people in the CinW? I thought I was reasonably clued up on the CinW but I hadn't heard of this happening.

You're asking the wrong person - I don't know how it works either. The C in W did have a Provincial Assistant Bishop who functioned as an assistant to each bishop in his respective diocese. Since he wasn't replaced when he retired, many of the FiF contingent have taken to attending Chrism Masses in England.

--------------------
Before you diagnose yourself with depression or low self-esteem, make sure you are not, in fact, just surrounded by assholes.

Posts: 742 | From: Abertillery | Registered: May 2011  |  IP: Logged
The Man with a Stick
Shipmate
# 12664

 - Posted      Profile for The Man with a Stick   Email The Man with a Stick   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by pete173:
This shouldn't really focus on the ministry within one diocese, but I am quite clear that the way in which we operate in London is entirely consonant with all that legislation. Nobody is forced into compromising their sacramental principles about what they call impaired communion. The Bishop of Edmonton does not ordain women, and his pastoral care to Fulham clergy is entirely uncompromised in your terms. But it's not an option for anyone in the CofE to ignore, be rude to, or ridicule the woman incumbent in the next door parish, even if you don't believe them to be a priest. That's been true from the beginning. You can have separate Maundy Thursday communions, separate ordinations, and all the stuff for your comfort zones. But you can't opt out of the parochial system, the deanery, or the Archdeaconry. If you want to do so, then off to the Ordinariate. End of.

I'd just like to say that my experience of working under the "ABC" system in London has been entirely positive, including in the post +Broadhurst era. There certainly have been dioceses in the Church of England where life has been made as difficult as possible for trad-caths, but London is not one of them.

It's always been "Richard and John/Peter our bishops" in my parish. I consider both the diocesan and the bishop who exercises our regular pastoral care as "our bishop".

+Pete is correct, as ever, in saying that one cannot opt out of the Deanery & Archdeaconry. I do, however, see a difference between those structures (which are primarily legal/administrative) and the particularly sacramental notion of a college of priests gathered around the bishop to whom they look for sacramental oversight - which is why I'm firmly in favour of a +Fulham Chrism Mass

Posts: 335 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007  |  IP: Logged
otyetsfoma
Shipmate
# 12898

 - Posted      Profile for otyetsfoma   Email otyetsfoma   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Why do we suppose that if the CofE makes a mistake the papal church must be right? I found that when I could no longer accept the new doctrines of the CofE I could be quite comfortable in Orthodoxy without having to swallow what I believe to be the errors of the Roman See.
Posts: 842 | From: Edgware UK | Registered: Aug 2007  |  IP: Logged
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356

 - Posted      Profile for Albertus     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by AberVicar:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
How does that work- a CofE PEV having some sort of responsibility for/ oversight of/ mission to people in the CinW? I thought I was reasonably clued up on the CinW but I hadn't heard of this happening.

You're asking the wrong person - I don't know how it works either. The C in W did have a Provincial Assistant Bishop who functioned as an assistant to each bishop in his respective diocese. Since he wasn't replaced when he retired, many of the FiF contingent have taken to attending Chrism Masses in England.
Could they be persuaded to stay there, do we think?
Seriously and all peevishness aside, this business of alternative Chrism Masses, which I hadn't twigged went on until now, just underlines the extent to which the whole alternative oversight thing is institutionalising schism within the church. A clean break I could understand, and those who break cleanly I can respect: I also have some sympathy for those who were in the church- as clergy or laity- before OoW and have found it changing around them. But it's worth remembering that OoW in the CofE was nearly 20 years ago. This means that, if we are talking about clergy, no cleric under the age of about 42 now should have had any illusions about what sort of church they were being ordained into- I know there was all that guff about two integrities, but anyone (on either side of the debate) who thought that was a basis for anything more than a temporary period of adjustment was guilty of at best naivety and more likely wilful self-deception. Time now, surely, to draw a line and say no more ordinations- certainly no more consecrations- af anyone who is unwilling to recognise the validity of the orders of all the church's clergy- whatever is inside their underpants.

Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged
GreyFace
Shipmate
# 4682

 - Posted      Profile for GreyFace   Email GreyFace   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by pete173:
But it's not an option for anyone in the CofE to ignore, be rude to, or ridicule the woman incumbent in the next door parish, even if you don't believe them to be a priest.

I think this is the key point here. I see no good reason why we shouldn't still be ordaining good candidates from the second of the integrities, and lots of reasons why we should. What we should try to avoid though, is the ordination of pillocks.
Posts: 5748 | From: North East England | Registered: Jul 2003  |  IP: Logged
PaulTH*
Shipmate
# 320

 - Posted      Profile for PaulTH*   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by oyetsfoma:
Why do we suppose that if the CofE makes a mistake the papal church must be right? I found that when I could no longer accept the new doctrines of the CofE I could be quite comfortable in Orthodoxy without having to swallow what I believe to be the errors of the Roman See.

Or course you are within your rights to see things that way. I love the Orthodox Church, and its wonderful liturgy. I have quite seriously considered joining it. But I am a West European. Old Slavonic, a different calendar, and Orthodoxy's total lack of ecumenism, are what would defeat me. I am much more comfortable with Latin and the Roman See.

--------------------
Yours in Christ
Paul

Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
PaulTH*
Shipmate
# 320

 - Posted      Profile for PaulTH*   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
.
If so, it's not before time

The C of E Synod has lied to Parliament and it has lied to the Church. It promised in 1993, that both integrities would be respected. Bearing in mind that women's ordination was an innovation at that time, it was to be a period of reception. Raising women to the episcopate was a logical outcome of that discernment. So why does the C of E now refuse to honour its promises. The legislation to allow women priests would never have got through parliament, but for the Episcopal Act of Synod. The mood in synod and in parliament is now much different.

Does this allow the C of E to traduce its promises? I hope that enough voters, with a sense of justice, will cause the legislation to ordain women bishops to fail. Not because I want to stop or delay women becoming bishops, bacuse it will happen anyway. But because I want the Church of England to honour the promises it made about both integrities having a time honoured place within the C of E, and provide the structural solution , advocated by the Archbishop of Canterbury, which alone can allow many, who really want to, to remain within the Church of England.

--------------------
Yours in Christ
Paul

Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Fifi
Shipmate
# 8151

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

. . . But it's worth remembering that OoW in the CofE was nearly 20 years ago. This means that, if we are talking about clergy, no cleric under the age of about 42 now should have had any illusions about what sort of church they were being ordained into . . .

The 'sort of church' into which they were ordained was one which had promised those unable in conscience to receive the ordination of women 'an honoured place' for as long as was necessary and had underpinned that honoured place by means of Schedule 1 of the Priests (Ordination of Women) Measure 1993 and the Episcopal Ministry Act of Synod 1993. Section 1 of the latter makes the position admirably clear:

'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 views about the ordination of women to the priesthood.'

Sorry, but that is the way it is (until the General Synod welches on the deal).

Posts: 591 | From: Here | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
AberVicar
Mornington Star
# 16451

 - Posted      Profile for AberVicar     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Fifi:
Sorry, but that is the way it is (until the General Synod welches on the deal).

You are quite correct, Fifi, and this applies to the C in W as well, although the theological position of the PAB's office was a touch more strongly based than that of the PEVs.

You also highlight the principal problem, in that both arrangements are predicated on a deal. Deals are a poor way to establish any lasting or equitable solution within a community of faith. The atmosphere on both sides of the deal has been fouled with suspicion and vituperation, and those few of us on either side who have made concerted efforts to find a modus vivendi are also often viewed with suspicion.

To echo my earlier post, I don't think it's a very godly way to behave. If what +Pete is describing reflects what is actually happening at parish level, then at least there is someone out there who is modelling real Anglican comprehensiveness.

--------------------
Before you diagnose yourself with depression or low self-esteem, make sure you are not, in fact, just surrounded by assholes.

Posts: 742 | From: Abertillery | Registered: May 2011  |  IP: Logged
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356

 - Posted      Profile for Albertus     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Look, I'm not suggesting that that wasn't done in good faith. The problem is that it can't be sustained, even though lots of good people (and I mean that) on all sides intended that it should and hoped that it would and tried to make it work. So it's not a matter of welching on the deal: it's more a case of having to look again at an arrangement that was made, in all honesty and with the best of intentions, nearly a generation ago, and seeing what needs to be done now to deal with the way that things have turned out. We cannot sustain a mini-church within a church when that mini-church does not fully recognise the rest of the church within which it sits. That goes for FiF, and for evangelicals who get foreign bishops to ordain clergy because they see their diocesan as soft on gays, and for any other group of a similar kind.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged
Fifi
Shipmate
# 8151

 - Posted      Profile for Fifi   Email Fifi   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Of course I agree that deals are a poor way to establish any lasting or equitable solution. Had the settlement of 1992/3 been constructed as a covenant, we might not be in the mess we are in now. Or there again . . .
Posts: 591 | From: Here | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
BroJames
Shipmate
# 9636

 - Posted      Profile for BroJames   Email BroJames   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
The C of E Synod<snip> promised in 1993, that both integrities would be respected.

I have seen this quoted often, together with the "honoured place" that was promised. I'd really like to look at these statements in their original context. Where can I find them?
Posts: 3374 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
Fifi
Shipmate
# 8151

 - Posted      Profile for Fifi   Email Fifi   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
The problem is that it can't be sustained, even though lots of good people (and I mean that) on all sides intended that it should and hoped that it would and tried to make it work.

Lots of good people, yes - but nowhere near enough! The Pilling Report [GS1650] of 2007 hit the nail on the head and it's worth re-visiting paragraphs 4.5.4 & 4.5.5 here.

And, in concluding that section, the Report said:

'4.5.9 It has been suggested to us that the small number of appointments of traditional catholics results from an unwillingness on the part of the majority of those (ordained and lay) who are consulted in most dioceses to accept the appointment of someone of traditional catholic opinion. But as long as those opinions may legitimately be held by Church of England clergy, such an unwillingness will need to be challenged. The Episcopal Ministry Act of Synod represented a solemn undertaking on the part of the Church of England as a whole to the minority who do not agree with the ordination of women to the priesthood. It is not for us to express a view as to whether that undertaking should continue, or what effect the ordination of women to the episcopate might have on it. We are clear, however, that as long as that undertaking does continue to be enshrined in an Act of Synod, those who make senior appointments (principally, though not exclusively, diocesan bishops) have an obligation positively to confront resistance to the appointment of members of the minority and ensure that such candidates receive fair and equal consideration. We recommend that efforts be made to persuade both those responsible for making appointments and those whom they consult that while the Episcopal Ministry Act of Synod remains in force its prohibition of discrimination should be adhered to.'

Posts: 591 | From: Here | Registered: Aug 2004  |  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 PaulTH*:
I want the Church of England to honour the promises it made about both integrities having a time honoured place within the C of E

As a supporter of women's ordination, so do I. I think the CofE is honour-bound to keep a place for those who cannot accept women as priests, and is at fault to the extent that it fails to do so.

But really, all that means is we don't treat people of this view as second-class Anglicans, or hinder the ministries they are called to, or put them in situations where they have no option but to rely on the priestly ministry of a woman (possibly extending to, now that we are going to have female bishops, those ordained by women). It means treating them as faithful Anglicans.

It doesn't mean guaranteeing them their own bishops and male-only clerical enclaves. That is treating them as faithful Anglicans, but as an isolated sect associated only in name with the rest of us.

The nonsense of the OP, with it's misappropriation of the label "Catholic" and the absurd demand for "our own" bishop, when at the moment every bishop in London is decidedly male, and does not need to trace his spiritual descent through the female line, demonstrates that the fault here is not all on one side. What the CofE should do is absolutely guarantee - irrevocably and in perpetuity - the availability of male priests and bishops to those who cannot in conscience accept female ones, and what the minority to whom that promise is made should do in return is to act as if they were in the same church as we are. Respect goes both ways. When the anti-OoW side complain that they need their own separate bishops, and that even male bishops ordained by men are unacceptable unless they also separate themselves from the discipline and practice of the majority in the church, they are showing as little respect to our integrity as we are (sadly) often tempted to show to theirs.

--------------------
"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
The Man with a Stick
Shipmate
# 12664

 - Posted      Profile for The Man with a Stick   Email The Man with a Stick   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:

But really, all that means is we don't treat people of this view as second-class Anglicans, or hinder the ministries they are called to, or put them in situations where they have no option but to rely on the priestly ministry of a woman (possibly extending to, now that we are going to have female bishops, those ordained by women) . It means treating them as faithful Anglicans.

[/qb]

The current legislation on the table does not do this, incidentally.

[ 16. December 2011, 10:29: Message edited by: The Man with a Stick ]

Posts: 335 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007  |  IP: Logged
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715

 - Posted      Profile for ExclamationMark   Email ExclamationMark   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
....yawns and goes out to help families with food parcels .......
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009  |  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 The Man with a Stick:
The current legislation on the table does not do this, incidentally.

I know. It should.

--------------------
"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
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 Albertus:
This means that, if we are talking about clergy, no cleric under the age of about 42 now should have had any illusions about what sort of church they were being ordained into- I know there was all that guff about two integrities, but anyone (on either side of the debate) who thought that was a basis for anything more than a temporary period of adjustment was guilty of at best naivety and more likely wilful self-deception.

You know - I had this strange idea that when a clergy person made a promise, I should be able to trust them. It appears that I need to start operating a policy of counting my tea spoons after a visit by them instead, as they are apparently not to be trusted. Which to those of us with a sense of history won't come as a great surprise, but don't expect us to cough up for anything in the future with the label 'Church of England' on it. And does your wife realise that you have such a relaxed attitude to promises? After all men are men, can't be trusted can they? So you can't be expected to resist a little something on the side - oh - she's been naive to expect better? After all we KNOW that you aren't honourable... [Projectile]

That's what starts to happen when we relax our attitude to promises - bad stuff. One of the stranger concepts in traditional warfare is 'legitimacy by conquest'. Basically the deal was that if an invader clearly beat you, then you could surrender in the expectation that you would not be killed, in exchange for accepting that you wouldn't take up arms against that invader again. This allowed the invader not to have to commit genocide in order to ensure that his enemy wouldn't take the opportunity to stab him in the back when he had the chance; in honour he was bound to accept that he had been defeated. The proponents of the deal want to unwind it - very well - you need to undertake to return all the charitable donations to the CofE since then since those who made them were misled as to the nature of the church they were contributing to, as well as guaranteeing the priests who've been ordained since their stipend and housing for the rest of their working career. That's the proper price for you to pay. To do otherwise merely shows you to be the sort of dishonourable priest whose existence confirms atheists in their belief that God doesn't exist.

--------------------
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
dj_ordinaire
Host
# 4643

 - Posted      Profile for dj_ordinaire   Author's homepage   Email dj_ordinaire   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by BroJames:
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
The C of E Synod<snip> promised in 1993, that both integrities would be respected.

I have seen this quoted often, together with the "honoured place" that was promised. I'd really like to look at these statements in their original context. Where can I find them?
As would I. Not because I doubt them but because they point to what for me is the most curious fact about the issue - namely, that those who do not accept the ordination of women genuinely seem to believe that what the Act of Synod said was 'You can make any demand of us or our successors and we are duty bound to give it to you, no questions asked, and nothing will ever be required of you'. It is pretty clear that this is not the case and nor was it ever meant to be.

--------------------
Flinging wide the gates...

Posts: 10335 | From: Hanging in the balance of the reality of man | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322

 - Posted      Profile for Enoch   Email Enoch   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Look, there's a difference here.

Ordination is not an entitlement. Equalities, fairness etc have no bearing on it. The church should not select who it ordains on the basis, 'we've got to be fair to such and such a group'. It should select a person only because it thinks they'd make a good priest.

When the ordination of women came in, existing clergy had an entirely sound point in saying, 'this is a step too far', 'I can't stomach this', 'this isn't the church I was ordained into', 'who knows where this will lead?'.

Besides, where people are advocating change, the burden always lies upon them to persuade the rest, rather than upon the rest to be obliged to follow.


It's a bit different now. There've been female clergy now for several years. It is inevitable that there will soon be female bishops. It's a bit odd that a young man should now seek ordination in the CofE, who really believes,
- that women cannot be ordained,
- that therefore a lot of his fellow clergy will not be clergy at all,
- that even most of his fellow male clergy are seriously wrong, except for him and few chums,
- that he only wishes to be ordained to a side show in his church of like minded people,
- that he is only willing to be available to serve laity in such an enclave.

If I were to be asked to counsel future ordinands, something which is very unlikely to happen, I'd want to ask some very probing questions of such a young man as to what he really thought priesthood was about. I'd feel that they had a question mark over them unless they'd managed to persuade me. Nobody has the right to say 'I am entitled to be ordained'.

--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson

Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008  |  IP: Logged
dj_ordinaire
Host
# 4643

 - Posted      Profile for dj_ordinaire   Author's homepage   Email dj_ordinaire   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
This means that, if we are talking about clergy, no cleric under the age of about 42 now should have had any illusions about what sort of church they were being ordained into- I know there was all that guff about two integrities, but anyone (on either side of the debate) who thought that was a basis for anything more than a temporary period of adjustment was guilty of at best naivety and more likely wilful self-deception.

You know - I had this strange idea that when a clergy person made a promise, I should be able to trust them.
Yeah - the next thing you know, clergy will be taking vows to only use authorised forms of liturgy and then
complaining when required to actually DO so. [Roll Eyes]

--------------------
Flinging wide the gates...

Posts: 10335 | From: Hanging in the balance of the reality of man | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
egg
Shipmate
# 3982

 - Posted      Profile for egg   Author's homepage   Email egg   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
The Church of England is the Reformed Branch of the Catholic Church established in England. From 597 until 1534 it recognised the authority of the Pope. Since then, with a brief interval from 1553 to 1558, it has not done so; but the continuity from 597 until to-day has not been broken. Thus Rowan Williams is the 104th Archbishop of Canterbury, not the 34th. The Church of England is properly termed both Catholic and Reformed. It can also be said to be Protestant, since it protested, and protests, against the assumed jurisdiction of the Pope.

A lot of importance has been placed by some people on the fact that the Queen is the Supreme Governor of the Church of England. But this means no more than is stated in Article 37 of the 39 Articles, that the Bishop of Rome has no jurisdiction in this realm of England superior to that of the Sovereign. This is made clear in the Oath of Supremacy set out in the Act of Supremacy 1559:

“I, A. B., do utterly testify and declare in my conscience that the Queen's Highness is the only supreme governor of this realm, and of all other her Highness's dominions and countries, as well in all spiritual or ecclesiastical things or causes, as temporal, and that no foreign prince, person, prelate, state or potentate hath or ought to have any jurisdiction, power, superiority, pre-eminence or authority ecclesiastical or spiritual within this realm; and therefore I do utterly renounce and forsake all foreign jurisdictions, powers, superiorities and authorities, and do promise that from henceforth I shall bear faith and true allegiance to the Queen's Highness, her heirs and lawful successors, and to my power shall assist and defend all jurisdictions, pre-eminences, privileges and authorities granted or belonging to the Queen's Highness, her heirs or successors, or united or annexed to the imperial crown of this realm. So help me God, and by the contents of this Book.”

Thus in the bidding prayer used in places like the Temple Church, we pray for “Our Sovereign Lady Queen Elizabeth II, over all persons and in all causes, ecclesiastical as well as civil, within her dominions supreme”.

If one asks who is the Supreme Governor of the Roman Catholic Church in this country, the answer is the Queen; for it is only under legislation passed by the Queen in Parliament that the Roman Catholic Church was enabled to establish its hierarchy in England in 1850.

--------------------
egg

Posts: 110 | From: London UK | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
Fifi
Shipmate
# 8151

 - Posted      Profile for Fifi   Email Fifi   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by BroJames:
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
The C of E Synod<snip> promised in 1993, that both integrities would be respected.

I have seen this quoted often, together with the "honoured place" that was promised. I'd really like to look at these statements in their original context. Where can I find them?
For starters, take a look at this:

Hansard, House of Commons, Friday 29 October 1993, Column 1089

Mr. Michael Alison (Second Church Estates Commissioner, representing the Church Commissioners)
…

'Recognising the divided views in the Church on the issue, the remainder of the Measure provides an elaborate and comprehensive set of safeguards designed to ensure that those who, in conscience, cannot accept the ordination of women as priests are not asked to act against their conscience. Under canon law, a parish priest can already decide who may share in the administration of sacrament in his church and, if he wishes, he can exclude a woman from doing so. Clause 3 enables a parochial church council to pass either or both of the resolutions set out in schedule 1. These are, first, under resolution A, that the parochial church council would not accept a woman to preside at or celebrate Holy Communion or pronounce the absolution in the parish--those acts that are specifically reserved to the ministry--and, secondly, under resolution B, that the council "would not accept a woman as the incumbent or priest-in-charge of the benefice or as a team vicar for the benefice."

Both this and clause 4, which relates to cathedrals, are continuing provisions without limit of time--built-in, permanent parochial safeguards.'

(My emphasis)

Posts: 591 | From: Here | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
egg
Shipmate
# 3982

 - Posted      Profile for egg   Author's homepage   Email egg   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
The Church of England is the Reformed Branch of the Catholic Church established in England. From 597 until 1534 it recognised the authority of the Pope. Since then, with a brief interval from 1553 to 1558, it has not done so; but the continuity from 597 until to-day has not been broken. Thus Rowan Williams is the 104th Archbishop of Canterbury, not the 34th. The Church of England is properly termed both Catholic and Reformed. It can also be said to be Protestant, since it protested, and protests, against the assumed jurisdiction of the Pope.

A lot of importance has been placed by some people on the fact that the Queen is the Supreme Governor of the Church of England. But this means no more than is stated in Article 37 of the 39 Articles, that the Bishop of Rome has no jurisdiction in this realm of England superior to that of the Sovereign. This is made clear in the Oath of Supremacy set out in the Act of Supremacy 1559:

“I, A. B., do utterly testify and declare in my conscience that the Queen's Highness is the only supreme governor of this realm, and of all other her Highness's dominions and countries, as well in all spiritual or ecclesiastical things or causes, as temporal, and that no foreign prince, person, prelate, state or potentate hath or ought to have any jurisdiction, power, superiority, pre-eminence or authority ecclesiastical or spiritual within this realm; and therefore I do utterly renounce and forsake all foreign jurisdictions, powers, superiorities and authorities, and do promise that from henceforth I shall bear faith and true allegiance to the Queen's Highness, her heirs and lawful successors, and to my power shall assist and defend all jurisdictions, pre-eminences, privileges and authorities granted or belonging to the Queen's Highness, her heirs or successors, or united or annexed to the imperial crown of this realm. So help me God, and by the contents of this Book.”

Thus in the bidding prayer used in places like the Temple Church, we pray for “Our Sovereign Lady Queen Elizabeth II, over all persons and in all causes, ecclesiastical as well as civil, within her dominions supreme”.

If one asks who is the Supreme Governor of the Roman Catholic Church in this country, the answer is the Queen; for it is only under legislation passed by the Queen in Parliament that the Roman Catholic Church was enabled to establish its hierarchy in England in 1850.

--------------------
egg

Posts: 110 | From: London UK | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
Fifi
Shipmate
# 8151

 - Posted      Profile for Fifi   Email Fifi   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
And then there is this:

Lambeth Conference, 1998, Resolution III.2

'This Conference . . . in particular calls upon the provinces of the Communion to affirm that those who dissent from, as well as those who assent to, the ordination of women to the priesthood and eiscopate are both loyal Anglicans . . .'

Which was followed here by:

10 July 2006

‘That this Synod, endorsing Resolution III.2 of the Lambeth Conference 1998 “that
those who dissent from, as well as those who assent to the ordination of women to the
priesthood and episcopate are both loyal Anglicans” . . . '

Posts: 591 | From: Here | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
BroJames
Shipmate
# 9636

 - Posted      Profile for BroJames   Email BroJames   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Fifi:
quote:
Originally posted by BroJames:
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
The C of E Synod<snip> promised in 1993, that both integrities would be respected.

I have seen this quoted often, together with the "honoured place" that was promised. I'd really like to look at these statements in their original context. Where can I find them?
For starters, take a look at this:

Hansard, House of Commons, Friday 29 October 1993, Column 1089

Mr. Michael Alison (Second Church Estates Commissioner, representing the Church Commissioners)
…

'Recognising the divided views in the Church on the issue, the remainder of the Measure provides an elaborate and comprehensive set of safeguards designed to ensure that those who, in conscience, cannot accept the ordination of women as priests are not asked to act against their conscience. Under canon law, a parish priest can already decide who may share in the administration of sacrament in his church and, if he wishes, he can exclude a woman from doing so. Clause 3 enables a parochial church council to pass either or both of the resolutions set out in schedule 1. These are, first, under resolution A, that the parochial church council would not accept a woman to preside at or celebrate Holy Communion or pronounce the absolution in the parish--those acts that are specifically reserved to the ministry--and, secondly, under resolution B, that the council "would not accept a woman as the incumbent or priest-in-charge of the benefice or as a team vicar for the benefice."

Both this and clause 4, which relates to cathedrals, are continuing provisions without limit of time--built-in, permanent parochial safeguards.'

But, in context, what he is saying is that this is a measure which is not time limited rather than a temporary measure for a term of years, and that (at the time of speaking) there is no specific intention to repeal the measure after some given interval.

Earlier in the debate he expressly declares (column 1088)
quote:
the Church of England is subject to synodical government, which includes a representational and--dare one use the word without theological undertones--democratic factor. No fixed or final undertaking--my right hon. Friend will, I think, understand this--can be given by archbishops or bishops in ecumenical or other discussions with other churches that must stand firmly, fixedly and eternally in the face of the movement of the seas of opinion and, above all, of voting changes in their own church that are likely to shift the sands a little on the basic discussion of ecumenical matters.
It is quite clear here that he (and presumably parliament) understood that neither he, nor the present bishops or archbishops had the power to bind future General Synods, nor did they claim to, not in respect of ecumenical discussions, nor, therefore, in respect of future synodical legislation.

quote:
Originally posted by Fifi:
And then there is this:

Lambeth Conference, 1998, Resolution III.2
<snip>
Which was followed here <snip>

This lies at the heart of the argument in the sense that the current discussion is not (apparently about whether or not their can be women bishops (the voting in diocesan synods indicates that overwhelmingly the Church of England believes that the reception process is at an end, and that they can). Rather it is about what level of abrogation from that decision is appropriate to protect (for want of a better word) other loyal Anglicans from that decision and to give due respect to the integrity of their position. Some believe that a code of practice will do this, others say that it could never be adequate.

I'd still be interested in the source of the "honoured place" phrase.

Posts: 3374 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
Holy Smoke
Shipmate
# 14866

 - Posted      Profile for Holy Smoke     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Fifi:
... Mr. Michael Alison (Second Church Estates Commissioner, representing the Church Commissioners)

'Recognising the divided views in the Church on the issue, the remainder of the Measure provides an elaborate and comprehensive set of safeguards designed to ensure that those who, in conscience, cannot accept the ordination of women as priests are not asked to act against their conscience...'

So apart from the provision dealing with the administration of sacraments, the safeguards in Resolutions A, B, and 'C' are primarily for the benefit of the laity in the parish, rather than for the benefit of the vicar. So surely the issue is about ensuring that a lay parishioner has sacramental access, if so desired, to a male priest (and/or bishop), with (possibly) a guaranteed male 'up-line', and not about ensuring that a male priest has a guarantee of all-male colleagues and superiors.

This really seems to be getting lost in all the debate, which seems to be all about the wishes of the priesthood, rather than those of the laity.

Posts: 335 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2009  |  IP: Logged
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715

 - Posted      Profile for ExclamationMark   Email ExclamationMark   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by egg:
The Church of England is the Reformed Branch of the Catholic Church established in England.

That's what you'd like to think but it isn't true. The break under Henry VIII was such that the only continuity that exists is in the mind of an anglo catholic remnant. It has no basis in fact as the 39 articles show.

The fact that the Anglican Church doesn't recognise the pope's authority coinfirms the break. Why? For a Roman Catholic the Pope becomes God's Vicar on earth and to reject him you reject the roman church.

If you'd like you can have continuity by joining the roman church. It would be better to make all our minds up quickly and then get on to the real task of the church in loving the world around us instead of simply hating ourselves.

Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460

 - Posted      Profile for ken     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
The break under Henry VIII was such that the only continuity that exists is in the mind of an anglo catholic remnant.

What bollocks! The same people went to the same churches with the same priests the day after the Reformation as the day before it. There was complete continuity. The ritual was reformed, the churches continued.

If you want to find a break with the past the Reformation is the wrong time to look, the 17th century was much more disruptive. Though even then you'd be on a hiding to nothing.

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

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

Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715

 - Posted      Profile for ExclamationMark   Email ExclamationMark   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
The break under Henry VIII was such that the only continuity that exists is in the mind of an anglo catholic remnant.

What bollocks! The same people went to the same churches with the same priests the day after the Reformation as the day before it. There was complete continuity. The ritual was reformed, the churches continued.

If you want to find a break with the past the Reformation is the wrong time to look, the 17th century was much more disruptive. Though even then you'd be on a hiding to nothing.

Now, now language Timothy! You've been playing with those boys from the public school again haven't you
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460

 - Posted      Profile for ken     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
[Confused]

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

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

Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
Manipled Mutineer
Shipmate
# 11514

 - Posted      Profile for Manipled Mutineer   Author's homepage   Email Manipled Mutineer   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by egg:
If one asks who is the Supreme Governor of the Roman Catholic Church in this country, the answer is the Queen; for it is only under legislation passed by the Queen in Parliament that the Roman Catholic Church was enabled to establish its hierarchy in England in 1850.

What Act is that, please?
Posts: 1533 | From: Glamorgan, UK | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged
Anselmina
Ship's barmaid
# 3032

 - Posted      Profile for Anselmina     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by egg:
The Church of England is the Reformed Branch of the Catholic Church established in England.

That's what you'd like to think but it isn't true. The break under Henry VIII was such that the only continuity that exists is in the mind of an anglo catholic remnant. It has no basis in fact as the 39 articles show.

The fact that the Anglican Church doesn't recognise the pope's authority coinfirms the break. Why? For a Roman Catholic the Pope becomes God's Vicar on earth and to reject him you reject the roman church.

If you'd like you can have continuity by joining the roman church. It would be better to make all our minds up quickly and then get on to the real task of the church in loving the world around us instead of simply hating ourselves.

To be fair, Henry would've considered himself an absolutely true blue Catholic till the day he died; the one thing he didn't want the Pope mucking around with was his right to marry and divorce who he wanted; and he even rescinded the English Bible in every church idea, simply because he felt that ordinary people shouldn't be allowed to make their own conclusions about scripture.

He really didn't have much time for the German protestant reformers, at all.

And his death released the real protestants under his son Edward to go to town on the BCP. The 39 articles took quite some afterwards before they were thrashed out finally.

However, the CofE as we know and love her ( [Big Grin] ) undoubtedly harvested the protestant fruit of the European reformations; but uniquely kept a definite catholic/Catholic thread that was not eliminated because of the rather piecemeal reforming that went on. I would say, in addition, that one of the very English things about the British reformation was its attachment to the idea of being a Catholic Church, but not caring that much for Rome or its Bishop! But that's just my personal observation!

Posts: 10002 | From: Scotland the Brave | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
Trisagion
Shipmate
# 5235

 - Posted      Profile for Trisagion   Email Trisagion   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Manipled Mutineer:
quote:
Originally posted by egg:
If one asks who is the Supreme Governor of the Roman Catholic Church in this country, the answer is the Queen; for it is only under legislation passed by the Queen in Parliament that the Roman Catholic Church was enabled to establish its hierarchy in England in 1850.

What Act is that, please?
Egg can, of course, speak for eggself but I suspect he is referring to the Roman Catholic Relief Act of 1829, 10 Geo 4 c.7. Like almost everything Egg has posted on this thread, if this is what he meant, then his post is a tendentious oversimplification.

--------------------
ceterum autem censeo tabula delenda esse

Posts: 3923 | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715

 - Posted      Profile for ExclamationMark   Email ExclamationMark   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
[QUOTE]He really didn't have much time for the German protestant reformers, at all.

Agreed - that's why he was known as the defender of the faith.

But more importantly, from the POV of the discussions about Anglicanism and Catholicism, he didn't rate the pope either. Since Pope = Rome = Church then anglicans can't logically be catholic if they recognise any of the tenets of the reformation.

Time this was all sorted. Englsih compromise has been proven not to work. Let the catholics in the anglican communion go to rome, the charismatics/congregationationists/traditionalists go to NFI or BUGB or become independant and all who want to be anglican stay in it. Then we can all get on with the real work of the gospel that doesn't involve arguments and schism. Man up and go to Rome if you like it so much.

Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged
Thurible
Shipmate
# 3206

 - Posted      Profile for Thurible   Email Thurible   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
It's more complicated than that of course. My understanding is that they do this [celebrate Chrism Masses] because they believe that they are in 'impaired communion' with the diocese (is that the correct term?) If that were the case it is a perfectly logical thing to have a separate Chrism mass. But as +Pete suggests, you are either in or out. Now that the Ordinariate is a possibility I don't think there is any justification for a separate semi-papalist sect within the C of E. But maybe we're getting near the horses' graveyard.

Sorry for taking a little while to respond. I asked because I think that the Chrism Mass goes to the heart of the difficulty.

As we all know, the bishop is the principal celebrant of the Eucharist and the priests celebrate it on his behalf. Priests gather around their bishop at the Chrism Mass to renew their vows and to affirm their membership of the presbyterium of that bishop.

In being a part of his presbyterium, they represent that presbyterium as an whole, who, in turn, represent the bishop. By their membership of that presbyterium, they are saying that everyone in it is equally a priest.

It is not because the Bishop of, say, Manchester ordains women that TWCATAOWTTPs* cannot be part of his sacramental presbyterium, it is because he has, in his presbyterium, those whom they cannot recognise as being priests. Fellow workers in the vineyard, yes; beloved sistren in the Lord, yes; those for whom Christ died, yes; those worthy or respect and collaboration in deanery and archidiaconal life, yes. But as members of the presybyterium? Unfortunately not. (Or, in the minds of many, possibly not.)

As for the Ordinariate, it is a vehicle for mass conversion. It is not the reunion of the Western Church for which Anglo-Papalists (and, of course, others) have worked and prayed. And thus it is entirely irrelevant.

Thurible

*Those who cannot accept the admission of women to the presbyterate

--------------------
"I've been baptised not lobotomised."

Posts: 8049 | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Manipled Mutineer
Shipmate
# 11514

 - Posted      Profile for Manipled Mutineer   Author's homepage   Email Manipled Mutineer   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:
quote:
Originally posted by Manipled Mutineer:
quote:
Originally posted by egg:
If one asks who is the Supreme Governor of the Roman Catholic Church in this country, the answer is the Queen; for it is only under legislation passed by the Queen in Parliament that the Roman Catholic Church was enabled to establish its hierarchy in England in 1850.

What Act is that, please?
Egg can, of course, speak for eggself but I suspect he is referring to the Roman Catholic Relief Act of 1829, 10 Geo 4 c.7. Like almost everything Egg has posted on this thread, if this is what he meant, then his post is a tendentious oversimplification.
How disappointing. I had hoped for something like the "Conferment of Ecclesiastical Titles and Jurisdiction on Roman Prelates Act 1865".

--------------------
Collecting Catholic and Anglo-
Catholic books


Posts: 1533 | From: Glamorgan, UK | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged



Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  4  5  ...  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