|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Bishops of Chichester, Fulham and now Beverley
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Thurible:
[QUOTE]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.
It is also the vehicle and the fruit of division and schism.
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Trisagion
Shipmate
# 5235
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Manipled Mutineer:
How disappointing. I had hoped for something like the "Conferment of Ecclesiastical Titles and Jurisdiction on Roman Prelates Act 1865".
There is, of course, the Ecclesiastical Titles Act of 1851, 14 & 15 Vict. C 60, but that was post the reestablishment of the Hierarchy. This act was repealed by the Ecclesiastical Titles Act 1871 34 and 35 Vict. c. 53. The 1829 Act forbade the Catholic Church from adopting the episcopal (and decanal) titles of the established Church.
--------------------
ceterum autem censeo tabula delenda esse
Posts: 3923 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
GreyFace
Shipmate
# 4682
|
Posted
I just wrote a fairly long refutation of Mark's claim, but I decided not to inflict it on the Purg hosts. I'll settle for adding my assent to Ken's assessment, and for the same reasons. It is indeed bollocks.
Posts: 5748 | From: North East England | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
Since Pope = Rome = Church then anglicans can't logically be catholic if they recognise any of the tenets of the reformation.
This is papalism of a sort that I have rarely heard from Anglo-catholics of any stripe, let alone an evangelical. Since the Pope himself has appeared to suggest that Luther was right about justification, it appears he isn't Catholic either. And bears have been toilet-trained.
And even if that issue is still contentious, there are surely many things that the Reformation fought for which have been accepted by Rome. Liturgy in the vernacular for a start.
If the Anglican church was abolished tomorrow, I would probably, albeit reluctantly, swim the Tiber. Ken would probably join any one of a number of Protestant denominations. But we agree that the C of E is both Catholic and Reformed. As do the vast majority of Anglicans who look at the evidence, and the reality.
To Thurible: would the concern about who is or is not within the 'presbyterium' if the Chrism Mass had not come to hold the high profile it does now? Such celebrations were unknown in the C of E much before the 1980s, and I don't think the Roman Rite combined the aspects of blessing the oil and renewal of priestly vows until Vatican 2.
--------------------
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 ExclamationMark:
It is also the vehicle and the fruit of division and schism.
Whereas the CofE is neither? Do you realise just how sanctimonious that sounds to most of Christendom?
--------------------
ceterum autem censeo tabula delenda esse
Posts: 3923 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anselmina
Ship's barmaid
# 3032
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
It is also the vehicle and the fruit of division and schism.
Whereas the CofE is neither? Do you realise just how sanctimonious that sounds to most of Christendom?
Yeah, but it's our 'division and schism'. ![[Biased]](wink.gif) Everybody likes to go to the Devil in their own way, you know!
--------------------
Irish dogs needing homes! http://www.dogactionwelfaregroup.ie/ Greyhounds and Lurchers are shipped over to England for rehoming too!
Posts: 10002 | From: Scotland the Brave | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Triple Tiara
Ship's Papabile
# 9556
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
To Thurible: would the concern about who is or is not within the 'presbyterium' if the Chrism Mass had not come to hold the high profile it does now? Such celebrations were unknown in the C of E much before the 1980s, and I don't think the Roman Rite combined the aspects of blessing the oil and renewal of priestly vows until Vatican 2.
This, I think, is on the mark. I know some now-RC formerly Anglican priests from the North East who bear testimony to this. By their account, their then bishop, David Jenkins, used to be very coy about the Chrism Mass and eventually celebrated it very reluctantly in Durham Cathedral. But not without first tinkering with it and having a child "challenge" the bishop to be faithful to his minsitry, a deacon "challenge" the priests, a priest "challenge" the laity and the bishop "challenge" the priests. So everyone had a say and there was no "clericalism".
But in 1993 when they (those opposed to women priests) all withdrew from the Chrism Mass, David Jenkins apparently wept in the pulpit (something he did often, and on this occasion) because they had absented themselves. They were very perplexed at his sudden devotion to the Chrism Mass.
--------------------
I'm a Roman. You may call me Caligula.
Posts: 5905 | From: London, England | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
. By their account, their then bishop, David Jenkins, used to be very coy about the Chrism Mass and eventually celebrated it very reluctantly in Durham Cathedral. But not without first tinkering with it and having a child "challenge" the bishop to be faithful to his minsitry, a deacon "challenge" the priests, a priest "challenge" the laity and the bishop "challenge" the priests. So everyone had a say and there was no "clericalism".
This is a tangent I suppose, but do I understand from your tone that you think there is something wrong with this? And if so, what?
--------------------
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
|
|
Triple Tiara
Ship's Papabile
# 9556
|
Posted
The laity renew their baptismal promises at the Easter Vigil. Pope Paul VI specifically introduced the renewal of priestly commitment at the Chrism Mass as an opportunity in the year for priests - so closely associated with celebrating the mysteries of the Altar - to renew their priestly promises. For everyone to be renewing promises at the Chrism Mass renders the Easter renewal of baptismal promises rather redundant.
--------------------
I'm a Roman. You may call me Caligula.
Posts: 5905 | From: London, England | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ender's Shadow
Shipmate
# 2272
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
The laity renew their baptismal promises at the Easter Vigil. Pope Paul VI specifically introduced the renewal of priestly commitment at the Chrism Mass as an opportunity in the year for priests - so closely associated with celebrating the mysteries of the Altar - to renew their priestly promises. For everyone to be renewing promises at the Chrism Mass renders the Easter renewal of baptismal promises rather redundant.
Interesting perspective. From where I'm coming from that reflects a failure to realise
a) The laity have a ministry - which is being renewed at the Chrism mass - not just the clergy. IMHO that RCs fail to recognise this, and only focus on the altar 'ministry' is one of their blind spots. And surely since this is the Chrism mass, so could be interpreted more broadly than just the ministry of the mass, it's inappropriate to limit it to that?
b) The clergy were baptised, so should be renewing their baptismal vows at the Easter Vigil.
--------------------
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
|
|
Triple Tiara
Ship's Papabile
# 9556
|
Posted
Well, if you think that you can separate the baptismal vocation from the ministry of the baptised, that is indeed an interesting perspective.
The Chrism Mass wasn't designed to be a celebration of "ministry" but very specifically of the priesthood. You do not need to be the bride at every wedding and the corpse at every funeral.
--------------------
I'm a Roman. You may call me Caligula.
Posts: 5905 | From: London, England | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ender's Shadow
Shipmate
# 2272
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
Well, if you think that you can separate the baptismal vocation from the ministry of the baptised, that is indeed an interesting perspective.
The Chrism Mass wasn't designed to be a celebration of "ministry" but very specifically of the priesthood. You do not need to be the bride at every wedding and the corpse at every funeral.
Thanks that's helpful and does makes sense.
--------------------
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
|
|
Dogwalker
Shipmate
# 14135
|
Posted
Triple Tiara wrote:
quote:
You do not need to be the bride at every wedding and the corpse at every funeral.
I'd like to use this as my signature line, with your permission.
I can think of all too many people, including a few relatives, who have never understood this.
--------------------
If God had meant for us to fly, he wouldn't have given us the railways. - Unknown
Posts: 155 | From: Milford, MA, USA | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Triple Tiara
Ship's Papabile
# 9556
|
Posted
Heheh go ahead - it's not original to me.
--------------------
I'm a Roman. You may call me Caligula.
Posts: 5905 | From: London, England | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
. By their account, their then bishop, David Jenkins, used to be very coy about the Chrism Mass and eventually celebrated it very reluctantly in Durham Cathedral. But not without first tinkering with it and having a child "challenge" the bishop to be faithful to his minsitry, a deacon "challenge" the priests, a priest "challenge" the laity and the bishop "challenge" the priests. So everyone had a say and there was no "clericalism".
This is a tangent I suppose, but do I understand from your tone that you think there is something wrong with this? And if so, what?
That is roughly how we do it at Bristol.
--------------------
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
|
|
venbede
Shipmate
# 16669
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
[qb]
b) The clergy were baptised, so should be renewing their baptismal vows at the Easter Vigil.
Of course they do. The most important vocation, baptism, is renewed at the most important service of the year, the Vigil.
The secondary ministry is renewed at the secondary service.
--------------------
Man was made for joy and woe;
And when this we rightly know,
Thro' the world we safely go.
Posts: 3201 | From: An historic market town nestling in the folds of Surrey's rolling North Downs, | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
shameless
Apprentice
# 9918
|
Posted
I believe that the definition of "Catholic" denotes one that believes in the UNIVERSAL church.
Wikipedia evidences that at least 10 different forms of Catholic churches in existence and that these are under the Roman See.
What it appears that this thread is proposing or what mates are intimating is the proper use of the words Catholic and Anglican in the venacular sense.
--------------------
shameless
Posts: 26 | From: somewhere over the rainbow | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
poileplume
Shipmate
# 16438
|
Posted
shameless posted “What it appears that this thread is proposing or what mates are intimating is the proper use of the words Catholic and Anglican in the venacular sense.”
This may be cultural. In Quebec, French speaking Anglicans always and unhesitatingly refer to themselves as Catholic. Plus the service is always 'the mass', Amongst the English speakers there is the split vote, as reflected in this thread.
--------------------
Please note I am quite severely dyslexic
Posts: 319 | From: Quebec | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
It is also the vehicle and the fruit of division and schism.
Whereas the CofE is neither? Do you realise just how sanctimonious that sounds to most of Christendom?
I've never claimed anything to the contrary - I'm just making the point that instead of making a real example and bringing light and grace, the ordinariate has brought darkness and division and heat (on both sides).
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
I'm really not sure what your beef with the the Ordinariate (or Ang. Cœt. in general?) is. It had and has one purpose: to offer those Anglicans who wish to come into full communion with the Holy See a means of achieving this without losing much of what is good and distinctive in their Anglican heritage and whilst remaining in groups (lay and clerical) during and after this process (where possible).
As far as I can see, it is doing what it says on the tin. When some people break with others there is always the risk of bad feeling, but.
[ 20. December 2011, 09:27: Message edited by: Chesterbelloc ]
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Man with a Stick
Shipmate
# 12664
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
It is also the vehicle and the fruit of division and schism.
Whereas the CofE is neither? Do you realise just how sanctimonious that sounds to most of Christendom?
I've never claimed anything to the contrary - I'm just making the point that instead of making a real example and bringing light and grace, the ordinariate has brought darkness and division and heat (on both sides).
I'm slightly puzzled at what you would like those of a 'traditional catholic persuasion' to do, as, in various threads, you seem equally hostile to those who have left as you do to those who remain. Short of a Damascine conversion of the remnant to the, admittedly majority, opinion of the CofE, what would you advise?
Posts: 335 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
But in 1993 when they (those opposed to women priests) all withdrew from the Chrism Mass, David Jenkins apparently wept in the pulpit (something he did often, and on this occasion) because they had absented themselves. They were very perplexed at his sudden devotion to the Chrism Mass.
I doubt that very much. I have no reason to think that converts to the RCC are so singularly lacking in sense or empathy.
Without knowing +David at all, I can think of one immediately plausible reason for his distress, which I cannot believe would not have occurred to any of your acquaintances of even moderate perplexity: he was, perhaps, somewhat hurt by a deliberate and public statement of disunity and contempt.
By analogy - I may be very unenthusiatic about Christmas dinner. I may attend my family's annual dinner reluctantly, and constantly advocate changes to our traditions that would reduce it's importance and change it's meaning. I may secretly wish the whole business abolished. I will still be hurt if my brother boycotts the celebration because he cannot stand to be in the same room as my sister or acknowledge her to be part of his family. No one (except the most graceless cretin) would be remotely "perplexed" to see me upset by that.
I believe strongly that the Anglican church ought to be one in which any Christian with any pretensions to orthodoxy can belong in good conscience, and so (contra ExclamationMark's suggestion that anyone identifying with a minority tradition in the CofE should just fuck off) would very much wish those opposed to the ordination of women to stay. And that ought to mean making all reasonable (and some unreasonable) concessions to enable them to do so in good conscience.
That said, a priest who is prepared to demonstrate and say, in public, "I have so little respect for your ministry that I cannot stand to be in the same liturgical room as you, in case, despite my well known and oft-expressed views on the subject, that might be taken to imply that I could possibly recognise you as a fellow priest", is utterly at odds with any spirit of compromise, concession or mutual respect. Such a priest should make up his mind to stay (and at least pretend to respect the church he is part of even if he cannot accept the validity of every vocation) or go. I am sorry that we (the CofE) didn't make it easier for him to stay. We ought to have done. But I'm not at all convinced that it would have made any difference if we had.
--------------------
"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
|
|
Birdseye
I can see my house from here!
# 5280
|
Posted
There have been some very reasonable comments from those concerned with preserving the integrity of people's personal faith, and the unity of the Anglican church... but there is also an edge that keeps cropping up, particularly in the most thoughtful responses which jarrs...
I've met every kind of objector to women's ordination, from the gut-led traditionalist who lives by instinct, through the sincere sacramental questioner who reads theology; the near-pagan to whom the idea of momentarily questioning one's own understanding appears tantamount to suicide; to the homosexual misogynist for whom all women are anathema... I've met those who love the Church but care little for the Gospel or God; those who love the trimmings and the status but care little for the Church; and those who are not sure if they believe in love at all but know Fear very well... I've also met those who wrestle with God sincerely and seek always to come to a greater understanding of his Grace... but these last are the rarest...
But it is almost impossible to convey, to any but the last of these groups of people, just what it means to be at odds with other people you love... but even the kindest disapprover does not seem to realise that to deny the priesthood (not to avoid the ministry... but to DENY the priesthood) of a woman priest cannot be done gently or politely or in half-measure... one CANNOT say:
'I respect you as a person and admire the work you do and love you as a fellow Christian but to me you are not a priest' WITHOUT IT MEANING:
'You are to me, first and foremost a liar, and if a liar to me, then certainly a liar before God... for in my eyes you do not stand with God as he has ordained you, but you stand in your own foolish pretence, in your delusion, in your madness... and you stand at that place where you believe God has called you to, and in that place where I am certain God has not called you to... you stand like Eve at the apple tree, grasping repeatedly at that first sin, the only thing which you may not have... vainglory, pride, madness... you are in my eyes, the most pitiable creature, a sinner unrepentant and unredeemed a child of lies'...
So by all means disagree with women's ordination, mark well the sort of individuals who share your opinion, their character, intellect and above all their love... but please don't try to say that you 'respect your fellow 'sisters in Christ'' in the same breath as you condemn them as charlatans, lunatics and deceivers... it just won't wash.
--------------------
Life is what happens whilst you're busy making other plans.
a birdseye view
Posts: 1615 | From: West Yorkshire | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Birdseye:
to deny the priesthood (not to avoid the ministry... but to DENY the priesthood) of a woman priest cannot be done gently or politely or in half-measure... one CANNOT say:
'I respect you as a person and admire the work you do and love you as a fellow Christian but to me you are not a priest' WITHOUT IT MEANING:
'You are to me, first and foremost a liar, and if a liar to me, then certainly a liar before God... for in my eyes you do not stand with God as he has ordained you, but you stand in your own foolish pretence, in your delusion, in your madness... and you stand at that place where you believe God has called you to, and in that place where I am certain God has not called you to... you stand like Eve at the apple tree, grasping repeatedly at that first sin, the only thing which you may not have... vainglory, pride, madness... you are in my eyes, the most pitiable creature, a sinner unrepentant and unredeemed a child of lies'...
Golly. You clearly feel strongly about this, birdseye. But is it really charitable of you to force such a frothy, denunciatory meaning on the religious convictions of your fellow Christians? Can they really not think that women who believe they are called to ministerial priesthood are merely sincerely mistaken?
quote:
Originally posted by Birdseye:
please don't try to say that you 'respect your fellow 'sisters in Christ'' in the same breath as you condemn them as charlatans, lunatics and deceivers... it just won't wash.
Why not? Because their belief that you are sincerely and honestly mistaken makes you feel as if they've called you a charlatan, liar, deceiver, lunatic, etc.? That, frankly, is your problem, not theirs. Why not take them at their word as they do you at yours?
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Birdseye
I can see my house from here!
# 5280
|
Posted
quote:
Golly. You clearly feel strongly about this, birdseye.
Yes, it is my life I'm talking about here, my whole life... and if it had to be, it would be my death too... sometimes when I see the blood rise in an angry man's face I have to admit to myself that it might cost that much -but priests are killed for all sorts of reasons all the time, so that's not as extreme or unusual as it sounds.
quote:
But is it really charitable of you to force
It is never loving or charitable to 'force'... and I do not do so here,
quote:
such a frothy,
hardly that...
quote:
denunciatory meaning on the religious convictions of your fellow Christians? Can they really not think that women who believe they are called to ministerial priesthood are merely sincerely mistaken?
Are you suggesting that I am wrong in placing as much significance on their convictions as I do? Are you trying to tell my that their 'convictions' are in fact no more than mild, affable opinions... 'My dear, I think you'll find you are in error'...that is certainly not how they are expressed in speech or writing, publicly or privately, or how they are catered for by law.
quote:
quote:Originally posted by Birdseye:
please don't try to say that you 'respect your fellow 'sisters in Christ'' in the same breath as you condemn them as charlatans, lunatics and deceivers... it just won't wash.
Why not? Because their belief that you are sincerely and honestly mistaken makes you feel as if they've called you a charlatan, liar, deceiver, lunatic, etc.? That, frankly, is your problem, not theirs. Why not take them at their word as they do you at yours?
In a choice between the hostile charlatan and the mere simple-minded idiot, you are suggesting that I discount my prayers and heart, the affirmation of the Church, of fellow Christians from this and other denominations (including Roman Catholics), the authority and opinion of my sending Bishop, the countless theologians across the catholic Church and any belief in the guidance of the Holy Spirit... and instead entertain the possibility that I, and all of them, may have just 'made a sincere mistake'...
... don't you think that is an offering I have made to God again and again... when confronted by the suggestion? I have. I am neither charlatan nor simple-minded... nor even stubborn.
So will YOU take ME at my word, as you suggest I should take them... when I tell you that God is calling me to become a priest?
I think perhaps you will not. Why should you, your world will not change if you do not accept me, or if you never question your own convictions... But my world does change at your opinion... because I cannot change my gender or God's call, as easily as you can change your mind.
--------------------
Life is what happens whilst you're busy making other plans.
a birdseye view
Posts: 1615 | From: West Yorkshire | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
The good old Anglican spirit of compromise seems quite absent from some of this debate (not the debate on this thread, particularly, but the wider debate in the church generally). I don't get how groups of 'Catholic' Anglicans can compromise with catholicity to the extent of opting out of their own bishop's jurisdiction, yet not be prepared to compromise with the existence (not even the co-existence) of female priests. But I'm sure we've had this discussion before and it should probably continue with the Spirits of Horses Past.
Presumably the gift of compromise is not one of the distinctive features of Anglicanism that are being brought into the Ordinariate.
--------------------
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
|
|
Oscar the Grouch
Adopted Cascadian
# 1916
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
Presumably the gift of compromise is not one of the distinctive features of Anglicanism that are being brought into the Ordinariate.
Sadly, the Christian Church has largely bought into the awful myth (propagated especially by politicians like Margaret Thatcher) that "compromise" is a dirty world.
True compromise is not about "selling out" your principles. It is about respecting the differing views of others as being as deeply and sincerely held as our own. Compromise is about saying "I may not agree with you, but I honour and defend your right to have your opinion."
Opposition to compromise comes not from a "brave commitment to the truth", but from plain old pride and arrogance.
--------------------
Faradiu, dundeibáwa weyu lárigi weyu
Posts: 3871 | From: Gamma Quadrant, just to the left of Galifrey | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Oscar the Grouch
Adopted Cascadian
# 1916
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
Sadly, the Christian Church has largely bought into the awful myth (propagated especially by politicians like Margaret Thatcher) that "compromise" is a dirty world.
The last sentence should end "compromise" is a dirty word.
Sorry for that error. Missed the edit window!
--------------------
Faradiu, dundeibáwa weyu lárigi weyu
Posts: 3871 | From: Gamma Quadrant, just to the left of Galifrey | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
egg
Shipmate
# 3982
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:
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. [/QB]
As to the statute, agreed. The Roman Catholic hierarchy could not have been established in England had the Act not been passed.
"Tendentious" (New Oxford Dictionary of English, 1998): "Expressing or intending to promote a particular cause or point of view, especially a controversial one."
If that is the charge, I plead guilty, though I try to stick to established facts; unlike some Roman Catholics who I have heard say that "the Church of England stole our churches". Go into almost any medieval church and you will find a list of vicars and rectors, and sometimes patrons, stretching back in an unbroken line to the 13th or 14th century, including in many cases parish priests who served continuously through two or more of the reigns of Henry VIII, Edward VI, Mary I and Elizabeth I.
While one factor in the Reformation of the Church of England was the King's resentment at the refusal of Pope Clement VII to accept the views of the majority of the European universities which Cranmer had consulted, that Pope Julius II had no power to grant the dispensation for Henry VIII to marry his brother's widow so that the marriage was a nullity, that was only part of the story. The first Reformation Statute, the Act in Restraint of the Payment of Annates 1531, was passed to abolish the right of the Pope to the first-fruits of every bishopric and archbishopric in the Church of England, under which, so the Act states, £160,000 had been paid to the Pope from England since the second year of Henry VII's reign (1486); and also to make provision for the consecration of bishops by the Archbishops of Canterbury and York where the Pope had delayed or refused his approval of the persons nominated by the King; and for ignoring unreasonable excommunications pronounced by the Pope.
The second Reformation Statute, the Act in Restraint of Appeals 1532, is the one that starts "This realm of England is an Empire, governed by one supreme head and king", and goes on to declare that "The English church hath been always thought sufficient and meet of itself, without the intermeddling of any exterior person or persons." It continues "All causes testamentary, causes of matrimony and divorces ... within the King's dominions ... shall be determined within the King's jurisdiction ... by the Archbishops of Canterbury and York," Henry VIII was not going to have any foreign sovereign exercising powers within his kingdom superior to his own. I think most Englishmen would share this view - vide the recent troubles with the eurozone.
The third Reformation Statute, the Act concerning Peter-pence, 1533, besides abolishing the Pope's right to Peter-pence, declared (section XIX) that "The King and the realm do not mean to vary from the articles of the Catholick faith of Christendom, but only to enact policies for the conservation of the realm in peace, not minding to seek for any relief but within this realm at the hands of the King, which have imperial power and authority and are not obliged in any worldly causes to any other superior."
There were, of course, other statutes in the next 30 years before the Elizabethan Settlement was arrived at; but neither Henry VIII nor Elizabeth I would have accepted that the Church of England had departed from the essentials of the Catholic faith, and this was the opinion of Richard Hooker, who provided the thoroughly worked out philosophy of Anglicanism later in the century. Of course, if you define "the Catholic Faith" as including submission to the Bishop of Rome, the Church of England does not accept this; but neither did any of the churches of the first four or five centuries AD, and yet Roman Catholics would not, I think, deny that they held the Catholic Faith.
None of which is to say that Roman Catholics are not welcome in England, and there have been shining examples of saintliness among them, such as Cardinal Basil Hume; but there is some truth in the description of them, expressed by my vicar who subsequently became a bishop, as "foreign missionaries".
[ 20. December 2011, 15:44: Message edited by: egg ]
--------------------
egg
Posts: 110 | From: London UK | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
venbede
Shipmate
# 16669
|
Posted
I want to be a Catholic first and an Anglican second. I certainly don't want to be a protestant. I take very seriously much of the teaching of the Second Vatican Council. Before Common Worship, I wanted to worship with the Roman propers, three year lectionary and calendar.
Birdseye has put into words the primary reason why I came to accept the ordination of women:it seemed impossible for anyone to argue against it without being rude.
--------------------
Man was made for joy and woe;
And when this we rightly know,
Thro' the world we safely go.
Posts: 3201 | From: An historic market town nestling in the folds of Surrey's rolling North Downs, | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Birdseye:
In a choice between the hostile charlatan and the mere simple-minded idiot, you are suggesting that I discount my prayers and heart, the affirmation of the Church, of fellow Christians from this and other denominations (including Roman Catholics), the authority and opinion of my sending Bishop, the countless theologians across the catholic Church and any belief in the guidance of the Holy Spirit... and instead entertain the possibility that I, and all of them, may have just 'made a sincere mistake'...
How do your atheist friends respond to your vocation?
I would hope that they are able to respect you personally, and acknowledge such qualities as you have which make you a good priest, but must they not also inevitably think that you are fundamentally mistaken about the whole thing. For them, your sincerity and intellect are not in doubt, but nonetheless as far as they are concerned it is absolutely impossible that God has called you to be a priest, there being (in their view) no God to call you. You don't have to see (and almost certainly do not see) their non-belief in your vocation as an expression of hostility or depreciation towards you or your abilities. It is simply the result of them holding views contrary to your own.
Would it not be possible to see the opponents of women's ordination in a similar way? There is a conceptual barrier which makes it impossible for them to see that God has called you, but it is not based on any disrespect for you.
--------------------
"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
|
|
Cardinal Pole Vault
Papal Bull
# 4193
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Thurible:
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
Thurible is spot on, but I'll have to admit to not fully appreciating the position until I was myself ordained (in Manchester, as it happens, and not by a PEV). I'd always worried PEVs were about 'taint' and had had the somewhat individualistic/functional idea that all that really that mattered was ordination by a male bishop.
--------------------
"Make tea, not war"
Posts: 986 | From: Insula Tiberina | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anselmina
Ship's barmaid
# 3032
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Can they really not think that women who believe they are called to ministerial priesthood are merely sincerely mistaken?
Nothing patronising there, then. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Sincerely mistaken along with everyone else, presumably, who supported MOW, and the Synods which agreed to ordain. That's a lot of mistakeness. How self-sacrificing that so many who are enabled to recognize the mistake hidden from so many of us poor deluded schmucks, remain within the Anglican Church to remind us of it!
More seriously, if, after nearly ten years of submitting myself obediently to the discernment process of the Church of England, in order to ensure I was not mistaken in applying for ordained ministry, followed by nearly a dozen years of parish work, I would consider myself to be the biggest fool in Christendom and a danger to myself and to others should I come to the conclusion that it was just a 'sincere mistake'.
And all on the single premise that I am a woman. And for each and every woman to be that dangerously 'mistaken'? My goodness - what a feeble-minded sex we are in doing right; and yet how powerful in doing wrong, in compelling right-minded men to agree with us!
Because undoubtedly there are men who are 'mistakenly' ordained when they ought not to have been, but it must be presumed God may still work through their ministries because they are men. Yet, women apparently making the same 'mistake' - an irremediable hindrance to the catholic Body of Christ.
--------------------
Irish dogs needing homes! http://www.dogactionwelfaregroup.ie/ Greyhounds and Lurchers are shipped over to England for rehoming too!
Posts: 10002 | From: Scotland the Brave | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
That's about the best post on this thread so far, Anselmina- thank you for it.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anselmina
Ship's barmaid
# 3032
|
Posted
Darn, Eliab. You put your point so well! ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
I guess it's just got to be recognized that on both sides of the question respect for the other is not as normative as it should be. And maybe that gives rise all too naturally to defensiveness and cynicism. It's hard to attribute, as a matter of course, good motives when one is so regularly reminded that one's ministry would be better off not existing.
--------------------
Irish dogs needing homes! http://www.dogactionwelfaregroup.ie/ Greyhounds and Lurchers are shipped over to England for rehoming too!
Posts: 10002 | From: Scotland the Brave | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Comper's Child
Shipmate
# 10580
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
That's about the best post on this thread so far, Anselmina- thank you for it.
I agree.
Posts: 2509 | From: Penn's Greene Countrie Towne | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Man with a Stick
Shipmate
# 12664
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
Sincerely mistaken along with everyone else, presumably, who supported MOW, and the Synods which agreed to ordain. That's a lot of mistakeness. How self-sacrificing that so many who are enabled to recognize the mistake hidden from so many of us poor deluded schmucks, remain within the Anglican Church to remind us of it!
Whichever way you cut it, and whoever is right, an awful lot of people are sincerely mistaken (or have been throughout the last 2000 years).
Posts: 335 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Trisagion
Shipmate
# 5235
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by egg:
quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:
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.
As to the statute, agreed. The Roman Catholic hierarchy could not have been established in England had the Act not been passed.
"Tendentious" (New Oxford Dictionary of English, 1998): "Expressing or intending to promote a particular cause or point of view, especially a controversial one."
If that is the charge, I plead guilty, though I try to stick to established facts; unlike some Roman Catholics who I have heard say that "the Church of England stole our churches". Go into almost any medieval church and you will find a list of vicars and rectors, and sometimes patrons, stretching back in an unbroken line to the 13th or 14th century, including in many cases parish priests who served continuously through two or more of the reigns of Henry VIII, Edward VI, Mary I and Elizabeth I.
While one factor in the Reformation of the Church of England was the King's resentment at the refusal of Pope Clement VII to accept the views of the majority of the European universities which Cranmer had consulted, that Pope Julius II had no power to grant the dispensation for Henry VIII to marry his brother's widow so that the marriage was a nullity, that was only part of the story. The first Reformation Statute, the Act in Restraint of the Payment of Annates 1531, was passed to abolish the right of the Pope to the first-fruits of every bishopric and archbishopric in the Church of England, under which, so the Act states, £160,000 had been paid to the Pope from England since the second year of Henry VII's reign (1486); and also to make provision for the consecration of bishops by the Archbishops of Canterbury and York where the Pope had delayed or refused his approval of the persons nominated by the King; and for ignoring unreasonable excommunications pronounced by the Pope.
The second Reformation Statute, the Act in Restraint of Appeals 1532, is the one that starts "This realm of England is an Empire, governed by one supreme head and king", and goes on to declare that "The English church hath been always thought sufficient and meet of itself, without the intermeddling of any exterior person or persons." It continues "All causes testamentary, causes of matrimony and divorces ... within the King's dominions ... shall be determined within the King's jurisdiction ... by the Archbishops of Canterbury and York," Henry VIII was not going to have any foreign sovereign exercising powers within his kingdom superior to his own. I think most Englishmen would share this view - vide the recent troubles with the eurozone.
The third Reformation Statute, the Act concerning Peter-pence, 1533, besides abolishing the Pope's right to Peter-pence, declared (section XIX) that "The King and the realm do not mean to vary from the articles of the Catholick faith of Christendom, but only to enact policies for the conservation of the realm in peace, not minding to seek for any relief but within this realm at the hands of the King, which have imperial power and authority and are not obliged in any worldly causes to any other superior."
There were, of course, other statutes in the next 30 years before the Elizabethan Settlement was arrived at; but neither Henry VIII nor Elizabeth I would have accepted that the Church of England had departed from the essentials of the Catholic faith, and this was the opinion of Richard Hooker, who provided the thoroughly worked out philosophy of Anglicanism later in the century. Of course, if you define "the Catholic Faith" as including submission to the Bishop of Rome, the Church of England does not accept this; but neither did any of the churches of the first four or five centuries AD, and yet Roman Catholics would not, I think, deny that they held the Catholic Faith.
None of which is to say that Roman Catholics are not welcome in England, and there have been shining examples of saintliness among them, such as Cardinal Basil Hume; but there is some truth in the description of them, expressed by my vicar who subsequently became a bishop, as "foreign missionaries". [/QB]
Oh. Thanks. We'll try to behave ourselves then.
--------------------
ceterum autem censeo tabula delenda esse
Posts: 3923 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Can they really not think that women who believe they are called to ministerial priesthood are merely sincerely mistaken?
Nothing patronising there, then.
Sincerely mistaken along with everyone else, presumably, who supported MOW, and the Synods which agreed to ordain. That's a lot of mistakeness. How self-sacrificing that so many who are enabled to recognize the mistake hidden from so many of us poor deluded schmucks, remain within the Anglican Church to remind us of it!
More seriously, if, after nearly ten years of submitting myself obediently to the discernment process of the Church of England, in order to ensure I was not mistaken in applying for ordained ministry, followed by nearly a dozen years of parish work, I would consider myself to be the biggest fool in Christendom and a danger to myself and to others should I come to the conclusion that it was just a 'sincere mistake'.
And all on the single premise that I am a woman. And for each and every woman to be that dangerously 'mistaken'? My goodness - what a feeble-minded sex we are in doing right; and yet how powerful in doing wrong, in compelling right-minded men to agree with us!
Because undoubtedly there are men who are 'mistakenly' ordained when they ought not to have been, but it must be presumed God may still work through their ministries because they are men. Yet, women apparently making the same 'mistake' - an irremediable hindrance to the catholic Body of Christ.
good on you for all that - applauds!
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
poileplume
Shipmate
# 16438
|
Posted
Dear Anselmina and birdseed,
You are not alone. In Quebec, we get real prejudice in Anglican circles against of all things...speaking French. ‘The Anglican church is an English church'. (I hasten to add that it is confined to the Neanderthals not the leadership, they are very positive about the French ministry).
If you live outside Québec, what language you speak must sound like complete and utter nuts to you. So quite frankly does the debate of over the gender of priests to me.
So can we tag any further debate over women priests as ‘women priests and speaking French ’? as it is the same issue.
In the face of the immense problems facing us, can we please focus on what unites us and not what divides us?
--------------------
Please note I am quite severely dyslexic
Posts: 319 | From: Quebec | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
otyetsfoma
Shipmate
# 12898
|
Posted
As someone who lived in Quebec for a long time, but over fifty years ago , I found on a recent visit there that Quebec has managed the most complete, bloodless and legal act of ethnic cleansing yet known. No wonder the few anglophones left don't like it.
Posts: 842 | From: Edgware UK | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
poileplume
Shipmate
# 16438
|
Posted
Thank you, otyetsfoma I think you made my point absolutely perfectly.
It all boils down to narrow, uneducated, prejudice. Defined as: if it did not exist in the 1950’s, it must be wrong.
You see my dear Anselmina and birdseed, we get exactly the same mindless idiocy.
Plus ca change plus c’est pareil (The more things change the more they stay the same)
--------------------
Please note I am quite severely dyslexic
Posts: 319 | From: Quebec | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:
[QUOTE] We'll try to behave ourselves then.
Ah, but trying isn't enough ....
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
PaulTH*
Shipmate
# 320
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Birdseye:
So by all means disagree with women's ordination, mark well the sort of individuals who share your opinion, their character, intellect and above all their love... but please don't try to say that you 'respect your fellow 'sisters in Christ'' in the same breath as you condemn them as charlatans, lunatics and deceivers... it just won't wash.
I don't think Eliab's point about what your atheist friends might think can be bettered. But there's another aspect. I joined the RC Church this year because I believe in the sacrifice of the Mass, the Real Presence, the intercessions of the BVM and the saints, and praying for the dead. I also infinitely prefer the Roman liturgy because it better expresses these concepts than does Anglican liturgy. My choice had little to do with women and the priesthood. I also love ritual in worship, including bowing and genuflecting, and things such as holy water, candles, incense and bells, all of which I see as incarnational .
Although many Anglicans share these beliefs and practices, as I did a year ago, they are not part of Anglican heritage. Also, from the Bishop of London's recent pastoral letter, it seems that the C of E is in the mood to crack down on the use of illegal rites. I don't accept Protestant theology or soteriology. So I belong to a church which doesn't ordain women. Should the Magisterium come to the conclusion that the time for it is right, I would have no problem with it. As Pope Leo XII's Apostolicae Curae has never been rescinded, in the eyes of the Catholic Church, Anglican male priests are no more validly ordained than their women, wheras the ordination of Orthodox clergy is accepted as apostolic, and therefore sacramentally valid.
I have friends who are Anglican clergy, and I don't disrespect their vocation or sense of calling just because I have changed churches. I have learnt a great deal from some of them. So I, in no way would detract from the ministry to which you feel yourself called. We are all called to be servants of God in whatever way in which our contribution can best be realised. If yours, after a long period of discernment, as you describe, is to Holy Orders within a church which recognises it, no one has any right or reason to doubt or disrespect your decision. However this doesn't make me want to belong to a church whose theology and practice I can no longer support.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Paul
Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Trisagion
Shipmate
# 5235
|
Posted
Having just about got over the self-referential diatribe of Little Englander theology, political theory and Reformation historiography, and mindful, as ever, that Catholics on these boards (and clearly for Egg in English society at large) are tolerated by some only so long as we 'know our place', I am nervous of picking up the thread regarding the relationship between Ecclesiology and the Chrism Mass. Nonetheless, reckless to a fault, here goes.
The example of the attitude of atheist friends is a good one, and PaulTH's remarks about his non-Catholic friends is very much to the point, but they both miss the much larger point that the 1992 Act of Synod and all the blather about 'two integrities' tries to fudge. It is this: either it is possible for the Church to ordain women - in which case in justice it must so do - or it is not. If it is, when a women so ordained purports to celebrate the Eucharist, no matter how sincerely or conscientiously an objector holds to his or her position, then it is the Eucharist: if it is not then, no matter how sincerely or how conscientiously she believes herself to be so doing, it is not the Eucharist. These are such fundamentally incompatible and irreconcilable positions that they constitute a de facto schism between those who hold those positions. If the ancient definition of schism as setting up altar against altar is correct then what is this but that. There can be no full Eucharistic Communion (which is, by definition, a fundamentally reciprocal relationship) between the two and the 'two integrities' idea has about it the ring of wanting the penny and the bun.
My oldest and closest friend is a Vicar. Do I believe that he is a priest, endowed with the power to celebrate the Eucharist and to forgive sins? No. Not for one minute and he knows it. Do I believe that he is a charlatan, a deluded fool? No, of course not. I believe him to sincerely and conscientiously mistaken. Do I believe his ministry is of no value. No, I certainly don't. The pastoral care and the preaching, the leadership and ritual he offers to his community are very clearly vehicles of God's grace. In those circumstances, could we stand around the same altar and celebrate the same Eucharist? No, of course not because that would betoken not respect for one another's integrity but to hold sincerely held beliefs in contempt, of little or no account. Do I respect him and what he believes and does? Of course I do: as he thinks I am wrong, so I think him to be so. I love and respect and value everything about him so much that I owe him who I am and what I believe: I owe him the respect and honour and duty of a love that does not lie to him. He is due the respect of my integrity.
In 1992 the CofE took a decision to ordain women to its presbyterate. From that moment on, any denial of recognition within that communion to women priests (and bishops, since the only possible reason for not ordaining women to the episcopate once you've ordained them to the presbyterate is a prudential judgement about the effect on eccelsial unity within the communion that this would have - a judgement which must be time limited) became both ecclesially and sacramentally unreasonable and unjust. Talk about resolutions A,B and C, PEVs and two integrities could never be anything other than a doomed de jure attempt to hold together what was de facto already separated for the sake of tempering the wind to the shorn lamb. Where those who cannot live with the ministry of women within the Anglican Communion are supposed to go, I have no idea. For those who believe the claims the Catholic Church makes for herself, the choices are obvious - but then the 'I'm staying where I am in order to work for unity from this side' argument has long lost whatever plausibility it once had. For others I can understand that it might be difficult but that is no reason to go around undermining and insulting women in ministry, still less for separate episcopal structures within the same communion, let alone the schism of separate Chrism Masses.
--------------------
ceterum autem censeo tabula delenda esse
Posts: 3923 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
egg
Shipmate
# 3982
|
Posted
Perhaps I should say that I am NOT David Starkey, whose article in to-day's Times makes very much the same points about Henry VIII's policy as I did yesterday, including a longer quotation from the Act in Restraint of Appeals 1532 ("This realm of England is an Empire, governed by one supreme head and king ... without restraint or provocation [appeal] to any foreign prince or potentate").
--------------------
egg
Posts: 110 | From: London UK | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anselmina
Ship's barmaid
# 3032
|
Posted
As I often do, I appreciate and value Trisagion's clear take and statement on the position of his Church and those who agree with it. And I think it's important that those on the side of priesting for women understand this particular argument too, before simply assuming that every opposition is coming from the same overtly misogynistic place.
I think if I wrote more on this I'd be getting into Dead Horse territory, so I'll just conclude with saying that as far as I was concerned the consentual authority of my Church for women to be priested was the key to everything. I know it sounds airy-fairy to say it, but I fully believe that God recognizes a eucharist where a Church may not; and similarly God acknowledges a priestly ministry where a Church authority may rule it 'invalid' (whether male or female).
However, in my own case, that was no reason for going outside the rule of the CofE, which I took on board as the arbiter and qualifier of my vocation.
I also understand that for those for whom the integrity of their Church (whichever one it is) is only validly to be found within the traditional doctrine and useage of Holy Orders, it must seem impossible to imagine any real good can come from stepping beyond that tradition as many Anglican Churches have done across the Communion. As well as other denominations.
That is not to say that these traditional Churches would claim a restriction in the use and efficacy of God's working in these 'invalid' offices and ministers; but that these things are perceived to occur outside of the integrity of the true c/Catholic Church, where the very validity of the orders ensures the efficacy of the work.
I hope I have done some little justice to this position. Though needless to say, I don't agree with it.
Posts: 10002 | From: Scotland the Brave | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
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.
The Vicar of Bray springs to mind as a tongue in cheek potted history.
--------------------
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
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
The Vicar of Bray springs to mind as a tongue in cheek potted history.
Or, less cynically, the Vicar of Morebath.
--------------------
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
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
This debate about Anglican orders breaks out again and again, and I used to get in to it again and again. I have, you see, a great habit of finding things to get heated up about. But then I had this revelation that if I really didn't think the pope was the head of the Church, then I was actually obligated to behave as if his opinions, whether about our orders or about the ordination of women, were irrelevant. So not getting into these debates anymore, past expressing some indifference to the issue, is a matter of maintaining my principles as a member of the One True Church, the Church founded by Christ, which is of course the Anglican Communion.
It is beyond doubt that Jesus Christ will confirm all Anglican prerogatives on the Last Day anyways, so let's not worry about it I say. Lord knows the pope isn’t losing any sleep over what we think.
Zach
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
