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 4)

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.  
Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  9  10  11 
 
Source: (consider it) Thread: Bishops of Chichester, Fulham and now Beverley
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 Trisagion:
Oh. Thanks. We'll try to behave ourselves then.

Please don't. You're more fun just as you are.

--------------------
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
Trisagion
Shipmate
# 5235

 - Posted      Profile for Trisagion   Email Trisagion   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:
Oh. Thanks. We'll try to behave ourselves then.

Please don't. You're more fun just as you are.
Anything for you, Leo.

My remark was just a reaction to the patronising and supercilious tone directed at Catholics on this board from those who seem to believe that the Ship is an Anglican show and the rest of us had better bloody remember it. Egg seems to believe that the same applies to England too. [Mad]

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

Posts: 3923 | Registered: Nov 2003  |  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 Zach82:
This debate about Anglican orders breaks out again and again, and I used to get in to it again and again.

Zach, there isn't a debate about Anglican Ordes going on here at all. What my post was about was (1) to take the analogy of a Catholic view of Anglican Orders and how that doesn't imply any necessary lack of respect and apply it to the OoW issue; and (2) point up the nonsense on stilts that 'two integrities' is.

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

Posts: 3923 | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159

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

My remark was just a reaction to the patronising and supercilious tone directed at Catholics on this board from those who seem to believe that the Ship is an Anglican show and the rest of us had better bloody remember it.

It's not just on the Ship. A certain type of Anglican (usually those who claim to be 'Catholic', but a better class of Catholic, and certainly with better taste in liturgy, and who think that (Roman) Catholics are generally oiks ) adopt this extremely patronising tone. Which pisses me off, and I'm a laid-back lefty-liberal-sort-of -catholic Anglican. Many of this sort of Anglicans don't actually know any real Catholics.

--------------------
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      Profile for Zach82     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Zach, there isn't a debate about Anglican Ordes going on here at all. What my post was about was (1) to take the analogy of a Catholic view of Anglican Orders and how that doesn't imply any necessary lack of respect and apply it to the OoW issue; and (2) point up the nonsense on stilts that 'two integrities' is.
Oh, I know what you were trying to say. My admittedly tangential comments were inspired by some other comments, especially talk about the catholicity of the Anglican Communion.

--------------------
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
egg
Shipmate
# 3982

 - Posted      Profile for egg   Author's homepage   Email egg   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:
[QUOTE]

My remark was just a reaction to the patronising and supercilious tone directed at Catholics on this board from those who seem to believe that the Ship is an Anglican show and the rest of us had better bloody remember it. Egg seems to believe that the same applies to England too.

I am truly sorry if I have butted in half way through this thread and caused offence. My great great uncle was a leading light in the Association for the Promotion of the Unity of Christendom in the second half of the 19th century. This was a society, encouraged by Cardinal Wiseman, which included Roman Catholics, Anglicans and Orthodox, and genuinely hoped for a formal reunion of these three branches of the Christian faith, on a footing of equality. Cardinal Manning obtained a direction from Rome forbidding RCs to join it; but he expressed himself sorry, later, that he had been so unsupportive. My gg uncle was the last Anglican priest to give communion to Manning before he became a Roman Catholic, and knew him well. I am sure that, although he may have been sorry to see him change allegiance, he would have had nothing but respect for him. In pursuit of the aim of reunification, my gg uncle had an audience with the Patriarch of Moscow; and a personal audience with Pope Pius IX, who blessed his work -his sermon on the occasion of the Pope's death included the following passage:

"During a private conversation I had with His Holiness ten years ago, he expressed his hearty concurrence with the efforts then being made towards the reunion of the two Churches, more especially by prayer. Taking my left hand over my shoulder, and joining it to his right hand on his breast, he said, with characteristic energy, 'I give you my free and hearty concurrence.'”

This was, of course, before Pope Leo XIII's Encyclical Apostolicae Curae declared all Anglican orders to be "absolutely null and utterly void". Fortunately my gg uncle died a few years before Apostolicae Curae, which I believe would have wounded him deeply.

I have no intention of directing a "patronising or supercilious tone" to Roman Catholics; but I shall protest at the patronising tone of Roman Catholics who do not recognise that the Church of England has been the national church of this country, Rngland, since St Augustine of Canterbury landed in Kent in 597. Some would go further and hold that the original British church, which sent bishops to the Council of Arles in 314, can also be regarded as a direct forebear of the Church of England, since the Celtic and Roman churches came together to form a single Church of England at the Synods of Whitby and Hertford. The extracts which I quoted from the Reformation statutes were intended to demonstrate that the Church of England did not, as some Roman Catholics allege, come into existence as a newly formed church in the reign of Henry VIII solely because the Pope would not acknowledge that his marriage to Catherine of Aragon was a nullity, but was much more concerned with Henry VIII's desire to be the supreme authority in the country of which he was the king.

If that is accepted, then I hope my respect for the Roman Catholic Church, and indeed for some of the recent Papal encyclicals, will not be regarded as patronising. As to "catholic", I like the definition given by St Vincent of Lerins, "id quod semper, ubique, ab omnibus creditum est." I leave it to others to judge which of the two churches comes nearer to that definition.

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

Posts: 110 | From: London UK | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
poileplume
Shipmate
# 16438

 - Posted      Profile for poileplume   Email poileplume   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Why do I get the impression I am in the middle of a battle between the Pharisees and the Sadducees?

--------------------
Please note I am quite severely dyslexic

Posts: 319 | From: Quebec | Registered: May 2011  |  IP: Logged
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159

 - Posted      Profile for Angloid     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by poileplume:
Why do I get the impression I am in the middle of a battle between the Pharisees and the Sadducees?

I sympathise. Our domestic squabbles must look quite different from across the Pond (especially the francophone part of it).

--------------------
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
poileplume
Shipmate
# 16438

 - Posted      Profile for poileplume   Email poileplume   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
My apologies for that reflection. You are completely right of course, it is a cultural difference and I should have realised that.

--------------------
Please note I am quite severely dyslexic

Posts: 319 | From: Quebec | Registered: May 2011  |  IP: Logged
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159

 - Posted      Profile for Angloid     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
No need to apologise, p de p. It's good to have an outsider's view putting things in perspective.

--------------------
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
Alisdair
Shipmate
# 15837

 - Posted      Profile for Alisdair   Email Alisdair   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I set out to follow Christ, but then I found people had spent a long time digging an enormous pit in the way, and filled it with tar. The sign says the pit is called 'Christianity'. I wonder if there's a way round it?
Posts: 334 | From: Washed up in England | Registered: Aug 2010  |  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 Angloid:
quote:
Originally posted by poileplume:
Why do I get the impression I am in the middle of a battle between the Pharisees and the Sadducees?

I sympathise. Our domestic squabbles must look quite different from across the Pond (especially the francophone part of it).
I don't recognise our domestic squabbles in egg's posts. Trisagion's are better accounts of what goes on in the Church of England than egg's are.

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

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

Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
egg
Shipmate
# 3982

 - Posted      Profile for egg   Author's homepage   Email egg   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
[QUOTE]I don't recognise our domestic squabbles in egg's posts. Trisagion's are better accounts of what goes on in the Church of England than egg's are.

I think a little history is sometimes relevant, particularly where relations between the Church of England and the Church of Rome are concerned; but I apologise if that is thought not to have enough to do with what goes on in the Church of England to-day.

I have always drawn comfort from the great Pope Gregory I’s reply to St Augustine, as set out in Bede’s Ecclesiastical History, in which the distinctiveness of the Church of England is made clear:

“Augustine’s Second Question—Whereas the faith is one and the same, are there different customs in different Churches? and is one custom of Masses observed in the holy Roman Church, and another in the Church of Gaul?

Pope Gregory answers.—You know, my brother, the custom of the Roman Church in which you remember that you were bred up. But my will is, that if you have found anything, either in the Roman, or the Gallican, or any other Church, which may be more acceptable to Almighty God, you should carefully make choice of the same, and sedulously teach the Church of the English, which as yet is new in the faith, whatsoever you can gather from the several Churches. For things are not to be loved for the sake of places, but places for the sake of good things. Choose, therefore, from every Church those things that are pious, religious, and right, and when you have, as it were, made them up into one bundle, let the minds of the English be accustomed thereto.”

I believe that we have found in other churches that the ministry of women is just as acceptable to Almighty God as the ministry of men, and that we have papal authority from one of the greatest of the Popes, if it is considered to be needed, for authorising such ministry in the Church if England, even if can hardly now be called new in the faith.

Personally I was initially opposed to the ordinarion of women, on grounds of tradition and also on the kind of grounds on which CS Lewis relied - the Eucharist or Mass brings the people into a close relationship with Christ: the priest can represent the people whether male or female, but can the priest represent Christ if female? It always seemed to me primarily a theological point. Those who are wiser than I am, the majority of General Synod, thought otherwise; and having experienced the ministry of three women curates in my parish church I now accept that it was right, or at the least acceptable to almighty God.

Is it perhaps time for Forward in Faith to revisit its Agreed statement on Communion, published in September 1994, which was prepared "with a view to helping loyal members of the Church of England to remain within the fellowship of that Church and make a lively contribution to its life and witness"?

Many members of Forward in Faith continue to make such a lively contribution. Could some of them, after seventeen years' experience of the ministry of women, come to accept that, at any rate for the Church of England, this is perhaps in accord with the will of God?

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

Posts: 110 | From: London UK | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
Chesterbelloc

Tremendous trifler
# 3128

 - Posted      Profile for Chesterbelloc   Email Chesterbelloc   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by egg:
I believe that we have found in other churches that the ministry of women is just as acceptable to Almighty God as the ministry of men, and that we have papal authority from one of the greatest of the Popes, if it is considered to be needed, for authorising such ministry in the Church if England, even if can hardly now be called new in the faith.

[Confused] So Pope Gregory would have been just fine with women priests because he encouraged St Augustine to allow a measure of decent liturgical diversity? I mean, eh?

You're invoking the pastoral advice of a pope who died over a millenium-and-a-half ago (on a completely different order of issue) as implicit authority for a decision made fewer than twenty years ago to do something which neither Gregory not Augustine could ever even have imagined possible?

Seriously, what kind of argument is that?

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

Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
egg
Shipmate
# 3982

 - Posted      Profile for egg   Author's homepage   Email egg   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
[QUOTE]

You're invoking the pastoral advice of a pope who died over a millenium-and-a-half ago (on a completely different order of issue) as implicit authority for a decision made fewer than twenty years ago to do something which neither Gregory not Augustine could ever even have imagined possible?

Seriously, what kind of argument is that?

I don't think this is a very profitable line to pursue. Many things have changed in the last millennium and a half which neither Gregory nor Augustine could ever have imagined possible. A famous one is the demonstration of the Pope's and the Inquisition's error in finding Galileo mistaken in believing that the earth moved round the sun. I doubt whether Gregory or Augustine regarded as a matter of Faith the dogma of the Bodily Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary, required to be believed by all Roman Catholics since 1950. Neither would have imagined it possible that the Mass could validly be celebrated in the vernacular. Nearer home, I doubt whether either Gregory or Augustine would have believed it possible that a woman, St Hilda of Whitby, should train no fewer than five bishops of the Church of England, including St Wilfrid.

The Assumption is, of course, a matter of faith. The belief that the sun moved round the earth was regarded as a matter of faith too, since Galileo was tried for heresy. The question whether the Mass can be validly celebrated in the vernacular, or a woman can become a priest, is not a matter of faith but a second-degree matter of order, which is not affected by the definition of the Catholic Faith given by St Vincent of Lerins. Pope Gregory was a man of vision; but no one can reasonably credit him with such farsighted vision as to foresee the outcome of the Second Vatican Council, or for that matter of the General Synod of the Church of England which he sent St Augustine to found.

Things change. The Catholic Church, whether Roman or Anglican, changes too, if rather more slowly. This is so in relation to matters of faith - 160 years ago neither the Immaculate Conception nor the Infallibility of the Pope nor the Bodily Assumption of the Virgin were an essential part of the Catholic Faith; nor was the Mass in the vernacular; nor the reception of married men with families as priests (though this was not uncommon before the 11th century); nor many lesser matters which are now accepted. As I have said, I used to believe that there was a theological reason against the ordination of women as priests, but experience teaches me that this has proved acceptable to God. 40 years ago my bishop told me he thought the Roman Catholic Church would ordain women before the Church of England did. He has proved to be wrong; but perhaps, in matters of order rather than faith, the current thinking of the Roman Catholic Church may also, in forty years time, prove to be wrong. After all, both man and woman were equally made in God's image, as Scripture says, God having no gender. The arguments against the ordination of women are, frankly, not all that strong.

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

Posts: 110 | From: London UK | Registered: Jan 2003  |  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 egg:
Many things have changed in the last millennium and a half which neither Gregory nor Augustine could ever have imagined possible.

One of which was that Augustine's successor would break Comminuion with Gregory's in order to accommodate the dynastic ambitions of a secular ruler.

quote:
A famous one is the demonstration of the Pope's and the Inquisition's error in finding Galileo mistaken in believing that the earth moved round the sun.
Do you actually know anything about this matter?

quote:
I doubt whether Gregory or Augustine regarded as a matter of Faith the dogma of the Bodily Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary, required to be believed by all Roman Catholics since 1950.
Since the feast was being celebrated in Rome before the end of 5th century, it seems likely that neither of them would have believed anything else.

quote:
Neither would have imagined it possible that the Mass could validly be celebrated in the vernacular.
Except that they were Romans who celebrated the Mass in the vernacular of the City of Rome.

quote:
[qbNearer home, I doubt whether either Gregory or Augustine would have believed it possible that a woman, St Hilda of Whitby, should train no fewer than five bishops of the Church of England, including St [/qb]
Oh puhleese. Do you have neither a sense of anachronism or the ridiculous.

quote:
The Assumption is, of course, a matter of faith. The belief that the sun moved round the earth was regarded as a matter of faith too, since Galileo was tried for heresy. The question whether the Mass can be validly celebrated in the vernacular, or a woman can become a priest, is not a matter of faith but a second-degree matter of order, which is not affected by the definition of the Catholic Faith given by St Vincent of Lerins. Pope Gregory was a man of vision; but no one can reasonably credit him with such farsighted vision as to foresee the outcome of the Second Vatican Council, or for that matter of the General Synod of the Church of England which he sent St Augustine to found.

Things change. The Catholic Church, whether Roman or Anglican, changes too, if rather more slowly. This is so in relation to matters of faith - 160 years ago neither the Immaculate Conception nor the Infallibility of the Pope nor the Bodily Assumption of the Virgin were an essential part of the Catholic Faith; nor was the Mass in the vernacular; nor the reception of married men with families as priests (though this was not uncommon before the 11th century); nor many lesser matters which are now accepted. As I have said, I used to believe that there was a theological reason against the ordination of women as priests, but experience teaches me that this has proved acceptable to God. 40 years ago my bishop told me he thought the Roman Catholic Church would ordain women before the Church of England did. He has proved to be wrong; but perhaps, in matters of order rather than faith, the current thinking of the Roman Catholic Church may also, in forty years time, prove to be wrong. After all, both man and woman were equally made in God's image, as Scripture says, God having no gender. The arguments against the ordination of women are, frankly, not all that strong.

So you say. The Catholic Church says otherwise and securus judicat orbis terrarum, as we say around here. In any event, this is getting into Dead Horse territory but, Egg, you may not have noticed in your headlong determination to download your curious Anglo-Catholic take on everything, that the Catholics daring to post on what is increasingly feeling like a domestic Anglican board were doing so to point out that Anglicans seeking to have their position as opposed to OoW honoured within the CofE is ecclesiologically wanting your cake and eating it.

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

Posts: 3923 | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged
Alisdair
Shipmate
# 15837

 - Posted      Profile for Alisdair   Email Alisdair   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
There is a good deal being expressed in this thread that is a disgrace and reason enough for people to dismiss 'the church' as nothing but a self-regarding brood of vipers, but no doubt if the entire institution of the church were to collapse tomorrow the life and way of Jesus 'Christ' would remain; something for which we can all be grateful, whatever ecclesiological 'position' we may hold---though no doubt few of us would be willing to make the ultimate sacrifice for our precious 'position'.
Posts: 334 | From: Washed up in England | Registered: Aug 2010  |  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 Alisdair:
There is a good deal being expressed in this thread that is a disgrace and reason enough for people to dismiss 'the church' as nothing but a self-regarding brood of vipers, but no doubt if the entire institution of the church were to collapse tomorrow the life and way of Jesus 'Christ' would remain; something for which we can all be grateful, whatever ecclesiological 'position' we may hold---though no doubt few of us would be willing to make the ultimate sacrifice for our precious 'position'.

This is the second time you have sought to curtail debate by adopting this tone. If you don't want to engage in the debate, you are free so not to do. What I don't think you have the right to do is to adopt such a sanctimonious tone.

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

Posts: 3923 | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged
Alisdair
Shipmate
# 15837

 - Posted      Profile for Alisdair   Email Alisdair   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
It may well be sanctimonious, but I include myself in the disgrace. As for curtailing the debate: not at all, but like the proverbial rearrangement of deckchairs on the Titanic, there is no harm in trying to stand back and ask what exactly is the point of the exercise in question?

Ultimately what is being discussed is pretty well irrelevant to the well being of humanity, and to the 'gospel' and calling of Christ; but like PCC discussions over what colour to paint the interior of the church hall, people feel able to get very exercised about it, but struggle to have anything much to say/do about what the church is actually there to be.

I'm sorry if you feel I am pouring cold water.

Posts: 334 | From: Washed up in England | Registered: Aug 2010  |  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 Alisdair:
It may well be sanctimonious, but I include myself in the disgrace. As for curtailing the debate: not at all, but like the proverbial rearrangement of deckchairs on the Titanic, there is no harm in trying to stand back and ask what exactly is the point of the exercise in question?

Ultimately what is being discussed is pretty well irrelevant to the well being of humanity, and to the 'gospel' and calling of Christ; but like PCC discussions over what colour to paint the interior of the church hall, people feel able to get very exercised about it, but struggle to have anything much to say/do about what the church is actually there to be.

I'm sorry if you feel I am pouring cold water.

You are pouring cold water and no amount of including yourself in those being drenched will alter that. As for what is, or is not, relevant to the 'gospel': what makes you think that your call on that trumps others? The words you used suggest that you weren't trying to stand back and consider the issues under scrutiny at all and it is disingenuous to suggest that such a construction could be put upon them. The issues exposed in this thread are certainly important to those who are debating them and it ill behoves any one of us to seek to seek to shame others into silence by sanctimonious guilt-mongering.

In case you find it within yourself to come down from what you clearly believe to be the moral high-ground and review this thread, you might find it useful to read the posts remembering the following words:
quote:
And they devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers.
Then, perhaps, you will understand why those of us who you seek to scold and shame think that the issues in debate are so very important.

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

Posts: 3923 | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged
AberVicar
Mornington Star
# 16451

 - Posted      Profile for AberVicar     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Egg has offered a pretty convincing case against the securus iudicat orbis terrarum on which Trisagion bases his dismissal of Egg's other arguments. (Translated for thos who don't read Latin: it exercises safe judgement over the lands of the earth.

Perhaps Alisdair would like to tell us what he would say to those who believe (for better or worse) that doctrinal shifts in the Church mean there is no longer any Titanic on which to arrange the deckchairs. I don't share that view, but it's seriously held by some and needs to be addressed - unless of course we're going to start refusing to take some people seriously, which seems to me to be a common option both historically and currently, and which is a far greater scandal than anything Alisdair is complaining about.

--------------------
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
Trisagion
Shipmate
# 5235

 - Posted      Profile for Trisagion   Email Trisagion   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by AberVicar:
Egg has offered a pretty convincing case against the securus iudicat orbis terrarum on which Trisagion bases his dismissal of Egg's other arguments. (Translated for thos who don't read Latin: it exercises safe judgement over the lands of the earth.

I don't think he does anything more than assert, as Anglicans have been asserting for four hundred years, that one part can separate itself from the whole and retain the right to judge authoritatively. You might find that "pretty convincing": your own situation IRL is rather dependent on it being so. To me it smacks of "Oh look, Mother, our Johnny's the only one in step.". I guess that's why you're an Anglican and I'm not.

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

Posts: 3923 | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged
Fuzzipeg
Shipmate
# 10107

 - Posted      Profile for Fuzzipeg   Author's homepage   Email Fuzzipeg   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Originally posted by AberVicar:
Egg has offered a pretty convincing case against the securus iudicat orbis terrarum on which Trisagion bases his dismissal of Egg's other arguments. (Translated for thos who don't read Latin: it exercises safe judgement over the lands of the earth.

And using that standard Anglican circumlocution of quoting St Gregory the Great out of context and jumping to an illogical conclusion where as insisting that this is a completely wrong approach to scriptural interpretation whilst muttering sitz im leben under your breath.

I sympathise with Trisagion's attempt draw some threads of argument together whilst swimming through pink blancmange.

--------------------
http://foodybooze.blogspot.co.za

Posts: 929 | From: Johannesburg, South Africa | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
trouty
Shipmate
# 13497

 - Posted      Profile for trouty   Email trouty   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:
quote:
Originally posted by AberVicar:
Egg has offered a pretty convincing case against the securus iudicat orbis terrarum on which Trisagion bases his dismissal of Egg's other arguments. (Translated for thos who don't read Latin: it exercises safe judgement over the lands of the earth.

I don't think he does anything more than assert, as Anglicans have been asserting for four hundred years, that one part can separate itself from the whole and retain the right to judge authoritatively. You might find that "pretty convincing": your own situation IRL is rather dependent on it being so. To me it smacks of "Oh look, Mother, our Johnny's the only one in step.". I guess that's why you're an Anglican and I'm not.
To me, your attitude smacks of "everybody should play by my rules or they can't join in". I guess that's why you're a RC and I'm not.
Posts: 205 | From: Somewhere out there | Registered: Mar 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 Trisagion:
quote:
Originally posted by AberVicar:
Egg has offered a pretty convincing case against the securus iudicat orbis terrarum on which Trisagion bases his dismissal of Egg's other arguments. (Translated for thos who don't read Latin: it exercises safe judgement over the lands of the earth.

I don't think he does anything more than assert, as Anglicans have been asserting for four hundred years, that one part can separate itself from the whole and retain the right to judge authoritatively. You might find that "pretty convincing": your own situation IRL is rather dependent on it being so. To me it smacks of "Oh look, Mother, our Johnny's the only one in step.". I guess that's why you're an Anglican and I'm not.
I was referring to Egg's second paragraph actually, which, while not saying anything that hasn't already been said many times, offers a strong case for suggesting that the Church is perfectly capable of being in error.

The interesting thing about the history of the Church of England is that there has been pretty strong resistance to the idea that it can 'judge authoritatively' and at its best a willingness to admit it could be wrong.

Since you seem to want to be personal, my situation IRL depends precisely on the belief that the Church should attempt in principle to teach in humility, and to be prepared to learn and admit its mistakes. No church has been particularly good at this (not surprisingly) but the securus iudicat line I think is pretty discredited.

--------------------
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
otyetsfoma
Shipmate
# 12898

 - Posted      Profile for otyetsfoma   Email otyetsfoma   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I am puzzled by Abervic's translation : surely Orbis terrarum is the subject and it is the Round world that cheerfully judges; Rome was in those days the centre of the civilized world in a way it is not now!Romes centrality in the fourth century gave it the probability of being right.
Posts: 842 | From: Edgware UK | Registered: Aug 2007  |  IP: Logged
AberVicar
Mornington Star
# 16451

 - Posted      Profile for AberVicar     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by otyetsfoma:
I am puzzled by Abervic's translation : surely Orbis terrarum is the subject and it is the Round world that cheerfully judges; Rome was in those days the centre of the civilized world in a way it is not now!Romes centrality in the fourth century gave it the probability of being right.

You are quite right in correcting my translation [Hot and Hormonal] yet the way in which Augustine's phrase is commonly used (by Newman and in this argument by Trisagion) still implies a similar meaning to my flawed construction, and your point (and Egg's) still drives a coach and horses through the securus aspect.

--------------------
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
Chesterbelloc

Tremendous trifler
# 3128

 - Posted      Profile for Chesterbelloc   Email Chesterbelloc   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by AberVicar:
your point (and Egg's) still drives a coach and horses through the securus aspect.

You think? Did you read Trisagion's reply to egg here?

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

Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
AberVicar
Mornington Star
# 16451

 - Posted      Profile for AberVicar     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:
Originally posted by AberVicar:
your point (and Egg's) still drives a coach and horses through the securus aspect.

You think? Did you read Trisagion's reply to egg here?
I did read everything that Trisagion wrote - and carefully - but am not sure which response you actually mean as your link just sends me into a reply box!

The issue is: either the Church has made errors or it has not. Trisagion (and many others) have confidence in the inerrancy of the Catholic Church (defined by communion with the Bishop of Rome) in matters of faith and moral teaching (something which in doctrinal terms goes rather beyond 'morals' and is probably best expressed as 'way of life'). I think that this view is discredited by arguments such as those offered by Egg, and, as Trisagion points out, IRL I have acted consequentially.

AFAICS, Trisagion has rubbished Egg's contributions to this thread, but has not offered an effective argument against them. Again IRL, if someone like Trisagion can come up with a truly convincing argument for the securus that is not clearly contradicted by both present and historical facts regarding the RC church, he might gain a reconversion.

I know this is like a version of the 'no true Scotsman' argument, but Trisagion does not convince me personally, and more important to this thread he does not meet Egg's argument.

--------------------
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
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153

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

I entirely agree with your statement of the issues, but to me, "two integrities" is a straightforward factual description of what we have in Christendom. It is possible to be an orthodox Christian and think that women can (and therefore should - both in justice and in obedience to individual vocations) be priests, and possible to be an orthodox Christian and to doubt or deny that.

The question is whether the two integrities can exist in the same church. The CofE's (imperfectly followed) approach has been to try to achieve this. It is too early to say whether it will succeed, but in my view it is an entirely worthy enterprise. It demonstrates a commitment to unity in principle between Christians who disagree, even when they disagree on an issue that concerns what the church essentially is.

Yes, of course, it is wanting the penny and the bun. But why shouldn't we want both? Both are worth having. We are, as Christians, under an obligation to act with personal integrity and in unity with one another. There may be times when we cannot do both and have to choose, but it should never be an easy choice, and if there is a way in which we can preserve unity while respecting the consciences of all, don't we have a duty to look for it?


quote:
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.
A thought experiment (which I accept contains conjectures that, while possible, are both irregular and unlikely - please bear with me):

Suppose that your friend converts to Catholicism. Your bishop, who is somewhat erratic as far as proper procedure is concerned, and also short on priests, immediately appoints him to be the priest of a Catholic parish, without bothering to ordain//re-ordain/conditionally ordain him, on the assumption that his Anglican orders are good enough.

You may not accept that they are. You may find yourself unable in good conscience to take communion or receive absolution from him, and you probably would not make his church your regular place of worship, but you wouldn't, surely, feel obliged to leave the Catholic Church?

If, some years later, your friend was appointed to a vacancy in the episcopate, again, without any proper procedure that might cure the defect in his orders, your dilemma would be greater, and (if you considered bishops to be absolutely indispensible) might even require you to worship outside his diocese or (as a member of the clergy) place yourself under the authority of another bishop, but would you consider yourself to be in schism with the Church as a whole? Would you consider that the error of a Catholic who couldn't see what the problem with your friend's status was to have placed themselves outside the Church, as far as you were concerned?

I may be wrong, but I would be very surprised if you did. I would expect that you would still want the bun of Christian unity, and would see no reason to pay the penny of personal integrity to get it, since there would be a manageable (if unsatisfactory) way to have both.

Clearly the Anglican position differs in that the disputed orders of women priests are (as far as the CofE as a whole is concerned) regular and valid, rather than being a breach of the rules, but the principle of having a legitimate doubt about the ordination of a person popularly recognsed as a priest is similar. It does not automatically put the parties in schism - not to the extent that we can know that any attempt at peaceable co-existence is doomed before we even attempt it.

--------------------
"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
Chesterbelloc

Tremendous trifler
# 3128

 - Posted      Profile for Chesterbelloc   Email Chesterbelloc   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
I did read everything that Trisagion wrote - and carefully - but am not sure which response you actually mean as your link just sends me into a reply box!
Oops. I meant this post here. My apolzers.

To sum, my objections to egg's argument was that it was quite simply absurd. I tried to spell out in my reply why it was absurd to call upon the specifically papal authority of St Gregory for a much, much later, post-break-with-Rome, major-order theological issue (ordination of women) on the grounds that Gregory thought Augustine should be pragmatic about particular liturgical differences in detail between the Roman rite and local rites he encountered. This is like arguing that because a certain inculturation of local customs into the liturgies of certain Catholic peoples in Hypotheticoland were permitted by the Church upon their adoption of Catholicism a couple of ceturies ago, this constututes implicit papal permission for them to practice polygamy today.

In response, egg merely trotted out the typical canard about Galileo (a different order issue altogether), and objections of the "well, Gregory couldn't have foreseen or approved of liturgies in the vernacular or the definition of the Assumption either - both of which Trisagion completely squished.

Er, that's it.

[ 28. December 2011, 11:05: Message edited by: Chesterbelloc ]

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

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

 - Posted      Profile for Eliab   Email Eliab   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Alisdair:
It may well be sanctimonious, but I include myself in the disgrace. As for curtailing the debate: not at all, but like the proverbial rearrangement of deckchairs on the Titanic, there is no harm in trying to stand back and ask what exactly is the point of the exercise in question?

Ultimately what is being discussed is pretty well irrelevant to the well being of humanity, and to the 'gospel' and calling of Christ; but like PCC discussions over what colour to paint the interior of the church hall, people feel able to get very exercised about it, but struggle to have anything much to say/do about what the church is actually there to be.

The problem with this approach is that saying "this is irrelevant to the gospel" doesn't get us one step nearer to answering the question itself - and it needs to be answered. Even if you think that it doesn't matter one way or another whether women are ordained or not (with the implications, which most Christians would not accept, that fair treatment of men and women, respect for tradition, the role of ordained ministers, church unity, and the personal importance of a priestly vocation are all trivial matters) we still need to decide whether or not to do it, and then (the issue on this thread) work through and live with the consequences. By saying "it doesn't matter" your only contribution to the debate is to ask that the decision is made on an unthinking and ill-considered basis and the consequences of it ignored. That is not a helpful contribution.

Your observation might be appropriate to someone who is obsessed by the issue out of all proportion to its importance. That is not true, as far as I can tell, of anyone who has posted on this thread, nor of debate on the Ship generally. All of us recognise the there are other things that matter more than this, but are mature enough to recognise that just because an issue is not of absolutely supreme importance, that does not make it trivial.

--------------------
"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 AberVicar:
The interesting thing about the history of the Church of England is that there has been pretty strong resistance to the idea that it can 'judge authoritatively' and at its best a willingness to admit it could be wrong.

No - that's emerged in the past 150 years as a pragmatic solution to the chaos that modern theology has made of any serious doctrinal coherence. It started as a solution to the arrival of the Oxford movement, particularly in the light of the failure of the hierarchy to accept the work of God in Wesley's preaching, with the result Methodism split off from the CofE. For a long time in the 20th century toleration worked well. However in recent years the gay issue has forced the bishops - on the receiving end of threats from wealthy parishes to stop supporting their dioceses - to actually say something meaningful on the topic. And when you turn the logic round and argue, as I do, that this means that the wider Anglican church has no greater claim on my giving than any other Christian organisation, bishops get very twitchy, despite it being the logical consequence. Sadly the reality is that 'being an Anglican' actually has no doctrinal content any more...

Not that Rome is a lot better these days; it's inability to resolve the status of Taize as an ecumenical religious community in clear violation of Catholic canon law demonstrates a degree of flexibility - but one that renders its position totally inconsistent. [Biased]

--------------------
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
Alisdair
Shipmate
# 15837

 - Posted      Profile for Alisdair   Email Alisdair   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I largely accept the criticism levelled against the accusation I have made; but such criticism does not remove the fact that much of what is in discussion is, ultimately 'a point of view', an opinion, however passionately held. In other words: there is no end to the discussion as long as there are at least two points of view, and in fact there are more.

Surely part of the 'genius' of Anglicinism, born out of the strife and bloodshed of passionately held beliefs and opinions, is the willingness to allow a diversity of opinion/belief. That strength is also an achilles heal as with the decline of empire and a clearly understood social structure (for better and for worse), that breadth has been stretched beyond credibility, and many have seen cause to get out from under it altogether.

I go back to my original point which is simply that while the issue of this thread may not be fundamental, neither is it seen to be of any great relevance or interest by many, who simply see a bunch of people effectively fiddling while their Rome burns. If the whole tottering edifice collapsed tomorrow, in practice faithful and loving people would continue to follow Christ; and arguably be a good deal freer to do so. Not that I imagine any kind of utopia in such a circumstance.

Posts: 334 | From: Washed up in England | Registered: Aug 2010  |  IP: Logged
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159

 - Posted      Profile for Angloid     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
It started as a solution to the arrival of the Oxford movement, particularly in the light of the failure of the hierarchy to accept the work of God in Wesley's preaching, with the result Methodism split off from the CofE.

What on earth has the Oxford Movement (1833) got to do with the Methodist split (late 18th Century)??

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

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

 - Posted      Profile for Ender's Shadow   Email Ender's Shadow   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
It started as a solution to the arrival of the Oxford movement, particularly in the light of the failure of the hierarchy to accept the work of God in Wesley's preaching, with the result Methodism split off from the CofE.

What on earth has the Oxford Movement (1833) got to do with the Methodist split (late 18th Century)??
Given that the perception had grown by the time of the Oxford movement that the failure of the CofE to show sufficient flexibility towards the Wesleys to let them stay in her was a BAD THING, the CofE, when faced with a further theologically challenging movement within her ranks, sought to react liberally this time around.

--------------------
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
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159

 - Posted      Profile for Angloid     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Oh right. I understand your point.

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

 - Posted      Profile for AberVicar     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
quote:
Originally posted by AberVicar:
The interesting thing about the history of the Church of England is that there has been pretty strong resistance to the idea that it can 'judge authoritatively' and at its best a willingness to admit it could be wrong.

No - that's emerged in the past 150 years as a pragmatic solution to the chaos that modern theology has made of any serious doctrinal coherence. It started as a solution to the arrival of the Oxford movement, particularly in the light of the failure of the hierarchy to accept the work of God in Wesley's preaching, with the result Methodism split off from the CofE. For a long time in the 20th century toleration worked well. However in recent years the gay issue has forced the bishops - on the receiving end of threats from wealthy parishes to stop supporting their dioceses - to actually say something meaningful on the topic. And when you turn the logic round and argue, as I do, that this means that the wider Anglican church has no greater claim on my giving than any other Christian organisation, bishops get very twitchy, despite it being the logical consequence. Sadly the reality is that 'being an Anglican' actually has no doctrinal content any more...

Not that Rome is a lot better these days; it's inability to resolve the status of Taize as an ecumenical religious community in clear violation of Catholic canon law demonstrates a degree of flexibility - but one that renders its position totally inconsistent. [Biased]

I suppose that Hooker's latitudinarian approach, and the willingness on all sides to accept that there exist within doctrine adiaphora ('indifferent' things - of secondary importance) don't cross your radar, then? Not to mention the laxness - or was that tolerance - of much of 18th century church polity...

--------------------
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
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715

 - Posted      Profile for ExclamationMark   Email ExclamationMark   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:
[QUOTE]I guess that's why you're an Anglican and I'm not.

It could just be why you're a RC and we're not ....
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged
Hooker's Trick

Admin Emeritus and Guardian of the Gin
# 89

 - Posted      Profile for Hooker's Trick   Author's homepage   Email Hooker's Trick   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:
[QUOTE] as Anglicans have been asserting for four hundred years, that one part can separate itself from the whole and retain the right to judge authoritatively.

Or, more accurately, 'judge authoritatively for us.'

Why it should astonish you, and continue to so astonish you, that the Church of England should feel competent and able to order and regulate its own affairs, is puzzling.

It would be very strange if I did not believe that my bishops, in synod, could not regulate their own church. Presumably it does not astonish you that your bishops do so for yours.

And if your answer has something to do with what your bishops think of my bishops, then I would posit that Dr Hooker resolved that issue some time ago.

Posts: 6735 | From: Gin Lane | Registered: May 2001  |  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 Hooker's Trick:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Trisagion:
[qb] [QUOTE] as Anglicans have been asserting for four hundred years, that one part can separate itself from the whole and retain the right to judge authoritatively.

This is hardly the kind of attitude that helps ecumenical relationships - one wonders how symptomatic this is of the RC's attitude as a whole. Is the welcome just window dressing?
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009  |  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 AberVicar:
I suppose that Hooker's latitudinarian approach, and the willingness on all sides to accept that there exist within doctrine adiaphora ('indifferent' things - of secondary importance) don't cross your radar, then? Not to mention the laxness - or was that tolerance - of much of 18th century church polity...

However given that the practice of the 17th century CofE included the persecution of both Charles Fox and John Bunyan, the limits were actually very tight, and Wesley WAS forced out - or rather the churches which his preaching generated were excluded from the CofE, with the result that they chose / were forced to go into schism.

Of course the debate is all about what is adiaphora; everyone agrees that some things are - the problem is that noone can agree what those things are. Of such disagreements are denominations formed... It can be argued that the CofE fudge of 1992 was an attempt to run a church with the belief that OoW could be dealt with as an adiaphora; in practice this seems to have failed. Where to lay the blame - whether it was actually inevitable or whether it is as a result of one or both sides failing to act in good faith, as evidenced by my earlier rant in this thread. - is another issue.

--------------------
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
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 ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by Hooker's Trick:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Trisagion:
[qb] [QUOTE] as Anglicans have been asserting for four hundred years, that one part can separate itself from the whole and retain the right to judge authoritatively.

This is hardly the kind of attitude that helps ecumenical relationships - one wonders how symptomatic this is of the RC's attitude as a whole. Is the welcome just window dressing?
The welcome offered to members of the Ordinariate (which I assume is what you mean) is perfectly real on its own terms and separate from the genuine, long standing and openly declared problems which subsist between the Anglican and Catholic churches.

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


Posts: 1533 | From: Glamorgan, UK | Registered: Jun 2006  |  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 Manipled Mutineer:
[QUOTE]The welcome offered to members of the Ordinariate (which I assume is what you mean) is perfectly real on its own terms and separate from the genuine, long standing and openly declared problems which subsist between the Anglican and Catholic churches.

Repeat it long and often enough and someone might, just, believe it: a lot of us don't.

How can you actually seperate a welcome from a problem and yet still retain your integrity?

[ 30. December 2011, 07:36: Message edited by: ExclamationMark ]

Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009  |  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 ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by Manipled Mutineer:
[QUOTE]The welcome offered to members of the Ordinariate (which I assume is what you mean) is perfectly real on its own terms and separate from the genuine, long standing and openly declared problems which subsist between the Anglican and Catholic churches.

Repeat it long and often enough and someone might, just, believe it: a lot of us don't.

How can you actually seperate a welcome from a problem and yet still retain your integrity?

I genuinely don't understand the point you are making here. Why should the fact that the Catholic Church has some fairly well-publicised disagreements with Anglicanism mean that those who join the Catholic Church from Anglicanism are somehow not really welcome? Or is that not your point?

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


Posts: 1533 | From: Glamorgan, UK | Registered: Jun 2006  |  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 Manipled Mutineer:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by Manipled Mutineer:
[QUOTE]The welcome offered to members of the Ordinariate (which I assume is what you mean) is perfectly real on its own terms and separate from the genuine, long standing and openly declared problems which subsist between the Anglican and Catholic churches.

Repeat it long and often enough and someone might, just, believe it: a lot of us don't.

How can you actually seperate a welcome from a problem and yet still retain your integrity?

I genuinely don't understand the point you are making here. Why should the fact that the Catholic Church has some fairly well-publicised disagreements with Anglicanism mean that those who join the Catholic Church from Anglicanism are somehow not really welcome? Or is that not your point?
That's exactly my point. There may be a welcome now but it does not totally hide the seemingly anti CofE views that are presented here (and which may or may not be a common feature of wider RC polity).

The point I'm trying to make is whether the welcome is authentic or just a window dressing exercise. In a few years down the line will those "priests" who have "moved" be subjected to the removal of their clerical ordination that the RCC doesn't recognise anyway? Can anyoen be sure that promises amde will be promises kept and are you as RCC's to be assisting in the fragmentation of another church?

Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged
AberVicar
Mornington Star
# 16451

 - Posted      Profile for AberVicar     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
The point I'm trying to make is whether the welcome is authentic or just a window dressing exercise. In a few years down the line will those "priests" who have "moved" be subjected to the removal of their clerical ordination that the RCC doesn't recognise anyway? Can anyoen be sure that promises amde will be promises kept and are you as RCC's to be assisting in the fragmentation of another church?

Eh???? They have been 'reordained'! I share your suspicion as to possible mixed motivation in setting up the Ordinariate - but let's make sure we know the facts, shall we?

--------------------
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
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153

 - Posted      Profile for Eliab   Email Eliab   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
That's exactly my point. There may be a welcome now but it does not totally hide the seemingly anti CofE views that are presented here (and which may or may not be a common feature of wider RC polity).

The point I'm trying to make is whether the welcome is authentic or just a window dressing exercise. In a few years down the line will those "priests" who have "moved" be subjected to the removal of their clerical ordination that the RCC doesn't recognise anyway? Can anyoen be sure that promises amde will be promises kept and are you as RCC's to be assisting in the fragmentation of another church?

If you mean Trisagion, whom your post was a response to, then he isn't anti-CofE. He is reacting to unwarranted and groundless accusations of bad faith like that one.


That said, I don't understand the point about Anglicans thinking that they can judge authoritatively. Our current mess exists precisely because we recognise that our decision to ordain women isn't even authoritative on those who can't in conscience accept it within our own ranks, never mind the wider church. If (which God forbid!) we had an Anglican pope who could rule authoritatively as a matter of faith and morals that women could be priests, we wouldn't be here. It is because we are trying to keep two inconsistent viewpoints in the same communion without saying to the minority that they are simply wrong, that these problems arise. I suspect that Trisagion is casting CofE stroppiness in RC terms, and it doesn't fit. We are being stroppy on a quite different paradigm to that of the RCC.

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

 - Posted      Profile for AberVicar     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
We are being stroppy on a quite different paradigm to that of the RCC.

[Overused] [Overused]

--------------------
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
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715

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

Eh???? They have been 'reordained'! I share your suspicion as to possible mixed motivation in setting up the Ordinariate - but let's make sure we know the facts, shall we? [/QB]
Reordained - so much for an open door then.

Come on in boys -- oh but you can only come in if you
a) affirm that all you've stood for, all the people you've offered mass to, for so many years, is invalid
b) you're happy to do exactly what you're told and put aside your conscience on matters of faith and belief.

Some welcome!

Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged



Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  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