Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by ExclamationMark:

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?

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eliab:
[QUOTE]1. That said, I don't understand the point about Anglicans thinking that they can judge authoritatively.

2. 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.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eliab:
The speed with which you move from castigating the Catholic Church for (possibly, at some undisclosed date in the future) breaking its promises to Anglicans opposed to women's ordination, to advocating that the Church of England do exactly that, is truly astonishing.

Doing so right after blaming the Catholics for expecting Anglican converts to adopt a Catholic view of priestly orders as a condition of welcome, while maintaining that Anglicans who don't accept your view of Anglican orders should fuck off to Rome, is, ... well ... words fail me.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by ExclamationMark:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eliab:
The speed with which you move from castigating the Catholic Church for (possibly, at some undisclosed date in the future) breaking its promises to Anglicans opposed to women's ordination, to advocating that the Church of England do exactly that, is truly astonishing.

Doing so right after blaming the Catholics for expecting Anglican converts to adopt a Catholic view of priestly orders as a condition of welcome, while maintaining that Anglicans who don't accept your view of Anglican orders should fuck off to Rome, is, ... well ... words fail me.

---

Who's to say that the decision would/will coem down to those who oppose Oow leaving?

What some see as "promises" in the CofE agreements, in retrospect are being shown up to be nothing of the sort. It was simply a matter of expediency at the tiem to get the issue through.

I don't have any issue with those who disagree with me about Anglican "orders" (whatever they may be - I believe we are all "ordained" into Godly service in any event). The issue I have is with matters where a decision must be made but no one seems willing to do it.

As a matter of fact, I have a lot of sympathy from a theological POV over the anti Oow issue but little with the "solution" of the ordinariate.

[Btw - and I know this sounds awfully old fashioned - but I don't like swear words either].

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Man with a Stick:
[QUOTE]Short of Pauline conversion to the majority view in the CofE (or them setting their consciences aside and obeying the authority - which you don't seem a fan of a few posts up from here), what exactly would you have Anglo-Catholics opposed to OoW do?

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
What some see as "promises" in the CofE agreements, in retrospect are being shown up to be nothing of the sort. It was simply a matter of expediency at the tiem to get the issue through.

---

quote:

---

[Btw - and I know this sounds awfully old fashioned - but I don't like swear words either].

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eliab:
[QUOTE]EM, your views are offensive. They are not offensive because they can be expressed with the use of the word ‘fuck', they are offensive because what you are in fact doing is telling people to fuck off, whether you use that word or not.

If you were to reflect for a moment that what you are saying really is morally indistinguishable from "We told these people a load of crap about wanting them in the church when we needed their support, but now that we don't need them, we don't give a shit about them, and wish they would fuck off", there is a tiny possibility of you grasping why it is that some people here disagree with you.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by pete173:
If those opposed get fractious and start inviting foreign bishops in

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by FreeJack:
What happens in 40 years or so time?

When all those involved prior to 1992 have moved on? When it is very difficult to work out who has kosher orders or not? When the proportion of pure parishes has declined? When a majority of the PCC no longer agrees with Father?

Are we intending to create a long-term permanent structural solution, or an interim solution for those around now who are in their 50s who want to finish their ministry in peace? Are we going to ordain intentionally a new generation of 20-something impossibilist priests? Or the slow death of a thousand cuts?

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by FreeJack:
Are we intending to create a long-term permanent structural solution, or an interim solution for those around now who are in their 50s who want to finish their ministry in peace? Are we going to ordain intentionally a new generation of 20-something impossibilist priests? Or the slow death of a thousand cuts?

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by pete173:
Those of us who want women bishops have to screw our eyes tight and recognise that the two doctrines of "sacramental assurance" and "male headship", which to me are both complete gobbledegook, matter deeply to trad caths and con evos. So we'll try to make room for those beliefs.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by pete173:

But if we can devise a Code that allows opponents proper oversight that they can recognise (ie real bishoping), we can make this work. If we aren't prepared to do this, then we should be honest and tell that time's up. But that would be bad faith.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

I can't see where the bad faith comes in. As ken and others have said the majority has tried very hard in the CofE to respect those of "the other integrity". But that cannot mean letting two minorities extract compromises which fundamentally undermine what the majority has decided it wants to achieve.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

But if we can devise a Code that allows opponents proper oversight that they can recognise (ie real bishoping), we can make this work. *snip*.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:
I don't think promises are being broken. I thibnk the majority in the CofE have done, and are doing, nore than could reasonably have been expected or imagined to keep the anti-women crowd in. We gave way to them on point after point again and again. And most of us are still willing to. I resent being told that we have somehow betrayed them when we have often bend over backwards to accomodate them.

For nearly twenty years the parish church of the parish I live in has operated almost entirely independently of the local Anglican structures. They have played little or no part in Deanery or Diocesean affairs, they have chosen to relate to a different bishop, they (as far as I know) don't contribute to the diocesan finances. All this isin marked contrast to the local Evangelical parishes, despite the paranoid canards of some of the other persuasion. Worst of all they utterly reject the priestly status and the ordination of the clergy at the parish church I actually attend half a mile up the road.

I actually don't mind that much. Its a pity, and I would prefer it if they did join in with the Church of England, but I'm quite happy for them to continue like that indefinitely if they want to. Who am I to try to force my opinions on them? I'll carry on going to the next-door parish up the road.

So the Church of England not only tolerates but large welcomes within it a minority who do not recognise Anglican orders, do not co-operate with other Anglican churches, do not contribute to shared finance, and do not recognise the authority of their diocesan bishops! What other episcopal denomination has done such a thing?

And those same people talk about this state of affairs as lies and betrayal and broken promises? That gets up my nose a bit.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
A distasteful comparison perhaps,

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
I recall at the time that there were concerns that the minority would distance itself further from diocesan life, that a church-within-a-church would develop, and that the provisions as designed would fossilize local situations--not to mention being flawed ecclesiologically, as others have point out. These concerns were taken into account, the undertakings were made, and the majority secured passage of the measure. There was no best-by date stamp.

---

The problem with this analysis is that it ignores the experience of the Evangelical wing of the CofE from perhaps 1920 to 1970, if not later, when we were totally isolated from 'from diocesan life' and were a 'church-within-a-church'. It works perfectly well, as is demonstrated by the way in which its progeny are now a major component of the CofE. The problem is that Bishops have got too much time on their hands these days, so get involved in things like appointments which in the past were entirely the responsibility of the Patrons; a 70% cut in the number of bishops and archdeacons to reflect the number in the pews would probably be a good start.*

I repeat: the CofE has not, since the middle of the 19th century, had a coherent doctrine. The fact that it is now getting its knickers in a twist over women priests is truly a case of straining gnats and ignoring elephants.

* I recently heard of a parish where the interviewing board for the new incumbent included bishop and area dean as well as a representative of the patron and the parish reps. The outcome appears to have been the parish receiving a 'dead cat' - someone whom the diocese was desperate to move on (and who's now off work long term sick - you can see why they wanted to move him). However for me the issue is what the bishop and area dean were doing there: the appointment is in the hands of the PATRON, with a right of veto by the parish reps. The fact that the wider church has started to stick its nose in where it never used to is a clear symptom of the growing centralisation of the church, in practice a denial of the repeated claims that the CofE 'is a broad church'. So - lose a lot of bishops and archdeacons, then they won't have time to involve themselves in things which are not their responsibility, and the church will have all those gifted people back at the coalface doing the real work of the kingdom.

--------------------
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.

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
[QUOTE] ..... the church will have all those gifted people back at the coalface doing the real work of the kingdom.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

The problem is that Bishops have got too much time on their hands these days, so get involved in things like appointments which in the past were entirely the responsibility of the Patrons; a 70% cut in the number of bishops and archdeacons to reflect the number in the pews would probably be a good start

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
I'm not sure how ES' comments related to my post, but there you are now, as my former neighbours in Ringsend would say.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
I'm not sure how ES' comments related to my post, but there you are now, as my former neighbours in Ringsend would say.

---

I'm arguing that there has always been 'a church within a church', so that the situation after OoW is no different from that before it. You seemed to regard the situation as something new...

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by FreeJack:
What happens in 40 years or so time?

When all those involved prior to 1992 have moved on? When it is very difficult to work out who has kosher orders or not?

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

...Ultimately, the CofE will look in its ordained ministry much like the Church of Sweden or TEC. The outcome of the processes underway is already known. Finish the "realignment" and get on with the Church's future.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
The problem is that Bishops have got too much time on their hands these days, so get involved in things like appointments which in the past were entirely the responsibility of the Patrons; a 70% cut in the number of bishops and archdeacons to reflect the number in the pews would probably be a good start.*

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by pete173:
But if you really think we have time on our hands, come and see for yourself.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

originally posted by pete173:
If the Bishop has been lobbing dead cats into a parish, it's his own stupid fault, as he has deal with the consequences

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by pete173:
As for Patrons, they have power but no responsibility, and can dump any old unsuitable priest on a parish , but have no remit to pick up the pieces. If the Bishop has been lobbing dead cats into a parish, it's his own stupid fault, as he has deal with the consequences. A Patron (with the laudable exception of folk like CPAS and SMF) takes little interest in the parish between one appointment and the next. [/QB]

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by egg:
Dispersal of powers and functions among many different people or organisations is one of the strengths of the Anglican Communion, and few, I think, would envy the centralising features of their sister Church of Rome.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Enoch:
What's the Benn Test please?

---

quote:

---

If one meets a powerful person - Adolf Hitler, Joe Stalin or Bill Gates - ask them five questions: "What power have you got? Where did you get it from? In whose interests do you exercise it? To whom are you accountable? And how can we get rid of you?" If you cannot get rid of the people who govern you, you do not live in a democratic system.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by egg:
Dispersal of powers and functions among many different people or organisations is one of the strengths of the Anglican Communion, and few, I think, would envy the centralising features of their sister Church of Rome.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by egg:
[QUOTE] .....and few, I think, would envy the centralising features of their sister Church of Rome.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
I'm interested in why/how you became/remain a patron. Inherited or purchased?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
For me, the test of the issue of patronage (as for other things) is this: if it didn't exist we would need to invent it? If we don't need to invent it, why do we need it?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
From a more extreme perspective, for some confirmed Anglicans the issue of Patronage is a running sore perpetuating the kind of "top down" control and approach that should have been removed years ago. Equally some see Rome as less than a "sister" church and rather more as a querulous distant relaive who causes problems at family parties.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
I am not telling people to leave because I want them to - I don't actually - it's just an inevitable consequence of things put in chain 20 years ago.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Trisagion:
(1) I am perfectly acquainted, dear egg, with the arguments around the development of doctrine and its authentication. I disagree with your line of reasoning but the issues you raise are a clear tangent to this thread and best developed, it seems to me, elsewhere.

(2) Any ecumenism worthy of the name requires candour and integrity. Too much of the dialogue between Catholics and Anglicans has been neither candid nor straightforward.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Trisagion:
I had thought this thread was started to deal with, what seems to this outsider, to be very serious issues: the de facto breaking of communion with one's own bishop by setting up Chrism Mass against Chrism Mass (close enough, I would argue, to the definition of schism) and the appropriate attitude to women in ministry. The point I was trying to make originally on this thread was that it seems abundantly clear that the CofE has spoken pretty decisively (authoritative for the CofE)on the OoW and that staying within the CofE if you don't believe that women can be ordained seems pretty strange. To suggest that one is 'in communion' with another when you don't recognise the validity of their orders and so do not recognise in their ministry the operation of sacramental grace is to stretch the definition of 'communion' well past breaking point.

I'll admit that it is possible to believe that women can be ordained but that it is not licit so to do. But here the ecclesiological ground gets even more of a quagmire since you are denying the authority of the communion to which you belong in favour of the authority of other communions which you reject.

Either way, remaining in thee CofE and bleating about two integrities seems extremely odd and in no way justifies either rejecting the 0rdinary authority and communion of your bishop or being rude to women in ministry.

---

quote:

---

As for why I am not an Anglican: I can't say that it has ever occurred to me.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by egg:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Trisagion:
(1) I am perfectly acquainted, dear egg, with the arguments around the development of doctrine and its authentication. I disagree with your line of reasoning but the issues you raise are a clear tangent to this thread and best developed, it seems to me, elsewhere.

(2) Any ecumenism worthy of the name requires candour and integrity. Too much of the dialogue between Catholics and Anglicans has been neither candid nor straightforward.

---

(1) Thank you, Trisagion, for your kind words, or perhaps I should say kinder tone of voice. I think it was you who called the issue of women’s ordination a major theological issue. I do not agree: it is only a second order issue, though not an unimportant one. If a third Vatican Council were to decide that, men and women having equally been created in the image of God, it was in accord with God’s will that both should be eligible for ordination without discrimination, this would not be contrary to anything in the creeds, or in the decisions of the ecumenical councils of the 4th and 5th centuries; while the evidence of the New Testament is at best equivocal. The one priestly act carried out on Jesus, the anointing of his body for burial as he described it, was performed by a woman; and I need not rehearse the arguments, on both sides, that can be based on references in St Paul’s epistles, written at a time when this particular issue was far from his mind..

But I appreciate that the question here is not so much whether women can properly be ordained, as How can one accommodate within the Church of England ordained (male) priests who refuse to accept that they can. Flying bishops have not worked too badly since 1992. I can see that there will be problems for parochial clergy if their diocesan bishop is a woman and they remain within her ordinary jurisdiction. The only answer seems to me to allow the creation of personal ordinariates (rather as those who have joined the Roman Catholic Ordinariate have an Ordinary who is separate from the bishop of the diocese in which they happen to be carrying out their vocation), while maintaining full communion between those who have opted for a personal ordinariate and the rest of the Church of England, of which they will remain part (thereby continuing to carry out the intention of Forward in Faith’s Agreed Statement on Communion, 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”).

Although it is a fundamental principle of the Church of England that a parish church exists to serve the whole of the parish in which it is situated and the whole of its people, it would perhaps be possible for a parish priest, with the concurrence of, say, two thirds of those who are on the electoral roll for the parish, to remain the incumbent until his death or retirement, while continuing to be treated in the same way as other priests of the Church of England for purposes of pensions etc. Finance might, as so often, be a problem; but as a corollary the parish, or the ordinariate to which he belongs if it embraces two or more parishes, should make the normal contributions to the Church of England Pension Scheme and provide the stipend for the incumbent. In other words, the parish would be taken outside the normal diocesan set up so long as the priest remained the incumbent and the people continued to agree . Two thirds seems a reasonable proportion, taking into account the possibility that a number of parishioners may have left or stayed away from their parish church because they preferred a less Anglo-Catholic style of worship. Financial support might be available from the Anglican funds of the CBS which in plain breach of trust were paid to the Roman Catholic Ordinariate, and which it is to be hoped the Charity Commission, or failing them the Court, will order to be replaced - such support would be much more in line with the objects of the CBS and its donors for the past 150 years than support of Roman Catholics.

(2) On ecumenism I agree with you. There has been a good deal of fudge, and what is required is candour. There are two papal bulls which make a corporate reunion of the Church of England and the Church of Rome impossible as matters now stand. One is Regnans in Excelsis, issued (without due legal process) by Pope Pius V in 1570, which declared that all Englishmen who obeyed the orders of their sovereign Queen Elizabeth I were excommunicated (this is the real origin of the fact that the natural religion of the English is, or for more than three centuries was, anti-Popery); the other is Apostolicae Curae, issued by Pope Leo XIII in 1896, which declared that all Anglican orders were “absolutely null and utterly void.” The first has never been withdrawn, and although it refers specifically to Elizabeth I is in terms which are almost equally applicable to her successors. The second has never been withdrawn, and so long as it remains in force clearly no question of reunion, in the sense of the two churches formally uniting as the Presbyterians and most of the Congregationalists did to form the URC, can be put on the agenda; and I agree with you that candour requires that it be accepted that no discussion of such reunion can lead to any useful conclusion. The best one can hope for is the rather grudging recognition in para.870 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church: "The sole Church of Christ which in the Creed we profess to be one, holy, catholic, and apostolic,... subsists in the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the bishops in communion with him. Nevertheless, many elements of sanctification and of truth are found outside its visible confines." That perhaps gives room for the development of co-operation and even mutual respect, which seems to me the most that can be realistically hoped for in the way of ecumenism.

Oh, and the vernacular, i.e. the language spoken by the newly baptised subjects of King Ethelbert, King Raedwald and King Edwin, was a form of Anglo-Saxon, not Latin. I doubt whether, initially, one in 100 who heard the Latin Mass understood a word of what was said.

And as to Galileo, there is a reasonably full and impartial account of his relations with Popes Paul V and Urban VIII and of his trial at http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/galileo/galileoaccount.html. It is fair to say that only seven of the ten cardinals who, as members of the Congregation of the Holy Office, took part in the trial were prepared to sign the sentence of imprisonment. I hope you would agree, however, that the whole episode marks a low point in the Roman Catholic Church's relations with the world of learning, and in particular the growing world of scientific scholarship.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
[QUOTE]I'm interested in why/how you became/remain a patron. Inherited or purchased?

---