Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Spiffy:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Indifferently:
I will not respect someone who is preaching against the Gospel and undermining Christianity and the Anglican Communion.

---

My daddy taught me that if you don't respect someone's views, that is when you treat them with more respect, such as using their proper titles.

It's a similar reason why US Congressional representatives are called "the Honorable Senator So and So" or "The Honorable Representative So and So" even when they are on completely different sides of an issue.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
Yeah, but expectation there is, ideally, sincere, constructive dialogue.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Trisagion:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
Yeah, but expectation there is, ideally, sincere, constructive dialogue.

---

Hey Zach, you need to get CSPAN.

---

He didn't say it was a well-founded expectation.

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fr Weber:
[QUOTE]The mechanical issue of interrupted succession may have been remedied by the Dutch Touch, but there is still the problem of intent, which is the primary issue in Leo XIII's bull.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Spiffy:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Indifferently:
I will not respect someone who is preaching against the Gospel and undermining Christianity and the Anglican Communion.

---

My daddy taught me that if you don't respect someone's views, that is when you treat them with more respect, such as using their proper titles.

It's a similar reason why US Congressional representatives are called "the Honorable Senator So and So" or "The Honorable Representative So and So" even when they are on completely different sides of an issue.

---

Yeah, but expectation there is, ideally, sincere, constructive dialogue.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fr Weber:
[QUOTE]The mechanical issue of interrupted succession may have been remedied by the Dutch Touch, but there is still the problem of intent, which is the primary issue in Leo XIII's bull.

---

My understanding was that the 1662 prayer book remedied the thing that to RC eyes looks like evidence for a lack of intent in the Edwardine prayer book, so that come the Dutch Touch, the form was remedied, and the intent was at least arguably present too. (Not addressing any of the arguments in Saepius Officio, which maintains that nothing was ever lost.)

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
I cannot imagine why Rome's acceptance of our orders is a matter of such frequent conversation on the ship. It's been a done deal for going on 200 years, and it smacks of insecurity.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglican't:
Can Christianity survive the abolition of poverty?

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglican't:
Can Christianity survive the abolition of poverty?

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
I cannot imagine why Rome's acceptance of our orders is a matter of such frequent conversation on the ship. It's been a done deal for going on 200 years, and it smacks of insecurity.

---

I think that the response is more one of resentment at being wilfully misunderstood and the RC position being more political in motivation than theological. We could call that insecurity, I suppose.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
I cannot imagine why Rome's acceptance of our orders is a matter of such frequent conversation on the ship. It's been a done deal for going on 200 years, and it smacks of insecurity.

---

I think that the response is more one of resentment at being wilfully misunderstood and the RC position being more political in motivation than theological. We could call that insecurity, I suppose.

---

Well, resent away. Seeing as I don't think the pope has the ability to read the minds of Reformation era bishops, I don't give Leo's ruling any credence. But after 200 years the Roman Catholic Church hasn't budged an inch, so it might be time to move on.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
I cannot imagine why Rome's acceptance of our orders is a matter of such frequent conversation on the ship. It's been a done deal for going on 200 years, and it smacks of insecurity.

---

I think that the response is more one of resentment at being wilfully misunderstood and the RC position being more political in motivation than theological. We could call that insecurity, I suppose.

---

Well, resent away. Seeing as I don't think the pope has the ability to read the minds of Reformation era bishops, I don't give Leo's ruling any credence. But after 200 years the Roman Catholic Church hasn't budged an inch, so it might be time to move on.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
I cannot imagine why Rome's acceptance of our orders is a matter of such frequent conversation on the ship. It's been a done deal for going on 200 years, and it smacks of insecurity.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by CL:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
I cannot imagine why Rome's acceptance of our orders is a matter of such frequent conversation on the ship. It's been a done deal for going on 200 years, and it smacks of insecurity.

---

It has been settled for far longer than that. John Clement Gordon, SEC bishop of Galloway had his Anglican orders declared invalid as far back as 1704.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

But something has changed, one doesn't go from being ++Newton in the Church of England to Monsignor and effectively acting as a bishop for the Ordinariate without Rome recognising the value of the prior ministry.

---

Or so the Romans keep saying, like it ought to be terribly gratifying.

--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ronald Binge:

quote:

---

Originally posted by CL:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
I cannot imagine why Rome's acceptance of our orders is a matter of such frequent conversation on the ship. It's been a done deal for going on 200 years, and it smacks of insecurity.

---

It has been settled for far longer than that. John Clement Gordon, SEC bishop of Galloway had his Anglican orders declared invalid as far back as 1704.

---

But something has changed, one doesn't go from being ++Newton in the Church of England to Monsignor and effectively acting as a bishop for the Ordinariate without Rome recognising the value of the prior ministry. Whatever even the most conservative in the Roman Catholic Church believe about the efficacy of Anglican Holy Orders, denying the ministry and prior beliefs of Anglican priests and bishops doesn't appear to be a matter of controversy.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eirenist:
If one may revert to the OP, IMHO what Cardinal Jorge (AHTW) was implying was that the RCC had quite enough troubles of its own without importing a bunch of disaffected Anglicans.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eirenist:
If one may revert to the OP, IMHO what Cardinal Jorge (AHTW) was implying was that the RCC had quite enough troubles of its own without importing a bunch of disaffected Anglicans.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by MarsmanTJ:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eirenist:
If one may revert to the OP, IMHO what Cardinal Jorge (AHTW) was implying was that the RCC had quite enough troubles of its own without importing a bunch of disaffected Anglicans.

---

A senior member of the Catholic clergy in the UK (who will remain anonymous) said much the same when discussing the issue at a lecture I was at. His concern: people that are ultra-traditionalist and thus cause trouble in one church are likely to cause trouble in another for similar reasons. Rumour has it that some Ordinariate members have criticised some Catholic masses in the UK already for 'not doing things right'.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by MarsmanTJ:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eirenist:
If one may revert to the OP, IMHO what Cardinal Jorge (AHTW) was implying was that the RCC had quite enough troubles of its own without importing a bunch of disaffected Anglicans.

---

A senior member of the Catholic clergy in the UK (who will remain anonymous) said much the same when discussing the issue at a lecture I was at. His concern: people that are ultra-traditionalist and thus cause trouble in one church are likely to cause trouble in another for similar reasons. Rumour has it that some Ordinariate members have criticised some Catholic masses in the UK already for 'not doing things right'.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by MarsmanTJ:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eirenist:
If one may revert to the OP, IMHO what Cardinal Jorge (AHTW) was implying was that the RCC had quite enough troubles of its own without importing a bunch of disaffected Anglicans.

---

A senior member of the Catholic clergy in the UK (who will remain anonymous) said much the same when discussing the issue at a lecture I was at. His concern: people that are ultra-traditionalist and thus cause trouble in one church are likely to cause trouble in another for similar reasons. Rumour has it that some Ordinariate members have criticised some Catholic masses in the UK already for 'not doing things right'.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stranger in a strange land:

quote:

---

Originally posted by MarsmanTJ:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eirenist:
If one may revert to the OP, IMHO what Cardinal Jorge (AHTW) was implying was that the RCC had quite enough troubles of its own without importing a bunch of disaffected Anglicans.

---

A senior member of the Catholic clergy in the UK (who will remain anonymous) said much the same when discussing the issue at a lecture I was at. His concern: people that are ultra-traditionalist and thus cause trouble in one church are likely to cause trouble in another for similar reasons. Rumour has it that some Ordinariate members have criticised some Catholic masses in the UK already for 'not doing things right'.

---

Well in our re-training at Catholic seminaries we were told quite clearly by our lecturers that many Catholic priests were not doing things right and warned of the abuses we needed to look out for.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by SeraphimSarov:
Anglican liturgical snobbery ?? Surely not??!!

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
Indifferently, is there a particular point in history where you consider the Church of England to have been the beacon of orthodoxy you desire? Do you consider it to have been, at that time, totally unified and correct in its doctrines? And, lastly, do you have those doctrines in writing or do you infer them?

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by gorpo:
Well, there is a huge difference between wanting complete unity in doctrine, and pretending it´s okay to have primates and bishops that don´t even believe in God, Jesus, and all that stuff.

---

--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by gorpo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
Indifferently, is there a particular point in history where you consider the Church of England to have been the beacon of orthodoxy you desire? Do you consider it to have been, at that time, totally unified and correct in its doctrines? And, lastly, do you have those doctrines in writing or do you infer them?

---

Well, there is a huge difference between wanting complete unity in doctrine, and pretending it´s okay to have primates and bishops that don´t even believe in God, Jesus, and all that stuff.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
Indifferently, is there a particular point in history where you consider the Church of England to have been the beacon of orthodoxy you desire? Do you consider it to have been, at that time, totally unified and correct in its doctrines? And, lastly, do you have those doctrines in writing or do you infer them?

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Albertus:
I can only think of Don Cupitt, who is pretty tangential nowadays and anyway was never exactly going to get onto the front page of the Sun.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Albertus:
Which ministers do you mean, Mark? I can only think of Don Cupitt, who is pretty tangential nowadays and anyway was never exactly going to get onto the front page of the Sun, and David Jenkins, who was generally misreported, either becauise journos didn't understand him, couldn't be bothered to try to understand him, or didn't care about understanding him but wanted to give him a good kicking for daring to question the Blessed Margaret. And even David Jenkins is going back the better part of 30 years now. Before that what've you got- Bishop Barnes of Birmingham (ob. 1953)? Hewlett Johnson (ob. 1966, though AFAIK it was his politics rather than his theology which was controversial)?

I think that this idea that the CofE is full of unbelieving or at best agnostic clergy is a myth. It's a staple of popular fiction, of course, because you can hang a good story on it, and I suppose that you could argue that they could be there but just be keeping their views to themselves- a belief that is almost by definition not open to proof or even reasonable discussion one way or the other. It's just the kind of stuff that lazy right-wing journos trot out when they don't like some cleric's politics, and certain types of atheists and anti-clericals come up with because it saves them actually thinking.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
Benedict XVI raised Apostolicae Curae to a level of dogma that all Catholics had to affirmatively assent to (or something like that).

Question: are Catholics required to assert that C of E orders are null and void now, or that C of E orders were null and void in 1896? In other words, can a Catholic licitly believe that the modern C of E has re-acquired valid succession via the Old Catholic union of Utrecht, or not?

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Albertus:
I repeat: this idea that there is a huge mass of unbelieving clergy out there is a lazy cliche, trotted out by people who find it comforting to think that they are part of the remnant of true believers and that everyone else is going to hell in a handcart.

---

--------------------
God = love.
Otherwise, things are not just black or white.

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ricardus:
Also Don Cupitt was Dean of Emmanuel College Chapel, which, like all Oxbridge chapels, is not (at least AIUI) formally part of the Church of England. [/QB]

---

So when did they stop being part of the Church of England? The 1625 (?) Canons in force until recently have a lot to say about them, prescribing eg the minimal requirements for celebrating the HC, eg the dress of the scholars.
Many (?most) college statutes require C of E services, and C of E (or in communion) clergy.

I think you could as well say Westminster Abbey is not formally part of the Church of England.

For what it's worth I rather like these blurred edges.

Posted                       

quote:

---

The C of E was never perfect, but it's been better - a lot better.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Betts:
These same errant ministers are the ones which make the press headlines and give the whole church a bad name IMO. The C of E was never perfect, but it's been better - a lot better.

---

I seriously question this idea of when the Church was a lot 'better' - at least in terms of clergy. There were certainly times when the Church was more powerful, more influential, more politically integrated, more unchallanged - but did that make it 'better'?

Eg, discernment processes to (fairly) objectively test and vet vocations of candidates is a recent thing. Whereas beforehand it was usually if not often a case of whoever had a degree and the personal nod of a Bishop could, with not much effort end up ordained and occupying a living. Just one of the reasons contemporary victorian writers were able to represent the public disdain for the profession, as they sometimes did; viewed as it was as a rather lazy way to acquire an income without doing much to earn it.

Another reason of course was the 'younger and/or poorer son' syndrome; that the Church was the default profession for the sons of gentlemen who had no titles or money, regardless of aptitude or preference. Certainly, there were plenty of talented holy men in orders - thank God!; good pastors, innovative, passionate and strong in a Biblical faith. But the clouds of men regarded as societal rejects, and only fit for the Church, must've been considerable. And absentee rectors and vicars, abuse of the curate system, and the deliberate accumulation of lucrative livings - finally legislated against - were all quite normal in large parts of the Church.

It's easy, too, to imagine that matters of belief were much simpler before our more modern scientific times. But whether that actually made the clergy of previous times 'better' as ministers and pastors, than the current crop of broken reeds and clay jars( ) is highly doubtful.

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Betts:
The following article, from 2002, gives a general idea of how things were back then, but they have doubtless deteriorated since then:

One third of clergy do not believe in the Resurrection (in 2002)

There are also reports every so often of C of E priests who don't believe in God, but it is so commonplace nowadays that such things don't even get much media attention.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by fletcher christian:
Posted by Betts:

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

The C of E was never perfect, but it's been better - a lot better.

---

Even though I'm inclined to think you're not really interested in a response, I thought I might bite anyway.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Albertus:
...I repeat: this idea that there is a huge mass of unbelieving clergy out there is a lazy cliche, trotted out by people who find it comforting to think that they are part of the remnant of true believers and that everyone else is going to hell in a handcart.

---