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   » "Requirements" for Communion talks (Page 3)

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.  
Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  4 
 
Source: (consider it) Thread: "Requirements" for Communion talks
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574

 - Posted      Profile for Ad Orientem     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
Don't you think that conservative Anglo-Catholics in Anglican discussions have been putting precisely the points of view you are advocating? It appears that discussion in your usage is code for acquiescence.

By what measure do you determine what the Holy Spirit is or isn't doing? The calling of women in the CofE is tested in exactly the same way as that of men, and the evidence from 20 years of their ministry is extremely positive. On what basis do you deny it?

Continuity is the test here. If something is new it does not belong to the faith once given and therefore is not of the Holy Spirit (something the councils and the fathers make abundantly clear).

[ 02. April 2013, 11:11: Message edited by: Ad Orientem ]

Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013  |  IP: Logged
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047

 - Posted      Profile for Arethosemyfeet   Email Arethosemyfeet   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
Don't you think that conservative Anglo-Catholics in Anglican discussions have been putting precisely the points of view you are advocating? It appears that discussion in your usage is code for acquiescence.

By what measure do you determine what the Holy Spirit is or isn't doing? The calling of women in the CofE is tested in exactly the same way as that of men, and the evidence from 20 years of their ministry is extremely positive. On what basis do you deny it?

Continuity is the test here. If something is new it does not belong to the faith once given and therefore is not of the Holy Spirit (something the councils and the fathers make abundantly clear).
Is it continuity or unoriginality that is key? The first is clearly not present (but then neither was it for the use of the local language for the liturgy, but most RCs now think that is ok). If it's the latter then it's not hard to argue from scripture that there were women who were, at the very least, part of the deaconate; and indeed who were apostles (Mary Magdalene in particular).
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012  |  IP: Logged
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574

 - Posted      Profile for Ad Orientem     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Since when was the use of Latin ever understood to belong to the faith once given to the saints? As for the use of "apostle" is it your argument that it is to be undetstood in the same sense everytime? Sorry, but these are poorly thought out arguments.

[ 02. April 2013, 12:45: Message edited by: Ad Orientem ]

Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013  |  IP: Logged
Raptor Eye
Shipmate
# 16649

 - Posted      Profile for Raptor Eye     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Continuity is the test here. If something is new it does not belong to the faith once given and therefore is not of the Holy Spirit (something the councils and the fathers make abundantly clear).

Is this to say that God cannot do anything new, as he guides us through the Holy Spirit?

--------------------
Be still, and know that I am God! Psalm 46.10

Posts: 4359 | From: The United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2011  |  IP: Logged
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047

 - Posted      Profile for Arethosemyfeet   Email Arethosemyfeet   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Since when was the use of Latin ever understood to belong to the faith once given to the saints?

It wasn't, that's my point. But there was no continuity of using local languages for the liturgy between the early church and either the Reformation or post-Vatican 2 Catholic use of them, and it was continuity you highlighted as important.

quote:
As for the use of "apostle" is it your argument that it is to be undetstood in the same sense everytime?
It is my argument that you would need a good case to justify using it differently.

[ 02. April 2013, 13:28: Message edited by: Arethosemyfeet ]

Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012  |  IP: Logged
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574

 - Posted      Profile for Ad Orientem     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
As to the first point, eh? The continuous practice of the Church testifies to the belief that the priesthood is reserved for men only, because it is both constant and universal. The use of Latin is neither.

As to the second, are you seriously suggesting that "apostle" is always used in the same manner as the Twelve?

Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013  |  IP: Logged
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574

 - Posted      Profile for Ad Orientem     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Continuity is the test here. If something is new it does not belong to the faith once given and therefore is not of the Holy Spirit (something the councils and the fathers make abundantly clear).

Is this to say that God cannot do anything new, as he guides us through the Holy Spirit?
The faith was given once to the saints. There is nothing new which is true in that respect, especially when it contradicts what has been received. No, innovation equals heresy. One only need look at the councils of the Church, especially the seventh council (condemning the innovations of the iconoclasts). The Holy Spirit is not a spirit of confusion, rather he leads the Church into all truth, not one thing now and the next minute something contrary.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013  |  IP: Logged
Raptor Eye
Shipmate
# 16649

 - Posted      Profile for Raptor Eye     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
The faith was given once to the saints. There is nothing new which is true in that respect, especially when it contradicts what has been received. No, innovation equals heresy. One only need look at the councils of the Church, especially the seventh council (condemning the innovations of the iconoclasts). The Holy Spirit is not a spirit of confusion, rather he leads the Church into all truth, not one thing now and the next minute something contrary.

The Holy Spirit leads individuals in community, so that we must come together and co-operate in order to serve anew in every generation. This is consistent with the scriptures and with tradition. God continually does something new through the Holy Spirit, while not contradicting the spirit of his word. Therefore we don't have to worry about transgressing laws or practices which no longer apply, eg mixed fibres or polygamy, and we must be ready to accept what God calls us to in the present day in order to serve his good purposes and glorify his name. Paul said as such on many occasions.

--------------------
Be still, and know that I am God! Psalm 46.10

Posts: 4359 | From: The United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2011  |  IP: Logged
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574

 - Posted      Profile for Ad Orientem     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
So, if the Church has always believed that Christ reserved the priesthood for men alone ordaining women is neither something new nor contrary to what has been received? Or is what you're suggesting just modernist jargon for conforming to the spirit of the age?
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013  |  IP: Logged
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76

 - Posted      Profile for Karl: Liberal Backslider   Author's homepage   Email Karl: Liberal Backslider   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
By "spirit of the age" you mean the belief that sexism is wrong?

Wouldn't standing against the "spirit of the age" logically therefore be endorsing sexism?

--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.

Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047

 - Posted      Profile for Arethosemyfeet   Email Arethosemyfeet   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
So, if the Church has always believed that Christ reserved the priesthood for men alone ordaining women is neither something new nor contrary to what has been received? Or is what you're suggesting just modernist jargon for conforming to the spirit of the age?

As opposed to what your claiming being jargon for conforming to the spirit of the previous age.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012  |  IP: Logged
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574

 - Posted      Profile for Ad Orientem     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
It has nothing to do with "sexism". That's nothing more than modernist reductionism. It's about what Christ has willed for his Church.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013  |  IP: Logged
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574

 - Posted      Profile for Ad Orientem     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
So, if the Church has always believed that Christ reserved the priesthood for men alone ordaining women is neither something new nor contrary to what has been received? Or is what you're suggesting just modernist jargon for conforming to the spirit of the age?

As opposed to what your claiming being jargon for conforming to the spirit of the previous age.
It's about preserving that which has been handed down. Tradition when understood properly is the guarantee against arbitrariness and conformism to the zeitgeist.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013  |  IP: Logged
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047

 - Posted      Profile for Arethosemyfeet   Email Arethosemyfeet   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
It has nothing to do with "sexism". That's nothing more than modernist reductionism. It's about what Christ has willed for his Church.

I agree that what Christ willed with his church had nothing to do with sexism. Which is why there should be no issue with ordaining women. It take a huge amount of cognitive dissonance not to realise that the "traditional" view of the role of women in the church has a pretty much 1:1 mapping with the view of the average misogynist.
EDIT: the zeitgeist for the last 1700 years in Europe has involved the subjugation of women, do you not think there is any risk that the church conformed to that?

[ 02. April 2013, 16:18: Message edited by: Arethosemyfeet ]

Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012  |  IP: Logged
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574

 - Posted      Profile for Ad Orientem     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
No. Women always have played an important part in the Church.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013  |  IP: Logged
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047

 - Posted      Profile for Arethosemyfeet   Email Arethosemyfeet   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
No. Women always have played an important part in the Church.

I hear black people played an important part in the economy of the Southern US states, too, but that misses the point.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012  |  IP: Logged
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574

 - Posted      Profile for Ad Orientem     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
No. Women always have played an important part in the Church.

I hear black people played an important part in the economy of the Southern US states, too, but that misses the point.
Wow! I'm sure that's offensive both to black people and women at the same time. Offensive to black people in trying to compare women being barred from the priesthood with slavery; and offensive to women in suggesting that for 2000 years in the Church they are of less value because they are unable to become priests.

However you rationalise it womens ordination is an innovation, contrary to the ancient and Apostolic faith of the Church. However much Anglicans wish to huff and puff and sulk or feel offended it's things like this that are the reason why we'll never be in communion with each other.

Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013  |  IP: Logged
Raptor Eye
Shipmate
# 16649

 - Posted      Profile for Raptor Eye     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
So, if the Church has always believed that Christ reserved the priesthood for men alone ordaining women is neither something new nor contrary to what has been received? Or is what you're suggesting just modernist jargon for conforming to the spirit of the age?

No I don't think that Christians should conform to the spirit of the age in areas which are clearly against the teaching and example of Christ. This is verified by the fact that Jesus spoke against the spirit of his own age in some instances, particularly against those in the religious establishment who insisted on holding onto traditional methods while forgetting the underlying principles behind them.

You will I hope recognise that the societal norms of the time dictated that Jesus would be circumcised and follow the ritual practices including refraining from eating some kinds of food. There is no received wisdom that says that this should be continued. On the contrary, it was challenged and revised.

Jesus included women and other marginalised people as far as he dared. To have sent women out to proclaim the good news in his time would have been counter-productive.

It's a good thing to be very cautious when discerning God's will. It's not a good thing to stand in the way of it.

--------------------
Be still, and know that I am God! Psalm 46.10

Posts: 4359 | From: The United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2011  |  IP: Logged
Garasu
Shipmate
# 17152

 - Posted      Profile for Garasu   Email Garasu   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
it's things like this that are the reason why we'll never be in communion with each other.

I'm beginning to find the Anglicans attractive...

--------------------
"Could I believe in the doctrine without believing in the deity?". - Modesitt, L. E., Jr., 1943- Imager.

Posts: 889 | From: Surrey Heath (England) | Registered: Jun 2012  |  IP: Logged
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574

 - Posted      Profile for Ad Orientem     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
So, if the Church has always believed that Christ reserved the priesthood for men alone ordaining women is neither something new nor contrary to what has been received? Or is what you're suggesting just modernist jargon for conforming to the spirit of the age?

No I don't think that Christians should conform to the spirit of the age in areas which are clearly against the teaching and example of Christ. This is verified by the fact that Jesus spoke against the spirit of his own age in some instances, particularly against those in the religious establishment who insisted on holding onto traditional methods while forgetting the underlying principles behind them.

You will I hope recognise that the societal norms of the time dictated that Jesus would be circumcised and follow the ritual practices including refraining from eating some kinds of food. There is no received wisdom that says that this should be continued. On the contrary, it was challenged and revised.

Jesus included women and other marginalised people as far as he dared. To have sent women out to proclaim the good news in his time would have been counter-productive.

It's a good thing to be very cautious when discerning God's will. It's not a good thing to stand in the way of it.

So what you're saying is that Jesus broke societal norms but when it came to the Twelve he all of a sudden decided to conform to those norms? Sorry, I don't buy it. It makes Jesus to be a hypocrite. He willed, as is testified to by the ancient and Apostolic faith of the Church, that the priesthood be reserved for men only. That is why we don't have priestesses.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013  |  IP: Logged
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574

 - Posted      Profile for Ad Orientem     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Garasu:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
it's things like this that are the reason why we'll never be in communion with each other.

I'm beginning to find the Anglicans attractive...
Goody for you!
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013  |  IP: Logged
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047

 - Posted      Profile for Arethosemyfeet   Email Arethosemyfeet   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
No. Women always have played an important part in the Church.

I hear black people played an important part in the economy of the Southern US states, too, but that misses the point.
Wow! I'm sure that's offensive both to black people and women at the same time. Offensive to black people in trying to compare women being barred from the priesthood with slavery; and offensive to women in suggesting that for 2000 years in the Church they are of less value because they are unable to become priests.
The difference is one of degree, not of kind, once you start treating one portion of humanity as intrinsically less important than another.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012  |  IP: Logged
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574

 - Posted      Profile for Ad Orientem     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
No. Women always have played an important part in the Church.

I hear black people played an important part in the economy of the Southern US states, too, but that misses the point.
Wow! I'm sure that's offensive both to black people and women at the same time. Offensive to black people in trying to compare women being barred from the priesthood with slavery; and offensive to women in suggesting that for 2000 years in the Church they are of less value because they are unable to become priests.
The difference is one of degree, not of kind, once you start treating one portion of humanity as intrinsically less important than another.
As I said, the Church has never considered one less important than the other. Women always have been important even if they can't become priests.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013  |  IP: Logged
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967

 - Posted      Profile for SvitlanaV2   Email SvitlanaV2   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
No. Women always have played an important part in the Church.

I hear black people played an important part in the economy of the Southern US states, too, but that misses the point.
Wow! I'm sure that's offensive both to black people and women at the same time. Offensive to black people in trying to compare women being barred from the priesthood with slavery; and offensive to women in suggesting that for 2000 years in the Church they are of less value because they are unable to become priests.
The difference is one of degree, not of kind, once you start treating one portion of humanity as intrinsically less important than another.
I have to say, I fit into both categories, and I found the comparison rather odd.

I think almost all denominations have issues with race and gender, in practice if not in theory. At least the RCC is open about its position on gender issues; noone can pretend to be lured in under false pretences.

For me, religious positions on these issues aren't comparable with decisions made by states or by secular employers. Everyone needs a job, or the right to live safely in the place they call home, but noone NEEDS to belong to the RCC. In the West, our religious allegiances are a matter of choice. If we disagree with what our churches teach on gender, racial or any other matters, we're free to leave. There are lots of alternatives. People leave all the time.

Maybe it's just the Non-conformist in me, but I don't see the RCC as a special case.

[ 02. April 2013, 19:18: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]

Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012  |  IP: Logged
Garasu
Shipmate
# 17152

 - Posted      Profile for Garasu   Email Garasu   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Women always have been important even if they can't become priests.

Keep telling yourself that.

--------------------
"Could I believe in the doctrine without believing in the deity?". - Modesitt, L. E., Jr., 1943- Imager.

Posts: 889 | From: Surrey Heath (England) | Registered: Jun 2012  |  IP: Logged
Raptor Eye
Shipmate
# 16649

 - Posted      Profile for Raptor Eye     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
No I don't think that Christians should conform to the spirit of the age in areas which are clearly against the teaching and example of Christ. This is verified by the fact that Jesus spoke against the spirit of his own age in some instances, particularly against those in the religious establishment who insisted on holding onto traditional methods while forgetting the underlying principles behind them.

You will I hope recognise that the societal norms of the time dictated that Jesus would be circumcised and follow the ritual practices including refraining from eating some kinds of food. There is no received wisdom that says that this should be continued. On the contrary, it was challenged and revised.

Jesus included women and other marginalised people as far as he dared. To have sent women out to proclaim the good news in his time would have been counter-productive.

It's a good thing to be very cautious when discerning God's will. It's not a good thing to stand in the way of it.

So what you're saying is that Jesus broke societal norms but when it came to the Twelve he all of a sudden decided to conform to those norms? Sorry, I don't buy it. It makes Jesus to be a hypocrite. He willed, as is testified to by the ancient and Apostolic faith of the Church, that the priesthood be reserved for men only. That is why we don't have priestesses.
No, our Lord was and is not an hypocrite. Some of the religious people were, and he openly challenged them. He conformed to many societal norms which were later thrown out as no longer applicable. At no time did he say that the priesthood should be reserved for men only, and the fact that he calls both genders into this service today and blesses their ministry verifies that it is his will that it should happen.

--------------------
Be still, and know that I am God! Psalm 46.10

Posts: 4359 | From: The United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2011  |  IP: Logged
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574

 - Posted      Profile for Ad Orientem     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Garasu:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Women always have been important even if they can't become priests.

Keep telling yourself that.
I don't have to. One can just look to the Church and as an example look to the numerous feasts which celebrate the lives of women in the Church. But let's follow your logic to the end. If women, according to you, are less important in the eyes of the Church because they are unable to become priests then the next logical conclusion is that only priests are important. However, it's much more reasonable just to accept that both women and men are important in the Church, just in different ways.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013  |  IP: Logged
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574

 - Posted      Profile for Ad Orientem     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
No I don't think that Christians should conform to the spirit of the age in areas which are clearly against the teaching and example of Christ. This is verified by the fact that Jesus spoke against the spirit of his own age in some instances, particularly against those in the religious establishment who insisted on holding onto traditional methods while forgetting the underlying principles behind them.

You will I hope recognise that the societal norms of the time dictated that Jesus would be circumcised and follow the ritual practices including refraining from eating some kinds of food. There is no received wisdom that says that this should be continued. On the contrary, it was challenged and revised.

Jesus included women and other marginalised people as far as he dared. To have sent women out to proclaim the good news in his time would have been counter-productive.

It's a good thing to be very cautious when discerning God's will. It's not a good thing to stand in the way of it.

So what you're saying is that Jesus broke societal norms but when it came to the Twelve he all of a sudden decided to conform to those norms? Sorry, I don't buy it. It makes Jesus to be a hypocrite. He willed, as is testified to by the ancient and Apostolic faith of the Church, that the priesthood be reserved for men only. That is why we don't have priestesses.
No, our Lord was and is not an hypocrite. Some of the religious people were, and he openly challenged them. He conformed to many societal norms which were later thrown out as no longer applicable. At no time did he say that the priesthood should be reserved for men only, and the fact that he calls both genders into this service today and blesses their ministry verifies that it is his will that it should happen.
No it isn't because such are outside the Church and there are no Holy Mysteries outside the Church.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013  |  IP: Logged
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047

 - Posted      Profile for Arethosemyfeet   Email Arethosemyfeet   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
No it isn't because such are outside the Church and there are no Holy Mysteries outside the Church.

So if all Anglicans are outside of the church why do you care that they didn't consult you before ordaining women?
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012  |  IP: Logged
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574

 - Posted      Profile for Ad Orientem     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
As I said before on this thread, what Anglicans do is their own business, but to do something like this which is clearly contrary to the ancient faith of the Church and then start bitching when told so is more than a little vexing. So, if Anglicans want to know why they are not in communion with Orthodoxy then this is just one of the many reasons why. If the point of Anglican/Orthodox ecumenical talks (something I have always been skeptical about) was to bring the two closer to each other then such unilateral action has moved us further apart than ever.

[ 02. April 2013, 19:52: Message edited by: Ad Orientem ]

Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013  |  IP: Logged
Raptor Eye
Shipmate
# 16649

 - Posted      Profile for Raptor Eye     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
No it isn't because such are outside the Church and there are no Holy Mysteries outside the Church.

They're not outside of the Holy Church which is the body of Christ. We all share in one bread.

--------------------
Be still, and know that I am God! Psalm 46.10

Posts: 4359 | From: The United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2011  |  IP: Logged
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175

 - Posted      Profile for Pomona   Email Pomona   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
Don't you think that conservative Anglo-Catholics in Anglican discussions have been putting precisely the points of view you are advocating? It appears that discussion in your usage is code for acquiescence.

By what measure do you determine what the Holy Spirit is or isn't doing? The calling of women in the CofE is tested in exactly the same way as that of men, and the evidence from 20 years of their ministry is extremely positive. On what basis do you deny it?

Continuity is the test here. If something is new it does not belong to the faith once given and therefore is not of the Holy Spirit (something the councils and the fathers make abundantly clear).
We know from the New Testament that there were female deacons and church leaders in the early church. The RCC and Eastern Orthodox churches do not ordain women as deacons, and neither do conservative Protestants such as Sydney Anglicans. Surely it is they who are breaking the continuity here? Women played an important role in the leadership of the early church and there is good evidence to suggest that Priscilla wrote the book of Hebrews. Women were only removed from leadership in order to make the church more palatable to the sexism of the Pagans.

--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]

Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012  |  IP: Logged
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047

 - Posted      Profile for Arethosemyfeet   Email Arethosemyfeet   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
So, if Anglicans want to know why they are not in communion with Orthodoxy then this is just one of the many reasons why. If the point of Anglican/Orthodox ecumenical talks (something I have always been skeptical about) was to bring the two closer to each other then such unilateral action has moved us further apart than ever.

Given that your idea of ecumenism seems to be "everyone converts to the strictest version of Orthodoxy" it's no wonder you're sceptical about it.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012  |  IP: Logged
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574

 - Posted      Profile for Ad Orientem     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
No it isn't because such are outside the Church and there are no Holy Mysteries outside the Church.

They're not outside of the Holy Church which is the body of Christ. We all share in one bread.
Er, no we don't. If we all "share in one bread" we'd be in communion with one another, yet that is not the case. First we must confess the same faith. That has always been the position of Orthodoxy whether that be with regards to the Archbishop of Canterbury or the Bishop of Rome.

[ 02. April 2013, 19:57: Message edited by: Ad Orientem ]

Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013  |  IP: Logged
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175

 - Posted      Profile for Pomona   Email Pomona   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
No it isn't because such are outside the Church and there are no Holy Mysteries outside the Church.

They're not outside of the Holy Church which is the body of Christ. We all share in one bread.
Er, no we don't. If we all "share in one bread" we'd be in communion with one another, yet that is not the case. First we must confess the one orthodox faith. That has always been the position of Orthodoxy whether that be with regards to the Archbishop of Canterbury or the Bishop of Rome.
Er, have you not heard 'though we are many, we are one body, because we all share in one bread' that is part of the Eucharistic rite? All Christians DO share in one bread, unless you think that somehow Anglicans are not Christians.

--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]

Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012  |  IP: Logged
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574

 - Posted      Profile for Ad Orientem     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
No it isn't because such are outside the Church and there are no Holy Mysteries outside the Church.

They're not outside of the Holy Church which is the body of Christ. We all share in one bread.
Er, no we don't. If we all "share in one bread" we'd be in communion with one another, yet that is not the case. First we must confess the one orthodox faith. That has always been the position of Orthodoxy whether that be with regards to the Archbishop of Canterbury or the Bishop of Rome.
Er, have you not heard 'though we are many, we are one body, because we all share in one bread' that is part of the Eucharistic rite? All Christians DO share in one bread, unless you think that somehow Anglicans are not Christians.
I never said Anglican weren't Christians, I just don't believe that the Anglican Church is the Church or part of it. If we shared the same bread than Anglicans would be free to receive holy communion in our Churches and Orthodox would feel no objection to receiving holy communion in Anglican Churches, yet that is not the case. The reason for that is because we confess different faiths.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013  |  IP: Logged
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175

 - Posted      Profile for Pomona   Email Pomona   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
No it isn't because such are outside the Church and there are no Holy Mysteries outside the Church.

They're not outside of the Holy Church which is the body of Christ. We all share in one bread.
Er, no we don't. If we all "share in one bread" we'd be in communion with one another, yet that is not the case. First we must confess the one orthodox faith. That has always been the position of Orthodoxy whether that be with regards to the Archbishop of Canterbury or the Bishop of Rome.
Er, have you not heard 'though we are many, we are one body, because we all share in one bread' that is part of the Eucharistic rite? All Christians DO share in one bread, unless you think that somehow Anglicans are not Christians.
I never said Anglican weren't Christians, I just don't believe that the Anglican Church is the Church or part of it. If we shared the same bread than Anglicans would be free to receive holy communion in our Churches and Orthodox would feel no objection to receiving holy communion in Anglican Churches, yet that is not the case. The reason for that is because we confess different faiths.
No, we do not confess different faiths. All Christians are part of the one universal Church, male priests or female priests or no priests at all. We confess belief in one holy, catholic and apostolic church, every Sunday.

--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]

Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012  |  IP: Logged
Garasu
Shipmate
# 17152

 - Posted      Profile for Garasu   Email Garasu   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
I never said Anglican weren't Christians, ... we confess different faiths.

Er...

--------------------
"Could I believe in the doctrine without believing in the deity?". - Modesitt, L. E., Jr., 1943- Imager.

Posts: 889 | From: Surrey Heath (England) | Registered: Jun 2012  |  IP: Logged
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574

 - Posted      Profile for Ad Orientem     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
No it isn't because such are outside the Church and there are no Holy Mysteries outside the Church.

They're not outside of the Holy Church which is the body of Christ. We all share in one bread.
Er, no we don't. If we all "share in one bread" we'd be in communion with one another, yet that is not the case. First we must confess the one orthodox faith. That has always been the position of Orthodoxy whether that be with regards to the Archbishop of Canterbury or the Bishop of Rome.
Er, have you not heard 'though we are many, we are one body, because we all share in one bread' that is part of the Eucharistic rite? All Christians DO share in one bread, unless you think that somehow Anglicans are not Christians.
I never said Anglican weren't Christians, I just don't believe that the Anglican Church is the Church or part of it. If we shared the same bread than Anglicans would be free to receive holy communion in our Churches and Orthodox would feel no objection to receiving holy communion in Anglican Churches, yet that is not the case. The reason for that is because we confess different faiths.
No, we do not confess different faiths. All Christians are part of the one universal Church, male priests or female priests or no priests at all. We confess belief in one holy, catholic and apostolic church, every Sunday.
Kid yourself all you like. We don't even confess the same creed.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013  |  IP: Logged
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175

 - Posted      Profile for Pomona   Email Pomona   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
The filioque clause was dropped from the creed at ++Welby's installation, so yes, we do in fact believe in the same creed. And since when did 'different denomination' equal 'different faith'?

[ 02. April 2013, 20:40: Message edited by: Jade Constable ]

--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]

Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012  |  IP: Logged
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175

 - Posted      Profile for Pomona   Email Pomona   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Because I missed the edit window:

Ad Orientem, you haven't answered my previous question. Why is the Eastern Orthodox church not the one lacking continuity when they do not ordain women as deacons? It's clear from the New Testament that women were deacons in the early church and women played an important role in early church leadership. Women were stripped of power for purely political reasons.

[ 02. April 2013, 20:43: Message edited by: Jade Constable ]

--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]

Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012  |  IP: Logged
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130

 - Posted      Profile for South Coast Kevin   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
If we shared the same bread than Anglicans would be free to receive holy communion in our Churches and Orthodox would feel no objection to receiving holy communion in Anglican Churches, yet that is not the case. The reason for that is because we confess different faiths.

I'm pretty sure I'd be happy to share communion at any church that was willing for me to take part. Am I some kind of freak, or is Ad Orientem's position here relatively uncommon?
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Why is the Eastern Orthodox church not the one lacking continuity when they do not ordain women as deacons? It's clear from the New Testament that women were deacons in the early church and women played an important role in early church leadership. Women were stripped of power for purely political reasons.

Some theologians argue the very act of ordination is unbiblical, so by that reckoning all the mainstream contemporary Christian groups are lacking continuity!

--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.

Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011  |  IP: Logged
gorpo
Shipmate
# 17025

 - Posted      Profile for gorpo   Email gorpo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
No it isn't because such are outside the Church and there are no Holy Mysteries outside the Church. [/QB]

If you REALLY believe that your church is "THE CHURCH" then you guys should engage in global evangelization and church planting everywhere, like the pentecostals, for example.

To act as if your your denomination was "The Church" but to organize yourselves in national/ethnic churches sounds very hypocrite.

Posts: 247 | From: Brazil | Registered: Apr 2012  |  IP: Logged
gorpo
Shipmate
# 17025

 - Posted      Profile for gorpo   Email gorpo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
No it isn't because such are outside the Church and there are no Holy Mysteries outside the Church.

They're not outside of the Holy Church which is the body of Christ. We all share in one bread.
Er, no we don't. If we all "share in one bread" we'd be in communion with one another, yet that is not the case. First we must confess the same faith. That has always been the position of Orthodoxy whether that be with regards to the Archbishop of Canterbury or the Bishop of Rome.
I have always thought that, if you want the english to confess the eastern orthodox faith, you should not expect that the whole Church Of England converts to eastern orthodoxy collectively. You should engage in church planting and evangelization in England. Ethnic communities of russians or greeks do not count! You should have missions aimed at ethnic anglo-british people, to teach them in their language and baptize them as they become believers. But that takes a lot more hard work, doesn´t it?
Posts: 247 | From: Brazil | Registered: Apr 2012  |  IP: Logged
RuthW

liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13

 - Posted      Profile for RuthW     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
Here's an essay from Fr. Victor E. Novak, the rector of Holy Cross Anglican Church located in the Ralston suburb of Omaha, Nebraska:

Orthodox Anglicanism and Christian Reunion

If you take the time to read it ...

Right at the top it says "Source: Virtueonline," but I read it anyway. Despite its rather laughable history of Christianity in Britain -- Joseph of Arimathea! Fun, but not fact -- it has some nice ideas for the Anglican Church in North America. It seems to me that it might strengthen both them and Orthodoxy in the US if the ACiNA went Orthodox.

But it's got nothing to do with those Anglicans not involved in this splinter group. I.e., most of us.

[ 02. April 2013, 22:07: Message edited by: RuthW ]

Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564

 - Posted      Profile for Leorning Cniht   Email Leorning Cniht   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
I'm pretty sure I'd be happy to share communion at any church that was willing for me to take part. Am I some kind of freak, or is Ad Orientem's position here relatively uncommon?

Discussion of this is a Dead Horse, but I think I'm just about OK to tell you that Ad Orientem's position is the standard position of the Orthodox churches. Roman Catholics may not receive from any of us post-Reformation schismatics, because we don't have valid priests, and hence it's not Jesus. The whole business with FiF and sacramental assurance hinges on the statement that if women can't be made priests, then words of consecration said by a woman priest don't do anything, and again it's not Jesus.

Whoops, there's another Dead Horse.

If you want to discuss this, you need to start a thread in the Other Place. Here, suffice it to say that, more or less, there is a dividing line that depends on how you view the sacraments.

Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013  |  IP: Logged
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984

 - Posted      Profile for Doublethink.   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Would you please mind the dead horse.

Thankyou,

Doublethink
Purgatory Host

--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell

Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130

 - Posted      Profile for South Coast Kevin   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
I'm pretty sure I'd be happy to share communion at any church that was willing for me to take part. Am I some kind of freak, or is Ad Orientem's position here relatively uncommon?

Discussion of this is a Dead Horse... If you want to discuss this, you need to start a thread in the Other Place. Here, suffice it to say that, more or less, there is a dividing line that depends on how you view the sacraments.
Thanks, I'd completely forgotten open / closed communion was a SoF Dead Horse issue but that's not quite what I was getting at. I was commenting on how I'd feel about participating in communion, were I given the option. Ad Orientem would be unwilling to take part in churches outside his / her tradition (am I right?), which is an attitude that really surprised me.

EDIT - sorry for the crosspost! I shall commit equine murder no more...

[ 02. April 2013, 22:36: Message edited by: South Coast Kevin ]

--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.

Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011  |  IP: Logged
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574

 - Posted      Profile for Ad Orientem     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Because I missed the edit window:

Ad Orientem, you haven't answered my previous question. Why is the Eastern Orthodox church not the one lacking continuity when they do not ordain women as deacons? It's clear from the New Testament that women were deacons in the early church and women played an important role in early church leadership. Women were stripped of power for purely political reasons.

Deaconesses were the wives of deacons. They aided the bishop in the baptism of women so that common decency could be kept (the candidate was naked when baptised) and helped the deacon in distributing holy communion to the housebound (the gifts were reserved in the houses of deacons). They were not one of the seven holy orders. They were not female versions of deacons and were never ministers of the chalice.

[ 03. April 2013, 01:49: Message edited by: Ad Orientem ]

Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013  |  IP: Logged
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574

 - Posted      Profile for Ad Orientem     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
I'm pretty sure I'd be happy to share communion at any church that was willing for me to take part. Am I some kind of freak, or is Ad Orientem's position here relatively uncommon?

Discussion of this is a Dead Horse... If you want to discuss this, you need to start a thread in the Other Place. Here, suffice it to say that, more or less, there is a dividing line that depends on how you view the sacraments.
Thanks, I'd completely forgotten open / closed communion was a SoF Dead Horse issue but that's not quite what I was getting at. I was commenting on how I'd feel about participating in communion, were I given the option. Ad Orientem would be unwilling to take part in churches outside his / her tradition (am I right?), which is an attitude that really surprised me.

EDIT - sorry for the crosspost! I shall commit equine murder no more...

Yes, you're right, I wouldn't.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013  |  IP: Logged



Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  4 
 
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