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
Thread closed  Thread closed


Post new thread  
Thread closed  Thread closed
My profile login | | Directory | Search | FAQs | Board home
   - Printer-friendly view Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
» Ship of Fools   »   » Oblivion   » Can the CofE dig itself out of its hole over the OoW? (Page 2)

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.  
Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8 
 
Source: (consider it) Thread: Can the CofE dig itself out of its hole over the OoW?
PaulTH*
Shipmate
# 320

 - Posted      Profile for PaulTH*   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Ondergard:
Backwards In Bigotry

This is an extremely ignorant description of what Forward in Faith stands for. Since the Oxford Movement, founded in 1833 various bodies within the Church of England have sought to reconnect with the Catholic heritage of the church. The logical outcome of this view is to seek corporate unity with the Holy See. The priestly faternity, the Society of the Holy Cross was founded in 1855. The Catholic League in 1913. These were long before the ordination of women was on anyone's horizen.

The creation of ARCIC came in the aftermath of Archbishop Michael Ramsey's historic visit to Pope Paul VI in 1966, in which "corporate unity by the end of the century" was envisaged. Admittedly, not all members of the C of E had any enthusiasm for any of this. In fact, only a small minority. When women's ordination came on the agenda, all groups believing in that vision knew that it would totally scupper their aspirations. Rome is by far the largest Christian body on earth and it doesn't ordain women.

FiF has diligently sought to preserve the spirit of ARCIC and the other bodies, since the OoW, and to explore if the Catholic position in the C of E can be maintained with any integrity. Like all heirs to the Oxford Movement, it has failed, because, as Ken always points out, the C of E is Protestant and ever has been, especially since the Restoration. But it has nothing to do with bigotry, mysoginism, women hating or anything else. It is about the ecclesiology of the Universal Church. This is something Protestants don't get because it isn't part of their tradition, but it's a position held with the utmost integrity, whether you agree with it or not.

--------------------
Yours in Christ
Paul

Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Ender's Shadow
Shipmate
# 2272

 - Posted      Profile for Ender's Shadow   Email Ender's Shadow   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
Given that historically the CofE was defined in contrast to Rome, a fact marked by their execution of each other's clerics, the Protestants who feel free to ignore Rome's position on the issue have grounds for doing so. [Big Grin] But yes, any claim to be serious about ecumenism does look iffy if you come along and say 'Yes, I think ecumenism is a good thing' whilst acting in a way that puts up additional boundaries to unity. But then we can't expect people who are the partisans for 'the right on thing' to be constrained by the needs of something as effete as church unity. 'We know we're right, everyone else is a bigot, hang the consequences'. [Waterworks]

--------------------
Test everything. Hold on to the good.

Please don't refer to me as 'Ender' - the whole point of Ender's Shadow is that he isn't Ender.

Posts: 5018 | From: Manchester, England | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984

 - Posted      Profile for Doublethink.   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
Why the assumption that the Roman Catholic church will never change its position on this ? Female clerics have been ordained in very traditionalist RC countries in extremis - the Roman Catholic Church may value tradition but it is not unchanging.

If one considers the fullest expression of Christ's church to include female ministry, you might with equal integrity take the view that enabling it within the CofE may eventually influence the RCC thereby creating an improved church at the time of unification (which may take a bit longer).

--------------------
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
Pardoner

Shrive me timbers
# 15043

 - Posted      Profile for Pardoner   Email Pardoner   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
On one side we have those who argue passionately that of course we should treat women with equality, and any resistance to it is wrong.

On the other we have those, who for various reasons object.

And sitting in the middle of the battlefield is the promise made at the time of the vote for the ordination of women as priests that there would be a continuing place of honour for the opponents within the CofE. Period. No conditions. No time limit.

I think it is blindingly obvious in retrospect - such is the joy of 20/20 hindsight - that no such promise should have been made. Some way to enable this promise to be scrapped should have been provided.

Seems to me that ES has put his digit on the issue right here. I like ambiguity and fudge as much as the next Anglican, but the fundamental point is that you can't both have, and not have, women bishops at the same time. The church has to choose one way of t'other. And if you choose to have them, its difficult for the antis to feel honoured.

Stating the obvious, really

--------------------
Thin line between heaven and here (Bubbles)

Posts: 167 | Registered: Aug 2009  |  IP: Logged
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38

 - Posted      Profile for Honest Ron Bacardi   Email Honest Ron Bacardi   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
Think² wrote:
quote:
Why the assumption that the Roman Catholic church will never change its position on this ? Female clerics have been ordained in very traditionalist RC countries in extremis - the Roman Catholic Church may value tradition but it is not unchanging.
Are you sure, Think²? It's a while since I last looked, but all the references I could find then looked like misinterpretations (e.g. "presbytera" etc.)- any chance of a reference?

(of course there used to be female deacons/deaconesses - that's uncontroversial)

Your latter paragraph is certainly one of the possibilities though. There are others.

--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic

Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984

 - Posted      Profile for Doublethink.   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
I am sorry, wiki is not a great source. But there was a fair amount of press coverage later on which I read at the time.

It was said to be fairly well attested that underground churches, in communist countries of the communist bloc during the cold war, ordained women to keep the church going owing to the attrition of the clergy by state persecution. This article is quite interesting on the subject. What I think it shows unequivocally - and that I think most people would accept - is that the RCC ordained people it would not normally consider to particular clerical roles, because it was necessary to survive.

[ 07. December 2010, 19:51: Message edited by: Think² ]

--------------------
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
FreeJack
Shipmate
# 10612

 - Posted      Profile for FreeJack   Email FreeJack   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by cheesymarzipan:
As the flying bishops are suffragans , this would seem to be the case. Perhaps a solution would be to make a 'flying diocese'? ...But it seems like one step below creating another province.

Which is what FiF want - a third province. It's the only solution.
Other than a mass departure for Rome.

The one situation where the CofE does 'not break its promises' is where there are only negligible numbers of opponents left.

Posts: 3588 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38

 - Posted      Profile for Honest Ron Bacardi   Email Honest Ron Bacardi   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
Thanks, Think². It looks a bit similar to the Sicilian example I have heard cited. But I had better cease this tangent as it is in danger of tripping over into DH territory.

--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic

Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Ender's Shadow
Shipmate
# 2272

 - Posted      Profile for Ender's Shadow   Email Ender's Shadow   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by FreeJack:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by cheesymarzipan:
As the flying bishops are suffragans , this would seem to be the case. Perhaps a solution would be to make a 'flying diocese'? ...But it seems like one step below creating another province.

Which is what FiF want - a third province. It's the only solution.
Other than a mass departure for Rome.

The one situation where the CofE does 'not break its promises' is where there are only negligible numbers of opponents left.

Hmm - the moral philosophy that says I can ignore my promises because there are only a few beneficiaries left doesn't quite work for me. However you are ignoring the Conservative Evangelicals who are equally opposed - though usually haven't been as visible. I don't know what the statistics are for churches that passed the resolutions - but I think quite a lot of Evangelicals chose the option of excluding women leaders but not associating with the 'flying bishops'.

--------------------
Test everything. Hold on to the good.

Please don't refer to me as 'Ender' - the whole point of Ender's Shadow is that he isn't Ender.

Posts: 5018 | From: Manchester, England | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460

 - Posted      Profile for ken     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
However you are ignoring the Conservative Evangelicals who are equally opposed - though usually haven't been as visible.

Some are opposed, some aren't. But they don't have the same worry about tainted sacraments that the Anglo-Catholics do. It just doesn't matter that much to a typical evangelical if the ministers in some other church are unacceptable, as long as the ones in their own church are sound. After all we've been ignoring liberal and heretical and immoral bishops and priests in the CofE for centuries. Any evangelicals still left in the CofE can obviously put up with it. Ordained women don't make the situation noticeably worse.

For at least some of the Anglo-Catholics, on the other hand, the presence of ordained women in other churches seems to cause a problem. So they will avoid male bishops who also ordain women, or even male priests ordained by bishops who also ordain women. (As if femaleness was infectious). Evangelicals just don't have that problem.

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

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

Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984

 - Posted      Profile for Doublethink.   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
Thanks, Think². It looks a bit similar to the Sicilian example I have heard cited. But I had better cease this tangent as it is in danger of tripping over into DH territory.

OK, I was simply hoping to use the example to illustrate - that the argument that OoW lack integrity in ignoring the impact on potential eventual reunion of the whole church is not a given.

--------------------
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
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984

 - Posted      Profile for Doublethink.   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
So they will avoid male bishops who also ordain women, or even male priests ordained by bishops who also ordain women.

I just don't get the theology of that (and it is the theological position that the CofE promised to honour). The apostolic succession could be broken by male priests ordained by female bishops (i.e. inauthentic ordination) - or the sacraments offered by female priests could be invalid - if you take that theological position.

But how could the males ordained or consecrated by males be a problem ? That stops being a theological position and starts becoming a political position surely ?

I suppose that a flying diocese solution would make the most sense. But I still don't get why you would continue to ordain people who don't believe in the validity of the orders of all the clergy in the church. For it is surely the position of the church as a whole that the orders of its priests are valid, otherwise why bother ?

--------------------
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
FreeJack
Shipmate
# 10612

 - Posted      Profile for FreeJack   Email FreeJack   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
Hmm - the moral philosophy that says I can ignore my promises because there are only a few beneficiaries left doesn't quite work for me. However you are ignoring the Conservative Evangelicals who are equally opposed - though usually haven't been as visible. I don't know what the statistics are for churches that passed the resolutions - but I think quite a lot of Evangelicals chose the option of excluding women leaders but not associating with the 'flying bishops'.

No. The 'promises' were themselves demand driven. It was if there is a demand for flying bishops we will continue to provide them, but if there is no demand they will not continue to exist and so on.

There are a number of conservative evangelical clergy who are more opposed to women priests than their congregations are.

Posts: 3588 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38

 - Posted      Profile for Honest Ron Bacardi   Email Honest Ron Bacardi   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
Think² wrote:
quote:
But how could the males ordained or consecrated by males be a problem ? That stops being a theological position and starts becoming a political position surely ?
Perhaps for some there is an element of that, but I suspect that a greater concern is that if you are concerned about the validity of your sacraments, you will be concerned that in ordaining your presbyters, your church has done what the church has always intended to do. If you are an "impossibilist" opponent of OOWP then you may consider that a bishop who ordains women is not intending to do as the church has always done.

Sorry for the conditionals - I suspect POV's may vary. My experience of talking to people opposed is almost completely limited to "possibilists".

--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic

Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356

 - Posted      Profile for Albertus     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by ken:

For at least some of the Anglo-Catholics, on the other hand, the presence of ordained women in other churches seems to cause a problem. So they will avoid male bishops who also ordain women, or even male priests ordained by bishops who also ordain women. (As if femaleness was infectious).

But it is infectious- didn't you know? Once you've put your hand on someone who is, or may be, or has been, menstruating, you can just never get that yuckiness off....

[ 08. December 2010, 15:46: Message edited by: Albertus ]

--------------------
My beard is a testament to my masculinity and virility, and demonstrates that I am a real man. Trouble is, bits of quiche sometimes get caught in it.

Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged
Nightlamp
Shipmate
# 266

 - Posted      Profile for Nightlamp   Email Nightlamp   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Think²:

It was said to be fairly well attested that underground churches, in communist countries of the communist bloc during the cold war, ordained women to keep the church going

Women may have felt they were ordained but under Roman Catholic law they were not because they couldn't have been since it was against Canon law.

--------------------
I don't know what you are talking about so it couldn't have been that important- Nightlamp

Posts: 8442 | From: Midlands | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472

 - Posted      Profile for Augustine the Aleut     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Think²:

It was said to be fairly well attested that underground churches, in communist countries of the communist bloc during the cold war, ordained women to keep the church going

Through connexions I've described on a post a long long time ago, I am acquainted with the Czech situation through friends who had relations ordained under persecution, and after a call to enquire further, I received an informed opinion that OWP did not take place although there were many (in the eyes of the RCC) irregularities with respect to married men.

While there is the one claim described above, I do not know if I would say that it is fairly well attested. RC authorities would say that it doesn't matter anyway, as orders cannot be conferred on women, but that is another discussion.

As far as the OP is concerned General Synod has determined that a code of practice will be the answer and that extra-diocesan structures are not to be part of the picture. The difficulty is that there is not a high level of trust in a code of practice as opposed to legislation. The example the Canadian House of Bishops has set does not suggest that a high level of trust can be reasonably expected. I fear that I was in a bureaucratic situation last year where an A/Director General plaintively asked if I did not trust her, and I felt obliged to tell the truth. I wonder if there is not a parallel here.

Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
hereweare
Shipmate
# 15567

 - Posted      Profile for hereweare   Email hereweare   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Think²:
Why the assumption that the Roman Catholic church will never change its position on this ?

I think this may help (sorry it is long, but please note the use of the word 'infallibility' towards the end) :

ADDRESS OF THE HOLY FATHER TO THE GERMAN BISHOPS Saturday 20 November 1999
Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church's divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32) I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church's faithful…..Without doubt, the dignity of women is great and must be more and more appreciated! However, too little consideration is given to the difference between the human and civil rights of the person and his rights, duties and related functions in the Church. Precisely for this reason, some time ago, by virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren, I recalled "that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgement is to be definitively held by all the Church's faithful" (Ordinatio sacerdotalis, n. 4). Do not hesitate, then, to emphasize that the Magisterium of the Church has taken this decision not as an act of her own power, but in the knowledge of her duty to obey the will of the Lord of the Church herself. Therefore, the doctrine that the priesthood is reserved to men possesses, by virtue of the Church's ordinary and universal Magisterium, that character of infallibility which Lumen gentium speaks of and to which I gave juridical form in the Motu Proprio Ad tuendam fidem: When the individual Bishops, "even though dispersed throughout the world but preserving among themselves and with Peter's Successor the bond of communion, agree in their authoritative teaching on matters of faith and morals that a particular teaching is to be held definitively and absolutely, they infallibly proclaim the doctrine of Christ" (Lumen gentium, n. 25; cf. Ad tuendam fidem, n. 3).

--------------------
Come home to Rome this Christmas!

Posts: 206 | From: here | Registered: Mar 2010  |  IP: Logged
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460

 - Posted      Profile for ken     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
Rome has a long history of changing its mind and finding a form of words that makes it look as if they haven't. If, in the future, they want to ordain women, that document won't stop them.

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

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

Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
hereweare
Shipmate
# 15567

 - Posted      Profile for hereweare   Email hereweare   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
but Ken, that's the point. JPII is saying it doesn't matter whether the Church wants to or not, it can't.

--------------------
Come home to Rome this Christmas!

Posts: 206 | From: here | Registered: Mar 2010  |  IP: Logged
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460

 - Posted      Profile for ken     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
And if they change their minds later they will find a way round that.

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

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

Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
hereweare
Shipmate
# 15567

 - Posted      Profile for hereweare   Email hereweare   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
I think that would take Jesus himself - "but in the knowledge of her duty to obey the will of the Lord of the Church herself." I guess that's what infalibility means.

--------------------
Come home to Rome this Christmas!

Posts: 206 | From: here | Registered: Mar 2010  |  IP: Logged
Amos

Shipmate
# 44

 - Posted      Profile for Amos     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by hereweare:
I think that would take Jesus himself - "but in the knowledge of her duty to obey the will of the Lord of the Church herself." I guess that's what infalibility means.

It would take His Spirit. Which continues to abide in and to speak to His Church.
Posts: 7667 | From: Summerisle | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Alisdair
Shipmate
# 15837

 - Posted      Profile for Alisdair   Email Alisdair   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
There would seem to be quite a lot of scope for arguing this whole situation has far more to do with institutional politics, verging on a kind of idolatry, than it has to do with the integrity of Christian faith.

Neither side is questioning the person or teaching of Christ, but they are struggling over the tradition of a particular branch of the Church. If the CoE disappeared tomorrow all those people whose faith rests in Christ (rather than in the CoE), would presumably find some other part of the Church where they felt reasonably welcome.

In other words we have people tying themselves in knots trying to enable other people to remain within the ecclesiastical institution where they feel comfortable---but in the end that is NOT what the Church is all about.

'Christians' have been arguing, even to the point of punch ups, since the beginnings of the church, often over matters that ultimately matter little to the substance of Christian faith.

'Promises' made in politically charged situations are invariably seen to be broken by someone. If a particular branch of the Church goes in a direction that some members do not like, they are free to learn to live with it, or leave. If the direction is 'wrong' the church concerned will ultimately be ejected by the wider Church, die out, or repent.

None of us are compelled to remain in one part of the Church; no one part of the Church holds the entire truth of Christ.

Regardless of the rights/wrongs of female ordination and how its implementation has been handled, surely there are far more important issues for Christians, of whatever flavour, to be concerned about and engaged with.

Like letting the PCC choose the colour to paint the church hall, it's something everyone feels free to have a really good row about because in the end it doesn't really matter all that much, meanwhile a beggar sleeps curled up in the hall porch.

[ 10. December 2010, 18:35: Message edited by: Alisdair ]

Posts: 334 | From: Washed up in England | Registered: Aug 2010  |  IP: Logged
hereweare
Shipmate
# 15567

 - Posted      Profile for hereweare   Email hereweare   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Amos:
quote:
Originally posted by hereweare:
I think that would take Jesus himself - "but in the knowledge of her duty to obey the will of the Lord of the Church herself." I guess that's what infalibility means.

It would take His Spirit. Which continues to abide in and to speak to His Church.
Er, I think you will find the Trinity is not in the habit of saying opposite things, [Smile]
Ps Is this the same Spirit that said yes to women 'priests' in the CofE and no in the Church in Wales, who then kept on voting until the Spirit agreed with them??? [Devil]

--------------------
Come home to Rome this Christmas!

Posts: 206 | From: here | Registered: Mar 2010  |  IP: Logged
Ender's Shadow
Shipmate
# 2272

 - Posted      Profile for Ender's Shadow   Email Ender's Shadow   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Alisdair:
None of us are compelled to remain in one part of the Church; no one part of the Church holds the entire truth of Christ.

This goes to the heart of your response, and is the point which our Catholic brethren would fundamentally reject. For a Catholic - be they Anglican or Roman - there is no freedom to just wander off to another church when they feel like it; it's part of their beliefs that being in the visible body of Christ constituted in with bishops, priests and deacons deriving their ordination from the apostolic succession is the only right place for them to be. Therefore if the church they have grown up in then does something which is unacceptable - imposing women bishops - they can't just pop down to some other congregation.

The New Testament gives us hints of this when Paul talks about the people who were converted as a result of his ministry as his 'children'. To expect the children of a family to be excluded from it is deeply unfair if they've done nothing wrong - which is how it looks to the those opposed to the consecration of women. That this doesn't match your ecclesiology doesn't mean, if you are to remain in a church that is attempting to be broad, that you have the right to ignore theirs. Which is why the attempts to keep the doors remain mandatory given the promises that were made. Yes it's a horrible hole - which is why I opened up the question to see if there is a way out...

--------------------
Test everything. Hold on to the good.

Please don't refer to me as 'Ender' - the whole point of Ender's Shadow is that he isn't Ender.

Posts: 5018 | From: Manchester, England | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged
Anselmina
Ship's barmaid
# 3032

 - Posted      Profile for Anselmina     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by hereweare:
quote:
Originally posted by Amos:
quote:
Originally posted by hereweare:
I think that would take Jesus himself - "but in the knowledge of her duty to obey the will of the Lord of the Church herself." I guess that's what infalibility means.

It would take His Spirit. Which continues to abide in and to speak to His Church.
Er, I think you will find the Trinity is not in the habit of saying opposite things, [Smile]
Ps Is this the same Spirit that said yes to women 'priests' in the CofE and no in the Church in Wales, who then kept on voting until the Spirit agreed with them??? [Devil]

Or who was in agreement with the Spirit's movement and acted upon it (at long last) despite century after century of obstinacy and blindness? [Smile]

Please note, too, that the Church of England doesn't have women 'priests', it has women priests. Their priestly ministry may certainly, by some, be considered illegitimate but it is discourteous, at least, to be derogatory about the title that their own Church has given them.

--------------------
Irish dogs needing homes! http://www.dogactionwelfaregroup.ie/ Greyhounds and Lurchers are shipped over to England for rehoming too!

Posts: 10002 | From: Scotland the Brave | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
Sir Pellinore
Quester Emeritus
# 12163

 - Posted      Profile for Sir Pellinore   Email Sir Pellinore   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
A (male) Anglican priest I know - 83 years old - said, somewhat wistfully, that it might do the Anglican Church (remember I'm in Australia) good if those who opposed the OOW left en masse.

--------------------
Well...

Posts: 5108 | From: The Deep North, Oz | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged
Alisdair
Shipmate
# 15837

 - Posted      Profile for Alisdair   Email Alisdair   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
Paul certainly said many things. Some the wider Church holds to as fundamental to Christian faith, some parts of the church uphold, and some are no longer generally held to be necessary to orthodox faith.

Jesus, as far as I know, is not recorded as saying anything about the matter of gender and priesthood; and it is moot whether he had any interest in establishing a 'religion' in the institutional sense. Although it would seem he was willing to work within the established religious structures of his day, but not uncritically.

Perhaps the question of female priests begs a much deeper question about what we actually mean by 'priesthood' generally, especially as the Church seems to have been fundamentally influenced by 'pagan' concepts/practices of priesthood at the time it became politically and financially expedient to change horses when Constantine made 'Christianity' the official religion of the Empire.

There seems no way out of a hole where one or both sides make it a life or death matter of principle from which they cannot/will not budge.

Either they learn to live together in one of those glorious and very human 'fudges', where everyone agrees, for the sake of love and life having to go on, to overlook the glaring inconsistencies, or people must go their separate ways. There is nothing good to be gained by one side holding the other hostage: 'If you do this/don't do this we will take our ball and go'.

Posts: 334 | From: Washed up in England | Registered: Aug 2010  |  IP: Logged
Anselmina
Ship's barmaid
# 3032

 - Posted      Profile for Anselmina     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
quote:
Originally posted by Alisdair:
None of us are compelled to remain in one part of the Church; no one part of the Church holds the entire truth of Christ.

This goes to the heart of your response, and is the point which our Catholic brethren would fundamentally reject. For a Catholic - be they Anglican or Roman - there is no freedom to just wander off to another church when they feel like it; it's part of their beliefs that being in the visible body of Christ constituted in with bishops, priests and deacons deriving their ordination from the apostolic succession is the only right place for them to be. Therefore if the church they have grown up in then does something which is unacceptable - imposing women bishops - they can't just pop down to some other congregation.

The New Testament gives us hints of this when Paul talks about the people who were converted as a result of his ministry as his 'children'. To expect the children of a family to be excluded from it is deeply unfair if they've done nothing wrong - which is how it looks to the those opposed to the consecration of women. That this doesn't match your ecclesiology doesn't mean, if you are to remain in a church that is attempting to be broad, that you have the right to ignore theirs. Which is why the attempts to keep the doors remain mandatory given the promises that were made. Yes it's a horrible hole - which is why I opened up the question to see if there is a way out...

I think you describe the situation here very well, Ender's Shadow, for those who feel as if they are being pushed away from their 'family'.

Your reference to Paul, however, also reminded me of his assertion that people ought not to claim 'I belong to Paul', 'I belong to Apollos', or 'I belong to Cephas', etc. 'Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?' I think the implication here is that converts came to Christ first and foremost, not the particular school of theology represented by whichever church leader they followed.

I admit though, it would be too easy to say that because people are baptized into Christ, that the church accretions of doctrine, dogma etc, ought to be more flexible or even dispensable! We're only human and our faith is made up of many things including the traditions and teachings and ecclesiologies that have nurtured us, and to varying degrees, shaped our values.

It's interesting to consider what were the 'doctrinal' differences between those who preferred Apollos to Peter, or Peter to Paul!

--------------------
Irish dogs needing homes! http://www.dogactionwelfaregroup.ie/ Greyhounds and Lurchers are shipped over to England for rehoming too!

Posts: 10002 | From: Scotland the Brave | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
hereweare
Shipmate
# 15567

 - Posted      Profile for hereweare   Email hereweare   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:

Please note, too, that the Church of England doesn't have women 'priests', it has women priests. Their priestly ministry may certainly, by some, be considered illegitimate but it is discourteous, at least, to be derogatory about the title that their own Church has given them. [/QB]

My apologies, perhaps I should stick to 'ministers' in future [Biased]

--------------------
Come home to Rome this Christmas!

Posts: 206 | From: here | Registered: Mar 2010  |  IP: Logged
hereweare
Shipmate
# 15567

 - Posted      Profile for hereweare   Email hereweare   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd):
A (male) Anglican priest I know - 83 years old - said, somewhat wistfully, that it might do the Anglican Church (remember I'm in Australia) good if those who opposed the OOW left en masse.

Or, all those in favour become Methodist?

--------------------
Come home to Rome this Christmas!

Posts: 206 | From: here | Registered: Mar 2010  |  IP: Logged
Traveller
Shipmate
# 1943

 - Posted      Profile for Traveller     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
For a Catholic - be they Anglican or Roman - there is no freedom to just wander off to another church when they feel like it; it's part of their beliefs that being in the visible body of Christ constituted in with bishops, priests and deacons deriving their ordination from the apostolic succession is the only right place for them to be. Therefore if the church they have grown up in then does something which is unacceptable - imposing women bishops - they can't just pop down to some other congregation.


So tell me, how is it that the Provincial Episcopal Visitors and others then feel that they can (however provoked) "wander off to another church"?

It seems that the Anglo-Catholics extracted a promise which they could expect would be honoured for a period (as it has been), but which could never be binding on following General Synods for all time, as others have said up-thread.

The wider CofE has learned to live with and value women priests in the intervening years and women have now taken senior roles within the Church. ISTM that it is a natural time that the question of the church ordaining women to the episcopate should arise.

--------------------
I will sing unto the Lord as long as I live:
I will praise my God while I have my being.
Psalm 104 v.33

Posts: 1037 | From: Wherever the car has stopped at the moment! | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38

 - Posted      Profile for Honest Ron Bacardi   Email Honest Ron Bacardi   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
There is no concept of "another church" in catholic (or orthodox) ecclesiology, so I would guess they simply don't see things that way, Traveller.

--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic

Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110

 - Posted      Profile for Barnabas62   Email Barnabas62   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
We let this stay here for a while, (it was always borderline Purg/DH). After reviewing the thread and a Hostly confab, we think on balance it will do better now in Dead Horses. We appreciate the promise and politicking dimension but at its heart this thread seems to have moved primarily into a "role of women" rights and wrongs discussion, in a particular church context.

No reason to change the tenor of the debate or your enthusiasm for it. It's just a demarcation decision.

Barnabas62
Purgatory Host


--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?

Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
dj_ordinaire
Host
# 4643

 - Posted      Profile for dj_ordinaire   Author's homepage   Email dj_ordinaire   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
Chewing away at this, I think there are only two morally right options:

1) [give them lots of money to go away]

2) The establishment of a parallel Anglican province in England with a wholly separate episcopate,

Why?

I think we can carry on as we were. Flying bishops and all. Withdraw nothing, renege on nothing, enforce nothing. Keep calm and don't panic. Steady as she goes. Let the opponents of women priests carry on in their own churches with their own male priests, for as long as they want to.

If they really can't stomach having a woman bishop around, even if she has no sacramental function in their churches (because they will still have their own male ones) but just because she exists, then that really is their problem. They will have to deal with it as best they can. But the rest of us need break no promises to them.

I think that this really gets to the core of the matter. Synod promised way back when to treat the anti-OoW integrity with respect, and under no circumstances to throw them out. Unfortunately, a small number of the anti-OoW integrity interpret that to mean 'do whatever we want, Free Provinces and all'. The promise has been respected, but clearly the time has come when whatever we do just isn't good enough!

--------------------
Flinging wide the gates...

Posts: 10335 | From: Hanging in the balance of the reality of man | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
hereweare
Shipmate
# 15567

 - Posted      Profile for hereweare   Email hereweare   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
I suspect the problem is, is that the anti OoW lobby didn't curl up and die as expected when the promises were made. They seemed to have got stronger?

--------------------
Come home to Rome this Christmas!

Posts: 206 | From: here | Registered: Mar 2010  |  IP: Logged
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38

 - Posted      Profile for Honest Ron Bacardi   Email Honest Ron Bacardi   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
dj_ordinaire wrote
quote:
clearly the time has come when whatever we do just isn't good enough!
No doubt the catholic tendency of the CofE has, over the years, thrown up more than its fair share of colourful characters. But is that an adequate analysis of their position?

Surely the problem lies in the latter part of Ken's analysis. It regards the episcopal functions outside direct celebration of the eucharist (or other sacramental functions) as administrative. Therefore let them have their male priests.

The problem is that the catholic view is that it is the bishop who is the unifying focus of the church, and that is done through the episcopal responsibility of celebration of the eucharist. The unity of the church exists by this action making us one in Christ. Any similar actions by presbyters are by delegation from the bishop. So any solution envisaging an episcopacy as an admin or managerial function is bound to founder sooner or later on this or a similar rock.

If you are going to say whatever we do is not good enough, but then restrict their options to things that involve managerial episcopacy, then no, nothing we do will be good enough for them, but that is because we have chosen not to offer them an alternative that they can work within.

--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic

Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984

 - Posted      Profile for Doublethink.   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
But there are male bishops in the UK, in fact all of them are at the moment. So why can't they simply work in a diocese with a male bishop.

--------------------
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
Ender's Shadow
Shipmate
# 2272

 - Posted      Profile for Ender's Shadow   Email Ender's Shadow   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Think²:
But there are male bishops in the UK, in fact all of them are at the moment. So why can't they simply work in a diocese with a male bishop.

The apparent implication of this is that there are no laity unwilling to submit to having a female diocescan - or that they can all be expected to move [Eek!]

--------------------
Test everything. Hold on to the good.

Please don't refer to me as 'Ender' - the whole point of Ender's Shadow is that he isn't Ender.

Posts: 5018 | From: Manchester, England | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged
Boogie

Boogie on down!
# 13538

 - Posted      Profile for Boogie     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
I am looking forward to the day we have a female ABC.

--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk

Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984

 - Posted      Profile for Doublethink.   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
quote:
Originally posted by Think²:
But there are male bishops in the UK, in fact all of them are at the moment. So why can't they simply work in a diocese with a male bishop.

The apparent implication of this is that there are no laity unwilling to submit to having a female diocescan - or that they can all be expected to move [Eek!]
I suspect that is going to depend on the numbers and/or commuting distance. Bear in mind people are apparently prepared to move to be near a particular school, or for a specific job, or for a specific personal relationship. And are claiming the sex of their diocescan is as, or more, important than these things.

--------------------
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
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984

 - Posted      Profile for Doublethink.   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
The only data I can find that looks half-way reliable is in this 2004 article by Ruth Gledhil - which cites an academic survey by a reputable department of theology. Gives 81% of clergy in favour of OoW and states higher percentage of agreement amongst the laity. Let us assume, for the sake of argument, 90% in favour and 10% against. Easter communicant numbers for the CofE in 2005 were 1,019,200 - of course this will be up on regular attendance by some margin.

So we are talking about - at a generous estimate - 101,920 people spread over 44 diocese (all of which bar 1 currently have some women priests). As these are 2005 figures we are also still including people who have died / left over the period and assuming no-one has changed their mind since 2004. That's a mean average of 2316 per diocese.

Data from the Church Times show:
quote:

The statistics, which are based on data collected on 1 January this year, reveal that there are 802 parishes under Resolution A (6.2 per cent of all parishes); 966 where Resolution B applies (7.5 per cent); and 363 par­ishes where a petition for extended epis­copal ministry applies (2.8 per cent).

Compared with the year 2000, there has been a 4.1-per-cent de­crease in the number of Resolution A par­ishes, a 1.4-per-cent drop in Res­olu­­­tion B parishes, and a 22.6-per-cent in­crease in the number of par­ishes where a petition for extended epis­copal ministry applies.

If I have done my maths right that means there are 12880 parishes. A mean average of 293 parishes per diocese - so a mean average of 8 people per parish. IF all the various assumptions hold (which I grant you they may well not - though would argue the general trend would be pro-OoW rather than anti-OoW).

If we assume that episcopal appointments will eventually reflect the gender mix of the of the population - the there will always be about 22 diocese with male headship. If a woman ever becomes ABC then the two integrities thing is really kiboshed.

Another option would be to have a male and female bishop for every diocese, and split the salary in half to ensure it doesn't cost anymore. This might also ease the episcopal workload and allow for more effective ministry across the diocese.

[ 12. December 2010, 10:36: Message edited by: Think² ]

--------------------
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
anne
Shipmate
# 73

 - Posted      Profile for anne   Email anne   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Rome has a long history of changing its mind and finding a form of words that makes it look as if they haven't. If, in the future, they want to ordain women, that document won't stop them.

I was recently in conversation with a priest whose history (not mine to share here) gives him a really informed insight into this issue within Roman Catholicism. He said that the 'headship' issue was stronger than I had imagined within the RCC and that (in his opinion) the ordination of celibate women religious living in community was more likely than the ordination of married men to the priesthood - and that both were still on the agenda - although not during the current pontificate.

I have Roman Catholic friends who feel that their Church will have to grasp one or both of these nettles (ordination of married men and ordination of women) in order to meet the current shortage of priests in the European church.

IF (and I understand that this is a massive if) the Roman Catholic church were to move towards the ordination of women - perhaps limited to women ministering within and to their religious communities - how would this affect the discussion within the CofE?

I sometimes feel that I've been talking about the OoW for my entire life - but there is still so much that I need to understand about the debate. It's so easy to write off those who deny my vocation as "backwards in bigotry" but it's ultimately unsatisfactory. I may be just asking for trouble here, but I just feel driven to try to understand the arguments but the more I try the more the 'anti-positions' seem to multiply - for example I'd not thought about the headship argument from a Catholic perspective until the conversation I refer to above.

So any informed responses to my first 3 paragraphs would be really welcome.

anne

--------------------
‘I would have given the Church my head, my hand, my heart. She would not have them. She did not know what to do with them. She told me to go back and do crochet' Florence Nightingale

Posts: 338 | From: Devon | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356

 - Posted      Profile for Albertus     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by hereweare:
Is this the same Spirit that said yes to women 'priests' in the CofE and no in the Church in Wales, who then kept on voting until the Spirit agreed with them??? [Devil]

The Spirit speaks. How long it takes us to hear what the Spirit is saying is, unfortunately, another matter.

--------------------
My beard is a testament to my masculinity and virility, and demonstrates that I am a real man. Trouble is, bits of quiche sometimes get caught in it.

Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged
dyfrig
Blue Scarfed Menace
# 15

 - Posted      Profile for dyfrig   Email dyfrig   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
I think it's right that ordination of women is more likely in the RCC than of married men - a single, celibate priesthood is significantly cheaper to house and feed than people with dependents.

On ken's point, to steal an opinion from (a Roman Catholic) someone I was in a room with recently, when the Catholic Church decides it's possible to ordain women, it will do so with single-minded gusto and as if it had always been possible to do so.

--------------------
"He was wrong in the long run, but then, who isn't?" - Tony Judt

Posts: 6917 | From: pob dydd Iau, am hanner dydd | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
hereweare
Shipmate
# 15567

 - Posted      Profile for hereweare   Email hereweare   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by dyfrig:
I think it's right that ordination of women is more likely in the RCC than of married men - a single, celibate priesthood is significantly cheaper to house and feed than people with dependents.

On ken's point, to steal an opinion from (a Roman Catholic) someone I was in a room with recently, when the Catholic Church decides it's possible to ordain women, it will do so with single-minded gusto and as if it had always been possible to do so.

Dear Anne & dyfrig,
Could I refer you back to my post with the quote from JPII? Well place RC's may have an opinion, but the Church has made her position clear.

As for women before married men, that is plain wrong I'm affraid. The Church already ordains married men in certain circumstances, as celibacy is a human law, which means the Holy Father can give a dispensation. As JPII made'infallibily' clear, the priesthood is reserved to males by God's law, and no one on earth can change that.

You not agree, you may not like it, but that's the Church's position.

--------------------
Come home to Rome this Christmas!

Posts: 206 | From: here | Registered: Mar 2010  |  IP: Logged
FreeJack
Shipmate
# 10612

 - Posted      Profile for FreeJack   Email FreeJack   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
quote:
Originally posted by Think²:
But there are male bishops in the UK, in fact all of them are at the moment. So why can't they simply work in a diocese with a male bishop.

The apparent implication of this is that there are no laity unwilling to submit to having a female diocescan - or that they can all be expected to move [Eek!]
But the laity (in general) don't have to submit to their diocesan bishop. Most members of the laity have never met their diocesan bishop.

Submission is only required to get orders or a lay license. Confirmation could be done with another bishop in person.

The rest of the time, it would be a pope in every parish as now.

Posts: 3588 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged
hereweare
Shipmate
# 15567

 - Posted      Profile for hereweare   Email hereweare   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by FreeJack:
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
quote:
Originally posted by Think²:
But there are male bishops in the UK, in fact all of them are at the moment. So why can't they simply work in a diocese with a male bishop.

The apparent implication of this is that there are no laity unwilling to submit to having a female diocescan - or that they can all be expected to move [Eek!]
But the laity (in general) don't have to submit to their diocesan bishop. Most members of the laity have never met their diocesan bishop.

Submission is only required to get orders or a lay license. Confirmation could be done with another bishop in person.

The rest of the time, it would be a pope in every parish as now.

Except if your male priest 'pope of your parish' was 'ordained' by a female 'Bishop'....

--------------------
Come home to Rome this Christmas!

Posts: 206 | From: here | Registered: Mar 2010  |  IP: Logged
anne
Shipmate
# 73

 - Posted      Profile for anne   Email anne   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by hereweare:


As JPII made'infallibily' clear, the priesthood is reserved to males by God's law, and no one on earth can change that.

You not agree, you may not like it, but that's the Church's position.

It's not about me not liking it, or agreeing - I'm fairly confident my opinion on this matter is of no interest to His Holiness or the RC Church.

It's about a genuine desire to understand the situation. I hear your position, which is clear, but I also hear (and read) alternative possibilities, and I'm trying to get my head around that.

Where my 'liking it' becomes a bit more relevant is IF (again, a big if) you are wrong and other Roman Catholic commentators are right AND IF that then has an impact on the views of members of my own denomination. Are there people (let's call them the 'ecumenism objectors') who would change their mind about the OoW in the Church of England if that was to happen? Would that affect the views of other people? I'm sort of hoping that the answers to these questions will clarify some of the nuances of the anti-OoW position for me.

So I know that it's hypothetical, and I am sorry if my harping on the question annoys you. I certainly don't intend to imply disrespect to the Roman Catholic Church. I'm just trying to use the question to throw some light on the Anglican situation.

Anne

--------------------
‘I would have given the Church my head, my hand, my heart. She would not have them. She did not know what to do with them. She told me to go back and do crochet' Florence Nightingale

Posts: 338 | From: Devon | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged



Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8 
 
Post new thread  
Thread closed  Thread closed
Open 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