Posted                    

quote:

---

Originally posted by hereweare:
When FiF first started, they were very opposed to a third province too!!!

---

Posted                    

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fifi:

quote:

---

Originally posted by hereweare:
When FiF first started, they were very opposed to a third province too!!!

---

Simply not true. The very first FiF National Assembly - 1n 1994 - passed a resolution which said, inter alia:

'The Forward in Faith National Assembly therefore calls upon the House of Bishops and the General Synod of the Church of England . . . to set in train investigation into the possibility of the creation of a third province within the Church of England, wherein all those, ordained, lay and religious who are unable in conscience to accept the ordination of women as priests, may continue to live their lives as Anglicans.'

---

Posted                   

quote:

---

Originally posted by hereweare:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Albertus:

quote:

---

Originally posted by hereweare:

The problem I do have though, that it would appear that your or an individual's opinion is some how equal to the teaching authority of the Church. The Pope can't have infallibility, but an individual can, hence the 'bollocks' remark? As I said, this is really a debate the nature and authority of the Church, which I am sure is covered in some other DH thread.

---

No. I don't hold that an individual's opinion is equal to the teaching authority of the Church. But having teaching authority is a long way from the ability to speak directly for God, infallibly. And while I am a long way from being one of the sola scriptura gang, as a good Anglican I believe that Scripture contains all thigns necessary for salvation, so to place something like the Assumption on a par with the divinity of Christ as an article of belief strikes me as verging on blasphemy. I do deny that the Pope has infallibility, but this does not mean that I think that anybody else is infallible.

---

Agreement at last! I too do not believe anyone other than the Pope has infallibility (except for when the Church does either in synod or spread aboard, but that's not a person as such).

But if you believe the Pope has infallibility, then I don't understand the problem with the Assumption, as that was proclaimed Infallibily?

---

Posted                    

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by hereweare:
[qb] See also CCC 2269 para 2

and

The Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church quotes John Paul II from a Feb. 3, 2004, general catechesis. There, the Pope calls for a commitment “not to practice usury — a plague that is a disgraceful reality even in our days that can place a stronghold on the lives of many people.”
The Compendium of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, promulgated at the beginning of Benedict’s pontificate, seems to broaden the sense of usury even more. One of the answers to the question (508) “What is forbidden by the seventh commandment?” is:

“Also forbidden is tax evasion or business fraud; willfully damaging private or public property; usury; corruption; the private abuse of common goods; work deliberately done poorly; and waste.”

No change in the teaching there then....

---

That's exactly the sort of legalistic fudge that they will be able to come out with on ordination of women if they also change their minds on that. You are proving my point exactly. If they can redefine the Ten Commandments they can trivially work round the inconvenient utterances of a previous Pope.

Er Ken, I may be missing something here, but the above was posted after it was suggested that the Church had u-turned on usury. The way I read the above is that the Church is still opposed to usury, hence no u-turn. You are obviously seeing things a little differently.

I'm glad you are having a moment, but I think I should slowly walk towards the door keeping firm eye contact with you !

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

Posted                   

quote:

---

Originally posted by hereweare:
Hang on. We both deny that people other than the Pope are infallible. But if you re-read my post you will see that I also do deny that the Pope is infallible.

Good point, , that does explain your issue with the Assumption then! At least we agree on something though, and that must be a good thing!

---

Posted                    

quote:

---

Originally posted by Think²:
I think Ken's point is that biblically, usury was lending money for interest - period.

AFAIK the RCs do not teach you shouldn't use a high street bank.

---

Posted                    

quote:

---

Originally posted by hereweare:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Think²:
I think Ken's point is that biblically, usury was lending money for interest - period.

AFAIK the RCs do not teach you shouldn't use a high street bank.

---

Biblically he may well be right, but that wasn't the point of the post. The point was, the Church hasn't changed her opinion. Clearly you argue what usury actually is in practice, or that the RC Church isn't hard line enough (not often you can say that), but that's not the issue here.

---

Posted                    

quote:

---

Originally posted by Adrian1:

Although it's not a solution I'd have advocated a few years ago, I'm increasingly beginning to think that a non-geographical Third Province is the only honourable and honest solution.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

(silly example we have male / female changing rooms etc.)

---

Posted                    

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nicolemrw:

quote:

---

(silly example we have male / female changing rooms etc.)

---

In this country at least race was once thought to be so fundimental an attribute that we had seperate accomidations for black and white.

Happily those days are over now.

---

Posted                    

quote:

---

Originally posted by hereweare:
I can't agree with your understanding of the history of celibacy though, the theology goes way back before then.

---

Posted                   

quote:

---

Originally posted by Adrian1:
... I can't see why disestablishment would be necessary in order to bring about creation of a Third Province.

---

Posted                    

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nightlamp:

quote:

---

Originally posted by hereweare:
I can't agree with your understanding of the history of celibacy though, the theology goes way back before then.

---

I agree the practice goes way before the Gregorian reforms but the underlying theology was about uncleanness (council of Cathage) or the basic sinfulness of sex or the dangers of Simony. Interestingly I have never read any protestant reflections on the origin of priestly celibacy only Catholic. I am aware that modern RC teaching says it is all about people being dedicated to God but that is very much a modern rewrite of the origin of Priestly Celibacy.

As has been pointed out the Catholic church have changed the meaning of Priestly Celibacy and the meaning of Usury.

---

Posted                    

quote:

---

Originally posted by Think²:
So what is to stop the 'understanding' of the gender of priesthood changing ?

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

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…..
*snip*
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.

---

quote:

---

Following the vision of (*&^*&^ of Our Lady, we understand that the Holy Spirit has been moved to confer priestly ordination on the person of (&^(* - this being attested by the miracles of x, y, z and following of the faithful. It can not be the role of the Church to deny what the Lord God has made manifest himself in the world and by his grace we shall recognise the new ministry of women he has commanded.

---

Posted                    

quote:

---

Originally posted by hereweare:
The understanding of what usury means may have developed, but NOT the oppostion to it. to clarify my earlier post, the meaning and understanding of priestly celibacy has NOT changed, but the application of it has.

---

Posted                    

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nightlamp:

quote:

---

Originally posted by hereweare:
The understanding of what usury means may have developed, but NOT the oppostion to it. to clarify my earlier post, the meaning and understanding of priestly celibacy has NOT changed, but the application of it has.

---

The theological reasoning has changed but not the application. The application of the theological reasoning is that Priests may not marry.

---

Posted                    

quote:

---

Originally posted by Think²:

quote:

---

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…..
*snip*
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.

---

New pope in 2045

quote:

---

Following the vision of (*&^*&^ of Our Lady, we understand that the Holy Spirit has been moved to confer priestly ordination on the person of (&^(* - this being attested by the miracles of x, y, z and following of the faithful. It can not be the role of the Church to deny what the Lord God has made manifest himself in the world and by his grace we shall recognise the new ministry of women he has commanded.

---

Followed by a long bit of explanation about why now.

---

"It can not be the role of the Church to deny what the Lord God has made manifest himself in the world "
Unless God is going to contradict himself, JPII made clear that God has indeed made manifest himself in the world by the example of Christ (cf Ordinatio sacerdotalis)!

Though the in me says what would those Protestants do if Our Lady did say what you suggests? Would they all become anti OoW???? That aside I'm sure Our Lady would actually say 'Well I wasn't ordained, get over it!'

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

Posted                    

quote:

---

Originally posted by hereweare:
I think we could be splitting hairs, but as in times past and present priests could be, and are married, so it must be the application, as the theology has not changed, butthe Canon flowing from that theology is dispensed from.

---

Posted                    

quote:

---

Originally posted by hereweare:
"It can not be the role of the Church to deny what the Lord God has made manifest himself in the world "

---

Posted                    

quote:

---

Originally posted by dyfrig:

quote:

---

Originally posted by hereweare:
"It can not be the role of the Church to deny what the Lord God has made manifest himself in the world "

---

That gives plenty of wiggle room for the future decision to ordain women - I can hear it now: "The late Pope John Paul II was surely right when he saud 'It can not be the role of the Church to deny what the Lord God has made manifest himself in the world'. The experience of many Christians, guided by the Holy Spirit, demonstrate that God has indeed made manifest His calling of women to the priesthood."

JPII still ends up being right (even though he was wrong), Church moves, as it has always done, to incorporate the new reality, and finds iteslef able to assert, with a clear conscience, that this is how things are.

---

Posted                    

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nightlamp:

quote:

---

Originally posted by hereweare:
I think we could be splitting hairs, but as in times past and present priests could be, and are married, so it must be the application, as the theology has not changed, butthe Canon flowing from that theology is dispensed from.

---

I am sorry but the application is the same as it has been more or less since the Gregorian reforms. It is without a doubt the theology that has changed as it has moved from the concept of priests being unclean and unable to carry out the Mass to the modern theology of Priests being able to dedicate themselves wholly to the life of the church.
This is a theological development not a change in application.

---

Posted                    

quote:

---

Originally posted by hereweare:
Still think it is hair splitting. Given that Rome now doe sordain some married men, then the application has changed.

---

Posted                    

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:
hereweare, I think your posts here are living proof that what we say is right!

The Vatican changed the official line on usury. They did it by carefully choosing a form of words that make it sound as if they didn't. From the outside, that's obvious. From the inside, where you accept the official redefinitions of things, you can't seem to see that its changed.

So not only is it possible that at some time in future they will change their doctrine on the ordination of women, its possible that when they do you won't even notice that they have...

Merry Christmas

---

Not sure that's really an arquement, 'if only you were in my shoes, you would see my view', well yes, it probably would, but it may not be right!

Simple question with a yes or no answer : Does the RC say Usury is wrong?

Happy Christmas!

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

Posted                    

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nightlamp:

quote:

---

Originally posted by hereweare:
Still think it is hair splitting. Given that Rome now doe sordain some married men, then the application has changed.

---

but it has been accepting Ordained Priests for centuries (ex -orthodox priests) or Eastern Catholic Churches although at one time they were not meant to have sex prior to celebrating the Mass.

---

Posted                    

quote:

---

Originally posted by FreeJack:
The Roman Catholic Church will never have women priests, but in 20 years it might have men priests with ovaries and breasts.

---

Posted                    

quote:

---

Originally posted by hereweare:
The OoW however is a divine law and can't be changed!

---

Posted                    

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Adrian1:
... I can't see why disestablishment would be necessary in order to bring about creation of a Third Province.

---

A number of reasons. Basically because a 3P would have to go through Parliament

---

I suspect that this could be avoided - we are not talking about the creation of a second Church of England by law established, but the establishment of a second church in England that is part of the Anglican Communion but not the CofE. All that is needed IMHO is the willingness of the Church of England structures to facilitate this process - being willing to rent their churches to the departing parishes for example; there's no NEED for a transfer of ownership. The CofE has a long history of renting redundant buildings to other denominations - this is merely an extension of this. The bishops of this new province would not need to be appointed by the PM. Note that the existence in the past of a church in London that was a part of the Episcopal Church of America is a precedent for the existence of a church that is part of the Anglican Communion but not the CofE (I think I remember hearing of such a church, though it doesn't appear on the present list of parishes - though they are in the diocese of Europe

The departing parishes would leave holes - but those parish areas could be dealt with under existing redundancy procedures within the church.

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

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

Posted                    

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
..I suspect that this could be avoided - we are not talking about the creation of a second Church of England by law established, but the establishment of a second church in England that is part of the Anglican Communion but not the CofE....

---

Posted                    

quote:

---

Originally posted by Carex:
But that isn't the same as people having a welcome place in the Church to which they already belong and, in many cases, by whom they are already employed.

---

Hmm - given that the basic unit of church structure is the diocese, if they are moving to a new province, they are moving to a new diocese. To my mind a third province in the Anglican Communion but outside the CofE is a good solution all round - or at least 'least worst' given the mess we are in.

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

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

Posted                   

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
Hmm - given that the basic unit of church structure is the diocese...

---

Posted                    

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
Hmm - given that the basic unit of church structure is the diocese...

---

In truth, in the post-Reformation Church of England, the basic unit of church structure has been the parish.

---

Posted                    

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Carex:
But that isn't the same as people having a welcome place in the Church to which they already belong and, in many cases, by whom they are already employed.

---

Hmm - given that the basic unit of church structure is the diocese, if they are moving to a new province, they are moving to a new diocese. To my mind a third province in the Anglican Communion but outside the CofE is a good solution all round - or at least 'least worst' given the mess we are in.

---

Posted                    

quote:

---

Originally posted by sanityman:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Carex:
But that isn't the same as people having a welcome place in the Church to which they already belong and, in many cases, by whom they are already employed.

---

Hmm - given that the basic unit of church structure is the diocese, if they are moving to a new province, they are moving to a new diocese. To my mind a third province in the Anglican Communion but outside the CofE is a good solution all round - or at least 'least worst' given the mess we are in.

---

Given that the logical conclusion of women's ordination is a (potentially) female Archbishop of Canterbury, would they even wish to remain in the Anglican Communion? Saying "we will as long as you don't..." just doesn't work.

To be honest, the more I think about it the more I think the Ordinariate is a better solution than a separate third province, at least for FiF.

---

Posted                    

quote:

---

Originally posted by FreeJack:
In formal terms of jurisdiction, the Archbishop of Canterbury is the same as any archbishop in the Church of England, or the Anglican Communion. He is not any sort of Pope and there is not one. He has an honorary role in both the Church of England and Anglican Communion at large.

He does not interfere in the affairs of the Province of York, except when there is a vacancy in see there.

A female archbishop would be more serious than a female diocesan bishop and that would be more serious female suffragan bishop. But that is political as much as sacramental.

---

quote:

---

As spiritual leader of the Anglican Communion, the archbishop, although without legal authority outside England, is recognised by convention as primus inter pares (first among equals) of all Anglican primates worldwide.

---

Posted                    

quote:

---

Originally posted by sanityman:
Accepting the "spiritual authority" of someone whilst holding their orders to be invalid would, I'm assuming, be an all-but-impossible act of doublethink.

- Chris.

---