|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Can the CofE dig itself out of its hole over the OoW?
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
John, doesn't the formation of the FCA - Fellowship of Continuing Anglicans following GAFCON, the Global Anglican Future Conference indicate that there are bigger groups than you're suggesting within the Anglican Communion who are not supporting the ordination of women priests? Or are you saying that FCA are now outside the Anglican Communion? That group includes a number of African Dioceses and the Diocese of Sydney.
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
FreeJack
Shipmate
# 10612
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by hereweare:
Thanks for the info! So the 'authority' as such doesn't flow from the ABC or ABY, just the politics? IIRC the CofE has three bishops needed for ordination of a Bishop? So I see who if one was a female ABC then a issue, or would two do????
The Church of England requires three bishops if the presiding bishop is the archbishop of the province in which the new bishop is to serve, or four bishops if the presiding bishop is a deputy (generally London or Durham). Five or six is I think more common in practice than three or four, depending on who is around!
From the conservative anglo-catholic perspective there is lack of certainty if any women are involved, if not lack of certainty of number of male hands, but certainty as to intent. From their perspective a male archbishop who allows a woman bishop to co-consecrate with him may not be intending to do what the church universal does. Of course, one could say that about any CofE consecration. I don't think it is a formulaic taint calculation, though it looks like it to outsiders.
Posts: 3588 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
It may be valid, but it has been inconsistent ever since the original change. There is an asymetry between the two camps. Basically, a pro-oow persons sacraments couldn't be tainted or undermined by having a male priest ordained by a male bishop - and I don't think anyone has developed a theological position in which they say that someone ordaining with the intention of not including women doesn't have the same intention (though presumably one could mirror that viewpoint). But I don't see how it was ever viable for the anti-oow to stay *if* they had a taint position - it was analogous accepting the body of Christ was a bit pregnant but they would be uneffected if they stayed away from the reproductive system.
--------------------
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
|
|
John Holding
Coffee and Cognac
# 158
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
John, doesn't the formation of the FCA - Fellowship of Continuing Anglicans following GAFCON, the Global Anglican Future Conference indicate that there are bigger groups than you're suggesting within the Anglican Communion who are not supporting the ordination of women priests? Or are you saying that FCA are now outside the Anglican Communion? That group includes a number of African Dioceses and the Diocese of Sydney.
My specific phrase was "most of" -- the last time I looked, that didn't mean "all" -- except the CofE.
Some parts of GAFCON, as I understand it, are not opposed to women bishops. Beyond that, though, in terms of provinces, the FCA -- which I still consider part of the communion -- is a small minority.
In any case, the point I was making, is that the ordination of women bishops is a big deal in the CofE -- but mainly (in the communtion) just in the CofE. And that in areas like North America, those opposed are not in communtion with Canterbury. Most Anglicans have settled it -- a majority of provinces in favour, a minority of provinces against. Only the CofE is dealing with it. And, as usual, as if only the CofE mattered when it comes to business that affects the whole communion.
John
Posts: 5929 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
But you're focussing on America here - the places that are against are most of Africa and a big chunk of Australia - not small numbers of people or a minority. And women priests, let alone Bishops, is definitely something of an issue for the Sydney Anglicans.
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
Does someone have a list of the provinces/ national churches which do not ordain women to the priesthood? I have lost track of the African churches on this, as I gather that one or two have changed in recent years. As well, I think that Uruguay (in the Southern Cone) is now for.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
John Holding
Coffee and Cognac
# 158
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
But you're focussing on America here -
How easy it is to brush off the people you don't agree with. America: WEll that is indeed the US and Canada. But also Mexico, Brazil and a number of other provinces. I really hope you're not saying that we don't count just because we share a continent with a couple of provinces who do something you don't.
But the last time I looked also, Scotland, Ireland, Wales, South Africa, Australia (of which Sydney as a part, but only a part, and not an independent entity), New Zealand, Japan, and, I believe, India and several other Asian provinces.
In fact, bar Singapore and equatorial Africa, I'm not sure who IS objecting. Certainly the Lambeth Conference, for what that matters) had no problems.
John
Posts: 5929 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
John, doesn't the formation of the FCA - Fellowship of Continuing Anglicans following GAFCON, the Global Anglican Future Conference indicate that there are bigger groups than you're suggesting within the Anglican Communion who are not supporting the ordination of women priests?
GAFCON is not against women's ordination.
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
But you're focussing on America here - the places that are against are most of Africa and a big chunk of Australia - not small numbers of people or a minority.
Most Anglican provinces in Africa are for, not against. There are 11 Anglican provinces in Africa, and another 2 (Indian Ocean and Jerusalem) with some churches in Africa. Of those 13 provinces at least 8 ordain women to the priesthood, 2 to the diaconate but not the priesthood, and one I think recognises ordained women in some dioceses but not all (like Australia)
--------------------
Ken
Lamor che move il sole e laltre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stranger in a strange land
Shipmate
# 11922
|
Posted
Cyprus and the Gulf do not ordain women to any of the orders (or, at least, a year ago they didn't and had no plans to).
Posts: 608 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
FWIW, Wikipedia states that the state of play as at summer 2010 was as follows:
Women Bishops (consecrated): Aotearoa, New Zealand and Polynesia; Australia; Canada; United States (including Cuba)
Women Bishops (none yet consecrated): Bangladesh, Brazil, Central America, Ireland, Japan, Mexico, North India, Philippines, Scotland, Southern Africa, Sudan
Women Priests: Burundi, England, Hong Kong, Indian Ocean, Kenya, Korea, Rwanda, South India, Uganda, Wales, West Indies, West Africa
Women Deacons: Southern Cone, Jerusalem and the Middle East, Congo, Pakistan
No ordination of women: Central Africa, Melanesia, Nigeria, Papua New Guinea, South East Asia, Tanzania
A few surprises ther, I thought, especially in those which allow (but have not yet consecrated) women bishops
--------------------
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
|
|
John Holding
Coffee and Cognac
# 158
|
Posted
I believe that Wales should be in the list that allows but has not yet consecrated women bishops.
There may be others, as well.
John
[ 06. January 2011, 23:41: Message edited by: John Holding ]
Posts: 5929 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Man with a Stick
Shipmate
# 12664
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by John Holding:
I believe that Wales should be in the list that allows but has not yet consecrated women bishops.
There may be others, as well.
John
No, the vote for the elevation of women to the episcopate was lost last time round in Wales.
I saw a General Synod candidate write in his address that we must have women bishops "to bring the CofE into line with the rest of the Anglican Communion". When you see that list you realise how incorrect that statement was.
Posts: 335 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
FWIW, Wikipedia states that the state of play as at summer 2010 was as follows: [...]
No ordination of women: Central Africa, Melanesia, Nigeria, Papua New Guinea, South East Asia, Tanzania
I wouldn't swear to it, but I have heard that there are evangelical dioceses in Tanzania that have accepted women priests. The reason the province as a whole doesn't is that its the only East African area that had a significant input from Anglo-Catholics. The rest of the region is pretty much totally charismatic/evangelical (in my opinion its where Anglican charismatic-evangelicals originated) and although there aren't many ordained women in some provinces, they are allowed in all.
But, as I said, most of African Anglicanism accepts ordained women.
The big holdout is Nigeria of course, the largest province of all in terms of numbers.
But apart from them opposition to women is mainly in small provinces in largely non-Anglican regions with lots of white British and American expats (Southern Cone, Jerusalem, South East Asia) or the few parts of what we used to call "Third World" where the Anglican missionaries were mainly Anglo-Catholic (Melanesia, Papua New Guinea, Tanzania)
Central Africa is actually Zambia and Zimbabwe and I suspect they will have women priests soon - they just have other things on their mind at the moment. Congo is mostly what we used to call Boga-Zaire, and got its Anglicans via Uganda, Rwanda, and Burundi, so I am surprised that they don't ordain women.
But the real heart of opposition to ordained women in Anglican churches is not evangelical Africans. It is politically conservative Anglo-Catholic white people.
--------------------
Ken
Lamor che move il sole e laltre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
hereweare
Shipmate
# 15567
|
Posted
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
Really? Do you have the numbers to back that up? Is it these nasty white folk stopping it in all these countries mentioned above? Is colonialism alive and well and that powerful?
--------------------
Come home to Rome this Christmas!
Posts: 206 | From: here | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
Maybe ken meant theologically conservative anglo-catholics, hereweare. Though that is equally difficult to see re. Nigeria.
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by hereweare:
Really? Do you have the numbers to back that up? Is it these nasty white folk stopping it in all these countries mentioned above? Is colonialism alive and well and that powerful?
No, I meant here, mainly. And lots of them aren't really theologically conservative - there are large numbers of theologically (if not politically) liberal Anglo-Catholics who can't abide women priests.
--------------------
Ken
Lamor che move il sole e laltre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
hereweare
Shipmate
# 15567
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by hereweare:
Really? Do you have the numbers to back that up? Is it these nasty white folk stopping it in all these countries mentioned above? Is colonialism alive and well and that powerful?
No, I meant here, mainly. And lots of them aren't really theologically conservative - there are large numbers of theologically (if not politically) liberal Anglo-Catholics who can't abide women priests.
and yet are 'in favour' when suits? I have always suspected that women priets get more trouble from liberal AC's than the FiF crowd, as at least with the FiF crowd they know where they stand.
--------------------
Come home to Rome this Christmas!
Posts: 206 | From: here | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
ken, that's really not fair on all the liberal AC priests who are supportive of women priests. I can think of three immediately, the incumbents of churches I attended, who are and were fully supportive of women in all the forms of the priesthood. And these are people from three different colleges, different age groups and different dioceses.
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by hereweare:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by hereweare:
Really? Do you have the numbers to back that up? Is it these nasty white folk stopping it in all these countries mentioned above? Is colonialism alive and well and that powerful?
No, I meant here, mainly. And lots of them aren't really theologically conservative - there are large numbers of theologically (if not politically) liberal Anglo-Catholics who can't abide women priests.
and yet are 'in favour' when suits? I have always suspected that women priets get more trouble from liberal AC's than the FiF crowd, as at least with the FiF crowd they know where they stand.
What do you mean 'when suits'? Is it really beyond even your snarkily chip-on-shoulder-yet-triumphalist brand of RC mindset to recognise that there are AC priests who genuinely believe in OoW? I'll grant that you might think them mistaken to believe it - just as you presumably think them mistaken to believe that they are actually priests, but you (I presume) recognise that this belief is sincerely held.
--------------------
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
|
|
hereweare
Shipmate
# 15567
|
Posted
Oh Albertus, don't get your lace in a twist! I have no problem with AC's who are in favour or those opposed, it makes no difference to me. What I do have an issue with, is those who say they are in favour, and then make the lives of their female colleagues hell. Sadly I have come across a few ![[Frown]](frown.gif)
ps don't worry I had all the chips for tea x
--------------------
Come home to Rome this Christmas!
Posts: 206 | From: here | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
Including some frequent posters here who say they are all in favour of ordained women and then push the whole thing so far down their list of priorities that they would rather it never came up, and go and give a veto to the Pope anyway.
--------------------
Ken
Lamor che move il sole e laltre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
I know it sounds harsh, but I would have more confidence in the discernment involved in leaving the CofE and that of the RCs involved, if the ordinations didn't seem like a semi-automatic done deal.
These men are acknowledging that they have never been priests, or bishops - that they were wrong in discerning their vocation the first time. But it seems to have taken the church about five minutes to discern their vocation now.
--------------------
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
|
|
CL
Shipmate
# 16145
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by FreeJack:
The Ordinariate ordinations.
BBC
There were at least three Anglican bishops from the Catholic wing of the Church of England in the congregation, the Rt Rev Lindsay Urwin, the administrator of the Anglican shrine at Walsingham, the Rt Rev Robert Ladds, former bishop of Whitby and Rt Rev Tony Robinson, bishop of Pontefract. The retired bishop of Richborough, Edwin Barnes, the retired bishop of Ballarat David Silk, and Robert Mercer of the Traditional Andlican Communion, were in the congregation. So was Dr Robin Ward, the principal of St Stephens House.
The CoE attendees there are interesting.
--------------------
"Even if Catholics faithful to Tradition are reduced to a handful, they are the ones who are the true Church of Jesus Christ." - Athanasius of Alexandria
Posts: 647 | From: Ireland | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
pete173
Shipmate
# 4622
|
Posted
I really really don't get the Ordinariate. If you believe in the RC Church, just go straight over - which is what 3 of my priests have done. Seems to be much more logical than hanging around on a tributary of the Tiber.
Still, good wishes and prayers go with Bishops John, Andrew and Keith (and they are bishops, whether they know it or not). I'm glad for them, and have spent hours talking with them about their future hopes and plans. It's hardly the earthquake that the religious press make it out to be. But I hope that, in the scheme of things, it does something worthwhile for the Kingdom of God.
--------------------
Pete
Posts: 1653 | From: Kilburn, London NW6 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
FreeJack
Shipmate
# 10612
|
Posted
Were they deaconed privately first? Or did the Archbishop (Pope?) authorise simultaneous or advancement to the priesthood? Does that say anything more about the validity of their diaconate in the CofE?
Posts: 3588 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
FreeJack
Shipmate
# 10612
|
Posted
Oops!
quote:
The ceremony has come a fortnight after the three former Anglican clerics were received into the Catholic Church.
They were ordained on Thursday as Catholic deacons at Allen Hall seminary in London.
The Archbishop of Westminster, Most Rev Vincent Nichols, presided over the ordination.
sky news
Posts: 3588 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by pete173:
I really really don't get the Ordinariate. If you believe in the RC Church, just go straight over - which is what 3 of my priests have done. Seems to be much more logical than hanging around on a tributary of the Tiber.
One former shipmate went over on his own and has spent 7 years preparing for (re)ordination. His ordination, yesterday, was somewhat upstaged by the three formerly flying bishops (2 flying bishops and one suffragan to be precise) who were fast-tracked.
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
hereweare
Shipmate
# 15567
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by pete173:
I really really don't get the Ordinariate. If you believe in the RC Church, just go straight over - which is what 3 of my priests have done. Seems to be much more logical than hanging around on a tributary of the Tiber.
One former shipmate went over on his own and has spent 7 years preparing for (re)ordination. His ordination, yesterday, was somewhat upstaged by the three formerly flying bishops (2 flying bishops and one suffragan to be precise) who were fast-tracked.
If it was the one I was thinking of ordained yesterday(one of Pete173's)then it was only three years. Some couldn't make it as they were at Westminster, but I know it didn't matter to him, as he was pleased that Bishop and the Holy Spirit was there!
--------------------
Come home to Rome this Christmas!
Posts: 206 | From: here | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Thurible
Shipmate
# 3206
|
Posted
Fr Alex Hill's "ordination" coincided with that of Bishops Andrew, John and Keith.
Thurible
--------------------
"I've been baptised not lobotomised."
Posts: 8049 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by pete173:
I really really don't get the Ordinariate. If you believe in the RC Church, just go straight over - which is what 3 of my priests have done. Seems to be much more logical than hanging around on a tributary of the Tiber.
*snip* But I hope that, in the scheme of things, it does something worthwhile for the Kingdom of God.
First, over here (in Canada and, I gather, in much of the US), the Tiber has several tributaries -- within an hour's walk, I can attend Catholic services of Melkite, Maronite, Ukrainian Byzantine and Slovak Byzantine flavours and, if I stretch my stroll to two hours, Malankarese and Chaldean -- so another tributary doesn't hurt.
The greatest pond difference in the Ordinariates is, that in the UK, it will primarily house Anglo-papalists from the CoE (and here I might perhaps largely agree with Pete173), but in Canada and the US it will provide a stable structure to a number of the already-separate ramshackle (IMHO) continuum churches, giving their faithful opportunity to do reach out and inhabit a larger structure with greater opportunities to engage in mission rather than in struggling to maintain their isolated little bodies. With luck, it will restrain wackiness and introduce some rigour into clergy selection and training.
Not that I have a ferret in this race.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Carex
Shipmate
# 9643
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
... but in Canada and the US it will provide a stable structure to a number of the already-separate ramshackle (IMHO) continuum churches...
And also in Australia - at least for one main Continuing Church which had requested such accommodation.
Posts: 1425 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
rugbyplayingpriest
Shipmate
# 9809
|
Posted
I really, really do get the Ordinariate.
My parish has been completely let down by the C of E since 1992 and all but the most optimistic, or those happy to accept modern Anglicansim, can see that.
If I had just converted solo then I would have walked out on my people. By entering via the Ordinariate we all stay together. The sheep and the shepherd. We journey as one and there is pastoral care.
We then set up shop as Catholics with our history and journey as organic.
Brilliant. And we end up in a church that actually cares for us which is something I am simply not used to.
Posts: 130 | From: Kent | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
They didn't care about you, or they didn't agree with you ?
--------------------
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
|
|
hereweare
Shipmate
# 15567
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by rugbyplayingpriest:
I really, really do get the Ordinariate.
My parish has been completely let down by the C of E since 1992 and all but the most optimistic, or those happy to accept modern Anglicansim, can see that.
If I had just converted solo then I would have walked out on my people. By entering via the Ordinariate we all stay together. The sheep and the shepherd. We journey as one and there is pastoral care.
We then set up shop as Catholics with our history and journey as organic.
Brilliant. And we end up in a church that actually cares for us which is something I am simply not used to.
But how much of a journey are you actually taking? Is it a journey of the soul, or a change of mass time? I worry that some will just be carried into it without the conversion of heart.
--------------------
Come home to Rome this Christmas!
Posts: 206 | From: here | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
hereweare
Shipmate
# 15567
|
Posted
....that said, welcome home!
--------------------
Come home to Rome this Christmas!
Posts: 206 | From: here | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
rubgyplayingpriest - you're giving Essex as your location, which puts you in Chelmsford. You've not really given the new Diocesan Bishop any chance at all to change things, have you? Bishop Stephen Cotterell has only been in place since the end of November.
If you're in the area I suspect you're in, then you probably have a Suffragan who is not known to be sympathetic to anyone who isn't within his particular brand of evangelical Christianity, But that means the more churches of a different stripe which stay within that area and keep the church broad, the better for the long term future of the church and the area. Seven Churches leaving to join the ordinariate isn't going to help that breadth.
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ThinkČ:
They didn't care about you, or they didn't agree with you ?
I don't know about rugbyetc's situation, but generally disagreement and lack of concern or care seem to run together.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
TomM
Shipmate
# 4618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by rugbyplayingpriest:
I left Chelmsford Diocese some years ago....
In the sense of "and I haven't updated my profile" or in the sense of "and I seek oversight from a flying bishop"?
Posts: 405 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Forthview
Shipmate
# 12376
|
Posted
Think - when you mention the bishops who ahve decided that they were never priests and that now the (rc) church has discerned their vocation in 5 minutes - could this not be put another way -namely that the men concerned did recognise their vocation in the anglican church over the years but had seen that this was leading to a fuller communion with the Catholic church which led them to seek ordination as Catholic priests.Similarly the (rc) church would only have discerned their vocation within 5 minutes because of evidence of the worth of their vocations over several years in the Church of England.
Posts: 3444 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stranger in a strange land
Shipmate
# 11922
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by thomasm:
quote:
Originally posted by rugbyplayingpriest:
I left Chelmsford Diocese some years ago....
In the sense of "and I haven't updated my profile" or in the sense of "and I seek oversight from a flying bishop"?
You will find that it is the former.
Posts: 608 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
Think - when you mention the bishops who ahve decided that they were never priests and that now the (rc) church has discerned their vocation in 5 minutes - could this not be put another way -namely that the men concerned did recognise their vocation in the anglican church over the years but had seen that this was leading to a fuller communion with the Catholic church which led them to seek ordination as Catholic priests.Similarly the (rc) church would only have discerned their vocation within 5 minutes because of evidence of the worth of their vocations over several years in the Church of England.
Then doesn't that make the Anglican church a valid church ? It seems like you are having it both ways.
--------------------
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
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
ThinkČ - I know some people seem to be very concerned about this matter of validity, and I guess that you are one of them. All that is being said is that their service as priests and as bishops was in the CofE, and that does not make them a priest in the Catholic church. In fact their ministry in the CofE was commended during their recent ordination service.
That's the short version of course. In practice there are all sorts of discussions to be had around the meaning of catholicity.
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
I am in a church without a clergy - so in some sense it is no skin off my nose.
But given the goal of Christian unity, and the distress caused by the fractured communion or being unable to follow what one believes to be a vocation due to some personal characteristic - it makes the divisions look much more like politics than theology, when aspects of them can suddenly be over ridden if you are willing to accept the pope's authority.
So you must be validly ordained in the apostolic succession in order to give communion. If you join the catholic priesthood you must be (re?)-ordained. So what does the pope think these men were doing when they were acting as priests and bishops in the Anglican church ?
Or to put it bluntly, the month before the bishop resigned, when he enacted communion was that bread or the body of Christ he gave to his communicants ?
If it was bread how does the RC church square talking about his ordained ministry in the Anglican church ? If it was the body of Christ, why are they not in communion with the Anglican church ?
--------------------
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
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
I understand your points, ThinkČ, but I think that the people involved see things differently. People have tried to explain things here before and failed, and I'm reluctant to add my name to the list, but FWIW I'll give it a go. Bear in mind I am speaking for myself as being a catholic anglican.
re: catholicity. There are really three subtly different usages here and I think it is useful to distinguish between them.
1. The original meaning, which is close to "the whole lot". This was used to describe the whole collection of churches at an early stage of the churches evolution, as the concept of the church was otherwise just that of "The church in X city"
2. Then came the rise of heterodox sects, the gnostics etc. Catholicity now additionally became associated with the whole faith once delivered to the saints approach as suggested in the Commonitory of Vincent of Lerins. In answer to the question a traveller might ask on arriving in a new city "where should I worship?", the answer would be "go to the catholic church", i.e. the one that taught the whole faith, and didn't chop undesired bits off, or graft new bits on. The catholic church taught the apostolic faith, and its unity was given to it through its unity in the eucharist.
3. The third version arose after the reformation, and was reliant on a theme originally developed by Augustine, who pointed out that there were likely wheat and tares both inside and outside the church - the true church was those destined for salvation, and that was a fact not directly accessible to us. (Given Augustine's stern views on those who set up outside the established church, it's highly unlikely he would have approved of the current ways his theory is used, but that is beside the point).
Category 1) is no longer much use - you would need to include JW's, Mormons and much else in it. Anglican catholics would I think aspire to being in category 2), hopefully by future union. Speaking solely for myself, I cannot say the CofE is truly catholic in this way whilst it does not teach the whole faith. But if I put it this way I hope you can at least see why some people lose confidence if things change in a way that they see taking the church away from that goal. What causes such dismay will vary from person to person. Category 3) is of less help as although we would pray that we might be members of this greater church, the best options we have are to make it happen rather than to let our fractured earthly state be a matter of pride.
Looking at it this way, I can't see why those poping should be ashamed of the work they have done, and I don't think there is any sense of Rome requiring them to repent of it. But they were not priests in the Catholic church in sense 2) above.
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Thread closed
Printer-friendly view
