|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Can the CofE dig itself out of its hole over the OoW?
|
FreeJack
Shipmate
# 10612
|
Posted
The Provincial Legal Officers of the CofE have produced this report on the consequences for vicars, churchwardens and PCC members joining the Ordinariate and related matters.
GS Misc 979
Posts: 3588 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
fletcher christian
Mutinous Seadog
# 13919
|
Posted
Where do you see bad taste, threats and an agenda? I just see a legal document that more or less states the obvious: that anyone joining the ordinariate won't be legally entitled to take the glebes, church, school and all or any of the money with them.
--------------------
'God is love insaturable, love impossible to describe'
Staretz Silouan
Posts: 5235 | From: a prefecture | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
anne
Shipmate
# 73
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by FreeJack:
The Provincial Legal Officers of the CofE have produced this report on the consequences for vicars, churchwardens and PCC members joining the Ordinariate and related matters.
GS Misc 979
I'm no expert, but it seems to me to be a report on the consequences for those left behind of vicars, churchwardens and/or PCC members joining the Ordinariate. For example, what happens to the legal responsibilities of a PCC when the current members leave? What happens if those representing the parish Church on the board of governors of a Church school are no longer members of the CofE?
Those left behind in the affected parishes will have lots of questions and here are some of the answers they'll need. Isn't that the job of the Provincial Legal Officers of the CofE?
I'm sorry, I'm not detecting poor taste or threat - am I missing something?
--------------------
‘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
|
|
FreeJack
Shipmate
# 10612
|
Posted
It is only a threat against those who thought they could take the PCC, church building, church charities, church schools with them into the Roman Catholic Church.
It isn't a threat against anyone planning to make a clean break of it, that is resigning all distinctively CofE positions on or before reception into the RCC, and in the case of churchwardens giving two months' notice prior to that.
Posts: 3588 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
I didn't like: priest intending to join the Ordinariate will need to consider for how long,
once his mind is made up, he can in conscience continue to hold office in the Church of
England
Not the bit about PCC members - could expose them, amongst other things, to investigation and action by the Charity Commission
On reading the whole guidance, it is clear that it seeks to protect people from legal problems. The excerpt I saw in a recent Church Times felt more menacing.
--------------------
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
|
|
FreeJack
Shipmate
# 10612
|
Posted
The first is an obvious point of conscience rather than law.
The second is a general point of instruction which all PCC members would do well to understand, not just potentially departing Ordinariate members. The Charity Commission can now clearly take Court action against PCC members who do not act in the best interest of the PCC's objectives and beneficiaries, and this includes disqualification as a charity trustee and financial penalties to cover financial loss by a PCC, and liability does not end with resignation.
For instance, if the final meeting of the old PCC decided to donate all of the PCCs bank account to the RC diocese they were intending to join, all of those PCC members would be personally jointly and severally responsible for reimbursing the PCC. That is the sort of thing that a warning marker is needed to deal with.
Posts: 3588 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Edward Green
Review Editor
# 46
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by FreeJack:
The second is a general point of instruction which all PCC members would do well to understand, not just potentially departing Ordinariate members. The Charity Commission can now clearly take Court action against PCC members who do not act in the best interest of the PCC's objectives and beneficiaries, and this includes disqualification as a charity trustee and financial penalties to cover financial loss by a PCC, and liability does not end with resignation.
I need that with an official stamp on it for regular PCC issues that have nothing to do with the Ordinariate.
--------------------
blog//twitter//
linkedin
Posts: 4893 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rosa Gallica officinalis
Shipmate
# 3886
|
Posted
Edward, this PDF leaflet might help.
--------------------
Come for tea, come for tea, my people.
Posts: 874 | From: The Hemlock Hideout | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
rugbyplayingpriest
Shipmate
# 9809
|
Posted
As one on the journey let me state
1) I am being forced to apply for a faculty to remove MY OWN POSSESIONS from the church
2) A group of people has been drafted in by the Archdeacon to form the Anglican friends...two thirds have not worshipped here for many years if at all, all espouse a theology never witnessed here but they will take all our money, items and plant. All of which was given for the Catholic cause.
3) My people whom synod has failed (they did not change their beliefs the C of E did) are forced to leave with NOTHING. I even requested 7 out of 60 vestments as a good will gesture and it was refused. Most were given by those leaving in memory of dead loved ones. But no. They must take NOTHING or be sued.
4) I am being bullied into resigning my orders, something Rome is not requesting or wanting.
....forget law. Where is the love, where is the charity? Where is the common decency?
As of next month daily mass will end. The huge and expensive building will be used for one hour every week and will cost the diocese a fortune. They will not allow us to share costs and share building.
Seems pretty dog in the manger from where I stand.
Posts: 130 | From: Kent | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
anne
Shipmate
# 73
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by rugbyplayingpriest:
As one on the journey let me state
1) I am being forced to apply for a faculty to remove MY OWN POSSESIONS from the church
2) A group of people has been drafted in by the Archdeacon to form the Anglican friends...two thirds have not worshipped here for many years if at all, all espouse a theology never witnessed here but they will take all our money, items and plant. All of which was given for the Catholic cause.
3) My people whom synod has failed (they did not change their beliefs the C of E did) are forced to leave with NOTHING. I even requested 7 out of 60 vestments as a good will gesture and it was refused. Most were given by those leaving in memory of dead loved ones. But no. They must take NOTHING or be sued.
4) I am being bullied into resigning my orders, something Rome is not requesting or wanting.
....forget law. Where is the love, where is the charity? Where is the common decency?
As of next month daily mass will end. The huge and expensive building will be used for one hour every week and will cost the diocese a fortune. They will not allow us to share costs and share building.
Seems pretty dog in the manger from where I stand.
Your pain is clear and it is heart-breaking that you and those of the parish who (I assume) are planning to join the Ordinariate feel abused by the process of leaving. Although I do not fully understand an ecclesiology or theology of priesthood which can cope with the ordination of women, but not with their consecration as bishops, you and all those in similar situations are in my prayers. Bullying by the PTB in this situation is unconscionable.
You probably don't want to get into details here, but i don't understand why a faculty would be required to remove any portable personal possession from the church. Are they fixtures and fittings?
One of the churches that I'm licensed to was rebuilt during the Commonwealth having been burnt down during the civil war. An earlier vicar had been hung off the tower, wearing his vestments and with a thurible around his neck for his part in the prayer book revolt. The locals quietly and unofficially changed the name of the church from St SaintpopularwithCatholics to St Anapostlesoconsideredsafe during the reformation. The dedication was never made official, but it's still there. Successive generations have seen the churchmanship change too. We have ebbed and flowed as Rectors and trends have come and gone. I would like to describe us now as 'Thoughtful Catholic' but churchmanship is in the eye of the beholder really isn't it?
This is all really a preamble to saying that the church is stuffed to the gunwales with gifts from generations of worshippers, many of whom would have profoundly disagreed with one another about aspects of theology and ecclesiology. If I (a woman) preach from a lectern made before the reformation before presiding at an altar given by a protestant using a chalice donated in memory of a tractarian priest, which donor am I insulting? Should we check with the donors of our vestments how they feel about me wearing them? I don't wish to make light of the situation, but a gift to the parish church is just that, a gift. The giver can't expect to dictate its use.
Vestments, even buildings, these are physical things which will be apportioned according to the legal guidance. The loss of a daily Eucharist is more important (IMO) and truly sad - is there no room for negotiation on this point?
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
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by anne:
I don't wish to make light of the situation, but a gift to the parish church is just that, a gift. The giver can't expect to dictate its use.
I think the difficulty is that rugbyplayingpriest considers the gifts were given to the parish qua congregation (and therefore if the congregation goes to Rome, at least some of the gifts should go with them), whereas the diocese considers they were given to the parish qua component member of the Church of England.
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
... and for the record, though the Diocese may be legally correct, I don't think rugbyplayingpriest's position is necessarily unreasonable.
Did the Church of England steal the Roman Catholic Church's buildings at the Reformation? The usual answer is no, the churches belonged to the congregations that worshipped there, and those congregations transferred their allegiance from Rome to Canterbury. Logically, therefore, if a congregation transfers its allegiance back from Canterbury to Rome, the church buildings should go with them.
[Granted, I wouldn't say we should guide our actions today by what happened at the Reformation, but I don't think it's as simple as people think.]
[ 09. February 2011, 11:12: Message edited by: Ricardus ]
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
anne
Shipmate
# 73
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
... and for the record, though the Diocese may be legally correct, I don't think rugbyplayingpriest's position is necessarily unreasonable.
Did the Church of England steal the Roman Catholic Church's buildings at the Reformation? The usual answer is no, the churches belonged to the congregations that worshipped there, and those congregations transferred their allegiance from Rome to Canterbury. Logically, therefore, if a congregation transfers its allegiance back from Canterbury to Rome, the church buildings should go with them.
[Granted, I wouldn't say we should guide our actions today by what happened at the Reformation, but I don't think it's as simple as people think.]
No it's not simple - and legal is not the same as pastoral or reasonable.
Adding to the complexity for Anglican parish churches in England is the whole establishment business. I think that those churches actually belong to the inhabitants of the parish, rather than the worshipping congregation. At the time of the reformation those two groups would have been largely the same people, but over the centuries since, the parish church has continued to belong to the Anglican, Methodist, Presbyterian, Catholic, Hindu and atheist inhabitants of the parish. We, the worshipping community, may blithely refer to "our church", but we're wrong - or only right in the broadest sense - especially if we're a gathered congregation.
None of this will affect the pain and loss felt by congregations who feel forced to leave 'their' church, but - well, it's not simple.
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
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by rugbyplayingpriest:
3) My people whom synod has failed (they did not change their beliefs the C of E did) are forced to leave with NOTHING.
Why are they being "forced to leave"? Who is forcing them? Would someone come round and kick you all out if you all just stayed as Anglicans?
If they are all off to become Roman Catholics then it sounds to me as if they are choosing to leave, not being forced to. (what proportion are likely to be moving?)
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Man with a Stick
Shipmate
# 12664
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by FreeJack:
The first is an obvious point of conscience rather than law.
The second is a general point of instruction which all PCC members would do well to understand, not just potentially departing Ordinariate members. The Charity Commission can now clearly take Court action against PCC members who do not act in the best interest of the PCC's objectives and beneficiaries, and this includes disqualification as a charity trustee and financial penalties to cover financial loss by a PCC, and liability does not end with resignation.
For instance, if the final meeting of the old PCC decided to donate all of the PCCs bank account to the RC diocese they were intending to join, all of those PCC members would be personally jointly and severally responsible for reimbursing the PCC. That is the sort of thing that a warning marker is needed to deal with.
Posts: 335 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by rugbyplayingpriest:
3) My people whom synod has failed (they did not change their beliefs the C of E did) are forced to leave with NOTHING.
Why are they being "forced to leave"? Who is forcing them? Would someone come round and kick you all out if you all just stayed as Anglicans?
If they are all off to become Roman Catholics then it sounds to me as if they are choosing to leave, not being forced to. (what proportion are likely to be moving?)
Forced to leave because the C of E has ceased to have valid orders, has forfeited its claim to be the catholic church of this land.
They were ordained believing that they were being ordained as priests on the catholic church but would be expected to change into ministers of a state protestant church.
--------------------
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
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
They were ordained believing that they were being ordained as priests on the catholic church but would be expected to change into ministers of a state protestant church.
![[Snore]](graemlins/snore.gif)
Anyway, they still have the same priest or minister they always had. So even if they hold to the the doctrine of taint you describe no-one is forcing them to do anything just yet.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
Ken - as a matter of interest, I believe you elsewhere expressed the view that the reformation involved local parishes changing their connexion (hence the continuity with the past).
Would you have objections to these parishes doing that again, as here? (Just interested in exploring the connexion dimension rather than anything else).
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
FreeJack
Shipmate
# 10612
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
... and for the record, though the Diocese may be legally correct, I don't think rugbyplayingpriest's position is necessarily unreasonable.
I don't think his personal philosophical position is unreasonable, it just isn't that of English law, and that is as determined by Parliament, the Government, the Courts not the Synod or the Diocese.
There is no question that his Archdeacon is just doing his job. And even if the Archdeacon wanted to be more loving / charitable than that, the legal system would over-rule the Archdeacon.
Gifts were given to the PCC in perpetuity, not the Catholic cause at one moment in time.
What the current congregation chooses to do is irrelevant.
Posts: 3588 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
They were ordained believing that they were being ordained as priests on the catholic church but would be expected to change into ministers of a state protestant church.
Anyway, they still have the same priest or minister they always had.
I don't understand what you say - they ARE the priest - I am talking about men, several of whom are long-standing friends of mine, who have given their whole lives for this, only to be told that they are no longer wanted.
--------------------
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
|
|
sanityman
Shipmate
# 11598
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by rugbyplayingpriest:
3) My people whom synod has failed (they did not change their beliefs the C of E did) are forced to leave with NOTHING.
Why are they being "forced to leave"? Who is forcing them? Would someone come round and kick you all out if you all just stayed as Anglicans?
If they are all off to become Roman Catholics then it sounds to me as if they are choosing to leave, not being forced to. (what proportion are likely to be moving?)
Forced to leave because the C of E has ceased to have valid orders, has forfeited its claim to be the catholic church of this land.
They were ordained believing that they were being ordained as priests on the catholic church but would be expected to change into ministers of a state protestant church.
If I may ask a naif question, are Anglican orders regarded as valid or otherwise depending on Rome's say-so, or is it down to the personal theology of the individual as to whether someone's orders are valid?
I'm a bit at sea here, because ISTM that the word "valid" implies an imprimatur from some authority - and I'm not sure that Rome has ever regarded Anglican orders as valid? The alternative seems to stray into protestant individualism, or at least an individualistic interpretation of tradition that is now at odds with both Rome and the C of E.
I freely confess I don't have much grasp of the notion, and probably have is bass-ackward.
- Chris.
--------------------
Prophesy to the wind, to the wind only for only the wind will listen - TS Eliot
Posts: 1453 | From: London, UK | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Edward Green
Review Editor
# 46
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by FreeJack:
Gifts were given to the PCC in perpetuity, not the Catholic cause at one moment in time.
And many gifts that were given in the Catholic cause are locked in societies and are unavailable to the ordinariate or those who have accepted the decision of the Synod.
--------------------
blog//twitter//
linkedin
Posts: 4893 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Forced to leave because the C of E has ceased to have valid orders, has forfeited its claim to be the catholic church of this land.
At best you could say that their consciences are forcing them to leave. But then the Synod would argue that its collective conscience "forced" it to act in the way it did.
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Invictus_88
Shipmate
# 15352
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by FreeJack:
Gifts were given to the PCC in perpetuity, not the Catholic cause at one moment in time.
...and of those gifts given to the RCC in perpetuity?
Posts: 206 | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
fletcher christian
Mutinous Seadog
# 13919
|
Posted
It's not simple and straight forward thats for sure, but the fact of the matter is that some people are expressing a desire to leave the CofE and join the ordinariate. The expectation that they would be able to bring things with them seems incredibly naive to me. It isn't a simple case of people having given items to the Roman Catholic Church or 'cause'; they gave gifts to a parish that was CofE and will remain CofE. They did this knowing how the CofE works; knowing that a Vicar (even in the near future) might throw their item in the bin with the consent of the pcc and church bodies, or put it to the back of a cupboard never to be used or at best, use it until it can be used no longer. Nothing lasts forever in this world of perishables and although we might put our desires into giving the gift with conditions, we can never really guarantee that beyond a generation or two, mainly because we will be dead and gone and hopefully in a place with spectacular vestments that don't wear out and aren't laden with soggy church politics.
--------------------
'God is love insaturable, love impossible to describe'
Staretz Silouan
Posts: 5235 | From: a prefecture | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I don't understand what you say - they ARE the priest - I am talking about men, several of whom are long-standing friends of mine, who have given their whole lives for this, only to be told that they are no longer wanted.
1) No, we were talking about rugbyplayingpriets claim that his whole congregation had been forced to leave the CofE.
2) It is a lie to say anti-women priests were told "they are no longer wanted" - they are most certainly wanted and accepted - the majority ofthe CofE who are in favour of ordaining women have been bending over backwards for years trying to put up with the demands of that crowd only to be told again and again that it isn't enough.
3) And nothing has changed in the last almost twenty years to "force" anyone out. No-one is forcing these people to have women priests. There are mno women bishops in the CofE yet. No-one who coudl in conscience remain in the CofE after about 1992 has been "forced" to do anything. The mendacious claim that they have is typical of the kind of language these people are using more and more and its really quite unjustified.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I don't understand what you say - they ARE the priest - I am talking about men, several of whom are long-standing friends of mine, who have given their whole lives for this, only to be told that they are no longer wanted.
It's not your long-standing friends who told are not wanted. It's women who are told they're not wanted. To be precise, it's women who are told that they're not wanted by your long-standing friends. And not only are women not wanted by your long-standing friends, your long-standing friends are telling the rest of us that women mustn't be wanted by the rest of us either.
You can try to take your stand on issues of theological principle. But if they complain that they're being told they're not wanted, then they're ignoring the fact that women have been facing the same message but worse for decades. The complaint is only possible for people who are dismissing women's experience; it's only possible if your long-standing friends really are misogynists.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
FreeJack
Shipmate
# 10612
|
Posted
The irony is that it is the aggressive way that liberal anglo-catholics have pursued women's consecration 'pushing' out the conservative anglo-catholics is going to create a majority evangelical church, which is hardly what the liberal anglo-catholics really want if they think about it.
If you want to see how bad relationships are between some in the two groups of anglo-catholics in the House of Clergy, have a look at the preferences in the recent by-election for a member of the CNC.
CNC Clergy Election
If I read it right, Tim Dakin (evangelical CMS/CEEC) beats Andrew Nunn (liberal anglo-catholic SCP Southwark) with the transfer votes from David Houlding (conservative anglo-catholic FinF/SSC London) and Gavin Ashenden (supports safeguards.)
Posts: 3588 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
anne
Shipmate
# 73
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Women have not been told for decades that they aren't wanted. They have been allowed to be members of the church and given valid sacraments.
Is priesthood some sort of career path? Not according to catholic theology.
PS Please remember that I welcome women's priestly ministry but that i see both sides of the argument.
I am not women, but I am a woman and can speak to some of these points from my own experience.
To take them in order:
I have been told that I am not wanted. I have been told that my priesthood is not real.
Allowed?? I've been allowed to be a member of the church?
I really hope that that's not what you meant. But you are right - I have been allowed to be a member of the church and given valid sacraments. If you mean that I have been allowed to be ordained a priest in the church, then that's true too - and less likely to have me spitting in fury.
But, whilst I am truly grateful to the church that allowed me to be ordained, and to the women and men who (I believe) responded to the Holy Spirit and voted in Synod for the changes that allowed that to happen, I also believe that God called me to this ministry, and it was in obedience to His will that I was ordained priest. I am sorry to sound pompous, but really allowed ???
My priesthood is not a career path - I had one of those. In fact, I left it in order to do this.
I see both sides of the argument too - i know that most opponents of the ordination of women are speaking from deeply held theological beliefs. But sometimes, just sometimes, there's deeply held misogyny too. Sometimes from men who however catholic their theology also see the priesthood as a career path and some of the gifted holy senior priests who happen to be women as competition. Not me - I'm no competition to anyone, but I'm not really typical.
There is real pain amongst those who feel that the church is moving in the wrong direction, but the pain of those on the 'other side' is genuine too. Please don't underestimate that.
Thank you for your welcoming of my ministry.
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
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
Thank you. I don't always express myself very well.
I have listened to many such testimonies from women about their sense of vocation. Indeed, they were the major factor that made me leave the anglo-catholic ghetto decades ago.
I am sure I will think of something else top say later. Meanwhile, some of the most holy women priests that I know in my deanery share my pain at the seeming exclusion of male colleagues.
There is something costly about being 'liberal.' Confucius he say, 'He who sits in the middle of the road gets hit double.'
--------------------
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
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by FreeJack:
The irony is that it is the aggressive way that liberal anglo-catholics have pursued women's consecration 'pushing' out the conservative anglo-catholics is going to create a majority evangelical church, which is hardly what the liberal anglo-catholics really want if they think about it.
If you want to see how bad relationships are between some in the two groups of anglo-catholics in the House of Clergy, have a look at the preferences in the recent by-election for a member of the CNC.
CNC Clergy Election
If I read it right, Tim Dakin (evangelical CMS/CEEC) beats Andrew Nunn (liberal anglo-catholic SCP Southwark) with the transfer votes from David Houlding (conservative anglo-catholic FinF/SSC London) and Gavin Ashenden (supports safeguards.)
That is interesting and disturbing. I head David Houlding refer to AffCaths like myself as 'the enemy' (listening to a podcast of the last FiF rally). It hurt me deeply as one who as sought to bring the catholic movement together across the divide. It was tempted to say that I had argued their case on my turf but you never argue my case on your turn. So f**k off to Rome and see how you like it.
Then I felt guilty for thinking thus.
Now I am just confused.
However, I don't fear an evangelical takeover as such. I have just spent a whole day at a deanery chapter meeting and happened to be sat with the evangelicals from a highly 'successful' charismatic church and we were all surprised at how much we agreed with each other about many issues.
--------------------
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
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I am sure that their are some mysogynists in FiF but, on the whole, they are not. They have theological issues, as do the vast majority of Christians throughout time and space, with the notion that women can be priests.
I am not talking about FiF. I am talking about people who complain that 'they are no longer wanted'.
FiF may have theological objections to female priests. People who complain that 'they are no longer wanted' are saying implicitly or explicitly that women can't make the same complaint, such people have gone beyond theological objections and are actually dismissing women's experience. Dismissing women's experience is misogynistic. What Anne said about 'allowed'. I mean, how can you say 'women have not been told that they're not wanted'? On what basis of interviews and discussion with women who feel they have a vocation to priesthood do you feel justified in asserting that?
Seeing both sides of the argument sometimes means calling what you see by their proper names.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I am sure that their are some mysogynists in FiF but, on the whole, they are not. They have theological issues, as do the vast majority of Christians throughout time and space, with the notion that women can be priests.
Yes, but so what? They have managed to stay in the CofE for the last twenty years despite those "theological issues" and now some of them are leaving saying they are being "forced out". But nothing has changed. So what is this mysterious "forcing"?
Lots of people, especially on the evangelical side, have been trying quite hard to get them as much as is practically possible of what they asked for and are, pretty much getting slapped by them for it. Its annoying.
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
PS Please remember that I welcome women's priestly ministry
You often say that on here but show very little evidence of it in the rest of your posts. OK, that's me being polite, in fact its no evidence at all as far as I remember, and quite a bit of arguing on the other side. It sometimes seems very near "I'm not a sexist but..."
quote:
Originally posted by FreeJack:
If I read it right, Tim Dakin (evangelical CMS/CEEC) beats Andrew Nunn (liberal anglo-catholic SCP Southwark) with the transfer votes from David Houlding (conservative anglo-catholic FinF/SSC London) and Gavin Ashenden (supports safeguards.)
Hardly a surprise. Like a lot of the self-identified "open evangelicals" (including Pete173 of this parish), I think Tim Dakin has been pretty consistently strongly in favour of ordaining women but has also tried to understand, accomodate, and support their opponents. (In fact exactly the stance Leo says he takes, though doesn't show much of here)
If you look at the votes on women bishops in the last Synod, Tim Dakin pretty much voted consistently the opposite way to most of the Southwark delegation (who are nice people, and most of whom I have met, and one or two of whom I know quite well, but who are mostly not at all in favour of accomodating FiF.)
So yes, its very sensible for those opposed to women's ordination to vote for them. Well, for "us" I suppose because its the position I'd take.
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
I am not talking about FiF. I am talking about people who complain that 'they are no longer wanted'. FiF may have theological objections to female priests. People who complain that 'they are no longer wanted' are saying implicitly or explicitly that women can't make the same complaint, such people have gone beyond theological objections and are actually dismissing women's experience. Dismissing women's experience is misogynistic.
Yes.
For some reason the current way the arguments are going at the moment is making me angry,I think you've hit on some of the reasons why.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I am sure that their are some mysogynists in FiF but, on the whole, they are not. They have theological issues, as do the vast majority of Christians throughout time and space, with the notion that women can be priests.
Yes, but so what? They have managed to stay in the CofE for the last twenty years despite those "theological issues" and now some of them are leaving saying they are being "forced out". But nothing has changed. So what is this mysterious "forcing"?
What has changed is the synod has reneged on the promises it made by removing the PEVs.
--------------------
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
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
Umm - the way we heard it, the PEVs all resigned and removed themselves - took up the offer of the Ordinariate. And isn't there still some interim provision for those churches requesting oversight, although when all the PEVs have resigned no-one has rushed to re-establish a system that hasn't been brilliantly helpful and supportive to the CofE.
From here, it has looked as if the PEVs have been indulging in private empire building which they seem to be moving lock, stock and as much of the barrel as they can to their new little empire, the Ordinariate.
[ 11. February 2011, 16:29: Message edited by: Curiosity killed ... ]
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
rugbyplayingpriest
Shipmate
# 9809
|
Posted
Nothing has changed?
EVERYTHING has changed. The offer of the Ordinariate provides love, welcome and support that FIF priests have simply not experienced.
Remember we did not seek to stop women bishops merely to have provision that would enable us to flourish. Now we have that but it took Rome to show the C of E the meaning of liberal and flexible to achieve this.
Fortunately the Diocesan has been much nicer than the AD and we are now moving forwards a little - I am impressed with him.
But the feeble notion put forward that synod has bent over backwards to accomodate us is frankly risible. We entered synod with resolutions, promises, PEVs and hope. We left with the Code of Practice we had painstakingly explained could never do....
However you look at it. The C of E shifted the goalposts and left trad Catholics out in the cold.
How I wish liberals were all like Leo, indeed I believe I am one like that, this new breed are narrow minded, cruel and vindictive.
Still God is good and we await a new future. I think when emotions calm down then history will prove we were people of integrity and that synod acted dishonourably. After all they said the same of Newman as they now say of us... and he has been beatified.
I also think the loss of our departure will be more significant than people realise, opening up a war betwixt liberal and evangelicals on matters sexual.
Posts: 130 | From: Kent | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
Umm - the way we heard it, the PEVs all resigned and removed themselves - took up the offer of the Ordinariate. And isn't there still some interim provision for those churches requesting oversight, although when all the PEVs have resigned no-one has rushed to re-establish a system that hasn't been brilliantly helpful and supportive to the CofE.
From here, it has looked as if the PEVs have been indulging in private empire building which they seem to be moving lock, stock and as much of the barrel as they can to their new little empire, the Ordinariate.
No, the loss of PEVs is because the new legislation includes the rescinding of the Act of Synod that created them. That's why 2 PEVs decided to join the ordinariate because there was no future for them in the C of E.
PEVs will cease to exist once the legislation has been accepted. There will be temporary appointments in the meantime.
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Autenrieth Road
Shipmate
# 10509
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by rugbyplayingpriest:
EVERYTHING has changed. The offer of the Ordinariate provides love, welcome and support that FIF priests have simply not experienced.
This does not constitute the CoE forcing them out, however.
I do not deny that the actions of Synod may be experienced as forcing you out by changing the arrangements for PEVs and raising the inexorable specter of women bishops with no adequate provision.
I hope that the fact that you lead your catalog of what has changed with the Ordinariate pluses rather than the Synod minuses means that your worldview is shifting from "we were forced out" and anger over the past, to "we are in (or will be soon) a good place" and joy for the future.
--------------------
Truth
Posts: 9559 | From: starlight | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
no-one has rushed to re-establish a system that hasn't been brilliantly helpful and supportive to the CofE.
Yes they did - Rowan made immediate, interim, arrangements upon receiving the resignations.
The first half of the sentence you cropped said exactly what you're saying - that interim arrangements are in place.
I do think that those in the Church of England who had the goal posts changed, who were in place when women were first ordained priests did need provision and support. The PEVs had a purpose initially, to do just this.
But my comment about empire building - the one that you've ignored - refers to those priests that the PEVs have ordained, who have chosen to be ordained into the Church of England since the CofE agreed to ordain women, refusing to accept that women are valid priests. And a large proportion of those making sad and unhappy noises about being forced out have wilfully ignored a lot of things they found inconvenient - but particularly that they were choosing to be ordained into a church that also ordained women, so the church as a whole had accepted women priests.
I don't see how people can choose to join an organisation that ordains women in the vain and foolish hope that things are going to change the way they want can complain when they find that things really aren't going to change.
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
I am not talking about FiF. I am talking about people who complain that 'they are no longer wanted'. FiF may have theological objections to female priests. People who complain that 'they are no longer wanted' are saying implicitly or explicitly that women can't make the same complaint, such people have gone beyond theological objections and are actually dismissing women's experience. Dismissing women's experience is misogynistic.
Yes.
For some reason the current way the arguments are going at the moment is making me angry,I think you've hit on some of the reasons why.
I agree.
I'm not a great fan of arguments in terms of "belief X is bad because it's offensive and hurtful", when in most cases the real question is whether X is true. However, someone a bit nicer and more compassionate than me could reasonably argue I'm just an insensitive git.
What's unreasonable, however, is to complain that Synod's actions are "hurtful" to FiFers, while ignoring that FiFers' actions are hurtful to women priests.
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by rugbyplayingpriest:
Nothing has changed?
EVERYTHING has changed.
Does the CofE have women bishops yet?
Did the CofE not ordain women nearly 20 years ago?
Hasn't the CofE been in full communion with churches that do have women bishops for decades?
None of that has changed. No-one has been forced to do anything.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by rugbyplayingpriest:
How I wish liberals were all like Leo, indeed I believe I am one like that, this new breed are narrow minded, cruel and vindictive.
Which is why I do not own the title/label 'liberal'. Liberals are intolerant of everyone who isn't liberal.
I don't like the term 'traditionalist' either, since I have reverence for the tradition.
I think 'radical orthodoxy' best describes where I am coming from.
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
fletcher christian
Mutinous Seadog
# 13919
|
Posted
Thats ok Leo, we'll allow you to be a radical orthodox christian and stay in the church
--------------------
'God is love insaturable, love impossible to describe'
Staretz Silouan
Posts: 5235 | From: a prefecture | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alex Cockell
Ship’s penguin
# 7487
|
Posted
So - let me get this straight.
Departing CofE priests get their P45 and their pensions frozen. if stuff has been bought with church funds, it's left behind... if given to the PCC - it's left behind.
Surely, if stuff like robes etc is bought with church money, they have to be handed back, as they are leaving the CofE's employ?
Surely that's part of any resignation?
And one Shippie here is griping about it?
Posts: 2146 | From: Reading, Berkshire UK | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
FreeJack
Shipmate
# 10612
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by rugbyplayingpriest:
Nothing has changed?
EVERYTHING has changed.
Nothing much has changed since John Henry Newman converted.
If you have come to the realisation that John Henry Newman was right to convert, then good for you and we wish you well, but it is still your realisation that ultimately the CofE is a state protestant church and the Roman Catholic Church is a bigger part of the apostolic church universal that seems to be what has changed.
Not whether or not the CofE should have ordained women priests in 1994 or will consecrate women priests in say 2016 or whether or not your archdeacon is a bureaucrat with a sense of humour failure, or even whether is an ordinariate or anything else.
Posts: 3588 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Thread closed
Printer-friendly view
