|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Can the CofE dig itself out of its hole over the OoW?
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
quote:
The situation for Evangelicals who are opposed to OoW is far less problematic
Well, they all seem to be a law unto themselves!
If by that you mean they try their best to follow the word of God as revealed, rather than bothering too much about which human bureaucratic organisation theuir churches are attached to...
Well, you obviously have no regard or respect for Holy Tradition - I can't help you.
Well you obviously have no respect or regard for faithful churches of God that are blessed by the Holy Spirit but don't happen to be members of your denomination or take orders from your favourite bishop - I can't help you.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
"Denomination" hmphhhh!! ![[Mad]](angryfire.gif)
--------------------
"We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."
Posts: 2080 | From: Leicester | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
Nice one, ken!
--------------------
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
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
OK, that is enough.
ken, you know where Hell is and how it works on the Ship. You do not retaliate tit-for-tat anywhere other than Hell. You've been here long enough to know that.
Mark,
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
Well, you obviously have no regard or respect for Holy Tradition - I can't help you.
Is a personal attack on another Shipmate. That is not allowed here. The Ship has people from a very wide range of Christian (and beyond) traditions. Respect those beliefs. You're not here to "help" people into what you think is the correct belief - read Commandment 8.
Alan
Ship of Fools Admin
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Scrumpmeister
Ship’s Taverner
# 5638
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by k-mann:
There are a wide variety of rites, and the Church itself is made up of 23 particular churches, all in communion with the Pope. Calling the Ordinariate ‘the halfway staging post’ betray ignorance on your part. Is the Caldean Catholics also a ‘halfway staging post’? Or what about the Greek Catholics?
From conversations with the ones with whom I am acquainted, I would say so.
The Eastern Catholics may be in communion with Mr Ratzinger on paper but if there is anybody who thinks that all of their clergy are happy concelebrating with Roman Catholic clergy, that there is no objection to the Latin rather than distinctly eastern expressions of doctrine found among their catechisms, that none of them are vocal about their embarrassment at the insistence of clerical celibacy in the Latin church, or that they are not affronted in the extreme by suggestions that their clergy ought to be made to submit to the same strictures, or thinks that they gladly accept the so-called Immaculate Conception and papal infallibility, and who thinks that everything is sunshine, lollipops, and rainbows, then that person needs to get a reality check.
Seriously, talk to them. As one of their clergy said to me on one occasion, there are certainly Rome enthusiasts among their number, but the truth is that most of the pew-fodder - the people who turn up Sunday by Sunday and don't care about much else - don't really give a hoot. They just "go to church", and if the name of a bishop in Rome is mentioned in the litanies, they don't much care, if they notice at all. But, he said, among those who know something about the situation of their church, of their history and development, and how they came to be where they are today, it is not difficult to find a significant number of both laity and clergy alike who, if pushed, will express their discontentment with the present situation.
Resigning oneself to accepting a situation because that's just the way things are is not the same as being a banner-waving supporter of the status quo, and, take it from one who knows, it does sometimes feel like being part of a half-way staging post.
[ 25. May 2012, 14:50: Message edited by: Michael Astley ]
--------------------
If Christ is not fully human, humankind is not fully saved. - St John of Saint-Denis
Posts: 14741 | From: Greater Manchester, UK | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
FreeJack
Shipmate
# 10612
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
moved over from closed thread on Bishop's legislation
quote:
Originally posted by iamchristianhearmeroar:
At the risk of finding a deceased equine's head on my pillow tomorrow morning...but this is a specific point, and I don't see it being discussed anywhere on the ship.
The group of six have voted (by a majority) that the amendments made by the house of bishops to the draft women bishops legislation do not change the substance of the measure, so this will go before general synod this July for a final vote.
The amendments haven't exactly been greeted with favour from any side of the debate. WATCH don't like them; Reform doesn't like them; Forward in Faith doesn't like them. In trying to please everyone has the House of Bishops in fact enraged everybody?
When this goes back to synod should it pass as amended? If the measure is voted down what does that mean for the future of women in the episcopate in the CofE?
Will Watch actually vote against though? Would they really scupper the ministry of potential women bishops for at least 6 or 7 years because the proposal wasn't purist enough for them. Only a hardened few.
Arguably the vote is better for Reform than the current legislation where they can choose a theologically acceptable bishop rather than a PEV who are all conservative anglo-catholic currently.
Because of the defections to the Ordinariate, the FiF / catholic group in General Synod must be smaller than last time.
Posts: 3588 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by FreeJack:
Will Watch actually vote against though? Would they really scupper the ministry of potential women bishops for at least 6 or 7 years because the proposal wasn't purist enough for them. Only a hardened few.
Arguably the vote is better for Reform than the current legislation where they can choose a theologically acceptable bishop rather than a PEV who are all conservative anglo-catholic currently.
Because of the defections to the Ordinariate, the FiF / catholic group in General Synod must be smaller than last time.
This whole thing is a compromise upon an already compromised position. Watch don't run the synod, they only influence - people may (if they dare!) vote contrary to Watch's recommendations if they are too severe - this even includes liberals!
So, I expect the measure to be passed, in spite of Watch's "advice". After all, as this is a compromise of an already compromised position, with already broken promises, why can't the position be compromised even further in future years - after the C of E has become more protestant and more liberal?
I think many of the FiF/catholics have already left, or are on the verge of leaving - this is at least part of the reason I left to convert to Orthodoxy. So the "catholic" voice in the C of E is fast becoming more liberal, in the guise of "Affirming Catholicism" - ANATHEMA!! ANATHEMA!! (I'm only joking of course!)
[ 26. May 2012, 08:15: Message edited by: Mark Betts ]
--------------------
"We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."
Posts: 2080 | From: Leicester | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
It would help, of course, if we knew exactly what the two ammendments by the House of Bishops were. Here's a summary (courtesy of BBC news):
Female authority
The House made two changes to the draft measure.
The first centres on whether a female bishop's legal authority would be diminished, if a traditionalist parish requested access to an "alternative" male bishop.
The amendment addresses a situation in which, if a parish in the diocese of a female bishop refused to recognise her authority, the bishop could delegate her powers to an alternative male colleague.
It makes it clear that though the alternative male bishop derives his legal authority from the diocesan woman bishop who appoints him, the authority to exercise the office of a bishop comes from his own ordination.
This is an area of serious disagreement - supporters of women bishops are anxious a woman should not be a "second class bishop" and their opponents are concerned the alternative bishop should not derive his authority from a woman.
The second change adds to a new code of practice for bishops, being drawn up for approval if the consecration of women bishops is passed by the general synod.
Not "far-reaching"
It states further guidance will be issued, surrounding the opting-out of parishes who decide on the grounds of theological conviction, that they do not want a female bishop.
That guidance will be directed at ensuring the exercise of ministry by bishops and priests appointed to serve in parishes which object to women bishops, will be consistent with those objections.
In statement the House said: "We rejected more far reaching amendments that would have changed the legal basis on which bishops would exercise authority, when ministering to parishes unable to receive the ministry of female bishops."
But supporters of women bishops fear the creation of a "double-standard" of authority, where so-called "untainted" male bishops (those who have not ordained female clergy or received ordination from a woman) become sought after by traditionalist parishes.
___________________
The main problem is Authority, and this has not really been resolved at all. Still, the ultimate Authority (within a Diocese) is with the Diocesan Bishop (who might in future be a woman).
The second amendment is nothing more than a promise of "further guidance" - it is not even worth commenting on!
--------------------
"We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."
Posts: 2080 | From: Leicester | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fidei Defensor
Shipmate
# 17105
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Astley:
The Eastern Catholics may be in communion with Mr Ratzinger on paper but if there is anybody who thinks that all of their clergy are happy concelebrating with Roman Catholic clergy, that there is no objection to the Latin rather than distinctly eastern expressions of doctrine found among their catechisms, that none of them are vocal about their embarrassment at the insistence of clerical celibacy in the Latin church, or that they are not affronted in the extreme by suggestions that their clergy ought to be made to submit to the same strictures, or thinks that they gladly accept the so-called Immaculate Conception and papal infallibility, and who thinks that everything is sunshine, lollipops, and rainbows, then that person needs to get a reality check.
..............
take it from one who knows, it does sometimes feel like being part of a half-way staging post.
Look Sunshine, you've just described how the faithful of most denominations (and don't give me Mark Betts' implied suggestion that the Eastern churches aren't as schismatic and hence denominational as the rest of us who hobble toward John 17 v21) view their leaders. Roman and Eastern congregations perhaps suffer a greater disconnect than the Reformed, but that's just a consequence of the formers' ecclesiocrats having had more time to become corrupt.
The C of E (of which I am not a member) has going for it that it is open to the Spirit which didn't stop inhaling and exhaling in 1054, and whose members aren't in thrall to its bishops who aren't in turn in thrall to its primates. It will fudge, which is at once a C of E characteristic and a loveable if sometimes frustrating indicator of its desire to hold its factions together in the family.
May God bless it and its acted parable of blessing those who persecute it.
--------------------
Das ist gewisslich wahr!
Posts: 103 | From: -27.28985,152.838769 | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fidei Defensor:
...(and don't give me Mark Betts' implied suggestion that the Eastern churches aren't as schismatic and hence denominational as the rest of us who hobble toward John 17 v21)
The Eastern Orthodox Church isn't "denominational" at all - we don't even recognise that word.
The only major schism in Orthodoxy was with the Nestorians and the Non-Chalcedonians who rejected the First Council of Ephesus (431) and the Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon (451).
--------------------
"We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."
Posts: 2080 | From: Leicester | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
...Oh! Just one more thing...
Fidei Defensor claims that "The C of E has going for it that it is open to the Spirit which didn't stop inhaling and exhaling in 1054, and whose members aren't in thrall to its bishops who aren't in turn in thrall to its primates."
Open to the spirit yes - but which spirit? The spirit of non-conformism? ..of humanism? ..of nihilism? ..of liberalsim? ..of schism? ..of apostacy? ..of God?
--------------------
"We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."
Posts: 2080 | From: Leicester | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
It would help, of course, if we knew exactly what the two ammendments by the House of Bishops were. Here's a summary (courtesy of BBC news):
The crucial bit for Fifers will be that the bishops whop have delegated powers are in a male line of succession - it is typical of how the 'traditionalists' are misunderstood that the BBC has not picked up on this crucial point. The Church Times HAS.
--------------------
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
|
|
The Scrumpmeister
Ship’s Taverner
# 5638
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fidei Defensor:
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Astley:
The Eastern Catholics may be in communion with Mr Ratzinger on paper but if there is anybody who thinks that all of their clergy are happy concelebrating with Roman Catholic clergy, that there is no objection to the Latin rather than distinctly eastern expressions of doctrine found among their catechisms, that none of them are vocal about their embarrassment at the insistence of clerical celibacy in the Latin church, or that they are not affronted in the extreme by suggestions that their clergy ought to be made to submit to the same strictures, or thinks that they gladly accept the so-called Immaculate Conception and papal infallibility, and who thinks that everything is sunshine, lollipops, and rainbows, then that person needs to get a reality check.
..............
take it from one who knows, it does sometimes feel like being part of a half-way staging post.
Look Sunshine, you've just described how the faithful of most denominations (and don't give me Mark Betts' implied suggestion that the Eastern churches aren't as schismatic and hence denominational as the rest of us who hobble toward John 17 v21) view their leaders. Roman and Eastern congregations perhaps suffer a greater disconnect than the Reformed, but that's just a consequence of the formers' ecclesiocrats having had more time to become corrupt.
Sunshine, really? Were my words or my tone such that I came across as needing to be put in my place? If so, I hope you will accept my apology. I was merely seeking to point out the reality that pete173 description, while perhaps not entirely fair, was also not without grounding, including when applied to the other examples that k-mann posited to counter that description.
As for my understanding of whether such situations and feelings exist in the Orthodox Church, I should think that my final paragraph in the post of mine that you quoted said all that needed to be said.
--------------------
If Christ is not fully human, humankind is not fully saved. - St John of Saint-Denis
Posts: 14741 | From: Greater Manchester, UK | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
The Eastern Orthodox Church isn't "denominational" at all - we don't even recognise that word.
Tough. You don't get to control the English language. In English, "denomination" is the normal word used to describe a group of Christian churches that are connected with each other in some way, and in normal English the Orthodox are a denomination.
quote:
The only major schism in Orthodoxy was with the Nestorians and the Non-Chalcedonians who rejected the First Council of Ephesus (431) and the Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon (451).
Oh please. Read some Russian history. The Orthodox are as schismatic (and their hands are as bloody) as the rest of us.
And it is ingenuous to say that is a split in Orthodoxy as if the Catholics and Protestants are not also descended from the same Orthodox, Catholic, Chalcedonian churches. It would be just as true to say that the Egyptians split from the Catholics as it would be to say that they split from the Orthodox. And we are all equally the heirs of the Fathers of that council.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Trisagion
Shipmate
# 5235
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Astley:
...Mr Ratzinger...
Nice.
--------------------
ceterum autem censeo tabula delenda esse
Posts: 3923 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
iamchristianhearmeroar
Shipmate
# 15483
|
Posted
quote:
Open to the spirit yes - but which spirit? The spirit of non-conformism? ..of humanism? ..of nihilism? ..of liberalsim? ..of schism? ..of apostacy? ..of God?
The spirit of however you want to call it. Clearly...
--------------------
My blog: http://alastairnewman.wordpress.com/
Posts: 642 | From: London, UK | Registered: Feb 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Louise
Shipmate
# 30
|
Posted
hosting
Thread temporarily closed and brought to the attention of the admins.
Thanks,
Louise
Dead Horses Host
hosting off
--------------------
Now you need never click a Daily Mail link again! Kittenblock replaces Mail links with calming pics of tea and kittens! http://www.teaandkittens.co.uk/ Click under 'other stuff' to find it.
Posts: 6918 | From: Scotland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Louise
Shipmate
# 30
|
Posted
hosting
Thanks for your patience! Can people please cool it a bit in terms of sneers at other people's churches/ condescending terms of address? It's tending to derail discussion.
thanks!
Louise
Dead Horses Host
hosting off
[In fact given the state this has got into, I'm just going to close it altogether and resurrect the big main thread on women's ordination]
[ 27. May 2012, 17:31: Message edited by: Louise ]
--------------------
Now you need never click a Daily Mail link again! Kittenblock replaces Mail links with calming pics of tea and kittens! http://www.teaandkittens.co.uk/ Click under 'other stuff' to find it.
Posts: 6918 | From: Scotland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Thread closed
Printer-friendly view
