|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Will the Cof E become a less tolerant place?
|
Pyx_e
Quixotic Tilter
# 57
|
Posted
Mystic Rose, help me on this one please.
As far as I can tell no one is kicking you out.
As far as I can tell your need for male sacramental ministry is assured for the short to medium term (given the number of existing ordained men you are opposed to the ordination of women).
So if both these things are true please could you explain to me what I have to agree to that does not create a permanent denomination within a denomination. And if what you saying is you do want it written into the canons do you accept you are fighting a battle not for yourself but future generation of churchgoers who may (or may not) hold to your views?
In essence why should the C of E create permanent canonical arrangement with no indication of the need for (a permanent) one?
That is not to say I have no sympathy for your position (I do), I just do not wish for a solution carved in stone.
All the best, Pyx_e.
--------------------
It is better to be Kind than right.
Posts: 9778 | From: The Dark Tower | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Edward Green:
However for Enders to suggest that Porvoo defines Anglican theology is a bit like claiming that ARCIC statements define Anglican theology.
You can't define Anglican theology because there is no distinctive Anglican theology.
But Porvoo is a firm statement of Anglican ecclesiology, and rather a wonderful one. It makes good reading. Its the second best bit of formal ecumenism that the CofE has been involved in in centuries (the best one is the Church of South India).
One of the good things about it is that it never claims to establish intercommunion between the various churches that signed up to it. It just says that there has never been a formal break between them, and acknowledges that all the signatory churches are in fact part of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.
[ 12. May 2011, 13:59: Message edited by: ken ]
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Birdseye
I can see my house from here!
# 5280
|
Posted
It seems that the Roman Catholic Church has actually rushed forward to provide the solution for Traditionalist clergy with the same view on Apostolicity as them: something Paul Avis cheekily describes as 'a pipeline theory of Grace'
As someone else has already pointed out- the significance of physical, historical Apostolic succession is a very new innovation in the Church of England: physical rather than theological Apostolic Succession being trumpeted as the divine prerogative of the Church of England only when threatened with Reform by secular state authorities in the 1830s/40s... of course the fact that there was a break in the line during the Reformation led many such as JH Newman to go voluntarily to Rome (in 1845)(this is of course not to mention those breaks in the papal line early in its history -which is the Catholic Church's problem and not worth discussing here).
Anyhoo -whilst this new theology of Apostolicity was being developed in the Church of England, there was no question about gender as it was not an issue, the 'essentially male' character of bishops, and of sacredotal ministry building on that concept even more recently (1970s and 1980s) when it suddenly became an issue.
I am sure that anyone who has such a great respect for the hierarchy of the Institutional Church will find themselves able to set aside personal belief in favour of hierarchical obedience and still work within the structure -or if someone is actually more Protestant at heart than they might otherwise believe and more concerned with their own conscience and God than the hierarchy of the Church or visible church structures, then they should be able to continue to hold divers or dissenting views within the organisation, and can easily keep right with God by refusing to take part in a) recieving communion from females (always an option), b) being ordained by a woman... no-one can ordain you against your will can they -not sure that's happened much since the days of Ambrose and the Early Church Fathers.
You either get to treat your individual conscience as paramount -in which case what the Church gets wrong is not your fault.
Or you are High Church and will therefore be obedient to those set in authority over you -which may entail relinquishing certain beliefs.
But you can't pretend to hold a High Church ecclesiology and then attempt to change the institution which you purport to esteem...
OP said: "1. Men will no longer be able to offer themselves up to test their vocation."
Yes they will, and do... God is sovereign Lord over all, and if you are called to do something, then no human power will stop you from fulfilling that which God has ordained.
OP said "2. Many priest and people will be forced out of the church of their birth."
No-one is 'forced' out... it is always a question of choice... either you choose to hold a certain viewpoint or conviction, OR you choose to sacrifice a viewpoint or conviction and remain in a church which you no longer feel comfortable in. It depends on what you consider most important...and it may be very painful, but God is still Sovereign Lord so it shouldn't ruin your life. It is very interesting to note that a 'female' has no opportunity to divest herself of that defining 'factor' of feminity... since it is not an opinion nor a conviction, but a God-given fact.
OP said "Priests will be denied pulpits to preach the faith,"
b*ll*cks to that... and what's more, outrageously rude ones... I don't think that sentence says what you mean it to say, because I think you must mean 'certain theological opinions will no longer be widely accepted from the pulpit'... well even that's not true -the vast range of opinions will go on -and as ever some people will preach from the Gospel as the Spirit leads, and others will preach politically with ulterior motives... that goes for every 'faction'.
"denied altars to offer the sacrifice of the mass,"
The Eucharist, the sacrifice of thanksgiving will never cease as the book of Revelation makes pretty clear.
And as to Christological self-sacrifice -that too will go on as Christians are persecuted as long as this world endures.
OP said "denied their homes and livelihood,"
Well Christ did say that the Son of Man had nowhere to lay his head -but I doubt in practice we'll see a massive increase in homeless, starving priests, I know we're in a financial crisis but the welfare state is still far better than in the days of mendicant friars.
OP said, "removed from the communities and the people they love and serve."
That happens a lot regardless of beliefs -priests of all sorts of denominations are often forced to leave those they love (especially in the RC and Methodism spring to mind, where people generally have to obediently go where they are sent) -but 'no man is an islande' and thankfully priests remain priests and human beings remain communities -and I'm sure faithful priests will be a blessing and become beloved wherever the move to, though change is always uncomfortable.
OP said: "3. Or they will remain and work contrary to their conscience needing to answer for that on the day of judgement."
Well they will do well then, because if they remain for love of their flock, then their love will be what counts... since God is love and the free gift of righteousness through grace cannot be
earned... I'm sure none of them would be confused enough as to think they were able to save themselves through orthopraxy or orthodoxy... since God alone saves. Whoever lives in love, lives in god though -so if they stay because of love then they will be fine.
OP said: "4. Or they will remain and work in loyal rebellion,"
hang on -is it me or are those two words slightly oxymoronic? Rebellion against the world and loyalty to God -excellent. Of course it would be fuelled as all Christian activity is, by LOVE of God and neighbour and not self-righteousness.
OP said: "asking bishops from other provinces to give them sacramental assurance"
Christ has given them 'sacramental assurance' -one perfect and sufficient sacrifice once given for the remission of sins... I'm sure no-one would ask for more assurance than Christ gives would they? Or do they doubt God's faithfulness, Or do they think righteousness belongs to anyone but the Lord?
OP said: "/headship need."
Mixing your theologies here -this is an evangelical argument -take it to Hilda of Whitby... CHRIST is the head of the body, the Church... don't be putting other folks in his place coz that'd be idolatry.
OP said: "None of these options glorifies God or his Church."
Nope -it's not an attractive or glorious argument, it's true -but then Glory still belongs to the the Lord and no-one else, and no-one can take it away... which is a relief.
OP said: "A better way must be found."
Love is the better way. It's painful, costly and unappealing, particularly to people who would rather be 'right'
"A way in which as loyal Anglicans we can remain, and which, with our brothers and sisters in Christ who take a different view, mutually get out of the battlefield and work as much as possible together in the mission field."
>>Yes -I wholeheartedly agree -unfortunately I also have a feeling God allows us to truly feel different absolute certainties about different things in order to make the 'wisdom of the wise' appear foolish and to ensure the spires of the Church don't start to ressemble the Tower of Babel, it certainly gets people passionate about religion all this disagreement -a good antidote to complacency, however painful it is to work through.
--------------------
Life is what happens whilst you're busy making other plans.
a birdseye view
Posts: 1615 | From: West Yorkshire | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Birdseye
I can see my house from here!
# 5280
|
Posted
NB: 'Whoever lives in love lives in God...' (the shift key slipped and God got a small G... no offence Lord.)
--------------------
Life is what happens whilst you're busy making other plans.
a birdseye view
Posts: 1615 | From: West Yorkshire | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
Birdseye writes:
quote:
the significance of physical, historical Apostolic succession is a very new innovation in the Church of England: physical rather than theological Apostolic Succession being trumpeted as the divine prerogative of the Church of England only when threatened with Reform by secular state authorities in the 1830s/40s... of course the fact that there was a break in the line during the Reformation led many such as JH Newman to go voluntarily to Rome (in 1845)(this is of course not to mention those breaks in the papal line early in its history -which is the Catholic Church's problem and not worth discussing here).
Not so, Birdseye. The archbishops and bishops at the time of both Edward VI and Elizabeth I took great care to ensure that the physical succession was maintained, although in 1559 and 1560, it was not easily done. The CoE's consistent Elizabethan and Jacobean insistence on episcopal ordination of continental immigrant clerics made it clear that this was not a simple political gesture, but a critical aspect of the church's practice and identity. It is true that explanations directed toward puritan clerics had a whiff of ambiguity about theme (the old esse vs bene esse discourse), but the concern was not an issue which arose in the 1800s in response to the union of Irish bishoprics or the re-ordering of English diocesan and capitular untidiness.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
GreyFace
Shipmate
# 4682
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Birdseye:
the significance of physical, historical Apostolic succession is a very new innovation in the Church of England:
quote:
the fact that there was a break in the line during the Reformation
quote:
not to mention those breaks in the papal line early in its history
Evidence for any of the above, please?
Posts: 5748 | From: North East England | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Birdseye
I can see my house from here!
# 5280
|
Posted
On the one hand 'touche'... I was absolutely not disparaging the physical significance of the ordination process and the laying on of hands -though personally I consider the manifold links of the Eucharist to be even more unifying than the episcopal line.
But it rose to new heights of significance only recently in response not just to Erastianism but also to dissenting churches... what I'm saying is that like a lot of recent theology it develops firstly out of practical, defensive circumstances.
[ 12. May 2011, 16:03: Message edited by: Birdseye ]
--------------------
Life is what happens whilst you're busy making other plans.
a birdseye view
Posts: 1615 | From: West Yorkshire | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Birdseye
I can see my house from here!
# 5280
|
Posted
quote:
quote:Originally posted by Birdseye:
the significance of physical, historical Apostolic succession is a very new innovation in the Church of England:
quote:the fact that there was a break in the line during the Reformation
quote:not to mention those breaks in the papal line early in its history
First bit: I recommend reading 'Tracts for our Times' for an actual taste of the innovation -though you may find yourself convinced, even though ultimately many of the writers were not. For the history, a short but decent bibliography:
McGrath, A., The Renewal of Anglicanism, (London: SPCK, 1993), Avis, P., Anglicanism and the Christian Church, Theological Resources in Historical Perspective, (London: T & T Clark, 2002), Nockles, P.B., The Oxford Movement in Context, (Cambridge: University Press, 1994)and for a sympathetic writer who nonetheless fails to provide much of a counterpoint: Podmore, C., Aspects of Anglican Identity, (London: Church House Publishing, 2005)... for more, you can PM me.
For the papacy bit- just read patristics up to the council of Nicea and gradually the total nonexistence of a papacy will become apparent, and you'll wonder why you asked... not that it negates the value of the Catholic church in any way -just scuppers the idea of a human-controlled Church.
--------------------
Life is what happens whilst you're busy making other plans.
a birdseye view
Posts: 1615 | From: West Yorkshire | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
quote:
what I'm saying is that like a lot of recent theology it develops firstly out of practical, defensive circumstances.
Not just recent theology surely? Most of the clauses in the Nicene creed came about that way, as a way of safeguarding something.
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Edward Green
Review Editor
# 46
|
Posted
To understand the Caroline's view of Apostolic Succession you need only read their bible:
"For it is written in the book of Psalms, Let his habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein: and his bishoprick let another take." Acts 1:20 KJV
They did not deny the possibility of God's sacramental action outside that succession, but certainly used some spicy language:
"Adoration is permitted, and the use of the terms "sacrifice" and "altar" maintained as being consonant with scripture and antiquity. Christ is "a sacrifice—so, to be slain; a propitiatory sacrifice—so, to be eaten." (L. Andrewes: Sermons, vol. ii. p. 296)."
In a sense 'We know what we do, we are open minded on what you do'. This is clearly not the position of all Apostolic communions.
--------------------
blog//twitter//
linkedin
Posts: 4893 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
Birdseye-- not to pick the bones of gnats with you, but when you were challenged on: quote:
not to mention those breaks in the papal line early in its history
, a passing reference to the non-existence then of the papacy as we know it now (which I would agree with and there are even RCs who would do so as well), does not substantiate a claim of breaks in the Roman line. Given the overall patristic reverence for the conservatism and continuity of the Bishops of Rome in the pre-Nicene period, I would need some very serious chaptering and versing before I could agree with you on claim of breaks.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
CL
Shipmate
# 16145
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
The Deanof Québec had nothing to do with the Norwegian church. I fear that I can't quite remember the situation, whether he was Latvian or Estonian. However, the two churches had maintained the same succession but one was in Porvoo and the other wasn't, so he was received as a layman and ordained both deacon and priest. His orders were likely more solid in the sense of historic succession as Anglicans understand it than those of the clergy being licensed through our own concordat with the local Lutherans.
As far as the Anglo-German bishopric is concerned, I gather that it has not been in operation for a century and a half and can not be said to be a current issue. My Ordinariate-bound interlocutor believes Porvoo to be a greater issue than OWP but neither have a lot to do with his decision, which is over the general issue of authority.
Oh the Anglo-German Bishopric has been defunct for well over a century but the point I was making is that if communion with Lutherans under Porvoo was a deal breaker, so to speak, why not the far earlier communion agreement with the Prussian Union which included not merely Lutherans but Calvinists too. The basis for the logic that Porvoo ended catholicism or the hope of catholicism in Anglicanism surely must also apply to the earlier agreement. Indeed Newman thought so.
--------------------
"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
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
My contact might well have agreed with Bl. John Henry Newman on this, but he was born about 150 years after the event. I wasn't alive at the time, either.
Another POV wd suggest that the question of a break in apostolic (by tactile episcopal succession) orders was not problematic, as Michael Solomon Alexander was baptized into the CoE and Samuel Gobat was a CMS missionary.
I think we could discuss that there is a theological problem on account of the approval of a Prussian communion service by the Archbishop of Canterbury and that this might raise the question of intention, a point much loved by RC apologists and discutants.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Triple Tiara
Ship's Papabile
# 9556
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
this might raise the question of intention, a point much loved by RC apologists and discutants.
![[Axe murder]](graemlins/lovedrops.gif)
![[Snigger]](graemlins/snigger.gif)
--------------------
I'm a Roman. You may call me Caligula.
Posts: 5905 | From: London, England | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eleanor Jane
Shipmate
# 13102
|
Posted
This thread is making me roll my eyes and scratch my head.
I find it utterly bizarre that there is considered to be a difference between ordaining woman as priests and as bishops. SURELY if you're ordained as a priest that means you have also been accepted as someone who could possibly one day be a bishop? If you're anti- ordination of woman, then what's the difference between priest and bishop? Wouldn't you think both were wrong? (I write as an Anglican from NZ where we have female priests and bishops)
Also, I highly recommend this blog about love vs 'being right'.The 'heresy' of failing to love It was part of Rachel Held Even's online 'Rally for Unity' which I've really enjoyed over the last little while. Rachel Held Evans
Cheers,
EJ
Posts: 556 | From: Now in the UK! | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ender's Shadow
Shipmate
# 2272
|
Posted
Thank you EJ for pointing us to such a clear demonstration that a heresy is an overfocus on one element of the bible to the exclusion of clear indications pointing in the opposite direction. It's obvious that Jezebel of Thyatira would have lapped up those comments. Whilst I John makes it clear that there are anti-Christs present in the church; of it is recorded:
quote:
John, the disciple of the Lord, going to bathe at Ephesus, and perceiving Cerinthus [a leader of the Gnostics] within, rushed out of the bath-house without bathing, exclaiming, "Let us fly, lest even the bath-house fall down, because Cerinthus, the enemy of the truth, is within."
Irenaeus, Against Heresies, III.3.4.
But of course the modern church knows more about how to show real love than those who were actually with Jesus...
--------------------
Test everything. Hold on to the good.
Please don't refer to me as 'Ender' - the whole point of Ender's Shadow is that he isn't Ender.
Posts: 5018 | From: Manchester, England | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
bib
Shipmate
# 13074
|
Posted
I'm afraid that if my priest threatened to leave the church because he found women an anathema, I would open the door for him to leave as soon as possible.God ceated men and women in his own image and both are equal in the Lord's sight. Are some now saying that God is wrong?
--------------------
"My Lord, my Life, my Way, my End, accept the praise I bring"
Posts: 1307 | From: Australia | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eleanor Jane:
I find it utterly bizarre that there is considered to be a difference between ordaining woman as priests and as bishops.
There isn't.
What's going on is that the small minority of the CofE who are opposed to ordaining women at all have been saying that they can only stay in the CofE if they don't have to have women priests in their church. And the rest of us have been bending over backwards to accomodate them. Up to and including not having any women bishops. This has been the case for nearly twenty years.
But now it looks like most of us do want women bishops. So some of the minority are saying they will leave unless we do all sorts of new things they say they would need need to stay. The trouble is that some of those new things are actually impossible for us to do without involving Parliament - one of the bad things about being the established church - so they just aren't going to happen. And some of those who object to women priests say that that is the rest of us being cruel and unusual and forcing them out of the CofE.
Which the rest of us mostly think is nonsense. And it has caused a split in the pro-women majority - which is the real split here, not one between pro-and anti-women - that's an Anglican equivalent of a dead horse, they made their position clear back in the 1990s and they have pretty much withdrawn from direct engagement with the rest of the CofE (we are genuinely much more likely to have joint services or other contact with our local Roman Catholic parishes than with the anti-women Anglican ones)
Very broadly, there are three different lines being taken by the majority:
Some of the pro-women majority - mostly but not entirely the ones coming from either a charismatic evangelical or an anglo-catholic background - say "oh well, in that case lets not have women bishops yet" I suspect that this group might include both archbishops, which would be sad. They have said things that sound like it.
Others - including the Bishop of Willesden who posts here - are trying to look for an extension of the current arrangements, or new ones that are broadly similar, that might be acceptable to the hardline antis, but that does not involve legislation. This is the line I would support, because it forces no-one out (or at least doesn't allow them to pretend to have been forced out oif they leave anyway). And it also means we can keep the government of the Church where it belongs, in church rather than in Government. And we can move forward to women bishops.
Another part of the majority are basically saying "Fuck this for a game of soldiers, repeal the Act of Synod, and just ordain women on exactly the same basis as men. If they don't like it they know what they can do." This has obvious attractions in that its decisive and can't be accused of sexism.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
The other reason for trying to provide alternatives for people who really cannot accept the ordination of women and want to remain in the Church of England that has changed around them is that they grew up and in the Church when women couldn't be ordained, and it wasn't acceptable, but it is still their church. And if we make it impossible for them to remain, then we really are driving them out.
I really don't have a problem with providing alternatives for priests and others in that situation, and there are still some in that position, and I really do think we need to be generous to them. I do have a problem with continuing provision for those who have come into the church since women's ordination was accepted and have wanted to change that decision back.
There's a difference between providing for those who have had the situation change around them, and provision for those who are trying to change the Church of England's stance on women priests.
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
Thank you EJ for pointing us to such a clear demonstration that a heresy is an overfocus on one element of the bible to the exclusion of clear indications pointing in the opposite direction.
And thank you, Ender's Shadow, for a very clear argument demonstrating that the male-only priesthood is itself a heresy!
![[Biased]](wink.gif)
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Edward Green
Review Editor
# 46
|
Posted
@Ken
In my context I suspect there are more folks from a 'ultimate headship'* evangelical tradition than from a sacramental 'apostolicity is male' sacramental tradition. Indeed I suspect the latter group is null. When we welcome our first female bishop I want her 'bishopyness' (whatever we understand that to be) to be accepted fully by all.
As I have said before the strangeness of the current situation is that those who are 'out' in not accepting female apostolic ministry from a sacramental perspective are getting it in the neck whereas those who do so from a more evangelical perspective are hiding away and will probably just ignore their female bishop when they get one.
What really makes me angry is the constant conversations with Charismatic colleagues who find that they can't get on in that section of the church because of their gender and lack of correct form of marital ministry partner.
*Fine with women in ministry as long as they work with husbands are are under male authority.
Posts: 4893 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
The posts on this thread show why pyx_e puts the question. As discussed on dead horse threads, it is clear to me that, with the Act of Synod, both factions indulged in crossing their fingers. The pro-OWP pretended that it was a done deal; those against pretended that it really wasn't happening and kept living on their reservation. The official line was both integrities were respected and there was no expiry date-- maybe there should have been a date where ordinands would be expected to accept the change, but there wasn't, and a generation of young clerics went under the oils in good faith.
Without these lies/mental reservations/subtexts, there would have been no Act of Synod and OWP in the CoE would have taken years longer and the splits would have been larger and messier.
With women bishops, the respective sets of fibbing is impossible to maintain. On the anti side, they are losing their statutory protection and they do not trust that a Code of Practice will respect their position-- I happen to think that they are right, basing my position on the Canadian House of Bishops' unilateral revocation of the conscience clause in 1982. On the pro side, the discourse of two integrities is so very passé.
Like it or lump it, promises were made to get the deal done, and the minority's sense of grievance at the promises disappearing is not unjustified. At the same time, the majority's perplexity that the minority did not get on the train is also understandable.
I would pose the question that, if the minority felt comfortable and secure, what traction would there be with B16's offer of the Ordinariate. And if they don't feel comfortable and secure, we need to ask why not.
[ 13. May 2011, 23:30: Message edited by: Augustine the Aleut ]
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
As an outsider looking in, I can understand why those who are worried about sacramental lineage would be concerned. But I don't see why they can't get hold of an ordination "family tree" so that they can have confidence in a particular vicar.
I do think ordaining people who fundamentally disagree with the will of the church / holy spirit as expressed by the synod is rather dumb.
I suppose I understand the official position of the CofE toward those anti-OOW to be, we think you are wrong but respect your spiritual/personal integrity and will try to make provision for you. Rather than both the pro-OOW and anti-OOW views are at one and the same time right.
--------------------
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
|
|
Robert Armin
All licens'd fool
# 182
|
Posted
What I am about to post may sound harsh, but I will try very hard not to be, as it is a genuine question rather than an attempt at point scoring. It is now twenty or more years since the CoE ordained women as priests. If this is such an important issue for some people, why have they still been ordained in the CoE during those twenty years? Those who were already ordained when the decision was taken clealry need to be protected and compensated (if neccessary). The organisation they had joined changed around them; they had not. But since the decision was taken anyone signing up knew what they were joining. If this issue (or any other for that matter) is SO IMPORTANT why commit yourself to an organisation that goes against your deep convictions?
--------------------
Keeping fit was an obsession with Fr Moity .... He did chin ups in the vestry, calisthenics in the pulpit, and had developed a series of Tai-Chi exercises to correspond with ritual movements of the Mass. The Antipope Robert Rankin
Posts: 8927 | From: In the pack | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chamois
Shipmate
# 16204
|
Posted
We've got to discuss all this (for the umpteenth time) at Deanery Synod on the 25th.
I'm really starting to hope the Rapture will happen as predicted on the 21st. Any synod members who get left behind would definitely have an easier evening.
--------------------
The steadfast love of the Lord never ceases
Posts: 978 | From: Hill of roses | Registered: Feb 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Trudy Scrumptious
BBE Shieldmaiden
# 5647
|
Posted
The fact that this topic is a Dead Horse has already been mentioned on the thread and it was probably sheer inattention on the part of the Hosts (on my part, anyway) that allowed it to remain in Purgatory this long. Go, carry on this discussion where it rightfully belongs.
Trudy, Scrumptious Purgatory Host
--------------------
Books and things.
I lied. There are no things. Just books.
Posts: 7428 | From: Closer to Paris than I am to Vancouver | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
FreeJack
Shipmate
# 10612
|
Posted
Traditionalists seem to be happy with the two new flying bishops in the Province of Canterbury. Jonathan Baker is relatively young for a PEV.
Ebbsfleet
and the Vicar of Walsingham is symbolic if nothing else.
Richborough
Posts: 3588 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
What I am about to post may sound harsh, but I will try very hard not to be, as it is a genuine question rather than an attempt at point scoring. It is now twenty or more years since the CoE ordained women as priests. If this is such an important issue for some people, why have they still been ordained in the CoE during those twenty years? Those who were already ordained when the decision was taken clealry need to be protected and compensated (if neccessary). The organisation they had joined changed around them; they had not. But since the decision was taken anyone signing up knew what they were joining. If this issue (or any other for that matter) is SO IMPORTANT why commit yourself to an organisation that goes against your deep convictions?
Very simply, they had been told (several archbishops and bishops involved at a series of general synods and lots of material there for web archaeologists) that the question was under reception and it had yet to be determined if this innovation be final. While any fool could have told them otherwise, these ordinands chose to believe the bishops and official statements. If there be fault, I do not know if I would start with blaming those who chose rose-coloured glasses or those who were handing them out.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
CL
Shipmate
# 16145
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by FreeJack:
Traditionalists seem to be happy with the two new flying bishops in the Province of Canterbury. Jonathan Baker is relatively young for a PEV.
Ebbsfleet
and the Vicar of Walsingham is symbolic if nothing else.
Richborough
Baker is a Freemason. For many CoE traditionalists that simply adds insult to injury.
--------------------
"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
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
Baker has resigned from the masons.
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
CL
Shipmate
# 16145
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Baker has resigned from the masons.
And very reluctantly too.
Posts: 647 | From: Ireland | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
FreeJack
Shipmate
# 10612
|
Posted
So he still believes all that stuff with the trouser legs and handshakes, but had to resign because the Archbishop wouldn't consecrate him otherwise? Oh great!
Posts: 3588 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
The Virginia Theological Seminary has an interesting take on advertising women bishops.
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Man with a Stick
Shipmate
# 12664
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Think˛:
As an outsider looking in, I can understand why those who are worried about sacramental lineage would be concerned. But I don't see why they can't get hold of an ordination "family tree" so that they can have confidence in a particular vicar.
If congregations had the right to choose their Vicar, this might be right. As a rule, they do not (well the Parish Reps have a veto in certain circumstances).
The proposed legislation makes it clear that parishes may ask for a male vicar, but not a "male ordained by a male, ordained by a male..." vicar. For a parish to discriminate on that basis would be unlawful.
And the diocesan bishop would only have to have regard to this request, whatever that means.
Posts: 335 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
GreyFace
Shipmate
# 4682
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Man with a Stick:
If congregations had the right to choose their Vicar, this might be right. As a rule, they do not (well the Parish Reps have a veto in certain circumstances).
And of course, although rural congregations aren't in the same boat I'd guess most of us can vote with our feet if we have to. Parish boundaries ain't what they used to be.
Posts: 5748 | From: North East England | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
Surely another factor is the increasing amalgamation of parishes, where a church in a group or a team can be prevented from appointing the priest of their choice because one of the other churches has passed one or other of the Resolutions. This must be causing great difficulties in some areas, and suggests that the system is due for review, women bishops or not.
--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
Except that parishes that won't have women aren't amalgamated with ones that will. Or round here, at all. When we were gently persuaded into a reluctant union a few years ago the local men-only parishes simply weren't part of the discussions.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
Yes, but that's just another of the difficulties. Especially in rural areas I would imagine.
--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
JoannaP
Shipmate
# 4493
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Except that parishes that won't have women aren't amalgamated with ones that will. Or round here, at all. When we were gently persuaded into a reluctant union a few years ago the local men-only parishes simply weren't part of the discussions.
The church I attend is part of a team ministry covering 5 churches (and another closed). One church has resolutions A & B but a woman is being ordained NSM curate to the team. Obviously with a full-time team vicar it will be trickier - but two clergy will leave and not be replaced before we go through that hurdle.
--------------------
"Freedom for the pike is death for the minnow." R. H. Tawney (quoted by Isaiah Berlin)
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." Benjamin Franklin
Posts: 1877 | From: England | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Thread closed
Printer-friendly view
