|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Columba Declaration: C of E and C of S move closer together
|
Joesaphat
Shipmate
# 18493
|
Posted
So what exactly keeps us (CofE) and the Methodists apart, should we and the Kirk sign up to the commitment to 'enable ordained ministers from one of our churches to exercise ministry in the other church, in accordance with the discipline of each church?'
--------------------
Opening my mouth and removing all doubt, online.
Posts: 418 | From: London | Registered: Oct 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
seasick
...over the edge
# 48
|
Posted
Therein lies the rub, because the phrase "according to the discipline of each church" is the get out clause. As a Methodist minister, there are various ministries I can exercise in the CofE, assuming I am invited to do so, for example preaching (as I will be doing in a few weeks' time). However, because I am not (as the CofE understands it) episcopally ordained, I couldn't normally preside at the Eucharist in a CofE church and were I ever to become part of the CoFE my ordination would not be transferable. Resolving the interchangeability question is where the Anglican Methodist Covenant has got stuck. In theory, the CofE and the Methodist Church have now committed ourselves to resolving it but I don't see how it can happen really, short of one side or other giving up a great deal.
--------------------
We believe there is, and always was, in every Christian Church, ... an outward priesthood, ordained by Jesus Christ, and an outward sacrifice offered therein. - John Wesley
Posts: 5769 | From: A world of my own | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Joesaphat
Shipmate
# 18493
|
Posted
I get that, so nothing's changed, really. Presbyterian ministers etc are not really allowed or invited to do more than they already are able to do.
--------------------
Opening my mouth and removing all doubt, online.
Posts: 418 | From: London | Registered: Oct 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
Forthview
Shipmate
# 12376
|
Posted
I am always impressed when I go to a Presbyterian Communion service and I see the minister and her elders around the Holy Table.The elders then distribute Communion to the parishioners( or at least that is how I have seen it done).
It reminds me of the occasions when I see our teaching elder (the bishop) surrounded by his presbyters who will then bring Communion to the faithful.
It makes me think that,at that moment when we cannot actually share Communion,we are indeed acting in the same fashion.
Of course the Presbyterian minister is not only the 'teaching elder' but also responsible for Word and Sacrament.That is also the role of the bishop who is the chief pastor of the faithful committed to his charge as well as the initiator of all the sacraments administered in his diocese.
The presbyters are his delegates and administer the sacraments in his name.
Sorry about not saying 'his' or 'her' when referring to Presbyterians.I thought it was a given.
One of my favourite Christmas services is the one that I go to in the German Lutheran church here.
This year there is a new ministerial couple (one man and one woman) who share the pastoral work covering Edinburgh,Glasgow,Aberdeen,Newcastle and Middlesbrough. The Pastorin (female minister) took the service in Edinburgh with her young son clambering around the altar with his toy car.
I wondered what that might be like in a Catholic church some day.I can only remember the big cat which used to participate regularly in the services in St Patrick's church in the Cowgate wandering around the sanctuary.
Posts: 3444 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
I am always impressed when I go to a Presbyterian Communion service and I see the minister and her elders around the Holy Table.The elders then distribute Communion to the parishioners
Also the "usual" way among Baptists, United Reformed Church and - I guess - Congregationalists.
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jack the Lass
Ship's airhead
# 3415
|
Posted
Bishop David Chillingworth, the Primus of the Scottish Episcopal Church, has blogged this morning about the Columba Declaration (with another blog to follow by the looks of things): blog post.
Interestingly, the day that the declaration was announced, someone from the CoS who was involved in it was interviewed on Radio Scotland and was asked about the whole independence/strengthening the UK in the aftermath of the referendum angle, and denied it was anything to do with that at all. However, I think that Bishop David is onto something here with his observations, regardless of what eventually happens constitutionally in Scotland.
--------------------
"My body is a temple - it's big and doesn't move." (Jo Brand)
wiblog blipfoto blog
Posts: 5767 | From: the land of the deep-fried Mars Bar | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Interesting observations.
Even as a non-Scot, I've been wondering why the CofE seems to think it has some 'stake' in what Scottish churches do.
I'm trying to think of a Welsh or Northern Irish equivalent.
It'd be like the CofE coming to some kind of agreement with Welsh Independents, say, without consulting the Church in Wales, or with one or other of the Presbyterian churches in Northern Ireland without involving the Church of Ireland.
Such moves strike me as 'unthinkable' - so why do they think they have such a right in Scotland?
It doesn't make any sense.
I must own up to feeling a tad defensive whenever I hear US Episcopalians, for instance, expressing disapproval of the dear old CofE ... but if she acts like this with them as well as a fellow Anglican church north of the border, it does make me wonder what the heck is going on and who the hell they think they are?
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
Is it just me who is confused?
In the past 18 months the CofE has begun a process of bishops depriving ordained clergy and licensed lay readers of office if they are in a SSM. This decision is a top-down one and any change to it has to also come from top-down procedures.
Meanwhile the CofS has decided that presbyteries are adult enough to make up their own mind and so left them to it.
Furthermore, the way of arriving at these decisions is fundamentally different but can be crudely summarised as follows:- The CofE commissioned a report which one of the commission then rejected. So the CofE has now broadly gone along with the objections of one bishop in its decision to deprive clergy and readers of the opportunity to minister because they have decided to back-down in the face of blackmail from one small wing of the church.
- The CofS, having received a report from a commission that was guaranteed to alienate the vast majority of the unchurched, and plenty within the church, decided to give congregations the authority to decide on whether or not to accept ministers insame-sex relationships (marriage or other). In other words, the middle-of-the-road decided to face-down the more extreme fundamentalists.
And we're told that now is the ideal time for the two churches to get closer?
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bibaculus
Shipmate
# 18528
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Is it just me who is confused?
In the past 18 months the CofE has begun a process of bishops depriving ordained clergy and licensed lay readers of office if they are in a SSM. This decision is a top-down one and any change to it has to also come from top-down procedures.
Meanwhile the CofS has decided that presbyteries are adult enough to make up their own mind and so left them to it.
Furthermore, the way of arriving at these decisions is fundamentally different but can be crudely summarised as follows:- The CofE commissioned a report which one of the commission then rejected. So the CofE has now broadly gone along with the objections of one bishop in its decision to deprive clergy and readers of the opportunity to minister because they have decided to back-down in the face of blackmail from one small wing of the church.
- The CofS, having received a report from a commission that was guaranteed to alienate the vast majority of the unchurched, and plenty within the church, decided to give congregations the authority to decide on whether or not to accept ministers insame-sex relationships (marriage or other). In other words, the middle-of-the-road decided to face-down the more extreme fundamentalists.
And we're told that now is the ideal time for the two churches to get closer?
Hmmm. I am possibly walking into a storm here.
Firstly, the question of how gay people are treated by the Church is not an unimportant one to me. Nor is the way authority is exercised in the Church unimportant.
But. Really? As far as I am aware, both Church of England and Church of Scotland have far more in common than separates them. Like faith in Jesus Christ, and a common desire to make Him known to a world which is largely indifferent to Him.
--------------------
A jumped up pantry boy who never knew his place
Posts: 257 | From: In bed. Mostly. When I can get away with it. | Registered: Dec 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
I would have thought that the crucial problems in any association between the two denominations would be over Episcopacy and their respective national statuses (i.e. Establishment), not SSM.
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jack the Lass
Ship's airhead
# 3415
|
Posted
Here's Bishop David Chillingworth's second blog post about the Declaration: blog post 2.
The whole thing just seems monumentally poorly thought-out and executed.
--------------------
"My body is a temple - it's big and doesn't move." (Jo Brand)
wiblog blipfoto blog
Posts: 5767 | From: the land of the deep-fried Mars Bar | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
And plain bad manners on the part of the C of E.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bibaculus
Shipmate
# 18528
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jack the Lass:
The whole thing just seems monumentally poorly thought-out and executed.
That does, sadly, seem to just about sum all this up. I wonder if, as has been suggested earlier, it is a pet project of the Bishop of Chester, driven forward without thought for the wider ramifications?
--------------------
A jumped up pantry boy who never knew his place
Posts: 257 | From: In bed. Mostly. When I can get away with it. | Registered: Dec 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jack the Lass
Ship's airhead
# 3415
|
Posted
My charitable hope is that somewhere in the CofE there is someone who was involved in this now saying "Shit, we forgot the SEC! How did we forget the SEC?!" Rather than that it was a deliberate thing. I've no idea though whether I am being naive to assume that it was incompetence/ineptitude rather than something more deliberately exclusionary.
Incidentally, other than official/semi-official sources such as Bishop David's blog, and friends and acquaintances in the SEC, I am seeing pretty much nothing about the Declaration online from either CoS or CoE sources (although admittedly I'm not very well up on where/whether CoS discussions about this sort of thing take place online). There is though ongoing discussion on Thinking Anglicans.
--------------------
"My body is a temple - it's big and doesn't move." (Jo Brand)
wiblog blipfoto blog
Posts: 5767 | From: the land of the deep-fried Mars Bar | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bibaculus
Shipmate
# 18528
|
Posted
Jack the Lass - this does have the whiff of cock up, rather than conspiracy, about it. My guess is that in their enthusiasm for a fellow National Church the CofE people involved simply forgot about the SEC.
Sadly the SEC has had rather a history of being forgotten
--------------------
A jumped up pantry boy who never knew his place
Posts: 257 | From: In bed. Mostly. When I can get away with it. | Registered: Dec 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
Well, not entirely forgotten, they just forgot what the SEC was called and forgot to actually speak to anyone in it.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Cock-up or not - it's still a shameful thing for them to have done.
Shame on you, CofE! Shame! Shame!
![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif)
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bibaculus:
Jack the Lass - this does have the whiff of cock up, rather than conspiracy, about it. My guess is that in their enthusiasm for a fellow National Church the CofE people involved simply forgot about the SEC.
Sadly the SEC has had rather a history of being forgotten
Why do you think there are ongoing conversations between the URC and SEC. We are not talking about merger but how you deal with being overlooked.
Jengie
--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge
Back to my blog
Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Forthview
Shipmate
# 12376
|
Posted
Glad you mentioned that, JJ. I don't think anyone has mentioned a sort of equivalent of SEC in England- in the sense of being a sort of English equivalent of the Church of Scotland in England.
That is, if we see the SEC as a sort of equivalent of the CofE in Scotland.
Posts: 3444 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sober Preacher's Kid
Presbymethegationalist
# 12699
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie jon:
quote:
Originally posted by Bibaculus:
Jack the Lass - this does have the whiff of cock up, rather than conspiracy, about it. My guess is that in their enthusiasm for a fellow National Church the CofE people involved simply forgot about the SEC.
Sadly the SEC has had rather a history of being forgotten
Why do you think there are ongoing conversations between the URC and SEC. We are not talking about merger but how you deal with being overlooked.
Jengie
Not so much Ecumenical discussion as Group Therapy, isn't it?
--------------------
NDP Federal Convention Ottawa 2018: A random assortment of Prots and Trots.
Posts: 7646 | From: Peterborough, Upper Canada | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
Precisely. Or how does a dissident form cope with a dominant form so close at hand.
There is a substantial part of Christians in the UK who will go with the national church rather than with a particular tradition, not just the Queen.
Jengie
[ 31. December 2015, 07:54: Message edited by: Jengie jon ]
--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge
Back to my blog
Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
For those with more Ecumenical agreement then this declaration may be of more interest.
Jengie
--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge
Back to my blog
Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
Any chance of a better-than-google translation of the gist, Eutychus?
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
Not really.
The page Jengie links to explains that the recently-merged église réformée (presbyterian) and Lutheran churches are to adopt a joint declaration of faith, which in true église réformée style is to be discussed at every level starting from the grassroots up. The draft declaration is to be found here.
The union of those two churches to create the Eglise Protestante Unie de France (EPUdF) was a lengthy process but not especially controversial.
(It is currently paling into insignificance compared to the seismic consequences of the EPUdF having consented to bless same-sex marriages, a resolution passed in their general synod that has led, unexpectedly, to a "Reform" style movement emerging within the EPUdF and which is seriously threatening the broader Protestant Federation to which it belongs. It's all very depressing).
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sober Preacher's Kid
Presbymethegationalist
# 12699
|
Posted
Eh? By way of counterpoint, the United Church of Canada, under the guise of L'Eglise Unie du Canada covers Quebec in the small world that is French Protestantism. Even by liberal United Church standards, Consistoire Laurentiene is very liberal and very Affirming.
--------------------
NDP Federal Convention Ottawa 2018: A random assortment of Prots and Trots.
Posts: 7646 | From: Peterborough, Upper Canada | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
This is getting to be rather a tangent, but here's some info:
Broadly and historically, the EPUdF is liberal and affirming (or at least that's the evangelical perspective on it), but the SSM-blessing vote has galvanised the more conservative opponents within its ranks, whose numbers are quite possibly on the rise as the 1968 generation retires (and perhaps swelled by the arrival of the Lutherans).
The same issue is also being seized on by evangelicals within the French Protestant Federation, which the EPUdF dominates, as a "last straw" to quit in favour of the much more recent, conservative and evangelical National Council of Evangelicals in France (CNEF). While some may be pushing this way on grounds of conscience, my perspective is that there's a lot of political opportunism afoot, and that such a split is wholly dumb and ignorant of history, regardless of how one feels about the issue.
The divisions look like they might be serious enough to compromise planned celebrations of the 500th anniversary of the Reformation next year.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Knopwood
Shipmate
# 11596
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
Eh? By way of counterpoint, the United Church of Canada, under the guise of L'Eglise Unie du Canada covers Quebec in the small world that is French Protestantism. Even by liberal United Church standards, Consistoire Laurentiene is very liberal and very Affirming.
Curiously, there is a francophone continuing Presbyterian congregation about a ten minute bus ride from me.
Posts: 6806 | From: Tio'tia:ke | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bibaculus
Shipmate
# 18528
|
Posted
As a footnote, here is Jezebel's Trumpet on the Columba Declaration and the SEC's pissed-offness at it: Church Times
--------------------
A jumped up pantry boy who never knew his place
Posts: 257 | From: In bed. Mostly. When I can get away with it. | Registered: Dec 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
From that article, it does appear that the Scottish Episcopal Church was involved in the conversations, rather than that it had only discovered they had been going on when lo the Declaration suddenly appeared.
This statement,
quote:
"Bishop Chillingworth said that the Declaration would cause "real difficulty" in the relationship between his Church and the C of E.
Would English Anglicans who visited Scotland now be assumed to worship in Church of Scotland parishes rather than the SEC, he asked."
pinpoints a dilemma that an ordinary member of the CofE has when they visit Scotland or look at it.
The answer partly depends on one's ecclesiology. If one asks, 'which Protestant church in Scotland has apostolic succession in the standard CofE model?', the answer is the SEC. If one asks, 'which Protestant church is the linear descendant of St Columba and those who first evangelised Scotland, and is the default church in Scotland, the 'normal' form of religious expression of Christians in Scotland?', the answer is the Church of Scotland.
If one is Queen Elizabeth II, of course, the answer is straightforward.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
The answer partly depends on one's ecclesiology. If one asks, 'which Protestant church in Scotland has apostolic succession in the standard CofE model?', the answer is the SEC. If one asks, 'which Protestant church is the linear descendant of St Columba and those who first evangelised Scotland, and is the default church in Scotland, the 'normal' form of religious expression of Christians in Scotland?', the answer is the Church of Scotland. .
I think it's more simple than that. Most ordinary churchgoers wouldn't know or care about 'apostolic succession' or even St Columba, but they know the sort of worship they are familiar with. And for most English Anglicans that is (still) the Eucharist on Sunday mornings, which is what they are likely to get in the SEC and less likely to in the C of S. Of course, evangelicals, charismatic or otherwise, might feel more at home in the C of S (though I don't know, isn't it generally less conservative than anglican con-evos?). But generally speaking the SEC is familiar territory and the C of S less so.
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cottontail
Shipmate
# 12234
|
Posted
In my experience, where people go to church has a lot to do with simple geography. There are many more Church of Scotland churches than SEC churches, particularly in rural areas. People who value being part of a parish or village church often choose the local Church of Scotland rather than travel the miles to their nearest SEC church. This also means they can tap into the whole community aspect of church, which is hard to do when the church is 15 miles away, and no one else from your community goes there. They may well miss the weekly communion, but find they can live with that. Sometimes they become full members of the Church of Scotland; sometimes they become adherents, and attend for the rest of their lives without actually ever joining the church. In cases of the latter, the absence of an episcopacy would probably be a deciding factor.
Equally, from my time living in various parts of England, I would go to a URC church if one was close by and at all congenial. Failing that, I would try the Methodists. But sometimes neither of these options was available - and I didn't have a car at the time - so out of my 7 years south of the border, I spent two of them at two different Churches of England. I missed the kind of sermon I was used to, but found I could live with that. If I had stayed there, perhaps I would have attended one of those churches for the rest of my life. But I would never have become a member of the Church of England, as that would mean some kind of declaration of loyalty to the bishop, which I could not in conscience do.
Given that practical reality, I am quite glad the CofE and the CofS are talking (among other things) about how to care for such exiles.
--------------------
"I don't think you ought to read so much theology," said Lord Peter. "It has a brutalizing influence."
Posts: 2377 | From: Scotland | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Cottontail:
But I would never have become a member of the Church of England, as that would mean some kind of declaration of loyalty to the bishop, which I could not in conscience do.
I really don't think it would. A C of E confirmation certainly requires you to affirm your faith in Christ, but there's no kind of loyalty pledge to the Bishop involved.
If you want to be ordained in the C of E, you need to take an oath of obedience to your Bishop. There's no such requirement for the laity.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
From that article, it does appear that the Scottish Episcopal Church was involved in the conversations, rather than that it had only discovered they had been going on when lo the Declaration suddenly appeared.
What I've been reading suggests that the SEC withdrew from the negotiations because they had problems with what was being proposed, and the CofE and CofS just ignored them and carried on doing their own thing, which is why the declaration has come as a surprise. The claim that the SEC knew what was going on (with the implication that the shock is feigned) comes from one of the authors of the declaration, the aforementioned notorious bigot, the Bishop of Chester.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
What I've been reading suggests that the SEC withdrew from the negotiations because they had problems with what was being proposed, and the CofE and CofS just ignored them and carried on doing their own thing, which is why the declaration has come as a surprise. The claim that the SEC knew what was going on (with the implication that the shock is feigned) comes from one of the authors of the declaration, the aforementioned notorious bigot, the Bishop of Chester.
If you withdraw from something, you can hardly grumble when you don't have any influence on what happens after you've gone, or those you've withdrawn from go in a direction you don't like. It's like those that think an election is somehow less valid if they protest by refusing to vote in it.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cottontail
Shipmate
# 12234
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by Cottontail:
But I would never have become a member of the Church of England, as that would mean some kind of declaration of loyalty to the bishop, which I could not in conscience do.
I really don't think it would. A C of E confirmation certainly requires you to affirm your faith in Christ, but there's no kind of loyalty pledge to the Bishop involved.
If you want to be ordained in the C of E, you need to take an oath of obedience to your Bishop. There's no such requirement for the laity.
Okay, thanks. Though the latter problem would probably have arisen. ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
--------------------
"I don't think you ought to read so much theology," said Lord Peter. "It has a brutalizing influence."
Posts: 2377 | From: Scotland | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
What I've been reading suggests that the SEC withdrew from the negotiations because they had problems with what was being proposed, and the CofE and CofS just ignored them and carried on doing their own thing, which is why the declaration has come as a surprise. The claim that the SEC knew what was going on (with the implication that the shock is feigned) comes from one of the authors of the declaration, the aforementioned notorious bigot, the Bishop of Chester.
If you withdraw from something, you can hardly grumble when you don't have any influence on what happens after you've gone, or those you've withdrawn from go in a direction you don't like. It's like those that think an election is somehow less valid if they protest by refusing to vote in it.
On the otherhand, if you're asked to participate and your concerns and questions are ignored while the other parties continue on as though you weren't present, then IMO you have plenty of grounds for complaint. And, it's not unreasonable to consider continuing to be present a waste of time that would be better spent on other things. It's a bit like considering an election invalid if you vote and someone decides not to even open the ballot boxes from your polling station.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
As a matter of curiosity, why is it that now, as bishops are now rather than as they were in the early C17, the very mention of bishops is still like a red rag to a bull to many people in the Church of Scotland?
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sober Preacher's Kid
Presbymethegationalist
# 12699
|
Posted
It's genetic. It's the same as when the United Church of Canada and the Anglican Church of Canada discussed merging in the 1970's, there were a disturbing number of bad backs and arthritic knees observed in United Church members.
--------------------
NDP Federal Convention Ottawa 2018: A random assortment of Prots and Trots.
Posts: 7646 | From: Peterborough, Upper Canada | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cottontail
Shipmate
# 12234
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
As a matter of curiosity, why is it that now, as bishops are now rather than as they were in the early C17, the very mention of bishops is still like a red rag to a bull to many people in the Church of Scotland?
Well, why is the very mention of having no bishops like a red rag to a bull to many people in the Church of England/SEC?
--------------------
"I don't think you ought to read so much theology," said Lord Peter. "It has a brutalizing influence."
Posts: 2377 | From: Scotland | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Cottontail:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
As a matter of curiosity, why is it that now, as bishops are now rather than as they were in the early C17, the very mention of bishops is still like a red rag to a bull to many people in the Church of Scotland?
Well, why is the very mention of having no bishops like a red rag to a bull to many people in the Church of England/SEC?
Because we believe that the apostolic succession is part and parcel of the validity of the sacraments, that ordination to the priesthood established by the apostles involves the laying on of hands by one or more bishops who themselves have been consecrated in succession to the first apostles, in line with the practice of the church in both east and west as far back as we have clear records.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
We believe that the apostolic succession is part and parcel of the validity of the sacraments, that ordination to the priesthood established by the apostles involves the laying on of hands by one or more bishops who themselves have been consecrated in succession to the first apostles, in line with the practice of the church in both east and west as far back as we have clear records.
I would say that some of you believe that but lots either don't or have never thought of it. For I'm sure that the Evangelicals would say that what is important is an unbroken line of teaching, not ordination; while other people will simply have gone to a CofE church because it's local, or because they like it.I contend that you are indeed speaking for one part (?Anglo-Catholic) of the CofE but by no means for all of it.
Having said all that, and having been involved in ecumenical discussions over many years, it is an intense irritation to Nonconformists such as myself that, in conversations between denominations, it is always we who are expected to embrace Episcopacy while no concession is ever made in the opposite direction. Indeed, it makes us think that the Episcopal churches don't consider our churches to be "valid" nor our ministers truly ordained ... and we're not prepared to accept that.
Of course we will willingly respect bishops and their ilk. Indeed, we ourselves have supralocal leaders to whom we defer. But they are still primus inter pares and can (and do) revert to being "ordinary" ministers at the end of their term of office.
[ 13. January 2016, 21:41: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cottontail
Shipmate
# 12234
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by Cottontail:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
As a matter of curiosity, why is it that now, as bishops are now rather than as they were in the early C17, the very mention of bishops is still like a red rag to a bull to many people in the Church of Scotland?
Well, why is the very mention of having no bishops like a red rag to a bull to many people in the Church of England/SEC?
Because we believe that the apostolic succession is part and parcel of the validity of the sacraments, that ordination to the priesthood established by the apostles involves the laying on of hands by one or more bishops who themselves have been consecrated in succession to the first apostles, in line with the practice of the church in both east and west as far back as we have clear records.
See, I know all that. I know what you believe, and I respect it. And I bet you also know what we believe, and why. My point is, that Enoch's question comes from the assumption that having bishops is the default position. This assumption means it is up to those churches which don't have bishops to justify themselves to those who have. Similarly, up thread, there was also a comment from yourself about ecumenical discussions falling apart because "the Church of Scotland has made it clear that it will not accept Bishops". I could equally say that the discussions fell apart because "the SEC has made it clear that they will not give up bishops".
Can you see the point I am making? There is an attitude coming across sometimes that 'not having bishops' is a stubbornly-held error on our part, and a problem to be fixed, after which correction the Anglican Communion will gladly recognise our orders. That's just not how we see it.
--------------------
"I don't think you ought to read so much theology," said Lord Peter. "It has a brutalizing influence."
Posts: 2377 | From: Scotland | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
One of the challenges of the anti-bishop approach, which often has more to do with historical experiences than current realities, is that if it cannot somehow be worked out with the Anglicans (and it has been in India), then how on earth are we even going to be able to talk about structural reunion with the RCs & Orthodox? And their numbers and historical presence are such that they cannot be ignored forever.
SEC might perhaps be doing us all a service by being sticky at this point.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cottontail
Shipmate
# 12234
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
One of the challenges of the anti-bishop approach ...
Again, you are reading the situation from the 'bishops-as-default' approach, so that everyone else is 'anti'. Having presbyteries instead of bishops is not a negative position for us; it is a positive doctrine and ecclesiology. For the sake of good ecumenical relations, you could, for example, try "pro-presbytery approach" or "pro-parity-of-ministers approach".
quote:
... which often has more to do with historical experiences than current realities ...
This is rather insulting to Presbyterians, who know their own history and their own current realities very well. Again, you are coming from a position where it is our task to get with the programme, and if we only examined our history and our current realities properly, we would accept bishops gladly and repent of holding out so long. That's not how it works.
quote:
... is that if it cannot somehow be worked out with the Anglicans (and it has been in India), then how on earth are we even going to be able to talk about structural reunion with the RCs & Orthodox?
Structural reunion is not the be-all and end-all of ecumenical discussion. Mutual recognition and acceptance might be more important, or at least, a vital step along the way. We already recognise the validity of Anglican ordination and eucharist. And we do this without asking you to change anything.
--------------------
"I don't think you ought to read so much theology," said Lord Peter. "It has a brutalizing influence."
Posts: 2377 | From: Scotland | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sober Preacher's Kid
Presbymethegationalist
# 12699
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
One of the challenges of the anti-bishop approach, which often has more to do with historical experiences than current realities, is that if it cannot somehow be worked out with the Anglicans (and it has been in India), then how on earth are we even going to be able to talk about structural reunion with the RCs & Orthodox? And their numbers and historical presence are such that they cannot be ignored forever.
SEC might perhaps be doing us all a service by being sticky at this point.
South India got chucked out of the Anglican Communion for its troubles as it took a gradualist mixing approach to orders instead going straight up. It was only readmitted in the 1960's.
--------------------
NDP Federal Convention Ottawa 2018: A random assortment of Prots and Trots.
Posts: 7646 | From: Peterborough, Upper Canada | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Cottontail:
See, I know all that. I know what you believe, and I respect it. And I bet you also know what we believe, and why. My point is, that Enoch's question comes from the assumption that having bishops is the default position.
Thing is, as far as the universal church goes, bishops are the default position. Getting rid of bishops is an innovation that has to be justified. That's not to say it can't be justified. In all honesty I don't actually know what the CofS believes in terms of church governance. I know what the current structure is, I know that many of the reformers had no objection in principle to bishops even if they didn't share the traditional view of apostolic succession (some Anglican evangelicals are in that position) or the threefold order of bishops, priests and deacons.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cottontail
Shipmate
# 12234
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by Cottontail:
See, I know all that. I know what you believe, and I respect it. And I bet you also know what we believe, and why. My point is, that Enoch's question comes from the assumption that having bishops is the default position.
Thing is, as far as the universal church goes, bishops are the default position. Getting rid of bishops is an innovation that has to be justified.
I once met a trainee minister, who began (literally began!) our first conversation with, "How do you justify being a woman minister when scripture forbids it?" My reply then was that I didn't have to justify it, not to him, not to anyone. The Church had ordained me minister, and my ordination was his problem, not mine.
In the same way, our absence of bishops is your problem, not ours. It's how we are, and we are happy with it. We can justify our position to ourselves, and we don't have to justify ourselves to anyone else. Explain, yes - I will happily explain our polity to anyone who is genuinely interested, and who approaches ecumenical discussion with an openness to learning from each other. That way we can compare and contrast, find our common ground and our non-negotiables, and work things out from there in mutual respect. But we are under no obligation to justify our polity to anyone who starts from the position of, "We're right and you're wrong. You've got to change to fit in with us."
--------------------
"I don't think you ought to read so much theology," said Lord Peter. "It has a brutalizing influence."
Posts: 2377 | From: Scotland | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Knopwood
Shipmate
# 11596
|
Posted
You don't owe anyone anything, but if you can't account for how dispensing with bishops is a legitimate local variation of polity that doesn't impair the substance of what the ministry and sacraments are, there's no point in getting exercised when "mutual recognition" is not forthcoming.
I'm afraid this is the very attitude which causes me to be wary of Protestantism: we can invent whatever structures we want and it's nobody's business but our own, because whose to say the only way it was done for the first 1500 years is any better than any other. It all rather smacks of teaching one's grandmother to suck eggs. If you are, as the Kirk (in my understanding) claims to be, a part of the church catholic, it is everyone's "problem".
Given how many Presbyterians died for conscience to confess their conviction that their teaching elders were not priests with the power to offer a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving and to bind and loose sins, I would have thought it rather patronizing to say to them, "But of course it's all really the same thing" (not entirely unlike the trend in some newer calendars of saints to presume that the righteous of other faiths were "really" manifesting Christ unawares). So the outrage when Anglicans in general, or Anglo-Catholics in particular, do not do so catches me somewhat off guard.
It's all well and good to say "pro-presbytery" is a "positive" position. But Anglicans do have synods, and I'm not aware of any mainstream opposition to them in the past century. It's not a case of each having something the other lacks.
Posts: 6806 | From: Tio'tia:ke | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Knopwood:
You don't owe anyone anything, but if you can't account for how dispensing with bishops is a legitimate local variation of polity that doesn't impair the substance of what the ministry and sacraments are, there's no point in getting exercised when "mutual recognition" is not forthcoming.
But that assumes that Bishops, as we have them today, are the same as those in the very earliest expression of Church. Our position would be that the "strong" idea of Episcopacy grew up over a period, and what we today call "bishops" were originally nothing more than recognised translocal leaders in the style of Baptist Regional Ministers or Methodist Area Superintendents.
Therefore we would contend both that it is transmission of Apostolic teaching, rather than Episcopacy and ordination, which constitutes the "esse" and the Succession of the Church; and that it isn't so much a case of our churches dispensing with Bishops, but of churches such as yours in effect [I]creating[i/] them.
[ 14. January 2016, 16:04: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
