|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Ordination of Women Contagion Theory
|
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768
|
Posted
Has the position with regard to OoW been doctrine? Was it considered to the extent that it became doctrine? Where and when did it become doctrine?
What occurs to me is the possibility that at the time that it was possible to consider that it might be possible that women do not have souls, the necessity for a doctrine that they could not be priests would not be there.
Posts: 5833 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
k-mann
Shipmate
# 8490
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
For decades before the ordination of women, conservative Catholic parishes put up with evangelical or liberal bishops in spite of vast differences over doctrine. What is so special about the ordination of women that it required such extraordinary arrangements?
First, it needs to be said that this is first and foremost a question of sacramental assurance: If there is doubt about validity of a person’s ordination, there will also be doubt about validity of that person’s sacraments. But I digress. In order to answer this question, you need to be more specific. You ask us to compare the specific question of the OofW with ‘vast differences over doctrine.’ Could you cite one example? And note that it needs to be a doctrinal question, not simply a question of opinion. This distinction is crucial.
I would also say that there was a qualified difference between pre and post 1992. Before 1992, there were bishops in the Church of England (CofE) who believed that women could be ordained as priests. But what a bishop privately believes is not that interesting. A bishop is not appointed to pontificate privately. He is appointed to ensure ecclesial unity (both sacramentally and doctrinally), to teach and uphold the doctrine of his Church, and to ensure that proper doctrine be taught. Now pre 1992, the CofE taught that women could not be priests. Therefore any bishop would be responsible to uphold this. Post 1992, however, we see something new: We do not (merely) see the CofE changing position (saying that women could be priests), but we see that the CofE said that it was ecclesially and canonically legitimate either to hold that women could not be priests or to hold that women could be priests. We saw something similar in the Church of Norway in 2006.
In 2006, the Doctrinal Commission of the Church of Norway issued a document on the question of homosexuality and Scripture. (The link is in Norwegian.) The Commission was divided in two on the question of the marrying of same sex couples and the ordination of practicing homosexuals. Prior to 2006, the Church of Norway had one official view, even if there were many bishops who held other views. After 2006, however, there have been two official (and contradictory) views on this question, which means that it is now ecclesially and canonically legitimate either to hold that same sex couples cannot marry in the church and that practicing homosexuals cannot be ordained, or to hold that same sex couples can marry in the church and that practicing homosexuals can be ordained. Because of this, a group of priests and lay people have sought alternative episcopal oversight.
The point of alternative episcopal oversight is that there is a new situation, ecclesially and canonically. The important thing here is that the unity of the Church is both doctrinal and sacramental. This means that if there is a real internal (ecclesial and canonical) schism (i.e. that two opposing views are both legitimate), then this needs to be expressed episcopally. The question is not: What do we do about these [insert adjective] bishops? Thus it is not a question of ‘putting up with’ certain bishops. I don’t particularly care what my bishop privately holds. The question is rather this: What do we do when we have two contradictory views which are both legitimately (ecclesially and canonically) taught within the same Church?
--------------------
"Being religious means asking passionately the question of the meaning of our existence and being willing to receive answers, even if the answers hurt."
— Paul Tillich
Katolikken
Posts: 1314 | From: Norway | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
What occurs to me is the possibility that at the time that it was possible to consider that it might be possible that women do not have souls....
Not and be an Anglican priest it wasn't. Or any kind of Bible-reading Christian. The idea is pretty much a 20th century myth invented by anti-Christian propagandists. No bottom to it at all.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by k-mann:
Now pre 1992, the CofE taught that women could not be priests.
Did it? Really? Or did it just not happen to ordain women as priests? Maybe nio-one ever thought about it much. Maybe those that did think about it were thought of as weirdoes. That's not the same thing.
Was there actually such a thing as an official doctrine promulgated by the Chuirch of England t5hat definitively ruled that women cannot be priests? News to me if there was.
quote:
This means that if there is a real internal (ecclesial and canonical) schism (i.e. that two opposing views are both legitimate), then this needs to be expressed episcopally.
Why?
Why not have different people teaching two views? It seems the more honest way to me. The church really does have more than one opinion ion these matters, so let it speak with more than once voice.
There are lots of things that Christians in general have disagreed about, and that different Christians - even different Anglican Bishops - have taught opposing doctrines on. One of the biggest ones in the CofE was the dispute between Calvinists and Arminians. That was huge once upon a time. And clearly a matter of theological doctrine rather than church government. But by and large the Church of England didn't split over that.
There have been theologically liberal bishops and prioests who could not in honesty say the Creeds without mental reservations. Thats' no secret. But no-one splite the CofE over that. There have been politically anti-establishmentarian bishops who couldn't make oaths to the monarch without inwardly crossing their fingers behind their back. No-one sought alternative episcopal oversight to get away from them (or from their monarchist colleagues). There have been pacifist bishops and warmongering bishops. And all sorts of disputes.
Why not say "We disagree about this. There is no settled teaching on the matter" but continue to work together?
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
k-mann
Shipmate
# 8490
|
Posted
It seems that someone believed the Da Vince Code (or similar books) to fairly represents Church history.
--------------------
"Being religious means asking passionately the question of the meaning of our existence and being willing to receive answers, even if the answers hurt."
— Paul Tillich
Katolikken
Posts: 1314 | From: Norway | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
The obvious example of doctrinal difference is whether ordination is considered a sacrament or not. Or whether the celebration of Holy Communion is a sacrificial act. Whether priesthood is a role to which someone is appointed or whether ordination entails an ontological change. I struggle to come to terms with a definition of doctrine that considers to contents of the priests pants to be doctrinally significant and vital for unity, but not any of the others. Surely if your Bishop doesn't consider ordination either to be sacramental or conveying and ontological change then that Bishop's intent when ordaining, and hence the ordinations, are far more questionable than one who agrees with all those things but think that they can be equally applied to women?
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
What occurs to me is the possibility that at the time that it was possible to consider that it might be possible that women do not have souls....
Not and be an Anglican priest it wasn't. Or any kind of Bible-reading Christian. The idea is pretty much a 20th century myth invented by anti-Christian propagandists. No bottom to it at all.
Which I would have gone along with, until I read, last week, an account that someone, back in the dark and murky past, had based a bit of misogyny on Gen 2, pointing out that God had breathed into Adam, but not into Eve. And now I'm going to have to look it up again.
Posts: 5833 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by k-mann:
Now pre 1992, the CofE taught that women could not be priests.
Did it? Really? Or did it just not happen to ordain women as priests? Maybe nio-one ever thought about it much. Maybe those that did think about it were thought of as weirdoes. That's not the same thing.
Was there actually such a thing as an official doctrine promulgated by the Chuirch of England t5hat definitively ruled that women cannot be priests? News to me if there was.
Which was sort of what I was getting at.
Posts: 5833 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
Seems to me that the Roman Catholic church might have taught that women could not be priests. And therefore the sort of Anglican who thought that teaching was definitive also believed that. Unfortunately for them, the RC church also taught that male Anglican priests were not priests either. What logic is there in following the teaching on the former but not the latter, except private opinion?
--------------------
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
|
|
Vade Mecum
Shipmate
# 17688
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
Seems to me that the Roman Catholic church might have taught that women could not be priests. And therefore the sort of Anglican who thought that teaching was definitive also believed that. Unfortunately for them, the RC church also taught that male Anglican priests were not priests either. What logic is there in following the teaching on the former but not the latter, except private opinion?
Because the logic used by the RCC in dogmatically defining against OoW does not rest solely on the authority of the Petrine Magisterium. It makes sense theologically independent of that authority. The argument of Apostolicae Curae is different, and for many Anglicans, does not make that sort of theological sense. Saepius Officio is a very good rebuttal of it, for instance.
The issue need never be about the Authority of the RCC at all: they made a good argument, and it's easier to quote it than to re-hash it. It doesn't follow that one believes everything the RCC believes, and it is disingenuous to the point of insult to pretend otherwise.
--------------------
I have given them thy word; and the world hath hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.
Posts: 307 | From: North London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by k-mann:
It seems that someone believed the Da Vince Code (or similar books) to fairly represents Church history.
If you meant me, I certainly don't. Or that the represent any sort of history at all. Except that of the followers of Barnum.
On the other hand, Tertullian, Augustine, Albertus Magnus, Aquinas, Clement of Alexandria, John Chrysostom and Jerome are bona fide respected writers and part of Church History.
Still can't find what I read - not in the browser history or by searching the word string, and I know I would not have invented it. There's a lot of modern Miltonic stuff about him for God only, her for God in him. Infuriating, especially for the single.
As ken pointed out, the question may not have arisen in order to be ruled against. Like there wasn't a rule that dolphins could not be priests.
Posts: 5833 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Oscar the Grouch
Adopted Cascadian
# 1916
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Vade Mecum:
...the logic used by the RCC in dogmatically defining against OoW does not rest solely on the authority of the Petrine Magisterium. It makes sense theologically independent of that authority.
Errr. No, it doesn't. Not really.
--------------------
Faradiu, dundeibáwa weyu lárigi weyu
Posts: 3871 | From: Gamma Quadrant, just to the left of Galifrey | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Vade Mecum
Shipmate
# 17688
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
quote:
Originally posted by Vade Mecum:
...the logic used by the RCC in dogmatically defining against OoW does not rest solely on the authority of the Petrine Magisterium. It makes sense theologically independent of that authority.
Errr. No, it doesn't. Not really.
Oh ffs. Fine, you don't agree with the argument Ordinatio Sacerdotalis makes. That doesn't mean it isn't making one: it doesn't mean that the doctrine is being asserted purely ex cathedra without argument.
This was obviously my point.
--------------------
I have given them thy word; and the world hath hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.
Posts: 307 | From: North London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
k-mann
Shipmate
# 8490
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
The obvious example of doctrinal difference is whether ordination is considered a sacrament or not. Or whether the celebration of Holy Communion is a sacrificial act. Whether priesthood is a role to which someone is appointed or whether ordination entails an ontological change. I struggle to come to terms with a definition of doctrine that considers to contents of the priests pants to be doctrinally significant and vital for unity, but not any of the others. Surely if your Bishop doesn't consider ordination either to be sacramental or conveying and ontological change then that Bishop's intent when ordaining, and hence the ordinations, are far more questionable than one who agrees with all those things but think that they can be equally applied to women?
That depends on what you mean by ‘intent.’ I’m not entirely sure how that is defined in the Church of England (or in the Anglican Communion as a whole), but in the Catholic Church intent is defined as ‘doing [to do] what the church does’ (facers quod facit ecclesia). So, when a priest says “I baptise you in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost,” he is showing his intent. The question, then, is not about what the individual bishop believes (privately), but about what the Church officially teaches.
And what she teaches is not just shown in her written documents, it is also shown by her actions. When the Church of England did not ordain women, even when women wanted to be ordained, she showed that she did indeed hold that women could not be priests. But the shift in 1992 was not that the Church of England changed her mind, but that it became equally legitimate (ecclesially and canonically) to hold either that women could not be priests or that women could be priests. That is the relevant change.
--------------------
"Being religious means asking passionately the question of the meaning of our existence and being willing to receive answers, even if the answers hurt."
— Paul Tillich
Katolikken
Posts: 1314 | From: Norway | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
If your Bishop doesn't believe, say, that ordination conveys the power and authority of the church to pronounce absolution then surely they must not be intending to "do what the church does" in ordaining.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by k-mann:
[QUOTE] When the Church of England did not ordain women, even when women wanted to be ordained, she showed that she did indeed hold that women could not be priests.
That's a non sequitur. It possibly meant that they should not be ordained until the Church had formally decided. Many people, including bishops, had said that they should, and unlike Rome, nowhere in the C of E's formularies has it definitively been stated that women could not be priests, as it has been already pointed out on this thread.
--------------------
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
|
|
k-mann
Shipmate
# 8490
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
quote:
Originally posted by k-mann:
[QUOTE] When the Church of England did not ordain women, even when women wanted to be ordained, she showed that she did indeed hold that women could not be priests.
That's a non sequitur. It possibly meant that they should not be ordained until the Church had formally decided. Many people, including bishops, had said that they should, and unlike Rome, nowhere in the C of E's formularies has it definitively been stated that women could not be priests, as it has been already pointed out on this thread.
That might be true, but you’re missing my point. The relevant change in 1992 was not that the Church of England started to acknowledge that women could be ordained (either by just acknowledging what she may ‘always’ have believed, as you suggest or by changing views), but that it became (and still is) permissible, canonically and ecclesially, to hold either that women cannot be ordained or that they can be ordained. Even if the Church of England did not have any views on this matter before 1992 (which I highly doubt), after 1992 it had two: One said that women could be ordained, the other said that women could not be ordained. And canonically and ecclesially, in the juridical sense, both views were, and still is, legitimate expressions of the view of the Church of England. That was the relevant change. And that is the main reason for the ‘flying bishops,’ and why they weren’t created prior to that time.
--------------------
"Being religious means asking passionately the question of the meaning of our existence and being willing to receive answers, even if the answers hurt."
— Paul Tillich
Katolikken
Posts: 1314 | From: Norway | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
k-mann
Shipmate
# 8490
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
If your Bishop doesn't believe, say, that ordination conveys the power and authority of the church to pronounce absolution then surely they must not be intending to "do what the church does" in ordaining.
‘Intent’ is not here used about the private intent of the bishop, but the intent of the Church which he represents. And this intent is shown when he actually does what the Church does. So, when a bishop uses the proper form of, say, ordination, we see that he (as bishop and representative of the Church and/or Christ, not as a private individual) intends to do what the Church does.
An atheist can baptise. Do you honestly believe that he privately intends that the ‘baptisee’ should get what baptism gives him?
--------------------
"Being religious means asking passionately the question of the meaning of our existence and being willing to receive answers, even if the answers hurt."
— Paul Tillich
Katolikken
Posts: 1314 | From: Norway | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
anne
Shipmate
# 73
|
Posted
I went to the Thinking Anglicans site today, to read more about the appointment of the Revd Eggoni Pushpalalitha as a bishop in the Church of South India, and immediately below the link, found these two articles which seemed pertinent to this thread.
Will Adam is writing about the implications for the Church of England of the election of the appointment of a woman as a bishop in the Church of Ireland: article
“… This is bound to bring up again the question of the recognition in a Church which does not permit the ordination of women as bishop of episcopal acts performed by a bishop who is a woman …
However, the consecration of a woman as a bishop in the Church of Ireland changes the situation. Deacons, priests and bishops of the Church of Ireland, Church in Wales and Scottish Episcopal Church are not considered as “overseas” clergy by the law applying to the Church of England. This is significant, because the permission of the Archbishops of Canterbury and York is not required for such ministers to be invited to exercise the ministry of their orders in England”
The next article is a blog post by the Very Rev Kelvin Holdsworth, the Provost of St Mary’s Cathedral in Glasgow and is challengingly titled 'Taint'
He states “What I’m interested in is that with respect of our current bishops in Scotland, all of them have either had a female co-consecrator present at their consecration, joined in consecrating someone with a female co-consecrator present or have been consecrated by someone who has had a female co-consecrator present at their own consecration.
What I wonder is whether those who apply the theology of taint believe that anyone at all (bishops, priests or deacons) now ordained in Scotland is legit.”
So, are the decisions and actions of the Church of England on this matter about to be overtaken by actions in other provinces? Or has this already happened? Or are these actions by the Church of Ireland, Scottish Episcopal Church and Church in Wales utterly irrelevant to our Anglican processes here in England?
anne
--------------------
‘I would have given the Church my head, my hand, my heart. She would not have them. She did not know what to do with them. She told me to go back and do crochet' Florence Nightingale
Posts: 338 | From: Devon | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
Making the remote possibility of reuniting with Rome marginally more likely is apparently more important to those opposing the ordination of women than remaining united with other Anglicans.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
ArethosemyfeetGot it in one.
But even though some of the "contagion" theorists are so desperate for Rome, they still don't seem to get the position of Rome towards them: - there is no question of their anglican orders being regarded as of any value, ever
- having proved themselves to be (a) educated (b) argumentative, and (c) resistant to authority they are likely to be awkward wherever they end up
- so the best solution is to keep them as separate from the rest of Rome as possible
Which is where The Ordinariate comes in...
Bottom line: there will NEVER be "union" with Rome: all Rome will accept is that everyone will become Roman - and if they're ex-Anglican it would be best to keep them separate just in case they contaminate the true, from birth, Romans.
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
they still don't seem to get the position of Rome towards them: [list]
[*]there is no question of their anglican orders being regarded as of any value, ever
Not true - i have seen many priest friends 'go over' to Rome directly or via the Ordinariate.
At the (re) ordinations I have attended, there was a prayer that thanked God for their 'previous ministry' It was written by the late Cardinal Hume: quote:
Oratio ad gratias agendas pro ministerio ab electo in Communione anglicana expleto
(Prayer for giving thanks for the former ministry of the ordinand in the Anglican Communion)
Deinde omnes surgunt. Episcopus, deposita mitra, stans manibus iunctis, versus ad electrum, dicit:
(Then all rise. The bishop, having doffed his mitre, standing with joined hands, facing toward the ordinand, says:)
N., the Holy Catholic Church recognizes that not a few of the sacred actions of the Christian religion as carried out in communities separated from her can truly engender a life of grace and can rightly be described as providing access to the community of salvation. And so we now pray.
Et omnes, per aliquod temporis spatium, silentio orant. Deinde, manus extensis, Episcopus orat, dicens:
(And all, for a certain space of time, in silence pray. Then, with extended hands, the Bishop prays, saying:)
Almighty Father, we give you thanks for the X years of faithful ministry of your servant N. in the Anglican Communion (vel: in the Church of England), whose fruitfulness for salvation has been derived from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Catholic Church. As your servant has been received into full communion and now seeks to be ordained to the presbyterate in the Catholic Church, we beseech you to bring to fruition that for which we now pray. Through Jesus Christ, our Lord.
Populus acclamat:
(The people acclaim:)
Amen.
I also discovered this: quote:
While Apostolicae Curae holds that Anglican ordination does not confer the fullness of Catholic orders, this by no means implies that Anglican ordination is without its own value and purpose.....absolute ordination creates the optimum conditions for the reception of Anglican priests into Catholic ministry while also respecting and valuing Anglican ministry.....The bishops of England and Wales, in a joint statement, have made this explicit: “We would never suggest that those now seeking full communion with the Roman Catholic Church deny the value of their previous ministry. According to the teaching of the Second Vatican Council, the liturgical actions of their ministry can most certainly engender a life of grace, for they come from Christ and lead back to him and belong by right to the one church of Christ.”
source
--------------------
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
|
|
Thurible
Shipmate
# 3206
|
Posted
I read that article yesterday, leo, and was astonished that it didn't even mention Saepius Officio [pdf].
Thurible
--------------------
"I've been baptised not lobotomised."
Posts: 8049 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
anne
Shipmate
# 73
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I also discovered this: quote:
While Apostolicae Curae holds that Anglican ordination does not confer the fullness of Catholic orders, this by no means implies that Anglican ordination is without its own value and purpose.....absolute ordination creates the optimum conditions for the reception of Anglican priests into Catholic ministry while also respecting and valuing Anglican ministry.....The bishops of England and Wales, in a joint statement, have made this explicit: “We would never suggest that those now seeking full communion with the Roman Catholic Church deny the value of their previous ministry. According to the teaching of the Second Vatican Council, the liturgical actions of their ministry can most certainly engender a life of grace, for they come from Christ and lead back to him and belong by right to the one church of Christ.”
source
Thank you Leo, that's really helpful. I understand that the statement that you highlighted ("the liturgical actions of their ministry can most certainly engender a life of grace, for they come from Christ and lead back to him and belong by right to the one church of Christ.” ) is made about those Anglican priests who are seeking full communion with the Roman Catholic Church (and, from context, re-ordination).
In your opinion, would it be safe to assume that the RC Bishops would also view the ordinations of other Anglican priests in the same way (as potentially engendering a life of grace)?
anne
--------------------
‘I would have given the Church my head, my hand, my heart. She would not have them. She did not know what to do with them. She told me to go back and do crochet' Florence Nightingale
Posts: 338 | From: Devon | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
When the RCC does come round to ordaining women, they will use language like the language of that prayer to prove that they haven't really changed their minds.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
Thanking God for previous ministry doesn't at all imply recognition of (major, episcopal/ presbyteral/diaconal) orders. After all, in pretty much all churches which have an ordained ministry (AFAIK) there are also other recognised non-ordained ministries or 'minor' orders- evangelists, pastoral assistants, readers, local preachers, monks/nuns, and so on.
--------------------
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
|
|
Thurible
Shipmate
# 3206
|
Posted
Quite. Conditional ordination would recognise that, in a mealy-mouthed sort of way. Absolute ordination with a little prayer of condescension, on the other hand...
Thurible
--------------------
"I've been baptised not lobotomised."
Posts: 8049 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by anne:
In your opinion, would it be safe to assume that the RC Bishops would also view the ordinations of other Anglican priests in the same way (as potentially engendering a life of grace)?
anne
I don't know - I assume so but I don't know any RC bishops personally.
I went to the Requiem of an anglo-catholic priest who got (re)ordained. The RC bishop who preached certainly spoke of this priest's 60 years' priestly ministry. Only 15 of those were as an RC.
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Thurible:
I read that article yesterday, leo, and was astonished that it didn't even mention Saepius Officio [pdf].
Thurible
Great minds think alike!
I suspect the RC hierarchy like to think it has come to its own conclusion without being swayed by someone else - like the the situation where wives/partners expertly manipulate husbands by suggesting something in the knowledge that said husband will eventually state something as if was his own idea all along.
--------------------
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
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
I know the prayer, Leo: I was there when Basil used it over Augustine Hoey.
I also know what's been written about the "value" placed on the former ministry of ex-Anglicans.
And I can tell you that, apart from a few "celebrity" celibates such as Augustine, the people that matter (Congregation for the Clergy anyone?) ex-Anglicans are viewed with, at best, caution - albeit there is gratitude that they are helping to hide the massive problem Rome has with clergy numbers in the UK ...
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
CL
Shipmate
# 16145
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
When the RCC does come round to ordaining women, they will use language like the language of that prayer to prove that they haven't really changed their minds.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Posts: 647 | From: Ireland | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
CL
Shipmate
# 16145
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
I know the prayer, Leo: I was there when Basil used it over Augustine Hoey.
I also know what's been written about the "value" placed on the former ministry of ex-Anglicans.
And I can tell you that, apart from a few "celebrity" celibates such as Augustine, the people that matter (Congregation for the Clergy anyone?) ex-Anglicans are viewed with, at best, caution - albeit there is gratitude that they are helping to hide the massive problem Rome has with clergy numbers in the UK ...
The Congregation for Clergy has bugger all to do with the Ordinariates or their clergy. They fall under the auspices of the CDF.
--------------------
"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
|
|
Chapelhead
I am
# 21
|
Posted
Coming to this late (I haven't been around for a while), I'm stuck by there being two apparently contradictory explanations of the 'impaired communion with the bishop' position.
First we have
quote:
Originally posted by Vade Mecum:
What they might believe is that, by purporting to ordain women, said bishop has demonstrated that he possesses a flawed idea of what the sacrament of orders is, and thus his intention in ordaining would be defective (the validity of a sacrament being traditionally held to be a case of valid matter, form, and intent).
I don't agree with this, but it at least seems plausible, although a problem is that if the bishop thinks that women can be ordained but hasn't actually ordained any women then he is still 'within the pale' but once he has ordained a woman then he is 'beyond the pale', even though his intentions would not have appeared to have changed at all.
But then we have
quote:
Originally posted by Thurible:
In ordaining women to the priesthood, bishops admit them to their presbyterium. This means that all priests within that presbyterium are interchangeably priestly representatives of those bishops. It is this interchangeability which 'traditionalists' cannot accept and why they look to bishops without women in their presbyterium to represent at the altar.
Were the Bishop of, say, Birmingham to move to a diocese where there are no female priests (even if he continued to believe that they were such), there would be no need to look for extended episcopal care from elsewhere. Each member of that diocese could be confident that each member of the Bishop's presbyterium was indeed a priest.
Which suggests that intention has nothing to do with the matter, it is simply a question of the actual people that comprise the presbyterium. That intention does not matter follows from the statement that, should the Bishop of Birmingham, say, move to a diocese where there are no female priests then the impairment of communion would be ended.
Now Thurible says that nobody actually believes in a theory of taint, and I have great respect for his views, but it does sound awfully as though, while in his present post, the aforementioned Bishop is tainted by the presence in the presbyterium of women, but on moving elsewhere the taint would be removed, even though the Bishop's views, intentions and beliefs had not in the slightest changed.
The only way I can square this circle is by following Oscar the Grouch's line
quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
I think it is worth making the point (which I have made before) that the whole mess is incoherent precisely because there was no "theory" or "theology" involved at the beginning. All this started as a FIF act of protest - "if Bishop X ordains women, we're not going to have anything to do with him".
Only after having made that statement and painted themselves into the corner did anyone realise that once you looked beyond the grand gesture, there were some serious theological problems.
All along, what is commonly called the "theology of taint" is basically an act of protest looking for (and failing to find) a coherent theology to justify it.
--------------------
At times like this I find myself thinking, what would the Amish do?
Posts: 9123 | From: Near where I was before. | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
If a bishop or priest preaches in a manner that encourages schism, do all his previous preachings and teachings become suspect? Is any of his further teaching acceptable? Does he "taint" all those who hear him?
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Carys
Ship's Celticist
# 78
|
Posted
A question on impaired communion. Recently the ABC consecrated two new bishops one for Ebbsfleet & one for Tewkesbury in the same service. There were female priests from the diocese of Gloucester present & in procession but the FinF priests are reported to have received communion. Why was communion net impaired?
Carys
--------------------
O Lord, you have searched me and know me
You know when I sit and when I rise
Posts: 6896 | From: Bryste mwy na thebyg | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stranger in a strange land
Shipmate
# 11922
|
Posted
I notice that Michael Langrish - formerly +Exeter - is now listed in the FIF magazine as a 'Bishop of the Society'. Presumably not seen to have been tainted by his many years of ordaining women to the priesthood in that Diocese.
Posts: 608 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
anne
Shipmate
# 73
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Stranger in a strange land:
I notice that Michael Langrish - formerly +Exeter - is now listed in the FIF magazine as a 'Bishop of the Society'. Presumably not seen to have been tainted by his many years of ordaining women to the priesthood in that Diocese.
A couple of years ago I stood with a group of priests from his diocese and listened to him explain why he intended to vote in favour of the consecration of women to the episcopate at the forthcoming synod. He went on to abstain.
So colour me unsurprised.
Anne
--------------------
‘I would have given the Church my head, my hand, my heart. She would not have them. She did not know what to do with them. She told me to go back and do crochet' Florence Nightingale
Posts: 338 | From: Devon | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Amos
Shipmate
# 44
|
Posted
He'd have already bought the cottage in Sussex by that time.
--------------------
At the end of the day we face our Maker alongside Jesus--ken
Posts: 7667 | From: Summerisle | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
He probably abstained because of the way the debate went on to vote down every possible provision for 'traditionalists', including the motion from the archbishops.
leo, I voted at Deanery Synod for a motion to the effect that the then proposals didn't give enough provision for 'traditionalists'. But there is a difference between that and between joining FiF.
Langrish started off as a fairly inofensive Aff Cath type, was one of the Nine Nazguls who opposed the appointment of Jeffrey John and has now decided to join FiF. What can I say? "I never dared to be radical when young, for fear it would make me conservative when old".
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
