homepage
  roll on christmas  
click here to find out more about ship of fools click here to sign up for the ship of fools newsletter click here to support ship of fools
community the mystery worshipper gadgets for god caption competition foolishness features ship stuff
discussion boards live chat cafe avatars frequently-asked questions the ten commandments gallery private boards register for the boards
 
Ship of Fools


Post new thread  Post a reply
My profile login | | Directory | Search | FAQs | Board home
   - Printer-friendly view Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
» Ship of Fools   » Special interest discussion   » Dead Horses   » Priestly genitalia [Ordination of Women] (Page 11)

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.  
Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  ...  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  ...  51  52  53 
 
Source: (consider it) Thread: Priestly genitalia [Ordination of Women]
Chapelhead*

Ship’s Photographer
# 1143

 - Posted      Profile for Chapelhead*     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Given that Canterbury Cathedral has a female Canon, how would FiFers stand in relation to taking Communion from the hand of Rowan Willaims at the high altar of Canterbury Cathedral? Presumably "impaired communion" would apply as much here as anywhere?

--------------------
Benedikt Gott Geschickt!

Posts: 7082 | From: Turbolift Control. | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Amos

Shipmate
# 44

 - Posted      Profile for Amos     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
The Archbishop of Canterbury has also ordained women to the priesthood.

--------------------
At the end of the day we face our Maker alongside Jesus--ken

Posts: 7667 | From: Summerisle | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Scotus
Shipmate
# 8163

 - Posted      Profile for Scotus   Email Scotus   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
'Impaired communion' is a de facto and de jure state within the Church of England whereby it is no longer the case that every member of the church can accept the validity of the sacramental ministry of every person ordained according to the canons of the church.

It is therefore not a doctrine invented by FiF, or anything to do with the alleged 'doctrine of taint' (which has no theological basis) but a statement of fact, describing a state of affairs officially sanctioned by the Church of England.

No-one claims that the sacrament celebrated by a man who accepts/ordains/concelebrates with women priests is invalid. For that matter, with respect to the sacraments of women priests it is more a case of lack of certainty rather than absolute certainty that their sacraments are invalid. However, there is more to being in full communion than simply accepting the validity of sacraments (c.f. Roman Catholics & Orthodox churches). Priests and bishops act collegially, and the Eucharist is an outward sign of the unity of the church. That collegiallity and unity was fractured by the C of E's decision, which represents a fundamental difference in doctrine. The Forward in Faith Communion Statement is about putting in place a 'degree of separation' from that doctrinal development, and has nothing to do with a doctrine of taint.

[ 23. April 2005, 13:10: Message edited by: Scotus ]

Posts: 422 | From: Diocese of Brentwood | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
Oscar the Grouch

Adopted Cascadian
# 1916

 - Posted      Profile for Oscar the Grouch     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Scotus:
The Forward in Faith Communion Statement is about putting in place a 'degree of separation' from that doctrinal development, and has nothing to do with a doctrine of taint.

Yeh right!

Next you'll be telling me Michael Howard isn't playing the fear card at this election....

[Roll Eyes]

--------------------
Faradiu, dundeibáwa weyu lárigi weyu

Posts: 3871 | From: Gamma Quadrant, just to the left of Galifrey | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged
Scotus
Shipmate
# 8163

 - Posted      Profile for Scotus   Email Scotus   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
quote:
Originally posted by Scotus:
The Forward in Faith Communion Statement is about putting in place a 'degree of separation' from that doctrinal development, and has nothing to do with a doctrine of taint.

Yeh right!

Next you'll be telling me Michael Howard isn't playing the fear card at this election....

[Roll Eyes]

And there was I trying to provide some clarification, rather than descend to the level of petty sniping.

You can acuse FiF of a doctrine of taint till you are blue in the face if you want (rather than acknowledge they may be making some valid arguments) but it won't make it true.

[Roll Eyes]

Posts: 422 | From: Diocese of Brentwood | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
Oscar the Grouch

Adopted Cascadian
# 1916

 - Posted      Profile for Oscar the Grouch     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
If it smells like manure, feels like manure and tastes like manure - the chances are that it really IS manure.

The FiF "stand" is a model of suspicion, hostility and ungraciousness. There is no legitimate Christian reason for refusing to receive communion from someone whose sister's next door neighbour once saw a woman priest on TV. The "degree of seperation" is a theology of taint. No matter what feeble arguments are wheeled out to deny it (and they really are feeble), it looks like taint, sounds like taint and stinks to high heavens like taint. And when you consider the kind of purile puss that used to emerge from the voice of FiF (New Directions), you realise that, as far as the majority of FiF are concerned, it really IS taint.

What makes it even more remarkable is that this is from people who (they claim) would like to win over those who have strayed from the One True Fold. Just how likely are you to win over your enemies/opponents if you refuse to even share communion with them and generally treat them like carriers of the bubonic plague?

So in the end, it is a self-defeating theology of taint.

I lost patience with FiF a long time ago. Their complete lack of Christian charity nausiated me. I had wanted to be open and welcoming - to engage in true and friendly dialogue. I read their articles and sought to understand their arguments and positions. But then I wised up and realised that FiF wasn't interested in dialogue - just posturing.

--------------------
Faradiu, dundeibáwa weyu lárigi weyu

Posts: 3871 | From: Gamma Quadrant, just to the left of Galifrey | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged
Scotus
Shipmate
# 8163

 - Posted      Profile for Scotus   Email Scotus   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
If it smells like manure, feels like manure and tastes like manure - the chances are that it really IS manure.

Is that supposed to further your argument?

quote:
The FiF "stand" is a model of suspicion, hostility and ungraciousness. There is no legitimate Christian reason for refusing to receive communion from someone whose sister's next door neighbour once saw a woman priest on TV.
The last sentence of this quote is plain silly, but the first deserves a response.

To understand the FiF "stand" you have to realise that for those opposed to the ordination of women to the priesthood the decision in 1992 represented an innovation, a departure from the practice of the Church of England and from the universal church, a innovation which for various reasons they do not accept. Naturally those holding this view want to have as little to do with the innovation as possible. That does not mean they have to be rude to women (& bishops who ordain them) or avoid them like the plague - where this has happened it is regrettable and for the most part I think a thing of the past. But it is quite reasonable for those in this position to seek the pastoral and sacramental ministry of those who like them do not accept the innovation, and the C of E has put structures in place so that they can do this.

There are practical difficulties as well as the theological question of collegiality: even if a church which accepts the ordination of women only has male priests on its staff, a woman priest might be providing holiday or sickness cover. Someone opposed to the ordination of women to the priesthood might quite reasonably chose not to attend that church in case this situation arises.

A doctrine of taint would say that sacraments of a bishop who ordains women or a priest who has concelebrated with women are invalid or somehow tainted. This is completely different from what I have just outlined.

[ 25. April 2005, 09:05: Message edited by: Scotus ]

Posts: 422 | From: Diocese of Brentwood | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
HenryT

Canadian Anglican
# 3722

 - Posted      Profile for HenryT   Author's homepage   Email HenryT   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Scotus:
... That does not mean they have ... avoid them like the plague - where this has happened it is regrettable and for the most part I think a thing of the past. ...

This whole flurry was sparked by a poster's description of avoiding churches because he adhered to the FiF "Safe List", which to me sounds like the stringent avoidance is not a thing of the past.

I still adhere to Rossweisse's comment that FiF is the "Girls have cooties club".

--------------------
"Perhaps an invincible attachment to the dearest rights of man may, in these refined, enlightened days, be deemed old-fashioned" P. Henry, 1788

Posts: 7231 | From: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Scotus
Shipmate
# 8163

 - Posted      Profile for Scotus   Email Scotus   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Henry Troup:
quote:
Originally posted by Scotus:
... That does not mean they have ... avoid them like the plague - where this has happened it is regrettable and for the most part I think a thing of the past. ...

This whole flurry was sparked by a poster's description of avoiding churches because he adhered to the FiF "Safe List", which to me sounds like the stringent avoidance is not a thing of the past.

I still adhere to Rossweisse's comment that FiF is the "Girls have cooties club".

The referrant of "them" in this passage which you quoted was not churches but women priests and bishops who ordain them. Rudeness is not acceptable (and I stand by my claim that for the most part such rudeness belonged to the more heated times immediately after '92), and one does not have to avoid talking to women priests, going to meetings with them, being civil and polite to them. This is what I meant by the comment you selectively quoted.

I also explained in my post why someone belonging to FiF might want to avoid worshipping at a church were a women priest ministers or might minister.

[ 25. April 2005, 13:55: Message edited by: Scotus ]

Posts: 422 | From: Diocese of Brentwood | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
HenryT

Canadian Anglican
# 3722

 - Posted      Profile for HenryT   Author's homepage   Email HenryT   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
There's a Women's Ordination WorldWide (WOW)
Second International Ecumenical in Ottawa this summer.

--------------------
"Perhaps an invincible attachment to the dearest rights of man may, in these refined, enlightened days, be deemed old-fashioned" P. Henry, 1788

Posts: 7231 | From: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Barnabas62
Host
# 9110

 - Posted      Profile for Barnabas62   Email Barnabas62   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Scotus:

There are practical difficulties as well as the theological question of collegiality: even if a church which accepts the ordination of women only has male priests on its staff, a woman priest might be providing holiday or sickness cover. Someone opposed to the ordination of women to the priesthood might quite reasonably chose not to attend that church in case this situation arises.

A doctrine of taint would say that sacraments of a bishop who ordains women or a priest who has concelebrated with women are invalid or somehow tainted. This is completely different from what I have just outlined.

An ecumenical question occurs to me, as a matter of practice, not doctrine. Are you prevented from taking part in ecumenical events involving non-conformist ministers (e.g URC, Methodist, Baptist, who ordain/commission women) if these might involve exposure to what you might see as invalid behaviour by those ministers?

After all, you might not know in advance either which ministers would be there or what their gender might be. Does this mean you have to give all such events a wide berth?

--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?

Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Scotus
Shipmate
# 8163

 - Posted      Profile for Scotus   Email Scotus   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
An ecumenical question occurs to me, as a matter of practice, not doctrine. Are you prevented from taking part in ecumenical events involving non-conformist ministers (e.g URC, Methodist, Baptist, who ordain/commission women) if these might involve exposure to what you might see as invalid behaviour by those ministers?

After all, you might not know in advance either which ministers would be there or what their gender might be. Does this mean you have to give all such events a wide berth?

Ecumencical events are likely to be non-eucharistic so it wouldn't really be a problem. In any case, Methodist/URC/Baptist ministers are not episcopally ordained, so a female minister would have the same status as a male minister.
Posts: 422 | From: Diocese of Brentwood | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
HenryT

Canadian Anglican
# 3722

 - Posted      Profile for HenryT   Author's homepage   Email HenryT   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
2nd International Ecumenical Conference on Women's Ordination Worldwide Ottawa, Canada, July 22-24, 2005.

--------------------
"Perhaps an invincible attachment to the dearest rights of man may, in these refined, enlightened days, be deemed old-fashioned" P. Henry, 1788

Posts: 7231 | From: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
brackenrigg
Shipmate
# 9408

 - Posted      Profile for brackenrigg   Email brackenrigg   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
What really matters is that this priestess bangwagon has been commandeered by shrill, strident feminists from over the water who have no care for the CofE, only themsleves.
It is much more important to heal the rift between the Catholic and CofE and this should have been made a primary issue. Once we go over the edge with bishopesses, alll chances of healing the rift will be finished.
We are all doomed .... doomed.

Posts: 196 | From: s yorks | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460

 - Posted      Profile for ken     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by brackenrigg:
What really matters is that this priestess bangwagon has been commandeered by shrill, strident feminists from over the water who have no care for the CofE, only themsleves.
It is much more important to heal the rift between the Catholic and CofE and this should have been made a primary issue. Once we go over the edge with bishopesses, alll chances of healing the rift will be finished.
We are all doomed .... doomed.

Are we allowed to out trolls other than in Hell?

--------------------
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      Profile for ken     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Scotus:
However, there is more to being in full communion than simply accepting the validity of sacraments (c.f. Roman Catholics & Orthodox churches). Priests and bishops act collegially, and the Eucharist is an outward sign of the unity of the church. That collegiallity and unity was fractured by the C of E's decision, which represents a fundamental difference in doctrine. The Forward in Faith Communion Statement is about putting in place a 'degree of separation' from that doctrinal development,

A concise descriptions of the doctrine of taint, understandably biased towards the anti-women position.

quote:
and has nothing to do with a doctrine of taint.
But that is that doctrine. Just rather understated, without going into its more unpleasant implications.


quote:

There are practical difficulties as well as the theological question of collegiality: even if a church which accepts the ordination of women only has male priests on its staff, a woman priest might be providing holiday or sickness cover. Someone opposed to the ordination of women to the priesthood might quite reasonably chose not to attend that church in case this situation arises.

A doctrine of taint would say that sacraments of a bishop who ordains women or a priest who has concelebrated with women are invalid or somehow tainted. This is completely different from what I have just outlined.

No it isn't it is a neccessary consequence of what you have just outlined.

This "question of collegiality" is exactly a sort of taint. A bishop who ordains women as priests is in your eyes no longer fit to ordain men as priests, because no longer "in collegiality" with bishops who do not recognise women priests.

You have said that a FiFer would not want to attend a chruch that accepts the ordination of women, even once, just in case there might be a woman presiding on that day. Even if there are no women priests on the staff. So refusal to deny the possibilty that women could be priests prevents this person even visiting the church when on holiday. Just in case!

That sounds like "somehow tainted" to me.

quote:
Originally posted by Scotus:
I also explained in my post why someone belonging to FiF might want to avoid worshipping at a church were a women priest ministers or might minister.

If you want to be free of the charge of believing a doctrine of taint, you'd have to be able to answer these questions:

  • Would you accept a male priest in your congregation who had been ordained by a male bishop who had previously ordained women?
  • If visiting a place where you do not usually worship, would you attend a local church, knowing it to accept the ordination of women, and perhaps declining to communicate if a woman happend to be presiding?
  • If your parish accepted the ordination of women in theory, but did not happen to have any women priests on the staff, would you be happy to continue to attend and take communion? (again, perhaps not communicating on the odd days a visiting woman preside)
  • Would you accept a male priest in your congregation who had been ordained by a male bishop, at a ceremony in which a women bishop took part?
  • Would you accept a male bishop who had been ordained and consecrated by male bishops, at a ceremony in which a women bishop took part?

If the answer to any of them is not "yes" I think the suspicion of the doctrine of taint is still valid.

--------------------
Ken

L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.

Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
TonyK

Host Emeritus
# 35

 - Posted      Profile for TonyK   Email TonyK   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by brackenrigg:
What really matters is that this priestess bangwagon <snip> Once we go over the edge with bishopesses, <snip>

quote:
Originally posted by ken
Are we allowed to out trolls other than in Hell?

Host Mode <ACTIVATE>

Brackenrigg - I appreciate that you are (relatively) new to the ship, having been an apprentice for only a month, but please be aware that the term 'priestess', and by extension 'bishopess' are, in this context, very offensive to many shipmates.

Please consider your motives for using these terms - otherwise Ken's assertion may prove to be true. In general I would feel that Hell is the only Board where they may be used - where others can respond suitably!

Ken - please cut Brackenrigg some slack as he is still a newbie. You may be right - time will tell

Host Mode <DE-ACTIVATE>

--------------------
Yours aye ... TonyK

Posts: 2717 | From: Gloucestershire | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757

 - Posted      Profile for Ricardus   Author's homepage   Email Ricardus   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
ken (or anyone else) -

What do you actually mean by a "doctrine of taint"? I always understood it to mean a kind of Donatism - that bishops who ordained women would instantly lose their power to validly ordain anyone else.

I don't think FiF are arguing this. My understanding is that FiF regard the ordination of men by bishops who have also ordained women as valid - but the communion is "impaired" for other reasons. A comparable situation would be the policy of the Roman Catholic Church with regard to Eastern Orthodox Eucharists - they are IIRC valid sacraments, but Catholics shouldn't take them because communion between the churches is broached for other reasons.

--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)

Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
HenryT

Canadian Anglican
# 3722

 - Posted      Profile for HenryT   Author's homepage   Email HenryT   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
...My understanding is that FiF regard the ordination of men by bishops who have also ordained women as valid - but the communion is "impaired" for other reasons. ...

I have trouble seeing a difference in the distinction. If there is a negative effect on your communion with person C because bishop A ordained both B and C, and B is a member of some class W ... it's a doctrine of taint.

--------------------
"Perhaps an invincible attachment to the dearest rights of man may, in these refined, enlightened days, be deemed old-fashioned" P. Henry, 1788

Posts: 7231 | From: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
GreyFace
Shipmate
# 4682

 - Posted      Profile for GreyFace   Email GreyFace   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Henry Troup:
If there is a negative effect on your communion with person C because bishop A ordained both B and C, and B is a member of some class W ... it's a doctrine of taint.

This is a little simplistic, because the basis of the impaired communion with C is that the ordination of B by A is viewed as a possible indication that C is either no longer a bishop, or no longer capable of acting as a bishop.

This is in principle no different to saying that if a bishop decided that Christ was not the Son of God, God didn't exist at all, and the surest path to salvation involved the murder of everyone not born within three miles of Coquet Island, I would question the validity of his sacramentally conferred teaching authority.

So taint doesn't really come into it, they're arguing that the beliefs (not sins) of the bishop may disqualify him from the episcopate and C is an innocent bystander. I've seen this argument from the RCs over the Old Catholic involvement in Anglican Succession.

I think I agree with the principle. I just disagree with FiF over the question of whether women can be priests.

Posts: 5748 | From: North East England | Registered: Jul 2003  |  IP: Logged
GreyFace
Shipmate
# 4682

 - Posted      Profile for GreyFace   Email GreyFace   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
My understanding is that FiF regard the ordination of men by bishops who have also ordained women as valid - but the communion is "impaired" for other reasons.

What other reasons are there? Perhaps one of the FiF Shipmates can enlighten me if this is the case.
Posts: 5748 | From: North East England | Registered: Jul 2003  |  IP: Logged
HenryT

Canadian Anglican
# 3722

 - Posted      Profile for HenryT   Author's homepage   Email HenryT   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Scotus:
...A doctrine of taint would say that sacraments of a bishop who ordains women or a priest who has concelebrated with women are invalid or somehow tainted. ...

And ordination is a sacrament. I still see no difference. Were my Bishop to indulge in any of the odd practices GreyFace describes, I would indeed view any sacraments he celebrated afterward as tainted.


quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:So taint doesn't really come into it, they're arguing that the beliefs (not sins) of the bishop may disqualify him from the episcopate
Isn't this Donatism?

[ETA: Attribution]

[ 30. May 2005, 17:41: Message edited by: Henry Troup ]

--------------------
"Perhaps an invincible attachment to the dearest rights of man may, in these refined, enlightened days, be deemed old-fashioned" P. Henry, 1788

Posts: 7231 | From: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757

 - Posted      Profile for Ricardus   Author's homepage   Email Ricardus   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
My understanding is that FiF regard the ordination of men by bishops who have also ordained women as valid - but the communion is "impaired" for other reasons.

What other reasons are there? Perhaps one of the FiF Shipmates can enlighten me if this is the case.
We-ell .... if my understanding is correct, which it very probably isn't, the "other reasons" would be the perceived abandonment of Holy Tradition, which is made manifest in the ordination of women, as opposed to the ordinations themselves.

Though it occurs to me that the same logic could be applied to impair communion with a fair number of Evangelicals or liberals, so it's quite probable that I'm barking up the wrong tree and my posts should be ignored.

--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)

Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757

 - Posted      Profile for Ricardus   Author's homepage   Email Ricardus   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Henry Troup:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
...My understanding is that FiF regard the ordination of men by bishops who have also ordained women as valid - but the communion is "impaired" for other reasons. ...

I have trouble seeing a difference in the distinction. If there is a negative effect on your communion with person C because bishop A ordained both B and C, and B is a member of some class W ... it's a doctrine of taint.
As I say I'm not sure what's meant by a doctrine of taint, which is why I asked the question. I assumed it meant Donatism, in which case FiF aren't guilty, because they believe an "offending" bishop's sacraments are still valid.

--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)

Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757

 - Posted      Profile for Ricardus   Author's homepage   Email Ricardus   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Sorry, misunderstood my own post. Can I try again? Please ignore my first attempt.

quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
My understanding is that FiF regard the ordination of men by bishops who have also ordained women as valid - but the communion is "impaired" for other reasons.

What other reasons are there? Perhaps one of the FiF Shipmates can enlighten me if this is the case.
The reason is not "because the sacraments are invalid". The reason is whatever it is that stops Catholics and Orthodox from taking communion together.

Though the above is subject to the usual caveat that I'm only stating what I understand to be the case, and probably ought really to leave it to someone who actually knows what they're talking about ...

(I'm making rather a mess of this, aren't I? Good thing it's down here where no-one will know ...)

--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)

Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
Bishops Finger
Shipmate
# 5430

 - Posted      Profile for Bishops Finger   Email Bishops Finger   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Something of this sort may have been reported on this thread before, but life is too short for me to plough through it all.......

However, at this morning's Sung Eucharist in the Cathedral I was delighted to see that all three Sacred Ministers were female, something which I guess may be quite rare. The Celebrant and Sub-Deacon were two of our Honorary Priest-Vicars, and our Reader-in-Training acted as Deacon (although, strictly speaking, I guess she and the Sub-Deacon should have swapped roles).

The OT Reading and the Intercessions were both done by ladies from the congo, with chaps being relegated to the lowlier roles of crucifer, taperers and servers......

One in the eye for that well-known 'anti-ordained-women' body...... [Snigger]

Ian J.

--------------------
Our words are giants when they do us an injury, and dwarfs when they do us a service. (Wilkie Collins)

Posts: 10151 | From: Behind The Wheel Again! | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460

 - Posted      Profile for ken     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
FiF aren't guilty, because they believe an "offending" bishop's sacraments are still valid.

Do they? Yet they would, as far as I know, refuse to have such people officiating in their churches, and refuse to even visit churches where they are. That action sounds as if they think them invalid to me, whatever they say in words.

--------------------
Ken

L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.

Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
Scotus
Shipmate
# 8163

 - Posted      Profile for Scotus   Email Scotus   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
FiF aren't guilty, because they believe an "offending" bishop's sacraments are still valid.

Do they?
Yes they do. Ricardus is spot on. There is no suggestion that the sacraments celebrated by a male bishop or priest are invalid, as a doctrine of taint would imply.

If a woman priest were to celebrate mass I would have serious doubts about whether Christ was really and substantially present in the sacrament. If a male priest (ordained by a male bishop) did so I would have no doubt whatsoever about the real presence of Christ in the sacrament, whatever his or his ordaining bishops views on the ordination of women. There is therefore a difference between an invalid sacrament and one which is valid but I may nevertheless choose not to partake of. This is, however, harder to appreciate without a Catholic doctrine of the real presence.

Posts: 422 | From: Diocese of Brentwood | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460

 - Posted      Profile for ken     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Oh I appreciate it all right, but it does seem an example of do as I do, not as I say.

What is your answer to the questions in my post about 40cm above this one?

--------------------
Ken

L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.

Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
Scotus
Shipmate
# 8163

 - Posted      Profile for Scotus   Email Scotus   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
What is your answer to the questions in my post about 40cm above this one?

If I must...

quote:
1. Would you accept a male priest in your congregation who had been ordained by a male bishop who had previously ordained women?
2. If visiting a place where you do not usually worship, would you attend a local church, knowing it to accept the ordination of women, and perhaps declining to communicate if a woman happend to be presiding?
3. If your parish accepted the ordination of women in theory, but did not happen to have any women priests on the staff, would you be happy to continue to attend and take communion? (again, perhaps not communicating on the odd days a visiting woman preside)
4. Would you accept a male priest in your congregation who had been ordained by a male bishop, at a ceremony in which a women bishop took part?
5. Would you accept a male bishop who had been ordained and consecrated by male bishops, at a ceremony in which a women bishop took part?

1. 'in your congregation' is unclear - I take it you don't simply mean would I be happy to have the priest you describe as a member of the congregation. We also need to expand on 'ordain women' since ordaining women as deacon is different from ordaining them as priest. I would of course consider that priest's orders to be valid and I would fully accept his sacramental ministry. I would however most likely prefer not to have such a priest as my parish priest unless he had changed his mind.

2. I would seek out a church where I could be confident that there would not be a female celebrant. Or I might choose on that occasion to worship with my Roman Catholic wife. But I would not rule out going to a church such as you describe under certain circumstances and indeed have done so.

3. Again that is vague. Are you talking about the views of the congregation, the PCC or the parish priest, which may not necessarily coincide, or an official policy? If the 'official' position was that women may celebrate in that church, I would most likely find another.

4. What part has the women bishop played in your scenario? Provided the ordaining bishop is male and validly consecrated bishop then the priests orders are valid but I would regard the participation of a female bishop in his ordination as a much graver impairment of communion, so I would choose not to partake of his sacramental ministry except in extremis

5. Again, what is the women bishop doing? Acting as an MC? One of the co-consecrators? Since the 'rule of three' is not essential to the validity of the sacrament, as long as a male bishop presided at the consecration then it would have to be considered valid, but highly irregular if a woman bishop actually participated in the consecration. Again, the impairment of communion here would be so grave that I would not wish to receive sacraments from this bishop except in extremis nor would I want to be under his authority.

So you see the answers are not straightforward. In each case there is no doubt about the validity of the sacrament, but there is an increasingly serious impairment of communion. Perhaps the distinction between 'taint' and impaired commuunion is simply expressed in that I would accept the sacraments from any of these male priests or bishops on my death bed (whereas I wouldn't from a woman priest/bishop or a man ordained by a woman bishop since there would be very grave doubt about the validity of the sacrament in those cases)

Posts: 422 | From: Diocese of Brentwood | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
Scotus
Shipmate
# 8163

 - Posted      Profile for Scotus   Email Scotus   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
If you want to be free of the charge of believing a doctrine of taint, you'd have to be able to answer these questions:
<snip>
If the answer to any of them is not "yes" I think the suspicion of the doctrine of taint is still valid.

Sorry for the doubly post. Needless to say, I disagree with the premise behind your five point test, since you seem to be reducing it all to the simple question of 'will you / won't you receive communion from x?'

[ 17. June 2005, 09:05: Message edited by: Scotus ]

Posts: 422 | From: Diocese of Brentwood | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
dyfrig
Blue Scarfed Menace
# 15

 - Posted      Profile for dyfrig   Email dyfrig   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I do not find your distinction convincing, Scotus.

In your last sentence in the answer to Ken's Q1, you state: "I would however most likely prefer not to have such a priest [ordained by a bishop who had also ordained women] as my parish priest unless he had changed his mind."

You're arguments have sought to use the test of your (personal) certainty of the validity of the sacrament.

Yet, here we have a case where you state plainly that you would prefer not to have a person as a parish priest (despite him being properly ordained, and where there is no question of the validity of the sacraments which he celebrates.) And why? Because, apparently, the person who ordained him has also ordained a woman.

Why is that not a doctrine of taint?

--------------------
"He was wrong in the long run, but then, who isn't?" - Tony Judt

Posts: 6917 | From: pob dydd Iau, am hanner dydd | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Scotus
Shipmate
# 8163

 - Posted      Profile for Scotus   Email Scotus   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by dyfrig:
Yet, here we have a case where you state plainly that you would prefer not to have a person as a parish priest (despite him being properly ordained, and where there is no question of the validity of the sacraments which he celebrates.) And why? Because, apparently, the person who ordained him has also ordained a woman.

Why is that not a doctrine of taint?

It is not a doctrine of taint because such a doctrine would imply that ability of his ordaining bishop to confer the sacrament of orders is compromised, and thus the priest's own orders are compromised. This is emphatically not my position.

I said that I would prefer not to have such a person as my parish priest for the following reason:

1. As someone who is opposed to the ordination of women to the priesthood (at least for the time being) I would, as far as possible, seek to worship at a church which identified itself with this position or at least where there was an assurance that women priests would not function as such in that place.

2. I am assuming that in most cases a priest who has been ordained by a bishop who ordains women priests would not be the parish priest of the kind of church I have described (though of course there are exceptions)

Therefore I would in general prefer to worship at a church where the priest was ordained by a bishop who had not previously ordained women, but not because of that fact itself.
As I have said all along, there is no question that this hypothetical priest and his ordaining bishop are any less a priest or bishop on my eyes.

[ 17. June 2005, 13:06: Message edited by: Scotus ]

Posts: 422 | From: Diocese of Brentwood | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
dyfrig
Blue Scarfed Menace
# 15

 - Posted      Profile for dyfrig   Email dyfrig   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Would you refuse to accept the sacrament from the hands of a priest who disagreed with you over the filioque?

--------------------
"He was wrong in the long run, but then, who isn't?" - Tony Judt

Posts: 6917 | From: pob dydd Iau, am hanner dydd | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Scotus
Shipmate
# 8163

 - Posted      Profile for Scotus   Email Scotus   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by dyfrig:
Would you refuse to accept the sacrament from the hands of a priest who disagreed with you over the filioque?

[brick wall]

Did I at any point say I would refuse to accept the sacrament? No I did not.

A question for you: if I choose (as indeed I do) not to attend my local evangical C of E church on a regular basis am I saying that that church is 'tainted'?

As a traditionalist anglo-catholic inclined towards modern roman liturgy I am naturally going to seek out a traditionalist anglo-catholic church inclined towards modern roman liturgy. It doesn't mean that as far as I am concerned every other church is tainted. 'Taint' has nothing to do with it. This discussion really is getting quite boring. [Snore]

[ 17. June 2005, 13:20: Message edited by: Scotus ]

Posts: 422 | From: Diocese of Brentwood | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
dyfrig
Blue Scarfed Menace
# 15

 - Posted      Profile for dyfrig   Email dyfrig   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I thought the traditional "Catholic" view was that you went to your own parish church anyway ;P

But you raise an important point with regards Evangelical Anglicans. My experience of such churhces (and they are legion) suggest to me that there is an intriguing parallel between Measure Resolution parishes and some people who haul up in place like, St Michael's Aberystwyth or Holy Trinity Brompton, and it's this:

They are people who choose to go to that place because other places aren't Really Church, because of some fault of doctrine or order or tradition or whatever.

Now, you may be comfortable that you have managed to find a distinction between your position and one of taint (though, in traditions where the tactile transmission of the holy magic is so central, the suspicion cannot entirely be dismissed) but, like many people (myself, at one time, included) your (the generic "your") choosing of a church community is, basically, (the generic) you deciding where the Real Church is. In Evangelical terms, this coalesces round notions of "soundness", "liberalism", "Bible-based", etc.

And as these groups of people gain internal cohesion, and networks are created not with the adjoining parish, but with those of a similar bent, we find that, whilst Measure Resolution parishes may not necessarily believe in taint, they have certainly embraced Congregationalism wholeheartedly.

--------------------
"He was wrong in the long run, but then, who isn't?" - Tony Judt

Posts: 6917 | From: pob dydd Iau, am hanner dydd | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
dyfrig
Blue Scarfed Menace
# 15

 - Posted      Profile for dyfrig   Email dyfrig   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
D'oh, forgot to respond to your first point.

You did not, of course, mention receiving - my apologies for reading too much into what you said.

--------------------
"He was wrong in the long run, but then, who isn't?" - Tony Judt

Posts: 6917 | From: pob dydd Iau, am hanner dydd | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Scotus
Shipmate
# 8163

 - Posted      Profile for Scotus   Email Scotus   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by dyfrig:
I thought the traditional "Catholic" view was that you went to your own parish church anyway ;P

True. And making the whole C of E aware of its Catholicity is an important task for Catholic Anglicans. But one could also argue that as a Catholic one has a duty to try and attend a church where Catholic doctrine is taught and in particular due place given to the sacraments.

An individual church which has not embraced the innovation of ordaining women to the priesthood and therefore votes, in accordance with the Act of Synod, to petition for alternative episcopal oversite, can surely only be described as being congregationalist if the C of E which provides for this position in its structures can also be described as congregationalist. Perhaps it can - a consequence of the way in which the catholicity of the C of E was compromised when it embarked upon this course.

[ 22. June 2005, 16:19: Message edited by: Scotus ]

Posts: 422 | From: Diocese of Brentwood | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
Philpott-Thrashington
Shipmate
# 5269

 - Posted      Profile for Philpott-Thrashington   Author's homepage   Email Philpott-Thrashington   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Haven't trawled through all 11 pages of this, but has anyone yet commented that since Jesus was willing to receive his earthly life from a woman, surely we can't be obtuse enough to refuse to receive the life he offers us from the hands of a woman?

Mind you, theology never was my strong point, especially in the middle of a heat wave! [Cool]

--------------------
The Dean of Wenchoster
"Watch and pray!"

Posts: 126 | From: Suffolk | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460

 - Posted      Profile for ken     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Scotus:
As a traditionalist anglo-catholic inclined towards modern roman liturgy I am naturally going to seek out a traditionalist anglo-catholic church inclined towards modern roman liturgy. It doesn't mean that as far as I am concerned every other church is tainted. 'Taint' has nothing to do with it.

Your description of your position is pretty much what the rest of us mean by "taint" in this context.

--------------------
Ken

L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.

Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
Scotus
Shipmate
# 8163

 - Posted      Profile for Scotus   Email Scotus   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Scotus:
As a traditionalist anglo-catholic inclined towards modern roman liturgy I am naturally going to seek out a traditionalist anglo-catholic church inclined towards modern roman liturgy. It doesn't mean that as far as I am concerned every other church is tainted. 'Taint' has nothing to do with it.

Your description of your position is pretty much what the rest of us mean by "taint" in this context.
So presumably you agree that, say, an evangelical who chooses to attend an evangelical church and not other churches is also subscribing to a theology of taint with respect to those other churches?
Posts: 422 | From: Diocese of Brentwood | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
HenryT

Canadian Anglican
# 3722

 - Posted      Profile for HenryT   Author's homepage   Email HenryT   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Philpott-Thrashington:
Haven't trawled through all 11 pages of this, but has anyone yet commented that since Jesus was willing to receive his earthly life from a woman, surely we can't be obtuse enough to refuse to receive the life he offers us from the hands of a woman?
...

Hear also what St. Paul saith: In Christ there is neither ... male nor female ...

Jesus is recorded in the Gospels as radically revising the "normal" standard of contact between men and women for his time and place. Yet, Christians persist in pushing a a standard that's not radical at all.

--------------------
"Perhaps an invincible attachment to the dearest rights of man may, in these refined, enlightened days, be deemed old-fashioned" P. Henry, 1788

Posts: 7231 | From: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Scotus
Shipmate
# 8163

 - Posted      Profile for Scotus   Email Scotus   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Henry Troup:
Hear also what St. Paul saith: In Christ there is neither ... male nor female ...

This being the same Paul who says in 1 Cor that women should keep silent in church. I wouldn't want to construct an argument against the ordination of women founded on this text, but am just illustrating the danger of proof-texting.

quote:
Jesus is recorded in the Gospels as radically revising the "normal" standard of contact between men and women for his time and place.
Which makes it all the more striking that the 12 are all men. Again, I'm not saying that this is enough by itself to base an argument on. However it seems to me that those who try and argue the ordination of women to the priesthood is biblical are not on strong ground.

[ 27. June 2005, 10:00: Message edited by: Scotus ]

Posts: 422 | From: Diocese of Brentwood | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
The Scrumpmeister
Ship’s Taverner
# 5638

 - Posted      Profile for The Scrumpmeister   Author's homepage   Email The Scrumpmeister   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
This week's Radio Times shows a picture of Mtr Rose Hudson-Wilkins alongside the listing for a programme due to be broadcast on Channel 4 at 8pm tomorrow about the issues surrounding the canonical ordination of women to the episcopate.

--------------------
If Christ is not fully human, humankind is not fully saved. - St John of Saint-Denis

Posts: 14741 | From: Greater Manchester, UK | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
The Scrumpmeister
Ship’s Taverner
# 5638

 - Posted      Profile for The Scrumpmeister   Author's homepage   Email The Scrumpmeister   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
This programme is evoking mixed feelings in me.

This groups of RC women who in training for priesthood in the RC church, one of whom is talking about the Last Supper as the Eucharist, are spouting complete nonsense and doing nothing whatsoever to support their own cause. I hear good arguments on both sides of this and now I am seeing them throw away any credibility that they may have had.

Is anybody else watching?

[ 11. July 2005, 19:37: Message edited by: Back-to-Front ]

--------------------
If Christ is not fully human, humankind is not fully saved. - St John of Saint-Denis

Posts: 14741 | From: Greater Manchester, UK | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
The Scrumpmeister
Ship’s Taverner
# 5638

 - Posted      Profile for The Scrumpmeister   Author's homepage   Email The Scrumpmeister   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Sorry for a third post. I just thought I'd provide this link.

--------------------
If Christ is not fully human, humankind is not fully saved. - St John of Saint-Denis

Posts: 14741 | From: Greater Manchester, UK | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Mark M
Shipmate
# 9500

 - Posted      Profile for Mark M   Author's homepage   Email Mark M   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Back-to-Front:
This week's Radio Times shows a picture of Mtr Rose Hudson-Wilkins alongside the listing for a programme due to be broadcast on Channel 4 at 8pm tomorrow about the issues surrounding the canonical ordination of women to the episcopate.

Did you tape it? 'Cause I didn't know it was on.

--------------------
I only know three words of Latin: deus caritas est.

Posts: 139 | From: Edinburgh, Scotland UK | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
The Scrumpmeister
Ship’s Taverner
# 5638

 - Posted      Profile for The Scrumpmeister   Author's homepage   Email The Scrumpmeister   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I'm so sorry. No, I didn't. [Frown]

I keep letting you down lately, don't I?

--------------------
If Christ is not fully human, humankind is not fully saved. - St John of Saint-Denis

Posts: 14741 | From: Greater Manchester, UK | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Barnabas62
Host
# 9110

 - Posted      Profile for Barnabas62   Email Barnabas62   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I did watch it. I thought Christina Odone was remarkable - and her responses were very moving. Anne Widdecome's contribution reminded me of the misguided certainties of many conservative evangelicals I have tussled with in the past. Reasoned - yes. Unfeeling and dismissive. Yes. Christlike? Never in a million years. Where was the compassion and anguish I saw written all over Christina Odone?

--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?

Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Mark M
Shipmate
# 9500

 - Posted      Profile for Mark M   Author's homepage   Email Mark M   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Back-to-Front:
I'm so sorry. No, I didn't. [Frown]

I keep letting you down lately, don't I?

Shudupayaface. You weren't to know.

--------------------
I only know three words of Latin: deus caritas est.

Posts: 139 | From: Edinburgh, Scotland UK | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged



Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  ...  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  ...  51  52  53 
 
Post new thread  Post a reply Close thread   Feature thread   Move thread   Delete thread Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
 - Printer-friendly view
Go to:

Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement

© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0

 
follow ship of fools on twitter
buy your ship of fools postcards
sip of fools mugs from your favourite nautical website
 
 
  ship of fools