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 12)

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.  
Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  ...  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  ...  51  52  53 
 
Source: (consider it) Thread: Priestly genitalia [Ordination of Women]
rugbyplayingpriest
Shipmate
# 9809

 - Posted      Profile for rugbyplayingpriest   Author's homepage   Email rugbyplayingpriest   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
As a forward in faith type I have not yet seen the theological arguments against given proper airing- so forgive this long post. (Oh and the 'taint' idea is total rubbish. I have never met anyone who applies it. Spin from the anti FIF brigade , I fear.)

Anyway my reasons for doubting the decision to ordain women follows: I do not wish to offend anyone- particularly the many fine women priests who do a wonderful job. This is my viewpoint- I respect yours. (I think the decision is actually valid from a protestant stand point but not a Catholic one you see!!)

1. The Saviour chose no women apostles and (so far as we know) he commissioned no women to teach or exercise the power ‘of the keys’.

He did however value and uphold their specific role and ministry as disciples. Christ was ever able to defy convention and pharisaic teaching when he willed. Thus defying a notion that he was limited by the wisdom of his age. (Particularly as the pagan world had many female priests- so they had been thought of)

2. St Paul forbade women to have authority over men in the Church. Among other things, this suggests how St Paul interpreted the fact that Christ appointed no women apostles.

3. There were no women bishops or presbyters in the early centuries of the Church. This indicates that St Paul's take on the matter was not personal opinion, but the consensus among the Apostles- handed down to their successors. All attempts to rewrite history on this issue havve been flimsy.

4. In the third century, the Montanists teaching was refuted by the Church. The principal point of issue between the Montanist heretics and the orthodox was the reliability of the Apostolic Tradition. (compared to the "new revelations of the Holy Spirit" that the Montanists were claiming.- sound familiar!!)

One of the principal arguments against the Montanists was that their practice of ordaining women proved that they were not faithful to the Apostolic Tradition. This indicates that the ordination of men only to the presbyterate and the episcopate was part of the authentic teaching of the Apostles.

5. The canon law of the early Church specifically forbade the ordination of women to the presbyterate and episcopate. These canons were endorsed by the Council of Nicaea which gave us our Creed. You could say that Nicaea got the Apostolic Tradition wrong on this point, but they sure seem to have got it right in the Creed, so I don't think this holds much water. For the Nicene creed is fundamental to Christian doctrine.

6. You can interpret Scripture to allow women priests, only by attributing St Paul's strictures against it as either

a) his personal opinion or
b) as applicable only to his time and place.

But there's a right way and a wrong way to interpret Scripture. The consistent, and specific teaching, on the part of mainstream Christianity (through the many centuries) is a pretty reliable guide. Choosing one's interpretation in order to conform to current understandings of "equality" is most certainly not.

7. Whereas secularism attempts to make the sexes interchangeable, the Church upholds the celebration of their different natures. This leads to a difference of role and purpose within an equality of being. Hence Mother Theresa and Pope John Paul both witnessed to Christ with equal power and integrity – but both did so by their different calling as man and woman. One was the priest Peter- the other the loved disciple- Magdalene.

8. This understanding of difference in role leads directly to the Eucharist. An anamnesis in which the priest stands ‘in persona Christi.(The reason that Orthodox priests have beards and long hair) Christ cannot be represented by a woman because Christ’s maleness is not incidental but revelatory. He is bound to his role as the Father. (The Jewish revelation of a male God says something subtle yet profound. Pagan religion happily used priestesses- combined with a notion of the mother god- one who gave birth to the world- hence nature worship! But Judaism changed this- making God the life giver and yet allowing him a separateness to created order. Nature is created BY him not OF him. A male priesthood symbolises this at a deep and unconscious level.

9. Scripture teaches that the relationship between Christ and his people is upheld and signified by the royal imagery of Christ the groom and his bride the Church. This is cemented in the marriage ceremony. At the Eucharist created order is echoed. The Church gather as bride- and the priest celebrant stands (in persona Christi) as groom. A female priest muddies this divine image of Christ and his bride at a subtle yet profound and complex level.

10. Mother Church has always taught that changes to doctrine and practice can only be accepted when authenticated by scripture, reason and tradition. All three and not just one of them. (Note this does not include personal or communal experience!) If something cannot be proven by these then we simply do not have the authority to adopt it (for fear it is vainly invented and erroneous). Thus even if possible and pleasant – women’s ordination cannot be accepted unless revealed by Holy Scripture. (THE OVFERWHELMING EVIDENCE IS THAT IT IS NOT)

11. All arguments put forward in favour come back to one thing. That it must be done for reasons of equality. (Using a secular definition of man and women as being interchangeable not the divine one of equal but different). Such a secular understanding is a very new and current thing.

12. I am yet to see a good THEOLOGICAL argument. The reasons appeal powerfully to the heart- but miss the head. Quite simply there is no argument that can draw from scripture convincingly. The arguments FOR women priests are entirely sociological. This is highlighted by refering to the 'women Bishops' page on the Women and the Church website.

13. If we conclude that scripture is fallible in matters of Christian doctrine we depart from ALL mainline Christian understanding. We begin a slide into a cult- in which each interprets according to their situation. At this point we may as well throw it out all together. Once we drop the need for scriptural proof- we could theoretically use the same arguments that ordained women to ordain paedophiles or consenting members of group sex parties!! The only way you would say no to them is to draw from communal experience. The reigns are handed from God to society- a VERY dangerous thing- if history teaches us anything.

Hope that helps- and no doubt you will shoot me down! But please do so theologically not sociologically!!

Posts: 130 | From: Kent | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Siena

Ship's Bluestocking
# 5574

 - Posted      Profile for Siena   Author's homepage   Email Siena   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Rugbyplayingpriest, this is going to be an equally long (if not longer) post. I've read your post carefully, and it seems to me more an outline of your position than a discussion of the reasons for it, which is a good starting point. So, in order to move the debate forward, I have some questions I’d like to have clarified:

How do you square this (from “Women in Purple” thread)

quote:
In scripture God never endorses democracy! And rarely does he act through committees.The prophets and Christ stood alone! What would synod have said to Jesus as he stood before Pilate? Probably- we commend you but your words are too strong etc etc...if only you could be more inclusive Jesus- then people might be persuaded. (winks at previous poster!)
Rarely is God's way found in the opinion of the majority! Thus the very basis of a synod is a soceital one- little surprise it is better at playing politics than displaying a clear voice for faith.

With this:
quote:
5. The canon law of the early Church specifically forbade the ordination of women to the presbyterate and episcopate. These canons were endorsed by the Council of Nicaea which gave us our Creed. You could say that Nicaea got the Apostolic Tradition wrong on this point, but they sure seem to have got it right in the Creed, so I don't think this holds much water. For the Nicene creed is fundamental to Christian doctrine.
Further, given that you don’t want to hear any “sociological” or “fairness” arguments, are you dropping the following “sociological” and “fairness” arguments you have made against the ordination of women - namely, those quoted below?
quote:
What I was driving at is- that Christians are not very good at relating to us men who do not come accross as fluffy due to the testosterone that pumps through our veins. Obviously this does not mean we can be rude or dismissive. I have not meant to be that.
I back this up by noting that the sinlge largest group missing from Church is - men aged 18-40. Perhaps we should be asking why this is?
I assure you that my rugby chums look at us from the outside in and say 'its full of women and wets'. You might not like that- but that is how they talk!!! This does not make them bad people. And like it or not- they will never be tree hugging sorts who enjoy Iona liturgies. (Nothing wrong with Iona if it is your thing) But trust me- it would turn my mates OFF big time.
I know that I also look at the Church sometimes and feel there is no place for me. I was ordained with a group of women (many of whom are lovely) and a group of rather unmasculine men (many of whom were also lovely) Being young, and very male I stuck out like a sore thumb.

quote:
In reality the Church has offered promotion and attractive parishes only to those in favour of women priests whilst marginalised and ignoring those against.
If you want evidence consider the many faithful traditional priests who have served parishes for over 20yrs and received diddly squat from their diocese.
...and then count the number of consecrations since 1992 that have gone to SSC members....as Dioceasn 0
Yet 6 female Archdeacons have been made, who however good they may be, have only been ordained 9 yrs.
I would be mightily surprised to make ArchDeacon five years after finishing my curacy...but then I am a male traditionalist.

Concerning your points that you find the Biblical interpretation of those in favor of women's ordination lacking, rather than a back and forth of generalities, would you mind reviewing N.T. Wright's address found here and letting us know what you find to be in error? That should help direct the conversation more towards specifics. It also addresses your points regarding St. Paul.

1. There are a great many things Christ didn't do - for a start, He never ordained anyone. Surely He could have performed ordinations and established each of the three-fold orders had He so chosen. Does this mean that they are also forbidden? To what extent to we use "Christ could have done this, but didn't, so it's forbidden" criteria? Is it unique to women's ordination, or does it apply to other things as well?

3. What portion of historical evidence that women acted as priests do you find "flimsy" and why? The catacomb depictions, the letter from Pope Gelasius, the decrees of the councils against ordination, etc., etc., etc. Again, specificity will aid discussion.

4. I thought the objections to Monatism had rather more to do with elevating their individual prophecy above that of the previous prophecies, as well as stating that since the Incarnation and Resurrection had failed, the Holy Spirit had been poured out upon Montanus, Maximilla and Priscilla to lead all into truth again, blah, blah, blah - but I'll have to re-read what Jerome and Eusebius had to say. Could you let me know which accounts of the Montanists you're relying upon? As an aside, I bet women didn't get to do much once Tertullian joined their ranks....

5. If there had never been any women acting as priests in the early church, as you maintain in #3, why did Nicea bother to issue an edict against it?

7. Explain how the ordination of women makes men and women interchangeable or attempts to negate gender differences. Also, please define "secularism" and provide illustrations of how it attempts to obliviate gender.

8. Do you really mean to say that God is gendered, and that gender is male, and that God has revealed himself as exclusively male to the Jews? Could I see some support for that, please? Also, please explain exactly how and why you feel Christ's maleness to be "relevatory" - and how the "relevatory maleness" of Christ is separate and distinct from (and superior to) the "relevatory humanity" of Christ.

9. Could you explain how the presence of men in the bride/congregation doesn't muddy the relationship in the same way you believe the bridegroom/priest does?

10. Precisely what overwhelming evidence are you referring to? Again, stating specifics will be helpful.

12. I sympathize for your desire for a theological argument. However, your assumption that a good theological argument must exclude issues of equality is flawed. How can one have a theological discussion of the Galatians passage without discussing equality? Finally, what constitutes a theological argument, in your view?

10 & 13. Please explain how the Church's departure from its earlier, Scripturally based and long traditionally-upheld position on slavery led to the ills you have enumerated, specifically pedophilia and group sex. Please explain from where you believe the Church derived the authority to depart its teaching on slavery, or do you maintain that the Church in fact had no such authority?

Finally, a question with respect to your view of tradition: Do you believe that it is appropriate to consider that during the Patristic and later period, many of the writers held the Aristotelian view of biology? Given that these writers believed that women were inferior to men, how do you evaluate their words from your "separate but equal" view of gender relations? Do you make any allowance for their flawed premise?

There's more, but this should get us started.

--------------------
The lives of Christ's poor people are starved and stunted; their wages are low; their houses often bad and insanitary and their minds full of darkness and despair. These are the real disorders of the Church. Charles Marson

Posts: 709 | From: San Diego, California, USA | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
RuthW

liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13

 - Posted      Profile for RuthW     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by rugbyplayingpriest:
8. This understanding of difference in role leads directly to the Eucharist. An anamnesis in which the priest stands ‘in persona Christi.(The reason that Orthodox priests have beards and long hair) Christ cannot be represented by a woman because Christ’s maleness is not incidental but revelatory. He is bound to his role as the Father. (The Jewish revelation of a male God says something subtle yet profound. Pagan religion happily used priestesses- combined with a notion of the mother god- one who gave birth to the world- hence nature worship! But Judaism changed this- making God the life giver and yet allowing him a separateness to created order. Nature is created BY him not OF him. A male priesthood symbolises this at a deep and unconscious level.

As dyfrig pointed out over three years ago on the first page of this thread (you did read the first eleven pages before you posted, didn't you? because it's full of theological reasons why women can be ordained), the logical conclusion of this argument is that women can't be saved.

ETA: Jesus' Jewishness isn't incidental either, but I notice that's not a requirement for anyone aspiring to the priesthood.

[ 24. July 2005, 00:37: Message edited by: RuthW ]

Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Chorister

Completely Frocked
# 473

 - Posted      Profile for Chorister   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
As someone who struggles with the idea of 'in persona Christi' (I prefer my Christ direct, thankyou), I don't have any problem with women priests. But I have heard the opinion (arising out of Dyfrig's argument conclusion) that women are saved through their husbands!*


(* Although many women would probably argue that the men are saved through them..... )

--------------------
Retired, sitting back and watching others for a change.

Posts: 34626 | From: Cream Tealand | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
rugbyplayingpriest
Shipmate
# 9809

 - Posted      Profile for rugbyplayingpriest   Author's homepage   Email rugbyplayingpriest   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I am not sure I understand how one leaps from;

stating that the president at the Eucharist is representing Christ the groom (hence a male) with the gathered people as his bride the Church (female) ...thus speaking in imagery of the marriage bond and the reconciliation of all to God....

to saying that this means women are therfore not saved???? Lost me there!!

Salvation was won for ALL in the glorious passion of Our Lord. Our Eucharistic feast recalls this great event. It does not follow that only eligable sacramental ministers are saved??? A strange thought!

It is more a statment concerning function and purpose within equality.

We might consider the first Eucharist- the passover. This ritual requires the oldest present and the youngest present to initiate dialogue. But that does not makes them anymore relvant than others in attendance. It does however speak at a subconscious level of all people through the ages.

Similarly a male priesthood does not say anything about gender value- it merely allows the deeper images of relationship between creation and creator, husband and wife, Christ and his bride the Church to be present at the feast. It is about the funcion being played at that moment.

Posts: 130 | From: Kent | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Tumbleweed
Shipmate
# 1340

 - Posted      Profile for Tumbleweed   Email Tumbleweed   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
originally posted by rugbyplayingpriest
quote:
...husband and wife, Christ and his bride the Church to be present at the feast.
The image of Christ and his bride is beautiful. Who are we lowly humans who make up the church to ever be able to stand before Christ - creator, redeemer, holy one - and be called his beloved?

But this is also precisely the problem of apply these verses (ie Ephesians 5:22-23), this image too closely. If man/husband is to Christ as woman/wife is to church, then who are we lowly women to ever be able to stand before men - image of Christ (I Cor 11:6-7) - and be called their equals (in any meaningful sense of the word)?

[ 24. July 2005, 11:19: Message edited by: Tumbleweed ]

Posts: 199 | From: Land of Nod //USA | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
Chorister

Completely Frocked
# 473

 - Posted      Profile for Chorister   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I think if I was a man, I'd be offended by the argument that I could be part of the bride of Christ (a female role) whilst women could not be part of the male role of Christ. Taking that argument to its logical conclusion, the church would have to consist of only one man (representing Christ) and a whole churchful of women (representing the bride). If you can have male brides, then surely you can have female bridegrooms?

--------------------
Retired, sitting back and watching others for a change.

Posts: 34626 | From: Cream Tealand | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Siena

Ship's Bluestocking
# 5574

 - Posted      Profile for Siena   Author's homepage   Email Siena   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
RPP, the more fleshed-out version of "how one gets there" is outlined a lot more fully in the preceding pages, but basically, it comes down to the idea of "He did not save what he did not assume."

--------------------
The lives of Christ's poor people are starved and stunted; their wages are low; their houses often bad and insanitary and their minds full of darkness and despair. These are the real disorders of the Church. Charles Marson

Posts: 709 | From: San Diego, California, USA | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
John Holding

Coffee and Cognac
# 158

 - Posted      Profile for John Holding   Email John Holding   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by rugbyplayingpriest:
Similarly a male priesthood does not say anything about gender value- it merely allows the deeper images of relationship between creation and creator, husband and wife, Christ and his bride the Church to be present at the feast. It is about the funcion being played at that moment.

I see what you're saying -- even though I disagree with it.

The trouble with the bit I've quoted, though, is that it does say something about gender value in today's world (yes, the world we live in, the one we are commanded to save).

We've been over many times the fact that words change meaning, and sticking to the old ones can in fact lead to the opposite meaning to the original intention. My favorite example was when a not very knowledgable priest tried to tell me that the Thee/Thou usage of the BCP was put there in the first place in order to ensure people realized the relationship with God was formal, not familiar, and kept themselves well away from any intimacy with Him.

Similarly the world in which we live changes. So that things that meant one thing up to say 50 years ago no longer signify what they did then. Or the things they signficy take on a different connotation.

The truth is that most women and many men -- on both sides of this discussion -- believe that having a male priesthood does say something about gender value. By and large they agree it means today that women are worth less than men. Some like it, some dislike it.

The church has to deal with it -- we live in the world we live in, not the one we want to live in or the one we used to live in. And organizations both religious and secular have signally failed in applying the usual remedy, which is to teach the "real" meaning of the words and action once people are in. Because they don't by and large come in at all, being put off by what seems the obvious and clear message being preached. And if they do come in, learning that inside this particular tent, and only inside this tent, "black" means what they have always called "white" usually is enough to send them screaming away.

John

Posts: 5929 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Fiddleback
Shipmate
# 2809

 - Posted      Profile for Fiddleback     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
As someone who struggles with the idea of 'in persona Christi' (I prefer my Christ direct, thankyou),

Not too difficult really. To be 'in persona Christi' is the calling of all God's people. For example from today's epistle (that's the bit that the lady in the hat reads before the Gospel procession, ruggerpriest) we have " For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the first-born among many brethren. " What is bad is when the ordained ministry starts making an exclusive claim on the privileges of all baptised people.

[ 24. July 2005, 21:21: Message edited by: Fiddleback ]

Posts: 2034 | Registered: May 2002  |  IP: Logged
Foaming Draught
The Low in Low Church
# 9134

 - Posted      Profile for Foaming Draught   Email Foaming Draught   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
*snip* Taking that argument to its logical conclusion, the church would have to consist of only one man (representing Christ) and a whole churchful of women (representing the bride). *snip*

How depressing that this church is so familiar [Frown]

--------------------
Australians all let us ring Joyce
For she is young and free


Posts: 8661 | From: Et in Australia Ego | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
RuthW

liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13

 - Posted      Profile for RuthW     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Yeah, well, it's not the fault of female priests that men don't come to church--women outnumber men in the pews in plenty of Roman Catholic parishes, and women outnumbered men in the pews in Anglican parishes long before various Anglican bodies started ordaining women.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Foaming Draught
The Low in Low Church
# 9134

 - Posted      Profile for Foaming Draught   Email Foaming Draught   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I don't disagree RuthW, that wasn't my point. Look at any overseas mission map, the more dangerous the place, the more likely it is that it's a woman who's working there as a clinician or a teacher. Go to the time of Jesus' ministry on earth - who sticks around when the poo hits the fan, it's the women.
But go to a boring, safe parish church in the developed world of the 21st century, and it's also women who keep the place going. There are several husbands of devout women in my church whose reason for not going to church is precisely that their wives go.
Chorister's post making a different point just seemed a good excuse for a sad joke.

Posts: 8661 | From: Et in Australia Ego | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
rugbyplayingpriest
Shipmate
# 9809

 - Posted      Profile for rugbyplayingpriest   Author's homepage   Email rugbyplayingpriest   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Hang on!!!

When I point out that the sexes are equal yet different- I am rounded on. But foaming can post:
quote:
who sticks around when the poo hits the fan, it's the women.

and that's just fine!!

What about Maximilian Kolbe? John of the Cross? St. Stephen?

Its a bit like the advert for diamond women's car insurance. Reverse the message and there would be an outcry. But sexist comment against men is fine.

Motes and beams my friends.

In posting on here my intention is not to 'win an argument'.

It is to help people understand that the theologically opposed are not rabid mysogynists. We have a viable thoughout position which we are upholding. (whether you buy into it or not). I support womens rites accross the board- my own wife is a commuting professional of great skill. But I think it applies to what one 'does' not on what we 'are'.

My experience in the Church over the last ten years is that the spin against FIF etc...has been deliberate, unfair and cruel. Traditionalists have been bullied and put down. Just listen to these unfounded words from Christina Rees head of WATCH:

Interviewed in the 23 June issue of the Swedish weekly church newspaper Kyrkans Tidning:

“I believe”, she says, leaning forward out of the plush sofa as if to underline her own words, “that God is not against women. It seems so extraordinarily insulting to Him to claim anything like that. So what do we say about God? How does that rhyme with the image of the all-embracing, loving and inclusive god? (sic) “Forward in Faith instead describes these ordained women, these holy women, by grossly abusive invective, as though they were cheap whores. This is so offensive that I cannot find words for it.”

This attack is unfounded and unfair. To claim FIF priests treat women as 'whores' is scandalous. And very hurtful- with such hate filled spin - no wonder people misunderstand us!

I also know this having been to a 'liberal' theological college. Where the very name has people spitting and espousing half truths and anti propaganda. And my experience in the Diocese has been an eye opener.

One reason I have therefore stood with my traditionalist freinds is that they have become the marginalised 'samaritans' of modern day Anglicanism. (Which is not to say that all are good or balanced- I have met a few odious fools, but they tend to get short thrift from the sane amongst us!)

Many of the priests who helped form my vocation were traditionlists unable to accept the validity of womens orders. They also happen to be some of the hardest working and holy people I know. Yet I have heard people run them down, accuse them of adopting a 'tainted altar' idea(I have never met ANYONE who follows this). And not one of them has found preferment in the Church- despite them having a lot of support from women colleagues.

One lesson human history teaches us: that the oppressed is often quick to become the oppresser. Worth thinking about? non?

Posts: 130 | From: Kent | Registered: Jul 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 rugbyplayingpriest:

Hope that helps- and no doubt you will shoot me down! But please do so theologically not sociologically!!

Theologically then - and this repeats what has been said before (as does what you said):

- bishops and priests are just one (or two) of many ministries in the churches

- specifically, priests are elders of the congregation, presbyters. They are not stand-ins for Jesus Christ. They are not sacrifical priests such as the old temple had. That sacrificial priesthood is one in which we all participate in, as we all participate in Jesus Christ. The office of a presbyter is one of eldership. Different in detail from other ministries in church, but not in kind.

- so arguments based on the Old Covenant Priesthood, or on the Apostles, are simply beside the point. Christian priests are not the equivalent of Jewish temple priests, but of rabbis and the elders of the syangogue. And I think that is very clear from the words used to describe them in the New Testament

- neither are priests and bishops as we have them now apostles in the sense that Peter and John and the rest were, although they are in some sense the descendents of the apostles (as are the rest of us)

- there seem in the New Testament to be different church structures in different places. Even as early as the Acts of the Apostles we are not in a one-size-fits-all situation.

- in our local western European tradition (both Protestant and Roman Catholic) we've tended to reserve certain roles and functions to priests - different roles in different places at different times. Presiding at the Eucharist, preaching, and in the CofE at any rate a sort of general leadership function. The vicar is usually the only full-time paid worker in a local church and basicaly tends to end up doing everything. The exact equivalent of "The Minister" in many non-epsicopal Protestant churches.

- we know that some church ministries were done by women in New Testament times - for example there are (clearly) women prophets and (almost certainly, it can be wiggled out of) women deacons. So the question we need to ask is not "can women be priests" but "is this specific person (man or woman) called to this specific ministery?"

- as far as I can see the only Scriptures directly relevant to this point are Paul saying he refuses to allow women to lead in church. Either that's a purely local rule, or a general one for all churches everywhere. If purely local, then of course women can be ordained.

- If Paul really does generally prohibit women in leadership in the church, then still doesn't rule out ordained women in other roles in church. I know there is a strand of Englican evanglicalism that would have women assistant priests but not in local leadership, or women as parish priests but not bishops. We know there were women in other positions of public ministry in the New Testament times. In which case we're back to the previous question - we can't say "you cannot be ordained because you are a woman" we have to ask "is this particular job one which invoves a type of leadership which Paul rules out of order for women?" (Personally I think the leadership question is a red herring. Christian priests are not, or ought not to be, quite the same as political leaders. And ultimate leadership in the church is Christ's anyway, not ours. And we know God isn't totally against women in policial leadership anyway, because of Deborah. (Not that I suggest priests ought to go around slaughtering their enemies). But I do know some people worry about it a lot, and the worry does seem more biblical to me than worrying about)

- lastly, I've got positive theological reasons for wanting to see ordained women in the CofE. It is a cliche that our liturgies and our church order are themselves signifiers, they are messages, they encode statements about God and how we worship God. An all-male priesthood risks being misinterprested as a statment that God is male, or that God is gendered. Which would be heresy.

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

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

Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
Foaming Draught
The Low in Low Church
# 9134

 - Posted      Profile for Foaming Draught   Email Foaming Draught   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
RPP won't be persuaded of this, Ken, and I don't think that he's trying to turn us into FiFers. He just wants to bring home to us that a perfectly orthodox strand of ministers in the Church of England is being marginalised and denied preferment because of their views on women's ministry.
I understand this because evangelicals are similarly marginalised in other Provinces for the mere property of not being apostate. I won't use the emotive term, "persecuted", because our lives and bodily safety aren't threatened. In my diocese, some of us have formed an unholy alliance with FiF priests and parishes to reflect a common orthodoxy. How long it can last, when we don't agree on sacerdotalism or women's ministry, who can tell.
Women have largely got the freedoms which have been so long overdue; let's be a tad more charitable to orthodox catholics whose ancient landmarks have been removed.

--------------------
Australians all let us ring Joyce
For she is young and free


Posts: 8661 | From: Et in Australia Ego | Registered: Feb 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 Foaming Draught:

Women have largely got the freedoms which have been so long overdue; let's be a tad more charitable to orthodox catholics whose ancient landmarks have been removed.

And I thought I was being charitable...

He & Ryles Tube came on here an said that no-one has any scriptural or theological reasons for ordaining women, but we were only following secular fashion. And I said some of us did. So I wrote a few down.

And without being cynical, smarmy, cruel, rude, or using insulting language, as far as I can tell. Which is in contrast to what they put up.

So in what way not charitable?

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

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

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

Ship's Bluestocking
# 5574

 - Posted      Profile for Siena   Author's homepage   Email Siena   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Foaming Draught, RPP asked for theological arguments, and offered an outline of his own beliefs. I interpreted this to mean he wanted a discussion, so I asked him to clarify various parts of his position. Now, if what RPP wanted was to state his position and have us leave it unchallenged, he should have said so. But he did more or less say "bring on the theological arguments."

RPP, I'm genuinely sorry if you feel women in the church have oppressed you. However, you've stated that arguments that involve "doing away with oppression" aren't valid in the discussion about the ordination of women, because they are "sociological" and appeal to the heart, but don't consitute proper theological discussion. So why does it constitute a valid argument for your POV?

Did you read some of what Ryles Tube had to say on the subject of the besmirched marital bed and middle-aged women with hobbies, RPP? You might consider that some FiFers (and she doesn't specify "priests" in the quote) have used some pretty nasty rhetoric, whether you have done so yourself or not.

[ 25. July 2005, 14:55: Message edited by: Sienna ]

--------------------
The lives of Christ's poor people are starved and stunted; their wages are low; their houses often bad and insanitary and their minds full of darkness and despair. These are the real disorders of the Church. Charles Marson

Posts: 709 | From: San Diego, California, USA | Registered: Feb 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 rugbyplayingpriest:
Many of the priests who helped form my vocation were traditionlists unable to accept the validity of womens orders. They also happen to be some of the hardest working and holy people I know. Yet I have heard people run them down, accuse them of adopting a 'tainted altar' idea(I have never met ANYONE who follows this).

There are some posting on this thread who obviously beleive in tainted orders. (Not tainted altars - I don't remember hearing hat phrase before) They don't like using such words about themselves, but its pretty clear thats what they mean - that what they believe and practice is what others would call a theory of taint, even if they don't.

quote:

And not one of them has found preferment in the Church- despite them having a lot of support from women colleagues.

None of them became bishops yet? How many of the women who trained with you are now bishops?

quote:

One lesson human history teaches us: that the oppressed is often quick to become the oppresser.

I am not sure whether you are claiming that the Anglican hierarchy used to oppress women, and no longer does, or that it has now been taken over by women who are using it to oppress men?

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

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

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

Ship's Bluestocking
# 5574

 - Posted      Profile for Siena   Author's homepage   Email Siena   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
RPP posts:

quote:
I support womens rites accross the board-
Careful, RPP - it's that kind of thinking that landed ECUSA in the the infamous raisin cake druidic ritual mess.

OK, apologies, I don't usually pick on spelling, but this one was just too good to pass by. [Yipee]

--------------------
The lives of Christ's poor people are starved and stunted; their wages are low; their houses often bad and insanitary and their minds full of darkness and despair. These are the real disorders of the Church. Charles Marson

Posts: 709 | From: San Diego, California, USA | Registered: Feb 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:
There are some posting on this thread who obviously beleive in tainted orders. (Not tainted altars - I don't remember hearing hat phrase before) They don't like using such words about themselves, but its pretty clear thats what they mean - that what they believe and practice is what others would call a theory of taint, even if they don't.

Ken, I really am getting fed up with your refusal to accept that for those of us with Catholic, sacramental understandings of priesthood - to which, as your post earlier on this page demonstrates, you do not subscribe - 'tainted orders' is really completely different from the idea of 'impaired communion'.

'tainted orders' is wrong and I have never met anyone who subscribes to this idea.

'impaired communion' is a reality which exists when the C of E allows a position where it's orders, and therefore certain sacramental actions (e.g. a male bishop ordaining a woman to the priesthood) are not universally recognised.

I accept that with your non-sacramental understanding of the presbyterate the difference may not be apparent. We are clearly speaking different languages. But it does not give a good example of reasoned debate when you dismiss the positions of others in this way.

Posts: 422 | From: Diocese of Brentwood | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
Lyda*Rose

Ship's broken porthole
# 4544

 - Posted      Profile for Lyda*Rose   Email Lyda*Rose   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Okay, I've heard people go back and forth on "tainted" vs "impaired communion". Ken, do you see a difference? Scotus, what are the differences to you?

Thank you.

--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano

Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
rugbyplayingpriest
Shipmate
# 9809

 - Posted      Profile for rugbyplayingpriest   Author's homepage   Email rugbyplayingpriest   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Some quick points:

Sienna wrote:

quote:
There are a great many things Christ didn't do - for a start, He never ordained anyone. Surely He could have performed ordinations and established each of the three-fold orders had He so chosen
I was always under the impression that Jesus ordained Peter 'you are the rock on whom I shall build my Church. Whatever you declare loosed on earth shall be loosed in heaven, and whatever is bound on earth etc etc' Most mainstream theologicans would agree. That is the difference bewtween the apostels and disciples.

Fiddleback said:
quote:
To be 'in persona Christi' is the calling of all God's people.
So are you in favour of lay presidency then? Do you really subscribe to the fact that a specific sacramental calling does not exist???

Ken (whose tolerance of difference is sometimes underwhelming) wrote

quote:
And without being cynical, smarmy, cruel, rude, or using insulting language, as far as I can tell. Which is in contrast to what they put up.

Could you tell me where I have been smarmy?? cruel? Come on Ken! Apology time!

Finally Foaming draught wrote
quote:
RPP won't be persuaded of this, Ken, and I don't think that he's trying to turn us into FiFers. He just wants to bring home to us that a perfectly orthodox strand of ministers in the Church of England is being marginalised and denied preferment because of their views on women's ministry.
Amen to that!!


Perhaps it helps to see that a lot of my thinking revolves around 'doing' and 'being'.

I think that as regards 'doing' men and women should be given equal domain. i.e jobs such as surgeons, pilots and anything else that one 'does'

But in the realm of 'being' this becomes impossible. On is a man or woman. A husband or wife. A priest also. Now this is where more protestantly minded people could disagree. They sdee ministry as something you do not something you are! Hence my claim that women's ordination makes sesne from a protestant evangelical understanding.


But in my Catholic mind gender matters. And yes that DOES say something about God's revelation.

But don't shoot me down because God chose to reveal himself in that form. Jesus taught us to call God 'our Father'...and so we are BOUND to pray! There is surely no greater authority than Christ's own words. He instructed us to address God in the masculine. A life giver not bearer.

Now that must have a purpose that we his creatures are to conform to. Even if we do not always understand or like it.

Posts: 130 | From: Kent | Registered: Jul 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 Lyda*Rose:
Okay, I've heard people go back and forth on "tainted" vs "impaired communion". Ken, do you see a difference? Scotus, what are the differences to you?

'Taint' is the suggestion that a bishop who ordains a woman priest gets his hands 'dirty' in the process and so his sacramental ministry is no longer accepted by FiF. This is a misrepresentation of the true position and not a view actually held by supporters of FiF - the sacramental theology it espouses is complete nonsense.

'Impaired communion' is simply a recognition of a reality that exists within the C of E, that orders legally conferred within the church are no longer universally recognised.

Members of FiF sought the pastoral and sacramental care of bishops who did not ordain women not because of 'taint' but to distance themselves from the innovation which they could not accept.

Lets use an example:

Bishop X has ordained women to the priesthood. 'Taint' says that I am not in communion with him any more because I do not recognise his sacramental ministry. Rubbish. But it is the case that there are people who he considers valid priests (the women he has ordained, and other women priests) whose orders I regard as being in grave doubt. Now, I belong to the same communion (i.e. the Anglican communion) as those women priests but because I hold their orders to be in grave doubt I cannot receive communion from them. Our communion is seriously impaired - and this is something which the C of E accepted as part of the ongoing process of reception. I can receive communion from (or be ordained by) +X because his orders are not in doubt; but because I won't receive communion from someone (i.e. a woman priest) from whom he would receive communion, there is a sense in which the communion between me and +X is impaired. Moreover he has performed a sacramental action which I do doubt the validity of: ordaining women. I would therefore rather maintain a 'degree of separation' and find a bishop with whom I am in unimpaired communion.

Ken does not distinguish between 'can't receive communion from +X' from 'would rather avoid receiving communion from +X'

---

Changing tack slightly, I want to explain why I got rather fed up with Ken's last post.

Recently rugbyplayingpriest and others have been berated for their style of argument - and some (but I wouldn't say all) of this criticism has been deserved. One criticism has been the use of terms such as 'wet liberal secular unscriptural humanists' to describe the views of their opponents. If supporters of women's ordination find such labels inaccurate and offensive, can I also point out that those of the other point of view find it just as inaccurate and offensive when our position is persistently misrepresented by being labeled as 'taint'. As Lyda*Rose pointed, we have been through all of this already (only a couple of pages back), with helpful contributions such as "If it smells like manure, feels like manure and tastes like manure - the chances are that it really IS manure." (Oscar the Grouch).

Posts: 422 | From: Diocese of Brentwood | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
Fiddleback
Shipmate
# 2809

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

Bishop X has ordained women to the priesthood. 'Taint' says that I am not in communion with him any more because I do not recognise his sacramental ministry. Rubbish. But it is the case that there are people who he considers valid priests (the women he has ordained, and other women priests) whose orders I regard as being in grave doubt. Now, I belong to the same communion (i.e. the Anglican communion) as those women priests but because I hold their orders to be in grave doubt I cannot receive communion from them. Our communion is seriously impaired - and this is something which the C of E accepted as part of the ongoing process of reception. I can receive communion from (or be ordained by) +X because his orders are not in doubt; but because I won't receive communion from someone (i.e. a woman priest) from whom he would receive communion, there is a sense in which the communion between me and +X is impaired. Moreover he has performed a sacramental action which I do doubt the validity of: ordaining women. I would therefore rather maintain a 'degree of separation' and find a bishop with whom I am in unimpaired communion.

Well this sounds just like what we all understand as the ecclesiology of 'taint'. You might need to explain it a bit better than that, but if it helps, we will refrain from using the term. Could the Fifers in turn stop assuming that everyone who is not you is a 'liberal' and part of some liberal conspiracy. I am in no sense a liberal. I have no connexions whatever with WATCH, GRAS, Aff Caff or any other pressure group. In fact I am a fairly mindless papalist. I am however in a church which ordains women and accept that as a 'given', just as previous generations of Catholic minded Anglicans accepted Dr Cranmer's Calvinistic liturgy as a 'given' which they worked with. Our difference probably lies in that you hold to a very high Mediaeval/Tractarian notion of the priesthood whereas I have a more evangelical/Vatican II take on the whole thing.
Posts: 2034 | Registered: May 2002  |  IP: Logged
Foaming Draught
The Low in Low Church
# 9134

 - Posted      Profile for Foaming Draught   Email Foaming Draught   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Fiddleback:
*snip* I am in no sense a liberal. I have no connexions whatever with WATCH, GRAS, Aff Caff or any other pressure group. In fact I am a fairly mindless papalist. *snip* I have a more evangelical/Vatican II take on the whole thing.

Well there you go, the thread's been worth it for me just to find out Fiddleback's churchpersonship. I've been conducting form criticism of his posts ever since I joined the Ship (except for a week during which he was suspended) (and a subsequent week during which I was), and hadn't quite pinned him down. So thanks mate, it's always helpful to be able to compartmentalise, nuance is the enemy of prejudice [Smile]

--------------------
Australians all let us ring Joyce
For she is young and free


Posts: 8661 | From: Et in Australia Ego | 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 Fiddleback:
Well this sounds just like what we all understand as the ecclesiology of 'taint'. You might need to explain it a bit better than that, but if it helps, we will refrain from using the term.

That is all I am asking. There are two reasons why I think the term is unhelpful:
1. It is pejoritive and has frequently been used to attack the FiF position.
2. It is potentially confusing as it may lead people to think that FiF supporters to actually believe the first position I outlined and describe as 'taint', which they don't

Surely, even if you don't agree with me, you can see the difference between saying that +X is no longer a valid bishop because he has ordained a woman, and saying that my communion with +X is impaired because there are certain sacramental acts which he performs that I cannot accept (i.e. ordaining women).

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 Fiddleback:
I am in no sense a liberal. I have no connexions whatever with WATCH, GRAS, Aff Caff or any other pressure group. In fact I am a fairly mindless papalist.

So would the label "mindless protestant papalist" be an accurate summation of the churchmanship you have described here and in Ladies in Purple? [Two face]

For what its worth, I think I ere more on the side of Vatican II than Tractarianism in my theology. Vatican II as interpreted by JCR/B16 that is, rather than those who espouse a vaguer 'Vatican II spirit' which leads them down all sorts of garden paths.

[ 26. July 2005, 11:06: Message edited by: Scotus ]

Posts: 422 | From: Diocese of Brentwood | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
Fiddleback
Shipmate
# 2809

 - Posted      Profile for Fiddleback     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Scotus:
[QUOTE]So would the label "mindless protestant papalist" be an accurate summation of the churchmanship you have described here and in Ladies in Purple?

Surely any member of the Church of England who is a mindless papalist must describe himself/herself as a protestant, for that is the papal line. I'm also quite proud of my invalid orders!

Regarding Vatican II (most of whose documents were probably written by JCR) I have just re-read Presbyterorum Ordinis, and I should have thought that it was more in line with Ken's theology than yours. I wonder what Ken thinks.

Posts: 2034 | Registered: May 2002  |  IP: Logged
Fiddleback
Shipmate
# 2809

 - Posted      Profile for Fiddleback     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Scotus:
my communion with +X is impaired because there are certain sacramental acts which he performs that I cannot accept (i.e. ordaining women).

There is one sacramental act that you can't accept. The rest you can, so how can you not receive communion from him?
Posts: 2034 | Registered: May 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 Fiddleback:
There is one sacramental act that you can't accept. The rest you can, so how can you not receive communion from him?

Having read my post you'll have seen that I didn't actually say I wouldn't be able to receive communion from +X.

The communion between me and hypothetical +X would seem to be impaired for 2 reasons, both of which I have already set out:
1. I do not accept all of his sacramental acts (there is one, ordaining women, which I do not accept).
2. I cannot receive communion from everyone he can receive communion from.
Given those two facts, although we are in communion it is an impaired communion. That doesn't mean I can't or won't receive communion from him, it is simply recognising the fact after the C of E's decision to ordain women, 'communion' in the C of E no longer means what it did before (and communion in the wider Anglican Communion had been impaired even before that).

Ideally, everyone would be in full and unimpaired communion with the bishop who exercises episkope over them. The nearest thing we can have at the moment (except in a small number of dioceses) is bishops with whom we are in full and unimpaired communion providing alternative episcopal care (but not oversight).

Regarding Presbyterorum Ordinis, I'd better re-read that too, and get back to you.

[ 26. July 2005, 11:54: Message edited by: Scotus ]

Posts: 422 | From: Diocese of Brentwood | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
Fiddleback
Shipmate
# 2809

 - Posted      Profile for Fiddleback     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Scotus:
Ideally, everyone would be in full and unimpaired communion with the bishop who exercises episkope over them. The nearest thing we can have at the moment (except in a small number of dioceses) is bishops with whom we are in full and unimpaired communion providing alternative episcopal care (but not oversight).

That would mean everyone being in agreement with the bishop in every matter. That has never been the case anywhere.

Some questions:

1. What is the value of a Eucharist celebrated by someone whose orders are of dubious validity?

2. How angry does it make God when anyone to receives communion at such a Eucharist?

3. What in fact is meant by a 'valid' sacrament?

Posts: 2034 | Registered: May 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 Foaming Draught:
Well there you go, the thread's been worth it for me just to find out Fiddleback's churchpersonship. I've been conducting form criticism of his posts ever since I joined the Ship (except for a week during which he was suspended) (and a subsequent week during which I was), and hadn't quite pinned him down. So thanks mate, it's always helpful to be able to compartmentalise, nuance is the enemy of prejudice

Hallelujah!

This thread had a purpose after all!

God truly moves in mysterious ways!

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

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

Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
dyfrig
Blue Scarfed Menace
# 15

 - Posted      Profile for dyfrig   Email dyfrig   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Scotus:
although we are in communion it is an impaired communion. That doesn't mean I can't or won't receive communion from him, it is simply recognising the fact after the C of E's decision to ordain women, 'communion' in the C of E no longer means what it did before

But that simply leaves the question begging - what did communion mean before 1992? There are several thousand people within the Church of England, and in the wider Anglican communion, including those in orders, who don't accept that ordination bestows some ontological mark or character, that prayers for/to/with the dead having any efficacy or meaning, who hold several different positions on the relationship between bread and wine and the body and blood of Jesus Christ, and who have very different views on which churches can share ministers with each other.

The list could go on. It includes people, from Hooker onwards, that Anglicanism does have a legitimate claim to be able to order itself in a particular manner.

All of these are issues upon which significant numbers of Anglicans differ from the faith practiced and proclaimed by not only Roman Catholic and Orthodox Christians, but by other Anglicans.

Do they amount to an impaired communion? Does the fact that I don't believe that invoking Mary the Mother of Jesus makes any effect or that hauling the holy biscuit onto the church steps and bobbing it up and down transmits any sort of blessing mean that my communion is impaired with, say David Hope? Or the fact that I don't believe all that bollocks about points of entry and demon possession mean that I'm not in communion with Graham Dow? Or that my stance on sexuality puts in me in impaired communion with Tom Wright, but in better communion with John Packer?

--------------------
"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 Fiddleback:
quote:
Originally posted by Scotus:
Ideally, everyone would be in full and unimpaired communion with the bishop who exercises episkope over them. The <snip>

That would mean everyone being in agreement with the bishop in every matter. That has never been the case anywhere.
No it wouldn't: one can be free disagree on certain things whilst being in full and unimpaired communion. That was the case in the C of E when Canon A4 (...and those who are so ordained ... ought to be accounted ... truly priests) still meant what it said. The C of E allows disagreement on the question of who is truly a priest. I contend that on this matter one cannot disagree and be in full and unimpaired communion.

quote:
Some questions:

1. What is the value of a Eucharist celebrated by someone whose orders are of dubious validity?

2. How angry does it make God when anyone to receives communion at such a Eucharist?

3. What in fact is meant by a 'valid' sacrament?

1. I have no doubt that it is a channel of grace like any act of Christian worship.

2. I don't expect (though how can I know?) that God is angry with an individual who receives communion at such a eucharist in good faith.

3. The short answer is (according to the Roman Catholic Church) that valid form, matter and intention make a valid sacrament. I can't remember who wrote the article in last week's church times, but it was argued there that this language is unanglican, and that sacraments in the C of E are either lawful or not. Canon A4 insists that all who are lawfully (i.e. in accordance with C of E canons) ordained priest are to be accounted truly priests by all, yet the C of E allows people to dissent from this, so the concept of lawfulness is no longer so straightforward. I would want to say something along the lines of valid form, intention and matter meaning that we can be certain of the efficacy of the sacrament, since this belongs to the deposit of faith revealed to the church. Since the 'matter' for valid ordination has traditionally been a baptised man, by going out on a limb and introducing a change here the C of E has introduced grave doubt concerning the validity of some of her orders: a doubt, moreover, which she recognises as being legitimately held.

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 
Dyfrig,

We appear to have cross-posted. But what I said to fiddleback about being in communion and free to disagree seems to apply to what you say as well.

Whatever one believes to be happening in the eucharist, if X and Y can receive communion from the same set of people then they are surely in communion with each other. If there are circumstances when X can receive from someone (e.g. a woman priest) and Y can't, then they are still in communion with each other, but that communion is impaired.

ETA: and this is a new situation within the C of E. Before '92 orders were universally recognised. Before the first ordinations of women in the Anglican Communion (I can't remember the date off hand) orders were universally recognised throughout the communion.

[ 26. July 2005, 12:52: Message edited by: Scotus ]

Posts: 422 | From: Diocese of Brentwood | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
Fiddleback
Shipmate
# 2809

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


1. I have no doubt that it is a channel of grace like any act of Christian worship.

So how is it less good? Is there less grace?

quote:
2. I don't expect (though how can I know?) that God is angry with an individual who receives communion at such a eucharist in good faith.
So why not do so?

quote:
3. The short answer is (according to the Roman Catholic Church) that valid form, matter and intention make a valid sacrament. I can't remember who wrote the article in last week's church times, but it was argued there that this language is unanglican, and that sacraments in the C of E are either lawful or not. Canon A4 insists that all who are lawfully (i.e. in accordance with C of E canons) ordained priest are to be accounted truly priests by all, yet the C of E allows people to dissent from this, so the concept of lawfulness is no longer so straightforward. I would want to say something along the lines of valid form, intention and matter meaning that we can be certain of the efficacy of the sacrament, since this belongs to the deposit of faith revealed to the church. Since the 'matter' for valid ordination has traditionally been a baptised man, by going out on a limb and introducing a change here the C of E has introduced grave doubt concerning the validity of some of her orders: a doubt, moreover, which she recognises as being legitimately held.
Thats not a short answer! The sacrament of orders in the Anglican church already had invalidity of form, from the Roman point of view, and in many cases, invalidity of intention, so how much difference does the invalid matter make? If it is invalid. The question is still open, even in Rome, whatever JPII might have mumbled in his dotage.
Posts: 2034 | Registered: May 2002  |  IP: Logged
dyfrig
Blue Scarfed Menace
# 15

 - Posted      Profile for dyfrig   Email dyfrig   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I really don't understand the distinction you're making, Scotus.

If I disagree, fundamentally, with David Hope, not quite so fundamentally with Kenneth Stevenson and not at all with Tom Wright on the nature of the Eucharist - even though Hope is probably the more faithful to the Catholic position on it - why is that not an impairment of my communion with at least one, if not two, of those bishops?

Again, if I disagree fundemantally with Graham Dow, disagree a bit with Tom Wright, and agree with John Packer on sexuality, where does that leave me?

Are you claiming a special category of "things that affect the quality of communion" - but why should only the ordination of women fall into this category?

--------------------
"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 Fiddleback:
Thats not a short answer!

The first sentance was the short answer, the rest a comment on how that might apply from an anglican point of view.

quote:
The sacrament of orders in the Anglican church already had invalidity of form, from the Roman point of view, and in many cases, invalidity of intention, so how much difference does the invalid matter make? If it is invalid. The question is still open, even in Rome, whatever JPII might have mumbled in his dotage.
Two can play at that game. If the question of whether women can constitute valid matter for ordination is still open, then so is the question of whether Anglicans have valid form or intention. I would (obviously) want argue that the C of E does. And note that I never said that women definitely weren't valid matter, only that they traditionally haven't been, and that the C of E along with some other Anglican provinces by introducing this innovation also introduced a new element of doubt.
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 dyfrig:
I really don't understand the distinction you're making, Scotus.

If I disagree, fundamentally, with David Hope, not quite so fundamentally with Kenneth Stevenson and not at all with Tom Wright on the nature of the Eucharist - even though Hope is probably the more faithful to the Catholic position on it - why is that not an impairment of my communion with at least one, if not two, of those bishops?

Because the disagreement itself does not* prevent you from receiving communion from someone each of those bishops will receive communion from, nor does it mean that you consider any of their sacramental acts to be of doubtful efficacy.

(*if it does, then yes it is a case of impaired communion)

If we can't agree on what we call things, can we at least agree to note that the C of E in 1992 allowed a new level of disagreement to exist within the church over something fundamental, namely whether her lawfully ordained priests were to be accounted truly priests by all.

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 dyfrig:
Are you claiming a special category of "things that affect the quality of communion" - but why should only the ordination of women fall into this category?

Sorry for the triple post, but I realised I hadn't answered this question.

Yes, I suppose I am. The reason that only the ordination of women falls into this category is because there we have a situation where for some there is grave doubt over whether someone is actually a priest.

Some have used the language of impaired communion in connection with the Gene Robinson affair. This is a very different question, since there can be little doubt that Gene Robinson is a validly ordained priest and bishop. There is, however, a question of whether he can truly be a focus of unity, and a question of intent on the part of ECUSA when it tries to claim that the consecration of a bishop is merely a local matter - issues which emerge in the women bishops debate as well.

[ 26. July 2005, 14:02: 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 fully agree with you that in 1992 the CofE introduced a matter that causes disagreement.

I'm interested in your views on +Robinson. It seems that, for the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches, the matter of consecration is not just a baptised male, but a celibate baptised male not in any (purported) matrimonial relationship - i.e. unmarried and not having sex. So, on that score, can +Robinson really be a bishop at all?

I'm not demanding an answer, just musing out loud on the strange places the arguments lead us - for example, if I ever considered my communion with John Packer to be impaired, ought I to be granted alternative episcopal care? For example, from someone with more hair?

--------------------
"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
cocktailgirl

mixer of the drinks
# 8684

 - Posted      Profile for cocktailgirl     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Scotus:
Whatever one believes to be happening in the eucharist, if X and Y can receive communion from the same set of people then they are surely in communion with each other. If there are circumstances when X can receive from someone (e.g. a woman priest) and Y can't, then they are still in communion with each other, but that communion is impaired.

This means that the Methodist minister from down the road and I can both receive communion from my diocesan, but the Anglican Fr X from the Resolutions A-Z parish down the road won't/can't. I have no problems with Methodists receiving the Sacrament in an Anglican church, but I'm struggling to see how there's any communion at all (beyond the unity in baptism shared with all Christians) between me and Fr X here. I can understand Fr X not wishing to receive the Sacrament from me, but I simply can't get my head round not receiving from his male, validly consecrated, diocesan. I'm struggling with the same point Dyfrig is making: why on this one issue? How can Fr X share in the bishop's cure of souls if he won't receive communion from him? My diocesan happens to be A Good Thing, but if I were in a diocese with a bishop with whom I profoundly disagreed on a whole range of matters, I would still receive communion from him (maybe one day her): the Eucharist is bigger than our internal Anglican differences.

[ 26. July 2005, 14:27: Message edited by: cocktailgirl ]

Posts: 841 | From: in hac lacrimarum valle, propping up the bar | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
Siena

Ship's Bluestocking
# 5574

 - Posted      Profile for Siena   Author's homepage   Email Siena   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
RPP, you've missed my point. When Christ said to Peter "you are the Rock, etc.," He did not say, "and make deacons and priests and bishops, write liturgies in which you ordain them, create monastic orders, have diocesan and suffragan bishops, establish a liturgical calendar, wear vestments of a color that reflect the liturgical season, have councils and write creeds, etc." I think that statement implies the authority to do so, and I suspect you do as well, but many Christians disagree. Let's try another example - Jesus gave us one prayer, and told us to pray that way. So are we in error because we have a book filled with other prayers when Jesus didn't use any of the prayers in it or tell us to use them? I'm merely pointing out that the "Jesus didn't do it when he could have it, so it musn't be done" argument is going to cause us some difficulties when we look at our traditions.

Are you going to answer any of the questions I put to you earlier? If you choose to ignore them, that's fine, but I'd like to know before I wade through the Montanist portions of Eusebius and Jerome and the views of Aquinas, etc. on women's biology in preparation for a discussion - because I'm really not particularly interested in that right now, but you did seem to be asking for a genuinely theological discussion. Obviously, it's your choice to engage or not, but I'd appreciate it if you'd let me know - in the words of my favorite T-shirt, I'd rather be reading Jane Austen.

--------------------
The lives of Christ's poor people are starved and stunted; their wages are low; their houses often bad and insanitary and their minds full of darkness and despair. These are the real disorders of the Church. Charles Marson

Posts: 709 | From: San Diego, California, USA | Registered: Feb 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 cocktailgirl:
This means that the Methodist minister from down the road and I can both receive communion from my diocesan, but the Anglican Fr X from the Resolutions A-Z parish down the road won't/can't.

With respect I have pointed out several times that I'm not saying I won't/can't receive communion from a bishop who ordains women priests.

What I have said (several times) is that there is a state of impaired communion within the C of E. The C of E's practice of open communion is neither here nor there. Can Fr X share in the bishop's cure of souls when communion is impaired? Yes in practice, but as I said above, ideally one ought to be in full and unimpaired communion with ones bishop. If/when there are women bishops on the C of E, then it is very difficult to see how even in practice such a priest could share in a female bishop's cure of souls. That is why FiF calls for a rigorous system of alternative episcopal oversight - and since women must theoretically be able to become archbishops if they can become bishops, that really means a new province.

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

Ship's Bluestocking
# 5574

 - Posted      Profile for Siena   Author's homepage   Email Siena   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Scotus, I've taken this quote

quote:
Relations with Bishops:
a) The Diocesan Bishop exists to be the focus of unity of his diocese and the president of its presbyteral college. Suffragan and assistant bishops act for him; their actions are accounted his. To act on his behalf, to concelebrate with him or any of his representative bishops, or to receive Holy Communion at services celebrated by them would be to signal acceptance of the orders of all those in his college of priests.

directly from the Code of Practice from the FiF website. So while you might not be refusing to take communion from a bishop who has ordained women, and I certainly don't maintain that FiF'ers are in any sort of lockstep uniform practice, I read the above to say that is precisely what FiF is recommending.

And while I don't doubt that RPP is working alongside women priests despite his doubts, the FiF Code of Practice recommends the following:

quote:
Relations with Other Clergy:
In any case, we believe that those opposed to the Measure should not, as a matter of principle:

i) Worship regularly in a church where a woman is the incumbent or assistant minister or where women are known to be welcomed as celebrant of the eucharist, albeit infrequently.

ii) Receive or administer the Holy Communion, from the sacrament reserved in that place, in any parish church, hospital, hospice or other institution where a woman was the incumbent, chaplain or assistant minister.

iii) Commend to the sacramental care of a woman priest anyone close to death.

Priests, moreover, should not act as alternate to a woman priest, or to a male priest who is her alternate or colleague, in the performance of any sacramental function. (In particular he would find it impossible to celebrate the eucharist in any place where a woman was a regular and accepted minister of the eucharist, unless it be to make special provision for those in the parish who cannot accept the priestly ministry of a woman). They should act in such a way as never, by association or participation, to mislead others into assuming that they accept or countenance the priestly ministry of those ordained under the 1993 Measure.

This just doesn't sound to me like it's conducive to "working together." It pretty much reads like a call for complete avoidance.

--------------------
The lives of Christ's poor people are starved and stunted; their wages are low; their houses often bad and insanitary and their minds full of darkness and despair. These are the real disorders of the Church. Charles Marson

Posts: 709 | From: San Diego, California, USA | Registered: Feb 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 Sienna:
... It pretty much reads like a call for complete avoidance.

Yes, but as Scotus will tell us, not from a theology of taint. But it still walks like a duck!


Spent last weekend slogging hardware for the Women's Ordination Worldwide conference, a worthwhile endeavour. More some other time.

--------------------
"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
cocktailgirl

mixer of the drinks
# 8684

 - Posted      Profile for cocktailgirl     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Sienna:
Scotus, I've taken this quote

quote:
Relations with Bishops:
a) The Diocesan Bishop exists to be the focus of unity of his diocese and the president of its presbyteral college. Suffragan and assistant bishops act for him; their actions are accounted his. To act on his behalf, to concelebrate with him or any of his representative bishops, or to receive Holy Communion at services celebrated by them would be to signal acceptance of the orders of all those in his college of priests.

directly from the Code of Practice from the FiF website.
How do they get round the fact that the PEVs also share in the episcope of the Ordinary? They act on his behalf, with an episcope delegated to them. How is accepting sacraments from a PEV different from accepting sacraments from a women-ordaining Ordinary?

[can't spell]

[ 26. July 2005, 18:01: Message edited by: cocktailgirl ]

Posts: 841 | From: in hac lacrimarum valle, propping up the bar | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
Fiddleback
Shipmate
# 2809

 - Posted      Profile for Fiddleback     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by cocktailgirl:
]How do they get round the fact that the PEVs also share in the episcope of the Ordinary? They act on his behalf, with an episcope delegated to them. How is accepting sacraments from a PEV different from accepting sacraments from a women-ordaining Ordinary?

The PEVs are, in fact, suffragans of Canterbury, in the case of Richborough and Ebbsfleet, and York, in the case of Beverley. The FiF code of practice, and its bizarre official response to the Women Bishops vote, were written, I understand, by the Bishop of Fulham, who is regarded with some embarrassment by the more intelligent Fifers. Is that not so, Scote?
Posts: 2034 | Registered: May 2002  |  IP: Logged
cocktailgirl

mixer of the drinks
# 8684

 - Posted      Profile for cocktailgirl     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
But that doesn't get round the fact that the ABC and the new ABY both ordain women, nor (more pertinently) that PEVs exercise episcope in different dioceses only at the invitation of the Diocesan, in whose episcope they share when being bishopy in that diocese.
Posts: 841 | From: in hac lacrimarum valle, propping up the bar | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged



Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  ...  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  ...  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