|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Priestly genitalia [Ordination of Women]
|
Scotus
Shipmate
# 8163
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cocktailgirl:
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.
So we're all agreed that the present situation is not ideal. From my point of view, its far better than not having the Act of Synod at all, but with women bishops it would become unworkable: this is why FiF is asking for a free province.
Fiddleback: I don't know who actually wrote the code of practice or the recent response to the Women Bishop's vote. The communion statement and code of practice were drawn up only 18 months after the November 1992. I don't know how many people follow it rigidly: we don't tend to talk about that kind of thing.
I have myself received communion from the hands of a bishop who has ordained women priests more than once - for example at the York Minster deaconings this year. The communion statement and code of practice do, however, flag up post-92 anomolies and raise interesting questions: what does it mean, for instance, to receive communion from the hands of a bishop but not from the hands of one he hs ordained? This kind of anomoly is really what we mean by 'impaired communion'.
Posts: 422 | From: Diocese of Brentwood | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
dyfrig
Blue Scarfed Menace
# 15
|
Posted
When you say "free province", does this actually mean a province within the CofE, as Canterbury and York are, or an Anglican province outside the CofE in (presumably, "impaired") communion with Canterbury?
--------------------
"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
Quoting from the Code of Practice has so far been rather selective. Instructions telling people not to receive communion from their bishop need to be read in context:
quote:
It is no part of our purpose to express doubts about the validity of any of a bishop's sacramental acts other than his priesting of women. Our inability to receive the body of Christ at his hands is to be interpreted as a painful and costly sign of the impairment of communion which his own free action will inevitably have created. Just as the bishop carries the pastoral staff to signify the unity of the flock he tends; so our separation from him at the Table of the Lord will publicly express the alienation from that flock of which women's ordination is the cause. Care should nevertheless be taken to make it clear that no discourtesy is intended. Every opportunity should be taken to join with the bishop and his representatives in non-eucharistic acts of worship.
As for the guidance on cooperating with other clergy:
quote:
Relations with clergy who choose to remain in unimpaired communion with bishops who ordain women should be as flexible as possible. In the words of the House of Bishops statement Bonds of Peace: "The danger to be avoided is that, where ecclesial communion is impaired, communities may begin to define themselves over against one another and develop in isolation from each other".
But it has to be recognised that there are limits. If Fr X has grave doubts about whether Revd Y (a woman) is actually a priest, then he can't act as if she was, but he can (and in most cases will) treat her with full courtesy.
Posts: 422 | From: Diocese of Brentwood | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Scotus
Shipmate
# 8163
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by dyfrig:
When you say "free province", does this actually mean a province within the CofE, as Canterbury and York are, or an Anglican province outside the CofE in (presumably, "impaired") communion with Canterbury?
The only meaningful distinction between the two would be whether the free province comes under the auspices of General Synod and the national church structures. The proposal in Consecrated Women?, IIRC, envisages a province outside these structures, but this seems to be a question of secondary importance to having a province with its own archbishop and episcopal and presbyteral colleges who can be in full and unimpaired communion with one another.
Posts: 422 | From: Diocese of Brentwood | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fiddleback
Shipmate
# 2809
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Scotus:
If Fr X has grave doubts about whether Revd Y (a woman) is actually a priest, then he can't act as if she was, but he can (and in most cases will) treat her with full courtesy.
I thought that FiF had disowned the 'Pork Pie' argument (that a woman can no more be ordained than a pork pie). If a woman has been ordained by a bishop, then of course she is a priest. It is whether she should be a priest that is a matter for debate.
It does seem, however, from his extraordinary post-Synod statement, that Bishop Broadhurst has resurrected the pork pie.
Posts: 2034 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
dyfrig
Blue Scarfed Menace
# 15
|
Posted
The details of the structure may not be that important, but a province outside the CofE would create the curious situation of two Anglican churches within the same country, separate over a point of doctrine. That effectove;u creates a fourth church claiming to be the expression of the historic Christian faith in England.
And what will it be called? "The Other Church of England"?
--------------------
"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
|
|
rugbyplayingpriest
Shipmate
# 9809
|
Posted
I would love it to be called the traditional Anglican Church!!
But no doubt that would wrangle!!
Posts: 130 | From: Kent | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Scotus
Shipmate
# 8163
|
Posted
Fiddleback: I think you're simplifying things by talking of 'pork pies'. FiF is made up of individuals who have there own views but the majority position I would guess is that there are doubts over whether a woman can be a priest, as well as a conviction that the C of E shouldn't have decided to ordain them in 1992. These doubts would be exarcebated by having women bishops, as that 'extraordinary' statement makes clear. In fact I think the statement is commendable for its bluntness and clarity in spelling out what will be an unworkable situation within the church.
Rugbyplayingpriest/dyfrig: I think we would have to be clear that the free/third province would be part of the Anglican Communion, and not a 'continuing' church. Dyfrig is probably right that it would have to be part of the C of E as well - though it might be easier for all concerned if it had its own convocation which for most purposes was separate from General Synod.
[ 27. July 2005, 10:50: Message edited by: Scotus ]
Posts: 422 | From: Diocese of Brentwood | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by dyfrig:
The details of the structure may not be that important, but a province outside the CofE would create the curious situation of two Anglican churches within the same country, separate over a point of doctrine. That effectove;u creates a fourth church claiming to be the expression of the historic Christian faith in England.
And what will it be called? "The Other Church of England"?
It would also in effect disestablish those parishes that joined it. Which I think is the main reason it won't happen that way.
Well, I suspect it won't happen at all. But if it does it is much more likely to be subject to Parliament and the existing Synod. Because the government will want it that way.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Clerestory
The middle of the C of E
# 721
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by rugbyplayingpriest:
I would love it to be called the traditional Anglican Church!!
But no doubt that would wrangle!!
That would be a very good name. As long as you promised that all your services would be taken from the Book of Common Prayer (without changes, omissions or additions), and that you would hold exactly to the doctrine of the 39 Articles. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
But seriously... I've been trying very hard to see how this desire for a Third Province can be anything other than a refusal to face facts.
The great Anglo-Catholic dream was always to bring the Church of England back to its Catholic heritage and into unity with Rome. It worked to some extent: most of us in the C of E are now happy with weekly eucharists, candles on altars, mitres etc. But the Anglo-Catholic revival has long since lost its revolutionary impetus.
Most of us are happy with women priests. Most of us want women bishops. And most of us believe that the Vatican is wrong about a lot of important issues. The bulk of the C of E is not going to move any further in a Roman Catholic direction.
So here's the thing I really don't understand: what on earth does setting up your own special little province have to do with being 'catholic' in any meaningful sense of the word? What would becoming a small semi-detached annex of a Protestant church really achieve for 'catholics', other than enabling you to retire peacefully in a protective bubble where you can pretend it's still the 1920s? Is this about anything other than denial of the facts?
If your fundamental problem with the Church of England is that it's becoming intolerably less and less like the Roman Catholic Church, then surely there's only one logical course of action for you: join the Romans.
[ 27. July 2005, 11:08: Message edited by: Clerestory ]
Posts: 101 | From: England | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fiddleback
Shipmate
# 2809
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by rugbyplayingpriest:
I would love it to be called the traditional Anglican Church!!
But no doubt that would wrangle!!
Someone's already bagsed that name, I'm afraid. However, it leaves us to ask why you don't join one of the existing Continuing Churches rather than setting up yet another one.
Oh, I forgot. You want the Church of England to pay for your new province, don't you?
[ 27. July 2005, 13:48: Message edited by: Fiddleback ]
Posts: 2034 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fiddleback
Shipmate
# 2809
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Scotus:
Fiddleback: I think you're simplifying things by talking of 'pork pies'.
No. The original pork pie quote was made in the days before the 1992 vote by a Vicar from oop north, and synod member, who is now one of FiF's 'regional deans'. Flying bishops (except our London friend) have been at pains ever since to stress that that is NOT what they believe.
Now as to this matter of 'validity'. You have acknowledged that a sacrament performed by a not 'valid' priest(ess) is still a channel of grace. It has an outward and visible sign, and is a means of grace, so therefore, according to the usual definition, it is still a sacrament. You have acknowledged that it doesn't greatly piss God off when people in good faith receive sacraments that aren't 'valid' (though the schisms within the church which you are proposing to add to don't make Him that happy). So what is the problem? I think you have rather misunderstood what Rome means when it refers to 'validity'. It is not about the presence or absence of some kind of magic, as if God were some kind of genie who can only be summoned up with precisely the right formulae. You cannot say that God is absent from protestant churches. When Rome talks of sacraments or priests being valid, what Rome really means is that it holds them to be sacraments and priests of the Catholic (i.e. the Roman) Church.
Posts: 2034 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Scotus
Shipmate
# 8163
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fiddleback:
I think you have rather misunderstood what Rome means when it refers to 'validity'. It is not about the presence or absence of some kind of magic, as if God were some kind of genie who can only be summoned up with precisely the right formulae. You cannot say that God is absent from protestant churches. When Rome talks of sacraments or priests being valid, what Rome really means is that it holds them to be sacraments and priests of the Catholic (i.e. the Roman) Church.
The logical development of your position is that outside of the Roman Catholic Church we might has well have lay celebration, since all acts of worship are equally channels of grace and the form and matter are irrelevent.
Of course the sacraments are not the only channels of God's grace (did I ever say they were?), but, as you well know, God has revealed to the Church that he will give us grace through the sacraments.
We can be confident that we receive God's grace at a Mass, celebrated by a priest with bread and wine, because he has promised it. A service celebrated by a lay person with a bag of crisps and a can of coke may, with the right intention to worship and give thanks to God, conceivably be a channel of grace, but it is not the Mass.
Most Roman Catholics (even B16, from what I have read of his) would say that an Anglican Eucharist might be a valid Mass, but they can't be certain.
Most members of FiF would say, I imagine, that a Eucharist celebrated by a female priest might be a valid Mass, but they can't be certain.
One might argue that doubt is just something we have to live with, and God probably won't be angry with us if we err on the side of openness. My view is that doubt coupled with the fact that at the moment the great churches of the East and West have not taken this step, means that we should err on the side of caution.
Posts: 422 | From: Diocese of Brentwood | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Scotus
Shipmate
# 8163
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fiddleback:
The original pork pie quote was made in the days before the 1992 vote by a Vicar from oop north, and synod member, who is now one of FiF's 'regional deans'. Flying bishops (except our London friend) have been at pains ever since to stress that that is NOT what they believe.
I haven't heard anyone talk about pork pies recently, except you. The 'pork pie theory' may fairly represent the views of some, but I think it does a disservice to the views of the majority in FiF, including +Fulham, which are rather more nuanced than that. So I stand by my claim that by resurrecting this business of pork pies you are simplifying things (and - dare I say it - telling porkie pies)
[ 27. July 2005, 14:44: Message edited by: Scotus ]
Posts: 422 | From: Diocese of Brentwood | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fiddleback
Shipmate
# 2809
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Scotus:
My view is that doubt coupled with the fact that at the moment the great churches of the East and West have not taken this step, means that we should err on the side of caution.
Er...but would not the great (and historic) churches of the West include the Lutherans who have?
Posts: 2034 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Paul Mason
Shipmate
# 7562
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Scotus:
One might argue that doubt is just something we have to live with, and God probably won't be angry with us if we err on the side of openness. My view is that doubt coupled with the fact that at the moment the great churches of the East and West have not taken this step, means that we should err on the side of caution.
'God probably won't be angry'?
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Go read the parable of the prodigal son again and meditate on the character of the father in that story. Then tell me you should err on the side of caution with regard to the expansiveness of God's grace.
--------------------
Now posting as LatePaul
Posts: 452 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Scotus
Shipmate
# 8163
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fiddleback:
Er...but would not the great (and historic) churches of the West include the Lutherans who have?
When Roman Catholic's don't do something but Lutherans do, I'm more inclined to go with the Romans.
quote:
Paul Mason wrote:
Go read the parable of the prodigal son again and meditate on the character of the father in that story. Then tell me you should err on the side of caution with regard to the expansiveness of God's grace.
What I'm actually saying is that if God has promised to communicate his grace to us in certain ways, I'd rather get those ways right as far as I can. As I've already said above, I'm sure a eucharist celebrated by a woman is a channel of grace, just as a Baptist (say) act of worship is, and I'm sure God wouldn't be angry with me for receiving communion from a woman. What I am not sure about are whether these are indeed the sacraments God has given the church.
[Fixed URL]
[ 28. July 2005, 19:41: Message edited by: TonyK ]
Posts: 422 | From: Diocese of Brentwood | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Scotus
Shipmate
# 8163
|
Posted
And I only put the 'probably' in because I don't want to be so arrogant as to say that I know for certain what God's view is. The point of the Prodigal is surely that however bad we get things wrong, if return to God he will always receive us and forgive us - it doesn't mean that nothing makes him angry.
Posts: 422 | From: Diocese of Brentwood | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Paul Mason
Shipmate
# 7562
|
Posted
I think this goes to the heart of why I'm not a sacramentalist. It implies God cares more about rituals than people.
Having said that it's probably a tangent to this thread, so I'll withdraw.
--------------------
Now posting as LatePaul
Posts: 452 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Paul Mason:
I think this goes to the heart of why I'm not a sacramentalist. It implies God cares more about rituals than people.
I think God cares about rituals because She cares about people.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Left at the Altar
Ship's Siren
# 5077
|
Posted
I apologise in advance for using this thread for such a blatantly selfish purpose, that being to see "Priestly Genitalia Left at the Altar" on the board page for my 3000th post.
We now return you to your scheduled debate.
--------------------
Still pretty Amazing, but no longer Mavis.
Posts: 9111 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
rugbyplayingpriest
Shipmate
# 9809
|
Posted
Fiddleback wrote:
quote:
However, it leaves us to ask why you don't join one of the existing Continuing Churches rather than setting up yet another one.
Oh, I forgot. You want the Church of England to pay for your new province, don't you?
HANG ON A MINUTE!!!!!!
We wants to break from tradition and be innovative and different and set apart from the rest of Catholic Christianity?????!!!!!
Seems to me there is more mileage in asking why the revisionists (who want a Church with women Bishops, Gene Robinsons et al) did not form their own- or is it because you wanted OUR money and reputation for yourself?
Mutiny on the good ship Anglican he cries!!
Posts: 130 | From: Kent | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
cocktailgirl
mixer of the drinks
# 8684
|
Posted
But this, surely, is one of the reasons it's so hard to define precisely what the Church of England is. We can't isolate a particular moment in its history, be that 1662, 1833 or 1928 and say 'this is what the Church of England is, was, and ever shall be'. It has an evolving identity; an identity rooted both in Scripture and Tradition and in the vision of God's Kingdom towards which we move. Of course there will be disagreements about how this is worked out in the nitty gritty of 'Anglican practice', but I maintain that the C of E, as other Anglican provinces, have the authority to make decisions such as that over the ordination of women. Of course the decision must be made prayerfully. Of course it must be made with consideration for other Christians. Of course it would be better if all of Catholic Christianity made the decision together. But as Bishop Jewel commented during the Reformation, if a General Council cannot or will not be had, the Church must reform herself per partes.
I know this comes down to what we define as adiaphora. For me, the exercise of episcope is essential to the Church. I think its practice through the historic episcopate in succession from the Apostles is the best way to exercise it. If the C of E was seeking to change either of these, I would have problems. I simply don't over whether the bishop in succession is a man or a woman.
Posts: 841 | From: in hac lacrimarum valle, propping up the bar | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
rugbyplayingpriest
Shipmate
# 9809
|
Posted
Cocktail girl said:
quote:
For me, the exercise of episcope is essential to the Church. I think its practice through the historic episcopate in succession from the Apostles is the best way to exercise it. If the C of E was seeking to change either of these, I would have problems. I simply don't over whether the bishop in succession is a man or a woman.
I agree. But surely Holy Orders is PRECISELY what the C of E has been messing about with. Hence the Catholic's despair.
In 1992 many in the Church were so hell bent on allowing women into orders, that they were going to usher it in- whatever the cost. Even if it would require a breakdown in episcopal oversight. (which of course it did).
Rather thsan waiting for a decision of unity. Rather than waiting till it was an 'everyone or noone' decision. (which would have been much healthier),the whole notion of flying Bishops was allowed to come into force.
And that completely destroys any Catholic notion of episcope. It has led to the idea of having 'the bishop I agree with'. (But do not blame us FIF'ers for that! What alternative was there for we who had real and serious doubts over the validity of the decision?)
Furthermore in the new debate over women bishops this congregationlist model of episcope is gaining ground. The alternatives to a thrid province ALL support, in some way, having pick and choose bishops. Something DEEPLY problematic to Church unity and mission.
Ultimately 1992's decision to ordain women - and our current one to consecrate- rests on the dodgy notion that people can discern and disregard orders!! What rot! Either one is a validly ordained priest or one is not- its not a matter of choice! If that does not mess with Holy orders I do not know what does!
Hence my concern that 1992 was the day the Catholic identity of the Church of England cracked. And 2005 could be the year it shatters. What will remain will be a congregationlist benefice of Churches. Nothing wrong with that from a protestant perspective- but everything wrong from a Catholic one.
Posts: 130 | From: Kent | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
dyfrig
Blue Scarfed Menace
# 15
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by rugbyplayingpriest:
Hence my concern that 1992 was the day the Catholic identity of the Church of England cracked.
So, not in something like 1552 when Mr Cranmer wrote his liturgy? Or perhaps 15-whatever it was when the 39 Articles were promulgated?
--------------------
"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
|
|
rugbyplayingpriest
Shipmate
# 9809
|
Posted
No because one can clearly discern a Catholic spirituality based on three fold order in the book of common prayer.
Something not at all visible in the post 92 Church
Posts: 130 | From: Kent | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Clerestory
The middle of the C of E
# 721
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by rugbyplayingpriest:
Seems to me there is more mileage in asking why the revisionists (who want a Church with women Bishops, Gene Robinsons et al) did not form their own- or is it because you wanted OUR money and reputation for yourself?
Yuck. Revisionists.... terrible people.
Like that minority group of 19th century revisionists who illegally introduced Benediction, invocation of the saints and teaching about purgatory and seven sacraments to the C of E. And who dreamed up this curious idea that the key thing about the C of E is that it has precisely the same kind of ordained ministry as the Roman Church.
Anglo-Catholicism, when it was flourishing, was always a movement which was campaigning for radical change in the Church of England. Yet now you are presenting yourselves, highly implausibly, as the True Authentic Unchanging Traditionalists Who Want Things To Stay As They Always Were. It's completely bizarre!
Posts: 101 | From: England | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
dyfrig
Blue Scarfed Menace
# 15
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by rugbyplayingpriest:
No because one can clearly discern a Catholic spirituality based on three fold order in the book of common prayer.
Something not at all visible in the post 92 Church
How?
--------------------
"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
|
|
rugbyplayingpriest
Shipmate
# 9809
|
Posted
|Celestory said:
quote:
Anglo-Catholicism, when it was flourishing, was always a movement which was campaigning for radical change in the Church of England. Yet now you are presenting yourselves, highly implausibly, as the True Authentic Unchanging Traditionalists Who Want Things To Stay As They Always Were. It's completely bizarre!
Sorry that shows a complete lack of understanding regarding the aims of the Anglo Catholic revival.
The radicalism of the Oxford Movement was led by study of the past- in particular the desert fathers. It was not driven by the popular opinion of society- far from it!
Hence Anglo Catholocism was not trying to invent something new. But rather restore a wayward (and in their opinion secular and liberal) Church to the faith of tradition. Something I easily identify with.
They were trying to reclaim the baby that was thrown out in the dirty bath water of the reformation.
It was thus a turning back in faith not forward.
Which makes its similarity to modern revisionism very far removed.
Posts: 130 | From: Kent | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
rugbyplayingpriest
Shipmate
# 9809
|
Posted
To Dyfrig's how;
1) The BCP is clearly a sacramental work. Just read it!
2) The BCP clearly advocates the three fold order in its ordination services.
Posts: 130 | From: Kent | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
dyfrig
Blue Scarfed Menace
# 15
|
Posted
1992 did not change the principle of a three fold order.
--------------------
"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
|
|
Clerestory
The middle of the C of E
# 721
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by rugbyplayingpriest:
It was thus a turning back in faith not forward. Which makes its similarity to modern revisionism very far removed.
Really?
If the only form of valid change in the Church is to go backwards, then the whole Catholic understanding of the church is impossible! There would be no development of doctrines, liturgies or ministries ever. Logically, we would be forced to attempt to go back as close to the beginning as possible, like some extreme puritan sect who only believed in 1 Thessalonians! Desert Fathers, Ecumenical Councils and threefold ministries would be right out. Is that what you really want?
Are you going forward in faith or backwards in faith? Please decide.
I agree with you that following every changing whim of society would be dangerous. But the last 200 years have seen a total transformation of the lives of women. In order for the human race to survice, women used to have to spend all their time producing babies, because most of them would die. So they weren't educated, or given the vote, or given positions of authority. No one thought women could be doctors, or MPs, or lawyers, or priests. But that world has been passing away, gradually, for a long, long time. Every other profession now admits those women who have the right gifts and motivation.
This is not some passing fad. The demise of patriarchy is probably the biggest social change in the entire history of the human race. And the Church HAS to respond. It HAS to go forwards, as it has always done. It HAS to seek the guidance of the Spirit and to respond.
We have to decide. Either we should radically enforce patriarchy, in which case you should command your wife to give up her job. Or we should embrace the new opportunities we have today, and let women use their God-given gifts to the full. We have to decide.
It falls to us to grapple with these issues, just as the fourth century Church had to grapple with the doctrine of the Trinity. It's not going to be easy or tidy, any more than it was then. But that is the way the Spirit works. And hiding in your own little province saying that you want to keep everything the way it was in 1925, or 500, or whenever, is a failure to take seriously our responsibilities.
Posts: 101 | From: England | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
rugbyplayingpriest
Shipmate
# 9809
|
Posted
Celestory:
quote:
No one thought women could be doctors, or MPs, or lawyers, or priests. But that world has been passing away, gradually, for a long, long time.
I agree. Doctors, MP's and lawyers are all professions that a person (regardless of gender) can 'do'.
But Priesting is unique. It speaks about what you 'are'. And it is here that gender equality becomes redundant.
quote:
Every other profession now admits those women who have the right gifts and motivation
Priesthood is not a profession but a calling. Much like fatherhood or motherhood is a calling. And regardless of societal shift or inclination or feelings of unfairness- God's design means I can no more be a mother than my wife a father. However much we wish it to be different.
And as regards looking backwards and forwards. Christianity always strives to look forwards BUT with one eye on the past- specifically the life and witness of Jesus as revealed in tradition. For Jesus is the pinacle of history.
IF he was God it is impossible to improve on his revelation. Everything must flow from him.
[ 28. July 2005, 11:31: Message edited by: rugbyplayingpriest ]
Posts: 130 | From: Kent | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
jubilate Agno
Shipmate
# 4981
|
Posted
quote:
This is not some passing fad. The demise of patriarchy is probably the biggest social change in the entire history of the human race.
An extravigant claim but it would probably be true of western society in the past hundred years.
quote:
And the Church HAS to respond. It HAS to go forwards, as it has always done.
Given that (not wishing to be impossibly naive), "classical" Christianity is by definition (as Daphne Hampson famously pointed out) patriarchal (Pater noster), does it not follow that what we believe to have been God's self revelation to us as "Father" no longer applies and that the fundamental nature of Christianity must therefore change?
If so, does it makes the belief in a "propositional" self disclosure to mankind by Almighty God as claimed by classical Christianity untenable?
R
Posts: 75 | From: London | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
cocktailgirl
mixer of the drinks
# 8684
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by rugbyplayingpriest:
quote:
Cocktail girl said:
For me, the exercise of episcope is essential to the Church. I think its practice through the historic episcopate in succession from the Apostles is the best way to exercise it. If the C of E was seeking to change either of these, I would have problems. I simply don't over whether the bishop in succession is a man or a woman.
I agree. But surely Holy Orders is PRECISELY what the C of E has been messing about with. Hence the Catholic's despair.
But for me, the C of E has male and female priests ordained by bishops in the apostolic succession. Other Anglican provinces have bishops ordained in the apostolic succession. I know others (especially the Orthodox) disagree with this, but I simply don't think it matters whether the bishop/priest is male or female. They are a priest or a bishop. That's what counts.
quote:
In 1992 many in the Church were so hell bent on allowing women into orders, that they were going to usher it in- whatever the cost. Even if it would require a breakdown in episcopal oversight. (which of course it did).
Rather thsan waiting for a decision of unity. Rather than waiting till it was an 'everyone or noone' decision. (which would have been much healthier),the whole notion of flying Bishops was allowed to come into force.
This is an argument I find disingenuous. 'Wait till there's consensus' goes the cry. But there won't be consensus till the eschaton. Should we really wait that long? And it's no use harking back to the early church and the reaching of 'consensus' there. They managed it by anathematizing anyone who disagreed with the decision made by a council.
quote:
And that completely destroys any Catholic notion of episcope. It has led to the idea of having 'the bishop I agree with'. (But do not blame us FIF'ers for that! What alternative was there for we who had real and serious doubts over the validity of the decision?)
I sort of blame you and sort of don't. I do blame the C of E for the mess we've got ourselves into, and especially those on the bench of bishops in '92. Not because I want FiFers to leave the C of E, but for the very reason you outline, that a congregationalist polity is alien to the C of E and implies a breakdown in catholic order. I also simply don't understand why Resolutions A and B don't suffice (at the moment, I can see there would be problems if women were bishops).
quote:
Ultimately 1992's decision to ordain women - and our current one to consecrate- rests on the dodgy notion that people can discern and disregard orders!! What rot! Either one is a validly ordained priest or one is not- its not a matter of choice! If that does not mess with Holy orders I do not know what does!
With respect, I think it rests on the notion that the Church can discern God's will and can respond to the promptings of the Holy Spirit. But we agree that one is either a validly ordained priest or not - and the C of E agrees that I am. If we have two separate orders, we have two separate churches. And the name for that is a schism.
Posts: 841 | From: in hac lacrimarum valle, propping up the bar | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
rugbyplayingpriest
Shipmate
# 9809
|
Posted
Cocktail girl:
quote:
But we agree that one is either a validly ordained priest or not - and the C of E agrees that I am.
Well sort of!
The C of E agrees you are validly ordained BUT also agrees I am valid in questioning that claim!!!! Nonsense I know - but that is why I claim that orders have been buggered about with.
1992 meant that no longer could all preists gather around an altar for the Eucharist. It also meant that not all priests recognised each others orders. The Church created this foolish scenario- thus messin' with orders!
And yes- we are now two seperate Church's under one roof. Hence I do not think we should talk about whether schism is necessary- but about how to deal with a schism that exists!
Please do note this though:
Whilst I seriously question the Churches authority to ordain you- I am not wanting to question either your proficiency or calling to ministry. I am sure you are a wonderful and vital minister of the Gospel. No doubt- a far better witness than me!
Posts: 130 | From: Kent | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Clerestory
The middle of the C of E
# 721
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by rugbyplayingpriest:
Priesthood is not a profession but a calling. Much like fatherhood or motherhood is a calling. And regardless of societal shift or inclination or feelings of unfairness- God's design means I can no more be a mother than my wife a father.
OK... so here you're arguing from direct experience of how the human person functions. And we can see, indeed, that you won't ever give birth. But we can also observe that women are now experiencing all the same indications of vocation to ordained ministry that we have always looked for in men. They have the right gifts and sense of calling. So an examination of direct experience of the human person suggests that the Spirit is actually telling us that we should now ordain women.
quote:
Originally posted by rugbyplayingpriest:
IF Jesus was God it is impossible to improve on his revelation. Everything must flow from him.
And now you're arguing again like an extreme evangelical reductionist. If everything flows from the original revelation in Christ circa AD 30, then all of subsequent Catholic tradition is completely irrelevant. Including the threefold ministry and all this stuff about the validity of sacraments, none of which is in the Gospels. I don't think you really mean this.
Posts: 101 | From: England | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fiddleback
Shipmate
# 2809
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by rugbyplayingpriest:
To Dyfrig's how;
1) The BCP is clearly a sacramental work. Just read it!
Cack. Mrs Cranmer is a thoroughly Calvinist/Zwinglian piece of 'liturgy' whatever catholic 'spin' people might have tried to put on it.
quote:
2) The BCP clearly advocates the three fold order in its ordination services.
Oh whoopee.
[ 28. July 2005, 12:57: Message edited by: Fiddleback ]
Posts: 2034 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Clerestory
The middle of the C of E
# 721
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by jubilate Agno:
Given that (not wishing to be impossibly naive), "classical" Christianity is by definition (as Daphne Hampson famously pointed out) patriarchal (Pater noster), does it not follow that what we believe to have been God's self revelation to us as "Father" no longer applies and that the fundamental nature of Christianity must therefore change?
A fascinating question! Which might derail this thread completely. But, to give a short answer...
As far as I can see, most people who want women bishops still want to go on calling God 'Father'. It's how he revealed himself to us, and it's still perfectly clear what he meant. Saying that power does not always have to be exclusively male does not mean that a male image for God no longer works.
Posts: 101 | From: England | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fiddleback
Shipmate
# 2809
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by rugbyplayingpriest:
or is it because you wanted OUR money and reputation for yourself?
What fecking money?! Fif churches in every diocese in England are over staffed and under-contributory. No one has yet named ONE SINGLE ABC parish that pays a quota of over £30,000 a year to their diocese.
Posts: 2034 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by rugbyplayingpriest:
Hence Anglo Catholocism was not trying to invent something new. But rather restore a wayward (and in their opinion secular and liberal) Church to the faith of tradition. Something I easily identify with.
Ah I see! Just like the Evangelicals!
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by rugbyplayingpriest:
IF he was God it is impossible to improve on his revelation. Everything must flow from him.
Of course. That's just about the only thing in your posts I agree with.
And the participation of some women in the ordained ministry that we have on our church does flow from him, just as much as does the all-male all-celibate priesthood some other churchs have. (& a lot more obviously than does the idea of a bishop as a little monarch in his diocese which we have, I hope, got away from)
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fiddleback
Shipmate
# 2809
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by rugbyplayingpriest:
The Church created this foolish scenario- thus messin' with orders!
No. You have created this foolish scenario. Stop dripping on about the idea that the rest of the church has changed and you are just being faithful. That is what every little protestant splinter group has always said when it has broken away from the church. "It's not us that have changed - it's them. Mummy is being howwid. I hate her and I'm throwing my toys out of the pram."
[ 28. July 2005, 14:22: Message edited by: Fiddleback ]
Posts: 2034 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
John Holding
Coffee and Cognac
# 158
|
Posted
RPP -
So to be clear: You believe that the CofE exists all by itself with no valid or relevent ties to other Anglican provinces?
I say that because Lambeth in 78 approved the principle of ordaining women while leaving it up to individual provinces to decide whether or not to do so. It said the ordination of women was a cultural/societal issue, not a theological one. In taking your position, you must not accept Lambeth as an appropriate authority in the CofE.
And most provinces now do ordain women. As you have the problems you have made clear with the CofE because it ordains women, I take it that you are in "impaired communion" with the rest of the Anglican communion -- and indeed, as no-one except the CofE has made any provision for those like yourself, you are effectively out of communion with the rest. Except Sydney, of course. WHich is kind of ironic.
For example, I have to conclude that you would feel unable to function as a priest in Canada or the US or Australia or New Zealand, or in most of African or Asia, since in all of those places there are women priests -- in some there are women bishops -- and in none of them is there any meaaure allowing alternative oversight to those with theological objections.
What an interesting commentary on the concept of the Anglican communion over the last 30-40 years.
John
Posts: 5929 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
dyfrig
Blue Scarfed Menace
# 15
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fiddleback:
quote:
Originally posted by rugbyplayingpriest:
To Dyfrig's how;
1) The BCP is clearly a sacramental work. Just read it!
Cack. Mrs Cranmer is a thoroughly Calvinist/Zwinglian piece of 'liturgy' whatever catholic 'spin' people might have tried to put on it.
Indeed. I believe Mr Dix had some choice words on this matter.
--------------------
"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
|
|
jubilate Agno
Shipmate
# 4981
|
Posted
quote:
1) The BCP is clearly a sacramental work. Just read it!
It undoubtedly reads that way but Cranmer had re-written 1549 with the intention of removing any suggestion of a corporeal real presence.
A Calvinist or even a Zwinglian view of the Eucharist is not necessarily non-sacramental however.
R
Posts: 75 | From: London | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
jubilate Agno
Shipmate
# 4981
|
Posted
quote:
As far as I can see, most people who want women bishops still want to go on calling God 'Father'. It's how he revealed himself to us, and it's still perfectly clear what he meant.
With rapidly changing gender roles I'm not at all sure that it is at all "perfectly clear," and certainly may not continue to be so.
I believe that until we have a good understanding of the many positions held on God's revelation with regard to gender, its implications and the pre suppositions we hold on these issue, we cannot really proceed with a mutually comprehensible discussion about the genitalia of his ministers.
As an aside, gender aspirations can change back again. I have a trainee (project manager / engineer) with a first class degree in mathematics from a top university whose ambition in life is to be a .........house wife, she sees her career working for a top international company as a stop gap! Good for her I say.
R
Posts: 75 | From: London | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fiddleback
Shipmate
# 2809
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Scotus:
As I've already said above, I'm sure a eucharist celebrated by a woman is a channel of grace, just as a Baptist (say) act of worship is, and I'm sure God wouldn't be angry with me for receiving communion from a woman. What I am not sure about are whether these are indeed the sacraments God has given the church.
But they still work, though? Only with less grace channelled?
Posts: 2034 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fiddleback
Shipmate
# 2809
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ruggerpriest:
And yes- we are now two seperate Church's under one roof. Hence I do not think we should talk about whether schism is necessary- but about how to deal with a schism that exists!
You mean you want us to continue paying for you to have your own little church within a church. Roll on Third Province, say I, and save the Church of England a bit of money.
"Separate", I think you meant to write, by the way.
[ 28. July 2005, 18:18: Message edited by: Fiddleback ]
Posts: 2034 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
rugbyplayingpriest
Shipmate
# 9809
|
Posted
What a generous, loving spirit you demonstrate Fiddleback.
It really is endearing.
And for your information the Church I currently serve in has 250-300 each week at mass. And a sunday school of over 60. We also have one of the largest parish shares in the diocese. Which we meet. Oh and we are also one of the very few growing congregations...so actually we do not need yuor money thank you very much for not offering it!
Another statistic that might make you uncomfortable is that the largest 100 growing parishes are all led by male priests and teach an orthodox Gospel.
Not to mention the numbers of orthodox in Africa et al...
...sorry chum but it is wishy washy liberalism which is the failing experiment. Ultimately when you abandon notions of a definate message what do you have to offer people?
Christ centred Churches grow....liberal Churches- well look at ECUSA.....
[ 28. July 2005, 19:41: Message edited by: rugbyplayingpriest ]
Posts: 130 | From: Kent | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Printer-friendly view
