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 14)

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.  
Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  ...  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  ...  51  52  53 
 
Source: (consider it) Thread: Priestly genitalia [Ordination of Women]
RuthW

liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13

 - Posted      Profile for RuthW     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Yes, do look at us. My liberal parish is growing like mad.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 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 
Sorry Ruth- no offence meant for ECUSA and liberal Churches really- so much as getting frustrated at the gobbledegook spouted by fiddleback that we are somehow funded by him.

In virtually every diocese in England the main financial muscle belongs to the evangelicals.

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 
Psst - Rugbyplayingpriest - were you going to answer any of the questions in my post - again, if you choose not to, that's fine, but I am trying to decide which books to get from the library this week......

--------------------
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
Chorister

Completely Frocked
# 473

 - Posted      Profile for Chorister   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I do hope that any type of church is not going to start using the numbers (or finance) game to bully the other churches.
Liberal churches may not have the greatest numbers on seats on Sundays (although there are some exceptions - my own church is the largest in the Deanery, for example), but they do provide a 'yes face' to people who, for one reason or another, feel they have been rejected by the stricter interpretations of church. One of the great strengths of women priests is that they can listen to those troubled women who would never go to a male priest with their problems. This slow process of listening, understanding, and caring, is just as important a work of the church than enticing people in to praise and worship on Sunday mornings.

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

Posts: 34626 | From: Cream Tealand | Registered: Jun 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 rugbyplayingpriest:
... the gobbledegook spouted by fiddleback that we are somehow funded by him.

In virtually every diocese in England the main financial muscle belongs to the evangelicals.

See, this seems like a complete non sequiter to me. By 'we' in your first paragraph I presume you mean FiF types. Who have precious little in common with the evangelicals funding most of the C of E in your second paragraph.

I'm delighted, by the way, that your church is growing, RPP. But I look round my diocese and only one of the resolution C parishes pays its way. The rest have shrinking congregations and can't pay their quotas. This shaky financial foundation is something the advocates of a third province are going to have to deal with. Your successful parish isn't going to be able to prop up all the rest.

And while I appreciate your courtesy to me in an earlier post, can I point out that this comment winds me up:

quote:
...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?
You may or may not have noticed that I'm not a 'let them all leave, now' sort of person. That's partly in response to listening to the views of those with whom I disagree. I affirm the faith revealed in Scripture and testified to in the Creeds. I am, I think, unfashionably orthodox on doctrine. Are you really telling me that because I believe in the ordination of women I am less able to preach the gospel? Or that the gospel I preach is somehow watered down? Hyperbole is enticing, but nuance and careful listening are what's needed in this debate.
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 
For the last fecking time rugbyplayingpriest, will you stop classifying everyone who does not subscribe to Fif as a 'liberal'. I will in return resist the temptation to classify you as a tit.

First, can you back up your statistics.

Speaking for this diocese, not one of the nine ABC parishes pays its way. Only one of them, in fact, comes anywhere near. I can't be arsed to dig out the figures at this late hour, but I did the sums on an earlier purgatory thread which showed that if we lost those parishes to a Third Province, the diocese would save enough to buy five more priests. Others, like Cocktailgirl, commented at the time, that the situation was pretty much the same in their dioceses. Is your uniquely successful ABC parish going to bankroll Bishop Broadhurst's new province?

Yes, evangelical parishes are the biggest givers. But they are not at this stage, even the Bantingites, planning to set up their own province. Our church, which is not at all liberal by local standards, is a net contributor. In fact, we could almost say that the surplus we pay to the diocese is what it takes to keep one of the ABC parishes on the road.

Posts: 2034 | Registered: May 2002  |  IP: Logged
rugbyplayingpriest
Shipmate
# 9809

 - Posted      Profile for rugbyplayingpriest   Author's homepage   Email rugbyplayingpriest   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Ken, some pointers for you:

1) Not all FIF members are at ABC parishes- indeed only a very small proportion. Most accept A and B and try to work with that. Many do not even need to have resolutions because (at present) they can manage without. This would need to change with women bishops and you might be surprised at the number.

2) Look at the new GAP (giving as partners) scheme being muted by evangelicals. In which rich parishes want money to go direct to poor parishes that teach a creedal faith-(circumnavigating the diocese with its millions wasted on beaurocracy and 'new ways of being Church etc')
In our diocese it is planned to include the ABC parishes- you seem to hate so much.

3) Due to the history of the Anglo Catholic revival most of our parishes are in deprived areas. (As opposed to most wealthy Churches that tend to be civic,town centre, middle of the road parishes). For years the Anglo Catholics have been pushed to one side and given the less attractive livings- that figures economically. Which is bound to impact on economics. Do you really expect people in UPA areas to find as much money as wealthy parishes?

4) You claim evangelicals do not wish for a new province. What planet have you been on??? A seismic shift of power is going on. Out of Canterbury and towards Africa. Their province will just be global not local. Just witness the action of Archbishop Gomex this week.

4) Unlike you I do not judge Gospel success by capitalist and worldly standards. Jesus himself was hardly raking in the money compared to the temple leaders. He was also despised by the established Church of his day- for preaching a Gospel that was counter cultural and difficult to digest. Do you really consider his ministry a failure??? I am sure that the leaders in his day would not have wanted to 'bankroll' his mission...but that said little about the value of his message.

4) Before labelling others as tits- check the nipple on your own head please!
Its probably not so different to any one elses.

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

mixer of the drinks
# 8684

 - Posted      Profile for cocktailgirl     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Much as it amuses me that I keep agreeing with Fiddleback, I think RPP you are missing his point. He isn't judging the success or otherwise of ministry by worldly capitalist standards (though I would say that an ever decreasing number of bums on pews is a sign that all is not entirely healthy) but simply pointing out the uncomfortable fact that FiF parishes couldn't support themselves without being bankrolled by the rest of the C of E. I have no problem with parishes subsidising each other, via the diocese (again, you seem to dislike this, though in Anglican polity it is the diocese that is the unit of the local church, and the cure of souls you exercise is the bishop's - tedious that, isn't it?) but wish FiF would wake up and smell the coffee.

The fact that some A&B parishes might 'go over' on the issue of women bishops is one of the reasons I can see for delaying. But only if dialogue and engagement takes place.

Posts: 841 | From: in hac lacrimarum valle, propping up the bar | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
rugbyplayingpriest
Shipmate
# 9809

 - Posted      Profile for rugbyplayingpriest   Author's homepage   Email rugbyplayingpriest   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Cocktail girl I think we agree.

Sorry but Fiddle winds me up and I end up slinging mud!!

Basically it is true that MANY parishes need the support of the whole of the C of E.

And the Province idea is not a desire to 'leave' the Church. But a way to ensure that we can 'remain' in the the Church.

It is an honest attempt to create a coherent Church that can allow both womens orders and a home for those- who in good conscience- disagree with them.

A proposal that does not involve pick and choose Bishops- which everyone must agree has been silly.

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

The middle of the C of E
# 721

 - Posted      Profile for Clerestory     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Dear RPP,

You're talking a lot of flack here, and I'm grateful to you for persevering, as I'm genuinely interested in hearing what you have to say. Thank you.

But could you explain to me how FIF now perceives its 'Catholic' status? I'm still, as I said before, confused about how people who value being 'Catholic' can end up wanting to be a semi-detached annex of a Protestant church.

Anglo-Catholics made a lot more sense to me in the days when they were strongly influencing the mainstream of the C of E, and a future reunion with Rome seemed a plausible objective. So you could be a 'Catholic' in the C of E on the grounds that that was the direction the C of E was moving in, even if it wasn't there yet.

But those days have gone. Power, as you acknowledge, is shifting to the evangelicals. Who mostly want women priests, and who are more interested in joining forces with other Protestant churches. And you are setting yourselves apart from the mainstream of the Church of England's life and ministry.

So now, you say you are going 'Forward' in Faith. But what are you moving 'forward' towards? What is the 'Catholic' goal that you hope for? To me, you seem to be asking to be left alone in a small private corner where you can turn the clock back to 1991, or some other year. What has this really got to do with being 'Catholic'?

You seem to be to be so totally absorbed in the question of valid ordinations that you've come to think that's all that matters. But how can it be 'Catholic' to want to be a separatist faction of a Protestant church? I'm very puzzled. And I think any Roman Catholic or Orthodox theologian would be very puzzled too.

I'd be delighted to hear an explanation.

[ 29. July 2005, 09:44: Message edited by: Clerestory ]

Posts: 101 | From: England | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
GreyFace
Shipmate
# 4682

 - Posted      Profile for GreyFace   Email GreyFace   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by rugbyplayingpriest:
A proposal that does not involve pick and choose Bishops- which everyone must agree has been silly.

But this, and the related accusations of congregationalism, are precisely the current state of affairs.

I live in County Durham. Who is my bishop? +Wright? +Dunn? +Gabriel? +Gregorios? No doubt there are others we accept as genuine bishops with some kind of geographical jurisdiction.

If you got a Third Province, would you not just be adding another name to the mix, or are you suggesting that FiF members will stick to parish boundaries even if that gets them a female priest?

Posts: 5748 | From: North East England | Registered: Jul 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 
My wish to remain in the C of E (currently) has little to do with the ordination of women. That is a symptom not cause of my concern. And indeed many women priests may agree with me here. Undeniably Rome would be easier but I remain Anglican cos:

1) I care passionately about my Church. Warts and all.

2) I believe that the Church is part of the Universal Catholic Church even if certain members do not realsie this or have forgotten it.

3) I want a province that we may witness not to what this Church was nor to what it should be but what it actually IS. That we might preserve something that our grandchildren may wish to return to. When current thinking is no longer trendy.

4) I still pray and hope for reconciliation with Rome and Constantinople. Surely that unity is the hope of all?

5) I think the Church of England would be a much poorer place without us. Whether we are valued or not...(which personal experience teaches me we aren't! )

6) I feel that many people in the pews are being ignored. And having a watered down faith handed to them. (Please note I am not refering to women's ordination here but to the loss of orthodoxy)

7) I trust in miracles. And that we may yet pull away from the cancerous influences of post modern subjectivism, relativism and pluralism and re-establish ourselves as the Catholic Church in England.

So there you go. You can laugh at me, hate me for that or whatever (no doubt Ken and Fiddleback will) but it explains my belief. And my reason for staying.

Posts: 130 | From: Kent | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Fiddleback
Shipmate
# 2809

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

Small-minded soul that I am, I have just checked the parishes registered with FiF against the figures for Chelmsford Diocese and I see none with an Electoral Roll anywhere near the numbers you give. You also said on the 'Ladies in purple' thread that your church only had old ladies in it (a result, I think you said, of the 1992 decision by the Church of England to ordain women).

What are we to believe?

Posts: 2034 | Registered: May 2002  |  IP: Logged
Chorister

Completely Frocked
# 473

 - Posted      Profile for Chorister   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
An interesting article seen today on the front page of the BBC news website, to throw into the pot.
I can see the likelihood of married priests being accepted by the Catholic church soon (after all they already have some i.e. former Anglicans), but not women priests. And if they ever did, what would the former Anglicans do then? Would Orthodoxy beckon?


(Fiddleback, can't you see, those old ladies go to mass every day. He just counted each one seven times! [Biased] )

[ 29. July 2005, 10:29: Message edited by: Chorister ]

--------------------
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 
Fiddleback you may believe the following:

1) When I spoke of my Church being full of women and over feminised I spoke of the Church at large.

2) Not all FIF priests work in registered forward in faith parishes. (That is your myopic view which leads to your many flase assumptions) I serve at a large parish that has not passed resolutions because it has not seen the need to (yet). We have two wonderful female lay readers and lots of young families. Apologies if that also sshatters your convenient stereotype.

3) Please refrain from personal insults and trying to make out that I am dishonest. It does not do much to improve your image.

Posts: 130 | From: Kent | Registered: Jul 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 
I might add it could be time for an apology.
Posts: 130 | From: Kent | Registered: Jul 2005  |  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:
An interesting article seen today on the front page of the BBC news website, to throw into the pot.
I can see the likelihood of married priests being accepted by the Catholic church soon (after all they already have some i.e. former Anglicans), but not women priests. And if they ever did, what would the former Anglicans do then? Would Orthodoxy beckon? *snip*

Chorister, you've hit on the nub of it. It might not happen in my lifetime, although it could, but within the lifetime of most Shipmates the Roman church WILL ordain women to the presbyterate (if the Lord tarries and the creek don't rise). We all know this. Trisagion, IngoB and FCB know this. HH B XVI knows this. The only folk who don't seem to know it are my esteemed-in-Christ (sincerely meant, no irony) FiFers. All that's happening is a drawn-out management of the process.

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


Posts: 8661 | From: Et in Australia Ego | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Fiddleback
Shipmate
# 2809

 - Posted      Profile for Fiddleback     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by rugbyplayingpriest:
I might add it could be time for an apology.

For what? I did not throw a personal insult at you. You inferred one.
Posts: 2034 | Registered: May 2002  |  IP: Logged
Triple Tiara

Ship's Papabile
# 9556

 - Posted      Profile for Triple Tiara   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Not being in the RC Church, Foaming Draught , should cause you to pause before you predict that it will do what you want it to do. Women priests? It aint gonna happen - even if I personally want it to happen.

Chorister : I know very few former Anglicans who came running to us because they wanted to avoid women priests. The overwhelming experience has been of catholic minded Christians who wanted to live the reality of being in communion with the Catholic Church. The solely anti-women brigade are still lurking in an Anglican parish near you. So do try not to project too much.

RPP - give up mate. Your struggle is going nowhere. You are expending loads of energy on trying to salvage a wreck, energy which could be more positively spent proclaiming the Gospel. Cardinal Hume spoke of a re-alignment in English Christianity. Let the CofE be the CofE. If you want to be a Catholic, go to where the Catholics are. You will be welcomed.

--------------------
I'm a Roman. You may call me Caligula.

Posts: 5905 | From: London, England | Registered: May 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 
Triple Tiara- you could WELL be right!

Chorister: The opinion of the BBC and one liberaly minded Catholic are not much to go on - esp. when one understands the mind of the Vatican

Fiddleback: If you really feel you are acting in a loving and compssionate manner- then feel free to feel pure!

Posts: 130 | From: Kent | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
GreyFace
Shipmate
# 4682

 - Posted      Profile for GreyFace   Email GreyFace   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
RPP - give up mate. Your struggle is going nowhere. You are expending loads of energy on trying to salvage a wreck, energy which could be more positively spent proclaiming the Gospel.

Well, this is the confusing issue for me, and it's been pointed out by others.

A Third Province effectively creates a schism from the Church of England that can only be detrimental to any Anglo-Catholic goal of moving the CofE towards a position more closely resembling Rome.

In every scenario I envisage, 3P would give the dissenters less of a voice in the (rest of the) Church of England and institutionalise schism. 1P+2P and 3P would plant into each others parishes rapidly and there would be a different church inside ten years. It concedes defeat, if the goal is reunion between the CofE (or the whole AC) and Rome, surely?

What say you, RPP?

Posts: 5748 | From: North East England | Registered: Jul 2003  |  IP: Logged
Fiddleback
Shipmate
# 2809

 - Posted      Profile for Fiddleback     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by rugbyplayingpriest:
So there you go. You can laugh at me, hate me for that or whatever (no doubt Ken and Fiddleback will) but it explains my belief.

We're laughing with you, dear, not at you.
Posts: 2034 | Registered: May 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 
Rugbyplayingpriest, are you going to give me the courtesy of a reply?

--------------------
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:
I remain Anglican cos:

1) I care passionately about my Church. Warts and all.

So do those who ordain women.

quote:

2) I believe that the Church is part of the Universal Catholic Church even if certain members do not realsie this or have forgotten it.

We all believe it. What we don't all believe is that that Universal Catholic Church is in any way limited to those churches in communion with the Bishop of Rome, or to those churches that only ordain men.

quote:

3) I want a province that we may witness not to what this Church was nor to what it should be but what it actually IS. That we might preserve something that our grandchildren may wish to return to. When current thinking is no longer trendy.

Well yes, but it is hard to see how a Third Province in England will witness to what the Universal Catholic Church actually is in a way that no other organisational structure in Anglicanism could. One more smallish Protestant denomination, with or without interesting tat, is hardly going to shake the foundations of the City of Death.

quote:

4) I still pray and hope for reconciliation with Rome and Constantinople. Surely that unity is the hope of all?

Yes, but we also want visible unity with all the other Protestant denominations. And we can achieve that, at least with the mainstream Lutherans and the Methodists & some of the Reformed/Presbyterians. Rome isn't having us to her party other than as Roman Catholics (& why should she?). We could, any of us, individually walk down the street to the RC parish church any day we wanted - but that wouldn;t be the reconciliation of our Church of England with the Church of Rome, it would be admitting that we were wrong to be in the Church of England in the first place. So for the sake of unity, we should talk to the our sister Protestant churches most urgently. Do what we think can be done, do the tasks set before us, rather than sit around waiting for something else to happen. We can only play the cards we've been dealt.

quote:

5) I think the Church of England would be a much poorer place without us. Whether we are valued or not...(which personal experience teaches me we aren't! )

You are valued, and it would be a poorer place. So why not stay?

quote:

6) I feel that many people in the pews are being ignored. And having a watered down faith handed to them. (Please note I am not refering to women's ordination here but to the loss of orthodoxy)

So stay in the Diocese of Chelmsford and teach orthodoxy to the people God has called you to serve.

quote:

7) I trust in miracles. And that we may yet pull away from the cancerous influences of post modern subjectivism, relativism and pluralism and re-establish ourselves as the Catholic Church in England.

Same here. But I do not think that believing that God calls some women to the ordained presbyterate is "cancerous" or any of those other bad things.

quote:

So there you go. You can laugh at me, hate me for that or whatever (no doubt Ken and Fiddleback will) but it explains my belief. And my reason for staying.

Why should I laugh at you or hate you? I do think you are wrong about the ordination of women though. I also think you are wrong to reject the chance of some visible unity with the Methodists and others. And I think you are wrong - I mean mistaken, not morally wrong - about the chances of a third province in England.

I strongly suspect that it won't happen. And I suspect that if it did happen it would still be subject to the old Anglican Erastian processes of choosing clergy and bishops and other clergy, and will not be entirely independent.

Also I think that Fiddleback might be right about the money. You seem to be implying that dozens of flourishing parishes that are not currently under motion C will come out of the closet and go the whole way the moment a Third Province is on the cards. But why? If they can live within their dioceses now, why should they take this bigger step?

Its reminiscent of those days when some Anglo-Catholics were predicting that the ordination of women would drive 1,000 clergy and 50,000 laity from the Church of England to Rome. In reality it was more like 200 clergy and 5,000 laity.

And, what if these churches did come out of the woodwork? What if a significant number of evangelical parishes joined them? (which wopuld be astonishing) What if you did get your "free province" released from the clutches of archdeacons and Crown Appointments Committees? Do you think that you will find life much easier in a province which has to elect its own archbishop in a struggle between the favourites of Jesmond and Holy Trinity Brompton?

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

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

Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
rugbyplayingpriest
Shipmate
# 9809

 - Posted      Profile for rugbyplayingpriest   Author's homepage   Email rugbyplayingpriest   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Sienna here you go:

Your email begins by pointing out an apparent inconsistency. In that I criticise a synodical governemnt due to it not being biblical, yet using Nicea to support a later argument.

I would argue that modern synod is made up of elected (many non theologicaly trained) people. Wheras Nicea was a coming together of Bishops. There is a difference.

One is a meeting of the apostles The theological experts and Fathers in God. The other a vote by whoever happens to stand for election.

The second inconsistency you might have a point on. Mea Culpa

Regarding point 1) I already highlighted how I disagree with your assertion that Christ never ordained anyone. By refering to Peter's commision.

Regarding 3) The catacomb depictions are fairly ambigous. I know nothing about Pope Gelasius- but wonder what the current Pope would say on that one. At the end of the day if the evidence was conclusive we would not need this debate.

Regarding 5) Nicea probably issued a decree against womens ordination not because it was an authorised practice but an illegal one. Akin to those strange women on the Christine Odine programme who declare themsleves to be RC Bishops despite protestations from Rome. If someone starts pretending- its time for an edict.

Regarding 7) Ordination makes gender interchangeable due to the imagery at the Eucharist of Christ the groom and his bride the Church. Because priesthood is about what one is not what one does menas that gender is not incidental. 'Secularism' is a turning from religion to societal wisdom. We might regard how pornography is obsessed with paradying marriage with same sex obsession - or how it is vogue to have a questionable sexual identity. (a la Madonna and Brittany snogging)

Regarding 8) Christ's maleness is clearly revelatory. He taught us to call God Father. He chose to be born as man. (Surely if inclusivity is truth then a better balance would have been to come as a woman if there was already language about the father...and if the time was not right why not wait till 2004)

Most feminist theologians are coming to accept that Christianity is a very patriarchal religion. To escape it you have to change an awful lot- to the point it becomes something new.

Regarding point 10) The overwhelming evidence being that there is no precedent for women's ordination in scripture without using some strange or tenous hermeutic

Regarding 12) I think a lot of the problem lies in what we think eqaulity is about. I for one do not beleive in human rights- only in human responsibilities. But then I am not very PC!!

Regarding 13) The slavery issue is very different from the women in the Church issue. For being a slave is (once agian) about what you do. You can change that by being set free. It is also a very clear justice issue. Many black people find it offensive to bracket the two together.

I would also argue that we still have many many slaves today. We just pay them minimal wage and let them go home. We might think of all sorts of people in this bracket. What the bible teaches us about their treatment is still pertinant.

Off on hols tomorrow so may go quiet on you

Regards

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 
Thanks for your response, and I hope you enjoy your holiday. I'm going to assume since you didn't address the Montanists again, I can safely forego Eusebius & company this weekend, for which I am grateful. [Smile]

Briefly, you've missed my point with respect to slavery. I was asking from where you believe the Church derived the authority to depart from Scripture and Tradition and change its stance on approving slavery. I'm not talking about whether slavery is permissible or the same issue as ordaining women; I'm asking where you believe the Church derived the authority to make the change. As well as making the point that in this case, the pedophilia and group sex you predict as a result of departing from Scripture and Tradition hadn't come about.

You should be wary of saying that something is a "clear justice issue," as that's something you've held isn't a valid argument in other arenas.

While it's most likely not intentional, your associations of women in the priesthood with porn and Brittany and Madonna kissing (not to mention the earlier pedophilia and group sex) is more than a little offensive. I think there's a serious discussion to be had, but throwing comments such as this into the mix make that difficult.

(I'm going to use Cocktailgirl as an example, as I'm not ordained - hope that's okay with her).

You and Cocktailgirl both took on the image of Christ at your baptism. However, under your view of gender, you are able to represent Christ at the Eucharist while she cannot. This presupposes that you took on the image of Christ in a more intimate, complete way than she did. So was the image of Christ conferred at your baptism a different one? Did you receive "enough" of the image of Christ to let you celebrate Mass, and she somehow didn't?

Also, I understand that Christ instructed us to call God "Father," and I suppose at this point we could discuss whether or not he wanted us to discard feminine imagery of God in the Old Testament. But none of that would answer my question of why Christ's "relevatory maleness" is more important than his "relevatory humanity," particularly in light of the baptismal theology above.

I'll ask again - are you maintaining that God (as opposed to the incarnate Christ) is gendered? Because Genesis makes it pretty clear that both male and female are created in the image of God.

Again, thanks for the reply, and enjoy the vacation.

--------------------
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
Erin
Meaner than Godzilla
# 2

 - Posted      Profile for Erin   Author's homepage   Email Erin       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Psssst... Sienna... don't waste your time. RPP is only here to show us the errors of our ways. He doesn't give two flying shits about what you actually say.

ETA: anyone who goes over there to start a board war is toast.

[ 01. August 2005, 01:06: Message edited by: Erin ]

--------------------
Commandment number one: shut the hell up.

Posts: 17140 | From: 330 miles north of paradise | Registered: Mar 2001  |  IP: Logged
Alfred E. Neuman

What? Me worry?
# 6855

 - Posted      Profile for Alfred E. Neuman     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
[Killing me]

--------------------
--Formerly: Gort--

Posts: 12954 | Registered: May 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 
Thanks for the heads up - and here I was feeling bad for him because he was claiming he never got a decent theological discussion because of all the yelling. Oh, well, live and learn.

RPP, if you bother to turn up here again, you have accomplished something during your time on SoF - the next time someone opposed to the ordination of women wants to have a dialogue, I'll be less inclined to either listen or respond, because I'll be remembering how disingenuous you were. Way to accomplish your mission!

--------------------
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
TonyK

Host Emeritus
# 35

 - Posted      Profile for TonyK   Email TonyK   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Thanks Erin - it never occured to me to do any checking about RPP.

For the record he also recently joined another board - Anglo-Catholic Central, but as this is a closed board (registered users only) I haven't tried to see his contributions.

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

Posts: 2717 | From: Gloucestershire | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
cocktailgirl

mixer of the drinks
# 8684

 - Posted      Profile for cocktailgirl     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
[Eek!] The arrogance of the guy is breathtaking. Much better that he stay on that other board where no one will challenge his views and they can have cosy chats about how they are predestined to be Right. [Disappointed]
Posts: 841 | From: in hac lacrimarum valle, propping up the bar | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
GreyFace
Shipmate
# 4682

 - Posted      Profile for GreyFace   Email GreyFace   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
RPP, you think your theological summary was a "bombshell" do you? You think they took the proponents of OoW by surprise? You hadn't read the rest of this thread?

I don't know whether to laugh or cry.

Posts: 5748 | From: North East England | Registered: Jul 2003  |  IP: Logged
Clerestory

The middle of the C of E
# 721

 - Posted      Profile for Clerestory     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Well, he did succeed in changing my mind. I used to think that the C of E should wait another decade or two before allowing women bishops, out of respect for those who oppose them.

But, having read RPP's posts, and some FiF documents, I've realised that the time for definite action is here. I thought the wisest comment came from Triple Tiara, who said: "Let the C of E be the C of E."

The sooner we force RPP and his pals to snap out of their strange dream-world the better. The Book of Common Prayer is not, on any honest reading, a charter for Catholic theology. Most of us think that Rome has erred, and that we don't have to wait for the Pope before making decisions. Most of us think that the Spirit is urging us to use women's gifts to the full. Most of us think that this is permitted by scripture and by the understanding of the Church that we have inherited.

I honestly think that the search for Christian unity would be much easier if people like RPP stopped pretending that one church is really another. If he actually believes what he says he does, with integrity, he should go to Rome. And let the C of E be the C of E.

Ironically, the Roman Catholics would probably find us much easier to understand, respect and talk to if we didn't have all this Third Province / dual integrity / flying-bishop nonsense muddying the water. It's time to get rid of it.

Posts: 101 | From: England | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
jubilate Agno
Shipmate
# 4981

 - Posted      Profile for jubilate Agno   Email jubilate Agno   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Please, please, please don't tar us all with the same brush, some of us are simply concerned to find a way we can all stay together while holding demonstatably mutually incompatible views.

Personally I believe the third province as proposed to be a non-starter but at least it could form a basis for dialogue and help find a way forward.

Indeed, while concurring with RPP's (and to a lesser extent Ryle's doo dah's) views, I have (in my way) done my best to point out to him that the way he expresses them is not likely to be constructive!

I believe it is only by listening and by mutual understanding that we can make any progress and that applies to all positions in the debate.

RPP's views may be unpalateble to some, fly in the face of received wisdom and be (sometimes) confrontationally expressed but that does not invalidate them!

The jury is still out and it hurts that I may be unable to continue to part of a local church where I have felt welcome and believe myself to have been useful when the secondary issue that could drive me out has not been properly resolved.

In pacem

R

Posts: 75 | From: London | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged
Robert Armin

All licens'd fool
# 182

 - Posted      Profile for Robert Armin     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
jubilate Agno I pray that you will not feel driven out over this, or any other, issue. We are in a mess at the moment and only the grace of God can help us.

[Votive] for all who are hurt by this issue.

[Votive] for all who have to make decisions in this are.

--------------------
Keeping fit was an obsession with Fr Moity .... He did chin ups in the vestry, calisthenics in the pulpit, and had developed a series of Tai-Chi exercises to correspond with ritual movements of the Mass. The Antipope Robert Rankin

Posts: 8927 | From: In the pack | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Erin
Meaner than Godzilla
# 2

 - Posted      Profile for Erin   Author's homepage   Email Erin       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TonyK:
Thanks Erin - it never occured to me to do any checking about RPP.

For the record he also recently joined another board - Anglo-Catholic Central, but as this is a closed board (registered users only) I haven't tried to see his contributions.

Someone else found it; I'll let them come forward if they wish to. I do get irritated, though, with people who accept our terms of service with full knowledge that they have no intention of adhering to them. It is dishonest in the extreme and I find it even more hypocritical when it's someone who claims to be a "bible-believing" Christian. After all, one of the original 10Cs is that you don't lie. Yet another example of a "Christian" picking and choosing which parts of the bible they will follow.

--------------------
Commandment number one: shut the hell up.

Posts: 17140 | From: 330 miles north of paradise | Registered: Mar 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 was an early member of Anglican Mainstream because, well because I'm Anglican mainstream. I don't post on the forums, nor even read them until now, and if I did post it would be under my Real Name™. But they are a sad lot, aren't they. I mean that literally, not pejoratively. God bless them [Votive]
I think I'll restrict my webly wandering to the Ship and a shooting and Linux support board [Frown]
I've never got on with people who agree with me, anyway. Nor with people who don't, but that's their fault [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
Siena

Ship's Bluestocking
# 5574

 - Posted      Profile for Siena   Author's homepage   Email Siena   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Jubilate, I'm not tarring you with the same brush at all. In fact, it's due to my acquaintance with people like you, who express their views calmly and do want to engage in a reasoned debate, that I was bothering with RPP.

To be honest, there are plenty of people with whom I agree that I wish would "get off my team" because their methods of advocacy generate more heat than light (IRL, not especially here).

So, pax and prayers from across the Atlantic for your pain.

--------------------
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
Fiddleback
Shipmate
# 2809

 - Posted      Profile for Fiddleback     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by cocktailgirl:
[Eek!] The arrogance of the guy is breathtaking. Much better that he stay on that other board where no one will challenge his views and they can have cosy chats about how they are predestined to be Right. [Disappointed]

The funniest thing that emerged was that, for all his FiF posturing, our lexically challenged muscular Christian is the curate of a wishy-washy middle-of-the-road Parish Communion (Family Service with balloons on the last Sunday of the month) market town church.

Looks like you're on your own now, Scotus, sonny!

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 
[Killing me] The cross he has to bear.

But bugger it: if I'd known that all I needed to do to be accepted as a priest was to have hairy legs, I'd've stopped waxing already.

Scotus and Jubilate Agno I can do business with: they're both measured, thoughtful posters who don't scream 'loon'.

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:
Scotus and Jubilate Agno I can do business with: they're both measured, thoughtful posters who don't scream 'loon'.

True. And Scotus is a mathematician, so he can do sums.
Posts: 2034 | Registered: May 2002  |  IP: Logged
jubilate Agno
Shipmate
# 4981

 - Posted      Profile for jubilate Agno   Email jubilate Agno   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Scotus and Jubilate Agno I can do business with: they're both measured, thoughtful posters who don't scream 'loon'.
Thank you CG, let's do business.

How then do we go about accomodating two viewpoints which are mutually exclusive and where those who hold the views are unlikely to change their position? So far we have two suggestions:

i) The third province.
ii) Those who don't like it can go elsewhere.

Those of us who recognise that we "see through a glass darkly" and subscribe to the church of the via media must surely be able to do better and find a way of expressing that "inclusivity" and "generosity" of which we hear so much but looks like excluding people like me!

It seems to me that we have to start from first priciples to do with how God reveals himself to us and how we interprete that revelation and try not to get bogged down with what's in the clerical underware.

How i wish these battles had been fought around primary issues such as the virgin birth and the empty tomb!

I must apologise for not having the time to post a greater length, I post from work and have a job to do!

R

Posts: 75 | From: London | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged
Clerestory

The middle of the C of E
# 721

 - Posted      Profile for Clerestory     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by jubilate Agno:
Those of us who recognise that we "see through a glass darkly" and subscribe to the church of the via media must surely be able to do better and find a way of expressing that "inclusivity" and "generosity" of which we hear so much but looks like excluding people like me!

It seems to me to be a great overreaction to say that you would be excluded. There will still be more male priests than female priests, and far more male bishops than female bishops. Your own church is likely to continue much as before. Even if we got rid of flying bishops, it would never be difficult to find a church with a male priest who'd been ordained by a male bishop.
quote:
Originally posted by jubilate Agno:
It seems to me that we have to start from first priciples to do with how God reveals himself to us and how we interprete that revelation and try not to get bogged down with what's in the clerical underware.

What a good idea! For most people in the C of E, all these arguments about 'validity' of orders seem a long, long way from first principles, and from our Church's traditional teachings.
quote:
Originally posted by jubilate Agno:
How i wish these battles had been fought around primary issues such as the virgin birth and the empty tomb!

Hmmmm.... I'm a bit worried about what you're suggesting here. Are you joining our rugby-playing friend in the opinion that anyone who approves of the ordination of women probably doesn't believe in the creeds? I would say that the bulk of the active membership of the C of E does believe in the creeds and does approve of the ordination of women. That would certainly be true of most evangelicals, and they will be the dominant group for the foreseeable future. You can uphold a traditional, scriptural, creedal form of Anglicanism and believe that the ordination of women is the way that the Spirit is calling us to respond to a radical change in human society.
Posts: 101 | From: England | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
jubilate Agno
Shipmate
# 4981

 - Posted      Profile for jubilate Agno   Email jubilate Agno   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Your own church is likely to continue much as before. Even if we got rid of flying bishops, it would never be difficult to find a church with a male priest who'd been ordained by a male bishop.

Agreed but I don't want to go to "a church," I want to go to the church I have known and loved for most of my adult life and where I am known and accepted; I'm now in my sixth decade! If I have to move on, I probably won't go to any church at all so the stakes for me are high!

quote:
What a good idea! For most people in the C of E, all these arguments about 'validity' of orders seem a long, long way from first principles, and from our Church's traditional teachings.

Indeedy but we need to understand classical Christian first priciples to discern whether developments in our life as a church regarding even secondary issues are "of the Spirit" and whether they are "adiaphora" or matters of faith. Bit more rarified than clerical willies and harder to get to grips with (not that i've ever tried to grip a clerical willy!) but far more important.

quote:
Are you joining our rugby-playing friend in the opinion that anyone who approves of the ordination of women probably doesn't believe in the creeds?
No, of course not!! This is indicative of the mutual suspision that has grown up that we must all address by listening to each other and understanding each others' position, however much we may disagree. In all things charity and the benefit of the doubt.

quote:
You can uphold a traditional, scriptural, creedal form of Anglicanism and believe that the ordination of women is the way that the Spirit is calling us to respond to a radical change in human society.
You may well be able to, but we need an understanding of how classical Christianity determines what is part of the deposit of faith (the stuff Aquinas, Hooker and Newman wrote about),if we are to have a sufficient degree of certainty to allow those who disagree to feel that they can no longer participate in the life of the church.

Those who taught me the Catholic faith are 90% female, now elderly and mostly now in nursing homes. It cannot be inclusive and can only be described as savage if we adopt developments that will force them out of a church they have contributed so much to for so many years.

The bugger of it is thatit's only with the benefit of hindsight when the ecclesiastical historian looks back from the stand point of a different culture from our own that we can really grip whether this development is "of the Lord."

It seems to me that in the meantime we should look for a way to stay together but if that is not to be, we must at least try to "part as freinds" and try not to do anything to increase the inevitable rancour that must result.

In pacem

R

Posts: 75 | From: London | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged
jubilate Agno
Shipmate
# 4981

 - Posted      Profile for jubilate Agno   Email jubilate Agno   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
How i wish these battles had been fought around primary issues such as the virgin birth and the empty tomb!
Forgot to say that what i'm trying to say is that if we'd discussed more widely the methodology for determining matters of faith when these issues were "live," our task today would be a lot easier. It seems to me that we make little progress because we're starting in the wrong place and not taking the time to question where we are!

Pre suppositions and methodologies are everything: actually maybe not, faith, hope and charity matter far more but you know what I mean!

R

Posts: 75 | From: London | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged
Clerestory

The middle of the C of E
# 721

 - Posted      Profile for Clerestory     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by jubilate Agno:
Agreed but I don't want to go to "a church," I want to go to the church I have known and loved for most of my adult life and where I am known and accepted; I'm now in my sixth decade! If I have to move on, I probably won't go to any church at all so the stakes for me are high!

Could you explain this please? There is only a small chance that, in your lifetime, your beloved church could have a priest whose ordination you would find doubtful. And, even if it happened, why would you consider it better to cease churchgoing completely than to stay there?
Posts: 101 | From: England | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
cocktailgirl

mixer of the drinks
# 8684

 - Posted      Profile for cocktailgirl     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Sorry in advance for the long post.

Methodology is important. We must remember that the Church, instituted by Christ, is also constituted by the Holy Spirit. That’s what leads us away from a dead traditionalism into a living, life-giving Tradition. We must also remember that the deposit of faith revealed to the saints is foundational, but that the Church’s life is also oriented towards the Kingdom: it lives between the two poles of historical revelation and eschatological consummation. There is inevitably tension at times because of this.

How do we work out what is of the Spirit, leading us towards the vision of God’s Kingdom? Firstly, I would say that the God doesn’t contradict himself, and isn’t arbitrary. But our understanding of God, mediated through Scripture and Tradition, is partial – we do, as you say, ‘see through a glass, darkly’.

My methodology, as a member of the C of E, is this: Scripture, interpreted through Tradition and Reason, is authoritative. I affirm the Nicene Creed as the statement of classical Christianity: this is the Church’s faith, and it is my faith. I note that the Creed says nothing, and Scripture says little, about ordained ministry. That doesn’t mean it isn’t important: it is, for the good order of the Church and as a sign and symbol of the unity, holiness, catholicity and apostolicity of the Church.

Having said that, I don’t find in Scripture particularly convincing evidence for the threefold order as we currently have it. Nor would I particularly expect to: the ministerial needs of the emerging and later Christian Church were in some respects quite different from the ministerial needs of the very first Christians. But I believe the witness of the Church’s history to be important here, and for 2000 years it has seen fit to preserve the threefold order. I take it, then, that the threefold order belongs to the bene esse of the Church. I don’t think it belongs to the esse: that is, I believe you can still have a Church without bishops, priests and deacons ordained in the apostolic succession (the gifts of oversight, service, etc. will be exercised in different ways in such churches). But since I think it belongs to the bene esse, it is important to preserve it.

And here’s the rub: I don’t think it matters whether those ordained to the threefold order are men or women. I find Scripture to be, at best, ambiguous on the role of women in church. I cannot, therefore, as an Anglican believe it is a matter of faith. I do not particularly understand the argument that we must wait for Rome: I had thought that the church to which I belong is both catholic and reformed, by dint of its protestation against papal authority.

I value enormously the catholic heritage of the C of E. I would hate to lose part of it (I believe it is entirely possible to be catholic and believe in the OoW). Jubilate Agno, you asked how we can reconcile two opposing views. I don’t know: I do know that if we have two separate orders in the C of E, we have two churches, not one, for all the talk that it’s simply a different province. But the Anglican Church in the States and in Canada has managed. Their model seems to be the only workable one, in which parishes which really can’t accept the oversight of a woman are cared for by a different bishop. Yes, some will leave even then. But I think (and hope, and pray) that they will be far fewer than the number FiF predicts.

In the meantime, those on differing sides must continue to talk to each other, and more importantly, worship together. Only when our focus is on God and our trust is in him will we be able to begin to discern what is of the Spirit, which for all of us can mean setting out into uncomfortable, unfamiliar territory. But he always goes with us.

Posts: 841 | From: in hac lacrimarum valle, propping up the bar | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
Hooker's Trick

Admin Emeritus and Guardian of the Gin
# 89

 - Posted      Profile for Hooker's Trick   Author's homepage   Email Hooker's Trick   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by jubilate Agno:
How then do we go about accomodating two viewpoints which are mutually exclusive and where those who hold the views are unlikely to change their position? So far we have two suggestions:

i) The third province.
ii) Those who don't like it can go elsewhere.


Why is the third option always ignored? Stay and deal with it.

As others have pointed out, it's not that difficult to avoid lady priests.

Unless you really go into hysterics about "invalid" orders (or, with more Christian charity, "grave doubts" about validity), or unless you are afraid that of a taint (sorry, Scotus tells us it's just impaired communion, even though it sure sounds like taint to me), I don't see how you're parochial life is likely to change at all.

While I'm at it, I'd like to ask the "grave doubters" how all this hand-wringing furthers the kingdom?

ETA: The people who are not going to church are not staying home because they doubt the validity of orders, and this public row (or the messy and contentious establishment of a 3rd province) is hardly likely to pack 'em in.

[ 02. August 2005, 19:50: Message edited by: Hooker's Trick ]

Posts: 6735 | From: Gin Lane | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472

 - Posted      Profile for Augustine the Aleut     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Cocktailgirl writes:

quote:
But the Anglican Church in the States and in Canada has managed. Their model seems to be the only workable one, in which parishes which really can’t accept the oversight of a woman are cared for by a different bishop.
I will let the ECUSAns tell you about their arrangements, but the Canadian church has made no provision whatsoever for those who are troubled by the ordination of women to the priesthood. Initially, there was a conscience clause to the effect that clergy who objected would not be disadvantaged on that account, but the House of Bishops (in 1981, if I am correct) unilaterally cancelled the conscience clause. As of that date objectors had to go along with it, leave, or face whatever their bishop wanted to do about it.

The practical effect was that objectors could say goodbye to promotion or were frozen out of a number of dioceses. Anyone who expected to be ordained had to make it quite clear, initially through signing a document to that effect, that they had no objection to women priests. The argument was that it was ludicrous to have clergy who denied that a number of their fellow clerics were no such thing.

The only exception was of the case of a priest of the Diocese of Saint Helena (Church of the Province of S Africa-- I think the name changed last month) who was incardinated into the Diocese of Edmonton. The bishop (Victoria Matthews) told him that she had no trouble with his objecting to woman priests (or bishops) as long as he was clear on his oath of obedience to her as ordinary (which, strictly speaking, recognizes canonical but not necessarily sacamental authority).

There is, simply, bluntly, no provision whatsoever. I recall that the lifting of the conscience clause was fairly graceless and the whole affair is well-known to FIF types as an example of what they fear.

Alternative oversight is being discussed with reference to parishes objecting to their diocesan bishop authorizing same-sex blessings (or marriages??? nobody is clear on this), but there is as of yet no formal structure for this.

Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
jubilate Agno
Shipmate
# 4981

 - Posted      Profile for jubilate Agno   Email jubilate Agno   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Cocktail girl:

Thank you for your kind, considered and thoughtful reply, I agree with most of what you say but as always, the devil is in the detail!

I would like to continue the conversation but I am away from a computer for two weeks but will be happy to take up the dialogue on my return if you would like me to and if the shipmates would find it worth while.

quote:
Why is the third option always ignored? Stay and deal with it.
That is exactly what I am trying to do. I do not believe that this means I should just acccepting changes which have not been adequately (or arguably justly) addressed at the expense of one "intergrity" when the other integrity has full knowledge that some of us cannot accept the changes.

Why this is so has been adequately rehearsed in the past so I won't re-iterate. I often come across views people hold with which I cannot agree or properly empathise. All I can do is listen to the other person as best i can and accept that for the other person that it just how it is.

We all need to accept each others' position as integral in itself and try to find a mutually acceptable way to "maintain unity in the bond of peace." Otherwise we must agree that circles cannot be squared and part as friends while trying to maintain respect for each other.

quote:
Could you explain this please?
All this has been covered extensively in the Rochester report, Consecrated Women? and on this board so it would probably be redundant for me to go thro' it all again.

If you would like me to write about how it is for me as an individual, I will gladly do so when I return from leave, but unless it advances the argument or people are particulaly interested in my boring little life it probably isn't worth it!

In pacem

R

Posts: 75 | From: London | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged



Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  ...  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  ...  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